ThunderBeast missed the mark with this new can

I'm a huge thunderbeast fan, have been for a long time. That being said I'm more into their big cans and really small cans, and know nothing about the stuff in the middle. My 30BA and have served me extremely well everywhere I've been and used it. Even made a trip to Wyoming and met the nice folks out there, the shop is pretty dang nice too.

Basically I have nothing to add about that can but that I really want an 6.5 ultra-7 and a 22 takedown. Lol
 
I think that it’s more of a “CQB Mil-spec” can which is why it is so heavy. All stainless construction, and thick stainless at that.

My MP5SD can was rebaffled back in the mid 90’s with the same stainless steel baffles that were being provided to the Teams at the time. It too is a heavy can. This makes sense in a situation where you may be using your weapon as a club.
 
And good for barrels down to 7".

This is THE PERFECT can for my application, a 7.5" SBR. Doesn't need to be light.
And a tbac. This is a done deal for me!
All for under 500$!

Been wanting something exactly like this.
 
NKD said:
And good for barrels down to 7".

This is THE PERFECT can for my application, a 7.5" SBR. Doesn't need to be light.
And a tbac. This is a done deal for me!
All for under 500$!

Been wanting something exactly like this.
Click to expand...

It's 10oz heavier than a heavy can. Let that sink in for a second. Run away. Far away.:D
 
NKD said:
Damn, yer killing all my buzzes lately! Jeez.

But yeah, that puts it into perspective!
Click to expand...

Sorry man! I have a 24oz liberty chaotic that I put on my 7" upper and it feels like a brick! It changes it from a super nimble platform to a front heavy sloth.

The benefit of a direct thread is usually that it's shorter/lighter. If weight doesn't matter than a 30 cal can might be a better option for a 7.5" host. You're not chasing DBs anyway and the larger bore will help with baffle erosion.

All of that said, the shortest/lightest option is always the best IMO. Learn from my mistakes damnit! lol
 
MichaelHK said:
Sorry man! I have a 24oz liberty chaotic that I put on my 7" upper and it feels like a brick! It changes it from a super nimble platform to a front heavy sloth.

The benefit of a direct thread is usually that it's shorter/lighter. If weight doesn't matter than a 30 cal can might be a better option for a 7.5" host. You're not chasing DBs anyway and the larger bore will help with baffle erosion.

All of that said, the shortest/lightest option is always the best IMO. Learn from my mistakes damnit! lol
Click to expand...

No need to be sorry, you are saving me from myself!

It's actually been more difficult than I would have thought to find a can that can fit under a handguard, thread on, and is rated for 7" 5.56, and costs less than 5-600.00 and is available.

Should have bought that Trek for 250.00 that TSF had here a few weeks ago. The Spartan 3 seem to never be in stock anywhere.
 
NKD said:
No need to be sorry, you are saving me from myself!

It's actually been more difficult than I would have thought to find a can that can fit under a handguard, thread on, and is rated for 7" 5.56, and costs less than 5-600.00 and is available.

Should have bought that Trek for 250.00 that TSF had here a few weeks ago. The Spartan 3 seem to never be in stock anywhere.
Click to expand...

Word on the street is that griffin will have a new version at shot show. I think that's the ticket for affordable direct thread. I went with an innovative arms grunt mini over the spartan 3, but honestly the spartan 3 is probably the better choice between the two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NKD
Hi guys, I posted this over on arfcom. It explains a little bit the "why" of the 556 TD

The 556 Take Down was originally designed to meet the 2017 SURG solicitation (in conjunction with an upper obviously), which includes pretty stringent dB (ear and muzzle) and cost requirements, firing schedule / thermal requirements, as well as the ability to fully service and replace the core without removing the suppressor from the upper, and some other stuff that typically does not apply to the commercial market (like blank firing adapter compatibility and survivability when fired with live ammo by accident). The result of that design problem was this set of features.

This can is not the be-all end-all for all applications, it's actually a pretty narrowly focused design.

Going all out for a 10" F/A capable suppressor with a QD, light weight, etc, like we did for precision rifle with the Ultras, would have been more expensive and also not met the other requirements (e.g. nominal cost core replacement without removing suppressor from "integrated" upper). It is very likely that we will address that application in the future.
 
Last edited:
Looks like I dragged TBAC onto the forum

I’ve got a FA rated direct thread 5.56 can on my 10.5” upper and it’s 17oz. I really can’t imagine another ten ounces up there

This only appeals to me if I’ve got an M16 lower and am dumping mag after mag, but if I’ve got a $30,000 lower, am I concerned about suppressor price point?
 
Probably not. We had to add a bunch of weight to this to retain the strength and still be able to take it apart, and take it apart from the front for the "integrated" upper configuration. Putting a new suppression stack in this one is trivial, so when suppression performance is degraded after 10k or 20k of 5.56, it can be freshened up to like-new specs for a pretty nominal cost.
 
