P1020034

For ages silencer companies have been marketing themselves as “tactical” accessories, using images of soldiers with their silencers to evoke that thought in the public’s mind that their products are tough and “military grade.” SilencerCo had been on the same track, but starting this year it seems like they’re re-branding themselves. Their PR material has a distinctively “hunting” feel, from the color choice to the method of binding and the font choice. They’ve also done a complete rewrite on their website, from white-on-black to an attractive sepia and gray scheme. And the new cans they have to show off this year are both designed with hunting in mind.

The cans in question (branded as “Harvester” silencers) are similar in construction, except that one is slightly larger than the other. The smaller can handles every .30 caliber round all the way up to .300 Win Mag, and the larger is good through .338 Lapua Magnum. Both feature a solid and sealed baffle stack, as well as a new muzzle brake on the far end of the can which SilencerCo claims reduces felt recoil by an additional 10%. Not a whole lot in the grand scheme of things, but when we’re talking about big hunting calibers every bit helps.

P1020029

The cans also feature a removable thread mount, which means that you can re-use the same silencer on multiple host firearms without needing a brand new silencer. This is pretty big — giving you the ability to re-use cans even with different thread pitches on different guns. It means you only need to buy one can and you’re good to go, which is a huge benefit given the massive headache that is the NFA transfer process.

It gets better. The .300 Win Mag Harvester will retail for $750, which makes it one of the most affordable silencers on the market today and especially for the .300 Win Mag caliber. The big brother will run about $1,600.

23 Responses to SilencerCo Shifts Focus to Hunting, Introduces New Harvester Silencers

  1. My first experiences with a silencer were with a Sparrow from SilencerCo, and later a Warlock, and I’ve liked them ever since. I don’t really know if there is a “better” when it comes to silencers, though there is definitely a “different.” Mounting options, materials, weight, length, but they basically all do the job. Figure out what best meets your needs and go with it.

    If you’ve been to their website in the past, you should check it out now. It’s pretty slick, and very attractive. I discovered the change (and inserted the sentence above) when I read the draft of this post and went over there to look at specs and was pleasantly surprised at the difference.

    • This kind of marketing is a step in the right direction. Exposing politicians to the idea that there might be uses outside of Hollywood-styled assassins plying their trade is a good step toward a law change.

    • Not just a “hearing protection device”; it’s a boon to peace and tranquility across the land. Also, it keeps your rat bastard neighbors from calling the constabulary.

    • They’ll sooner close all the NFA registries and illegally confiscate all NFA items en masse, even without any marching orders from Capitol Hill (and most certainly against any orders not to), before they ever drop one single regulated item.

      • No, they will remove them from the NFA and then make them mandatory for all firearms. That way, they not only vastly increase the cost, but also make them much less concealable. The justification will be for the “hearing health” of the users. It’s for our own good, and, of course, for the children ™.

  2. But how do they justify a $850 increase for the larger can. I can’t see material and labor taking that much more, it’s not that much of an increase in size and tooling time couldn’t take that much longer? Or am I way off base?

    • Not off-base. I was asking myself the same thing. For the materials involved there’s no way it should cost as much as a new rifle, so it must be priced based upon the hours of R&D it took to develop. Either that or they mark them up a lot just because of scarcity and the wealth of prospective buyers. Or both. I have no idea.

      • IMO, silencer manufacturers are going to need to re-calibrate their expectations from “Our primary customer is the Pentagon” to “Our primary customer is the civilian market” before these things go mainstream.

        The first manufacturer to figure it out is going to eat everyone’s lunch.

    • I think it might be because it costs more money to shoot the larger rifles therefore the guys that shoot them tend to have more money and can easily afford the higher price.

  3. Yeah, these are nice cans.
    I like how the text mentioned the website redesign but TTAG hasn’t mentioned the product which came out alongside it (Saker 762)

  4. Does anyone else appreciate the fact that by marketing these as primarily for hunting use, they attempt to normalize something that gun-grabbers would like to demonize? Although I’m guilty of embracing the tacti-cool stuff (Escaping from New York will do that to you), I ultimately enjoy variety in firearms more and love that they are taking suppressors in a different direction marketing wise. Any change, no matter how small, that opens up more people’s minds to items like this is a good thing in my opinion.

    • Of course we do, I consider suppressors/silencers to be hearing safety devices. I make sure everyone else around me understands that concept rather than the Hollywood bad guy wants to be quiet while killing people “Pew pew” concept. One of them is rooted in reality.

  5. Nick, I think this article sucks. You’re leaving out critical information information and specifications of these silencers and what makes them attractive. I did like hearing more info about that sweet muzzle break and the removable thread mount. My main question, which continues to go unanswered, is how appropriate is this can for a semi-automatic rifle? In particular, a very accurate semi-auto?

    Because this article fails to include comparison to competitors that showcase it’s strengths, I’m copying verbatim below my comment from the other low-information TTAG article on this suppressor, which I wrote in response to PhoenixNFA’s request for “reasons and details”, which were not provided by the article.

    AAC also sells a $750 thread-mount .308 non-magnum suppressor that claims similar dB reduction, the AAC Cyclone. It weighs twice as much (11.3oz vs. 22.4oz), is longer (8.8″ vs 9.5″), and is thicker (1.375″ vs 1.5″ diameter). The Harvester is also lighter and thinner than AAC’s more expensive .308 suppressors the 762-SDN-6 and 300-TM both priced at $1195. So this new suppressor is an advancement in technology, better and more affordable. The .338 version I’m less excited about, it seems like less of an advancement over AAC’s comparable TITAN line, but it’s still very welcome and sounds like a top-quality suppressor. For a magnum like .388LM, a suppressor can be a necessity to handle muzzle blast and ease recoil. I can’t currently afford to shoot one, but I think it would be hard for myself to handle repeated .338LM recoil, and even worse to stick on a muzzle break and endure the ensuing earsplitting blast, even with hearing protection. A suppressor helps a lot with both issues.

    I’m using AAC’s suppressors as a point of reference and comparison here only because they’re popular, reflect the state of the industry, and have the statistics for comparison easily accessible on their website.

    • How in depth do you expect him to go this week? I’d rather see a large number of short articles that show close to everything at shotshow, instead of a 1000 word essay on the Glock 42…

      • TTAG posted an announcement with the basically the same information January 6th. Nine days later, the same info with a tad elaboration and a pair of pictures. I’m not asking for a full review after looking at it in a booth, but come on, in a preview of a suppressor they should at least post the dimensions, weight, and noise reduction rating. It’s kind of the point of this hunting suppressor that it weighs half as much as many competitors that add a pound and a half beyond the muzzle.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *