Well this escalated quickly! I thought he was joking with friends he knew well enough to be able to tell them to eff off.
@BigWaylon yeah the grey guy is very annoying. He seems altogether too excited for it to be genuine. Hopefully my experience with the TuTu Three will shed light on all of their other suppressors for you. That report is still a while in the making. This brings me to my first thought. I asked why no prominent YouTuber has taken up their cause and reviewed their cans. I was told that they all required payment for an appearance on their channels. This threw up red flags, considering the channels I follow pride themselves on refusing industry money in order to remain objective in their reviews, ie Mac and Nutn for example. I trust them more than a rep from Witt at this point and do not believe that to be the full story.
@patina There is certainly risk involved taking a chance on a new company, new to compact suppressors at least. Would YHM have ever become relevant in the industry if everyone carried the same attitude toward them as you do to Witt? They are reputed for their gawdy muzzle devices already and appear to have been competently manufacturing integrally suppressed guns for some time, so I see no reason to doubt their new compact line of suppressors for no other reason than they’re new. My point was not to say that there is nobody else making affordable suppressors, but that tactical elitists have no respect for anyone that does (simply because they’re inexpensive and not [x currently tacticool company for 1337 opr8rs] without regard to practicality) and that these guys are interesting, because they specifically claim to want to give the finger to that mentality and the companies who play on it for profit with the price intended to be $500 or less with the stamp. I have made the purchase now, and am refusing to be myopic to qualify my purchase. I intend to defend based on what I know so far without shooting it yet and criticize where things smell fishy.
@BowWow the name seems like a joke but the company is not new to the suppressor game altogether. In one obscure YouTube video, the rep elaborates and refers to Canooter as another colloquial meaning: a bunghole, into which elitist puffery may be directly stuffed! I’m into the idea but as stated above, remain dubious. If it’s all bad, may my loss be your gain. If it’s great or at least operates to a level expected of any compact suppressor, I’ll be satisfied with the money invested. This brings me to my response to everyone else and general thoughts.
@Ikarus1 @rdinatal @everyoneelse,etal
Pfcustom’s report was essentially meaningless. You can’t say it’s a bad product or a good one based on what he said because you could apply the exact same logic to ANY 5.56 suppressor. How should we define “hearing safe”, going forward? Pf said nothing but that it’s not, while Witt claims it is on the edge, at the shooter’s ear only and not to observers, at a measured 128-136dB, depending on product used and atmospheric conditions. We are dealing with noise here... technically speaking, the crack of a bullet of any size or weight traveling at supersonic speed is not considered “hearing safe”. This is not something a suppressor of any shape, size, price or level of tacticool can presently overcome. By this measure, as presented before when I spoke of the elitists helping me fill out a form 4, there is no such thing as a “real” 5.56 can. It can’t exist. The logic preceding this conclusion is of course that the practical purpose and function of the high speed, small bullet cartridge renders subsonic loads nothing more than novelty, compared to cartridges like .300 Blackout. This could turn into a truly interesting conversation about suppressors in general. What is hearing safe? If you’re a hippie who wears earplugs to your unplugged folk concerts, you probably won’t agree with what I think it is. Most hearing damage occurs when there is continuous loud noise such as exists at airports and construction sites and depends somewhat on the pitch of the noise. Short trips to the range might be excluded (assuming of course that nobody is testing out that great new muzzle brake).
I agree it may be a lofty claim to say it is hearing safe, considering there are lots of stipulations (shooter only, etc.) but nothing was mentioned in Pf’s report as to any of the other claims or how it might compare to any other compact suppressor, Gucci or not. How does it sound pitch-wise? Does it approach the 136dB ceiling claimed? Did it blow gas back through the charging handle contrary to their claims? The video I linked to shows him with the suppressor firing full-auto and having no effect of gas in his eyes. I’ve also seen guys do mag dumps and show that the magazine follower is still clean, insinuating or demonstrating a diminished lack of gas through the action. That would be a BIG deal if true. Why no mention? I get the idea that regardless of how good or bad the product is, Pf and any retailer for that matter, would rather just sell me the more expensive cans they have in stock (obviously). I was originally under the impression that they were getting one in for T&E and possibly stocking them for sale, not as a one-off transfer for a customer.
Finally, let’s assume that the loftier of the claims are exaggerated but it still operates to the level that could be expected of any other compact suppressor... will I have lost anything, really, considering the high value? I will be happy if it reduces the report of the rifle significantly enough to provide the ultimate practical, tactical and strategic advantage of any 5.56 can: shooter location concealment and a higher level of comfort for self and squad members in combat conditions. The lofty claims can be a bonus. Now if it fails the basic purpose of a suppressor I will never stop dragging them through the mud but that is the chance I’m taking with a new product. Here’s to hoping I will have nothing but good things to report back. As I told the elitist at the gun store: I’m hoping for the best but ready to be let down in one way or another.