11B CIB said:
Looks like I dragged TBAC onto the forum

I’ve got a FA rated direct thread 5.56 can on my 10.5” upper and it’s 17oz. I really can’t imagine another ten ounces up there

This only appeals to me if I’ve got an M16 lower and am dumping mag after mag, but if I’ve got a $30,000 lower, am I concerned about suppressor price point?
Click to expand...


Like @Zak Smith said, it was purpose-built to meet a certain spec. The fact that it's not YOUR purpose doesn't make it a bad can or bad deal. Some guys need a jacked up F350 and others need a 4cyl Ranger. I, for one, am loving the variety and selection that's out there, it bodes well for the market.
 
Tim said:
Like @Zak Smith said, it was purpose-built to meet a certain spec. The fact that it's not YOUR purpose doesn't make it a bad can or bad deal. Some guys need a jacked up F350 and others need a 4cyl Ranger. I, for one, am loving the variety and selection that's out there, it bodes well for the market.
Click to expand...

Never said it was about me. A lot of people think that Griffin and Rugged’s new Micro cans are ridiculous.

Point is; The intended market for the 556 takedown is even smaller considering the durability is really only needed for near constant full auto use. 27 ounces is going to turn off a lot of people I think
 
@Zak Smith

I’m not trying to bash the Product in and of itself, I just feel like the target market is so tiny, it just doesn’t make that much sense (from the business sense and as a consumer). Am I reading it right that this version was made more for people who are going to use it in conjunction with yalls upper and who also have full auto capability? How large is that market?

Additionally, you plan on putting out a somewhat lighter, possibly non-direct thread model in the near future, either taper mount or an attachment method?
 
How could you possibly know better than TBAC what their target market is and how big it is?

Maybe they have a military contract or something?
 
Last edited:
NKD said:
How could you possibly know better than TBAC what their target market is and how big it is?

Maybe they have a military contract or something?
Click to expand...

Suppressors are a rather small, niche market. Full auto is also a very small market. Combining the two stands to reason would be an even smaller market. And I didn’t throw an exact number out there, I asked the question.

To think that a company hasn’t made a mistake simply because they wouldn’t intentionally make a mistake seems like a logical fallacy. Hind sight is 20/20... or “it seemed like a good idea at the time”
 
It was designed specifically to the SURG solicitation requirements. For the commercial market, it will work very well for someone who wants a suppressed "one stamp" upper (since it can be pinned easily on a 10" to bring the barrel OAL to over 16") and still retain servicability and repairability.

To get the shooter's ear dB's to an acceptable level requires changes vs. a "stock" or standard 10.5" upper as well as a suppressor design that would not necessarily be the quietest on a 16" bolt gun.

We won't do the CB/BA style screw-on taper mount for hard-use cans because the thermal properties don't work in favor of retention. (ETA: we made a steel version of the 30BAS years ago for testing.) A lighter version of this would no longer be a "Take Down". Doing hard-use/FA QD-style .223 and .30 cal suppressors is something in our plans, just lower priority than some other projects.. which are more core TBAC products and you'll see in 2018 sometime.
 
Last edited:
NKD said:
How could you possibly know better than TBAC what their target market is and how big it is?

Maybe they have a military contract or something?
Click to expand...

They do have a military requirement (SURG) SOCOM/ Suppressed Upper Receiver Group.

If people in the civilian market buy it, win/win.


@Zak Smith does the 316L tube offer a weight reduction (or some benefit) over making the entire thing out of 17-4?
 
11B CIB said:
Suppressors are a rather small, niche market. Full auto is also a very small market. Combining the two stands to reason would be an even smaller market. And I didn’t throw an exact number out there, I asked the question.

To think that a company hasn’t made a mistake simply because they wouldn’t intentionally make a mistake seems like a logical fallacy. Hind sight is 20/20... or “it seemed like a good idea at the time”
Click to expand...

Good points.

So, what other choices do we have that meet all these requirements listed but are better made for the market?
 
NKD said:
Good points.

So, what other choices do we have that meet all these requirements listed but are better made for the market?
Click to expand...

Other choices for a Thunder Beast upper and SOCOM contract with specific requirements? None; it was purpose built for the military.

For the regular consumer with or without an M16 lower and TBAC upper: any well built direct thread can thats full auto rated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NKD
11B CIB said:
None; it was purpose built for the military.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Exactly what Zac was saying.

it seems their expectations of civilian enthusiasts purchasing it are low.

Edit: much like a lot of things built for the military.
 
Last edited:
NKD said:
Precisely. Exactly what Zac was saying.

it seems their expectations of civilian enthusiasts purchasing it are low.

Edit: much like a lot of things built for the military.
Click to expand...

Agreed, unfortunately. Civilian input/requirement isn’t really a concern
 
  • Like
Reactions: NKD
11B CIB said:
Agreed, unfortunately. Civilian input/requirement isn’t really a concern
Click to expand...

Not for this particular model.

But they have quite a few other options that seem to be.
 
11B CIB said:
lol yeah all the 9oz precision rifle cans
Click to expand...

Hey now, don't be dissing my .22 takedown! An awesome can, btw.

But I hear you. Their focus is long range precision. And they excel at it, from what I have seen. They certainly understand that market niche because I have seen a lot of TB cans on a lot of big rifles, and they seemed to work awesome! But I am certainly no expert.


I just want a cheap can that knocks down 556 noise enough to be bearable and can handle a short barrel 556, and is affordable.
 
Knowing this suppressor is really made for the military and specific requirements set forth by the SOCOM request, and the civilian market is entirely secondary, it makes a lot more sense.

Although as a grunt who fielded a lot of gear in Iraq, I would have scoffed at 27 ounces (NT4s were heavy enough and this is heavier!). That’s the part I have trouble wrapping my mind around. But, something that’s tough enough for a SAW or a short barreled M4A1/M16 has got to be robust. Thanks @Zak Smith for taking the time to answer questions and give more insight on the suppressor
 
NKD said:
it seems their expectations of civilian enthusiasts purchasing it are low.
Click to expand...
That seems to be the opinion of a couple guys in this thread, anyway. Based on the level of interest we've received so far, our expectation is a little different. ;)

My comments about the SURG were to help illuminate the feature set it's got
 
Last edited:
Zak Smith said:
That seems to be the opinion of a couple guys in this thread, anyway. Based on the level of interest we've received so far, our expectation is a little different. ;)

My comments about the SURG were to help illuminate the feature set it's got
Click to expand...

Cool, I hope you sell a bunch!
 
Zak Smith said:
That seems to be the opinion of a couple guys in this thread, anyway. Based on the level of interest we've received so far, our expectation is a little different. ;)
Click to expand...

I was done until this little gem.

Not just this thread. Threads all over the internet have the same comments in them. Sure I don’t have access to TB emails/phone calls/ etc, but the largest “gun” site on the internet’s suppressor forum had a largely negative reception:

Out of ALL the comments in the ARFCOM thread, only one mentions having a 7” FA gun (target market) and it’s already suppressed. There are positive comments, but some come from dealers (bias?).

The weight is a massive turn off to the majority of potential buyers, thats all I’ve ever said, and it’s true.
 
Zak Smith said:
Hi guys, I posted this over on arfcom. It explains a little bit the "why" of the 556 TD

The 556 Take Down was originally designed to meet the 2017 SURG solicitation (in conjunction with an upper obviously), which includes pretty stringent dB (ear and muzzle) and cost requirements, firing schedule / thermal requirements, as well as the ability to fully service and replace the core without removing the suppressor from the upper, and some other stuff that typically does not apply to the commercial market (like blank firing adapter compatibility and survivability when fired with live ammo by accident). The result of that design problem was this set of features.

This can is not the be-all end-all for all applications, it's actually a pretty narrowly focused design.

Going all out for a 10" F/A capable suppressor with a QD, light weight, etc, like we did for precision rifle with the Ultras, would have been more expensive and also not met the other requirements (e.g. nominal cost core replacement without removing suppressor from "integrated" upper). It is very likely that we will address that application in the future.
Click to expand...


Thank you Zak for the Top Quality Products, Customer Support and Service. You, Amanda and Ray are the best to deal with in the industry by far.

Hope you guys have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
 
I wrote that in response to the statement, "Their [TBAC's] expectations of civilian enthusiasts purchasing it are low". If you meant "their" as in ARFCOM then I misinterpreted what that post meant.
 
11B CIB said:
I was done until this little gem.

Not just this thread. Threads all over the internet have the same comments in them. Sure I don’t have access to TB emails/phone calls/ etc, but the largest “gun” site on the internet’s suppressor forum had a largely negative reception:

Out of ALL the comments in the ARFCOM thread, only one mentions having a 7” FA gun (target market) and it’s already suppressed. There are positive comments, but some come from dealers (bias?).

The weight is a massive turn off to the majority of potential buyers, thats all I’ve ever said, and it’s true.
Click to expand...

Go read some of the threads on building clones, if TBAC gets a contract, there are those who try to build replicas of SPRs, DMRs, and etc all the time.
 
MadMardigan said:
Go read some of the threads on building clones, if TBAC gets a contract, there are those who try to build replicas of SPRs, DMRs, and etc all the time.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are people who will build a clone of anything for absolutely no other reason than the military touched it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom