By Al Paulson

Few firearms exhibit such a graceful marriage of form and function as the integrally silenced Ruger Mark II. The Ruger is both accurate and durable, as well as handsome. Yet one does hear a few gripes from time to time about how quickly the Ruger action gunks up with powder residue, how difficult the action is to clean and reassemble after field stripping, and how heavy the suppressed Ruger is both for extended carry as well as for kids, and wives, and first-time shooters. Some folks are simply bored with the Ruger and want something different. Unfortunately, few accurate, robust, and practical-to-suppressed alternative pistols have appeared over the years. Therefore, integrally suppressed Ruger pistols have dominated the suppressed .22 pistol marketplace since the Vietnam era. An attractive and viable alternative to the Ruger appeared in 1999 with the introduction of the Camper model of the Browning Buck Mark.

Unlike the Ruger, which has an ejection port on the right side of the receiver, the Browning has an open receiver when the slide recoils back during the action sequence. This enables the back pressure of combustion gases to blast unburned powder residue out both sides of the action, keeping it much cleaner than a Ruger action after firing the same number of rounds. While the suppressed Ruger action needs to be cleaned every 500 rounds, the suppressed Browning action only needs cleaning every 1,500 rounds. That’s a big plus for many sport shooters and animal-control professionals.

The Browning Buck Mark Camper is also lighter than a comparable Ruger. With a bull barrel length of 5.5 inches and an overall length of 9.5 inches, the Browning Camper weighs 34 ounces. A Ruger KMK-512 with 5.5-inch bull barrel has an overall length of 9.75 inches and weighs 42 ounces. It is the KMK-512 model that is commonly used for high-end integrally suppressed Ruger pistols, such as AAC’s Phoenix pistol. The Browning Camper is also about $160 less expensive than the Ruger KMK-512. Other noteworthy features of the Browning Camper include molded rubber grips, a top strap above the slide for mounting the a fully adjustable rear sight (which does not move back and forth with the slide), and an unusually nice factory trigger nominally set for 3.5 pounds. The test specimen used in this study started out with a trigger pull of 4.1 pounds when factory fresh. Pull dropped to 3.7 pounds after the first 200 rounds had been fired.

The Dragonfly from the Advanced Armament Corp. represents an attempt to marry the lightest possible suppressor to the Buck Mark Camper pistol to capitalize on the light weight of the Browning handgun. The Dragonfly suppressor is fabricated from 6061-T6 aluminum and 304 stainless steel. (The Buck Mark frame is machined from a block of 7075-T6 aluminum.) The suppressor tube is 7.25 inches long and 1.0-inch in diameter, and is finished in a matte black anodizing. The barrel is turned down to save weight, and it is placed under tons of tension to minimize barrel harmonics and drift from heating, thereby maximizing accuracy. The suppressed Browning Camper pistol has an overall length of 13.5 inches and a weight of 30 ounces with an empty magazine. Thus the Dragonfly is 2.2 inches longer and yet 4 ounces lighter than the unmodified Browning Camper pistol. The light weight and longer sight radius, plus the fact that this is a silenced pistol, mean that the Dragonfly will be particularly kind to new shooters and shooters of small stature like kids.

These same characteristics make this an ideal firearm for training individuals in beginning pistol safety and marksmanship. As an NRA instructor, I’ve used silenced pistols for teaching since the 1980s. It is much easier to teach and to maintain safe gun handling practices when students are not encumbered by shooting muffs or plugs. It is also worth noting that shooting muffs frequently do not seal well on the smaller heads of young people, and plugs may be painfully large in the smaller ear canals of the young. This problem is made more serious by the fact that the young are more susceptible to hearing loss from gunshot noise. A pretty good shooting muff that will still allow a cheek weld on a long arm, such as the Peltor Bullseye 9 model, drops noise by 22 decibels. That assumes that the muff obtains a perfect seal on the head, which may be problematic with small-statured individuals. Peltor recognized this problem and introduced a Junior model, which only drops noise by 17 dB, but at least it’s much more likely to seal properly on a youngster. Peltor is certainly to be commended for introducing a muff for youth and small adults. Clearly, any sound suppressor that produces more than 17-22 dB sound reduction (kid versus adult muffs) will not only give better hearing protection than the shooting muffs, it will also provide a much better environment for teaching basic shooting fundamentals and fostering safe gun handling on the range or at the family picnic.

Then there is the matter of aesthetics. Are you bored with the looks of silenced Ruger pistols? Browning offered a special run of Camper frame colors in red, green and blue for the most exuberant tastes, as well as black for stodgy traditionalists like myself. AAC stocks Dragonflies in all of those Browning frame colors.

By way of comparison to the Dragonfly, AAC’s integrally silenced Ruger Mark II, called the Phoenix, has a 7.5-inch stainless steel suppressor tube and weighs 42.5 ounces with empty magazine. That’s only 1.1 ounces heavier than an unmodified KMK-512 pistol. While that’s relatively light as suppressed Ruger pistols go, it’s still 12.5 ounces heavier than the suppressed Dragonfly.

In the history U.S. folklore and firearms development, the story of the late Bill Ruger’s Mark I and Mark II pistols are probably as well known as the chapter on Sam Colt’s .45 caliber Peacemaker. Most folks are not particularly well versed on the origins of the Browning Buck Mark series, however, so a very brief history is in order before we conduct a hands-on evaluation of AAC’s Dragonfly. Advanced Armament’s suppressed Browning was tested against AAC’s suppressed Ruger (a Phoenix), which was used as a frame of reference.

Buck Mark Origins

In the beginning… (which in this case means anno franca 1914), John Moses Browning created the Colt .22 Automatic Target Pistol. And it was good.

In fact, it was dandy. Colt began production on March 29, 1915. Browning’s pistol featured a rather unusual innovation. A slide ran along the top of the receiver for the rear half of its length, and it separated completely from the breech end of the barrel upon firing. Combustion gases pushing on the spent case drove the slide rearward from the fixed barrel to power the extraction/ejection sequence of this simple blowback design.

The magazine was redesigned to accept high-speed ammunition about 1920, and the pistol was subsequently renamed the Colt Woodsman in 1927 (Browning and Gentry, 1964, 1994). Various target and sporting models were introduced and in the 1930s, but were discontinued in 1940 with the appearance of war clouds on the horizon. Two post-war Woodsman variants appeared in 1947 (a sporting and a target model). An economy model was introduced as the Challenger, which was renamed the Huntsman in 1955. Colt production ended in January 1963 with a total production of 539,232 Woodman pistols of all models.

If imitation is the highest form of flattery, then the original Woodsman was indeed a praiseworthy design, judging by how many times the Woodsman’s basic blowback design principles and overall aesthetics have been copied over the intervening nine decades. Fabrique Nationale d’Armes de Guerre of Belgium produced many Browning designs under license for the Browning branch of FN’s product line. John M. Browning began his relationship with FN by signing a contract on July 17, 1897 for exclusive world rights to manufacture and sell his .32 caliber self-loading pistol, which was marketed as the Browning Model 1900.

A half-century after its introduction by Colt, grandson Bruce Browning redesigned the Woodsman for Fabrique Nationale to take advantage of new processes and materials to streamline manufacturing and reduce production costs. Here’s where the story gets a bit hard to follow, depending upon which historian you read. Part of the problem is that model names appear to overlap different actual designs, and more recent work that came to hand does not cover all the important basic models I’ve seen myself.

W.H.B. Smith (1966) says that Browning simultaneously introduced three improved pistols based upon the earlier Woodsman design in December 1961, but commercial production did not actually begin until 1962. All three of the new pistols featured non-recoiling sights, open sides but a covered top of the receiver, and a barrel that could be removed by loosening a slotted screw with a coin. The Browning Medalist was a high-end target pistol with many advanced features, and the Challenger was a more affordable target pistol without the ventilated rib, thumb-rest stocks, wood fore end, or other bells and whistles of the Medalist. Both featured a steel frame, slide hold-open latch, adjustable trigger, and checkered walnut stocks. The Nomad, according to Smith, featured an aluminum frame to reduce weight and-more importantly-to reduce production costs. The Nomad had plastic stocks, an open rear half of the receiver like the modern Buck Mark, and neither an adjustable trigger nor slide hold-open latch. This economy model of the Browning line featured an aluminum frame from its introduction until 1966, when a steel frame was introduced for the Nomad.

As has been the trend of all firearms designs of old world lineage, eventually even the new Nomad econo-pistol itself became too expensive to manufacture. According to one recently published history of the Browning Buck Mark: Lee Farber, the owner of Arms Technology, Inc. (ATI) in Salt Lake City, redesigned the Nomad. That’s not really true. Browning’s own Joe Badali redesigned the pistol and Farber “industrialized” it. This means Farber performed the critical task of making Badali’s new design efficient and economical to produce, by using such gambits as using investment castings of the slide and other small components to reduce costs. Fielding an excellent product depends upon both a gifted designer and a gifted industrializer. These are rarely overlapping skills. This descendant of the Woodsman reached the marketplace in 1976 as the Challenger II (not to be confused with the 1960s-vintage Challenger, now referred to the Challenger I). The Challenger II featured a sporter-weight barrel, an open slide at the back, and a steel frame.

After further redesign of the pistol and magazine by Joe Badali, the Challenger III pistol appeared in 1982. It featured an aluminum frame and a target-weight barrel. Next Badali incorporated the latest advances in both manufacturing technology and metallurgy into the Challenger III, producing the latest Woodsman descendant—the Buck Mark, which first appeared in 1985.

It is safe to say that the Buck Mark represented a big improvement over the evolving Challenger series, and it also brought the fabrication of Browning .22 pistols back to the States from Belgium. Buck Marks are manufactured for the Browning Arms Company of Morgan, Utah, by Arms Technology, Inc. of Salt Lake City.

The first Buck Mark had a simple stamped rear sight. A more heavy-duty, somewhat adjustable rear sight appeared several years later for target pistols. Then Joe Badali developed a new rear sight for target models that was much more durable than previous Browning adjustable sights. Introduced in 1992, the new Pro-Target Sight was more user-friendly for several reasons. The new rear sight offered finer adjustment and significantly more surface area contact between the grooves in the adjustment screws and the captive detents. This substantially improved the lifespan of the sight as well made sight adjustments much more positive. Improved metallurgy also improved sight life. Although originally designed for the Buck Mark Silhouette pistol, the new sight proved to be so outstanding—and so economical to produce—that it became standard issue on all models within the Buck Mark line, including the pistol AAC uses to create the Dragonfly.

Another big improvement of the Buck Mark over the Challenger series was the superior trigger mechanism, which quickly became known for its crisp let-off as well as lack of creep and play. The sears of all two dozen or so variants currently in the Buck Mark line are stoned for smoothness. Some target models feature fully adjustable triggers with stops to eliminate overtravel.

The Browning Buck Mark Camper model pistol that is used by Advanced Armament as the basis for its integrally suppressed Dragonfly pistol is Browning’s answer to the Ruger KM-512 and KMK-512 pistols. The Buck Mark represents nearly twice evolutionary history as the Ruger pistols. The Browning Camper is a competitive and timely pistol that entered the marketplace in 1999. The Camper is the product of a timeless design being improved gradually by generations of inspired designers over the course of nearly a century.

Silenced Pistol Performance

Performance of AAC’s Dragonfly was compared to unsuppressed and suppressed benchmarks. Unsuppressed benchmarks included the Browning Buck Mark Challenger and the Ruger Mark II. The suppressed benchmarks included AAC’s integrally suppressed Ruger known as the Phoenix pistol. The benchmarks were shot the same day as the Dragonfly, and these data were compared to an earlier test of the Phoenix. This study employed the testing regimen and equipment used by Paulson (1996) as amended by Paulson, Parker, and Kokalis (2002). I should also note, for the record, that when I gave Browning the opportunity to critique this article before publication, they still wanted to recommend cleaning the Buck Mark every 500 rounds for optimum performance, despite the fact that the gun can go for 1,500 rounds with clean ammunition.

The peak sound pressure levels (SPLs) of suppressed and unsuppressed pistols are reported in Table 1. Net sound reductions appear in Table 2. Muzzle velocities appear in Table 3. The percentage of velocity retained by suppressed pistols, compared to unmodified KMK-512 variant of Ruger Mark II pistol, appear in Table 4. Accuracy data appear in Table 5.

Did I find anything that I didn’t like that doesn’t appear in the data? I did find one nitpicking detail inherent in the Woodsman/Buck Mark lineage. This final observation relates to the fact that the receiver is open on both sides, which enables the back pressure of combustion gases to keep the Browning action much cleaner than a Ruger action. There is no free lunch. The gas and gunk have to go somewhere. The more open receiver design liberates gas and particulates toward both of the shooter’s forearms when using a two-handed stance. Also, a warm powder charge may open the bolt prematurely and direct effluvium toward the shooter’s face upon rare occasion via the open receiver. Therefore, eye protection (which should be mandatory anyway) is doubly advisable with this design.

In terms of handling the Dragonfly, the first thing one notices is its conspicuous lack of weight. This is a good thing for folks without musculature developed for handgun shooting, since it will reduce shooter fatigue and significantly extend shooting sessions. Although I prefer more weight to steady my aim upon firing, I quickly adapted. I consistently hit a 2-inch swinging metal target at 25 yards, shooting rapid fire from the standing offhand position. This was comparable practical accuracy to AAC’s Phoenix pistol fired on the same day. The same Phoenix delivered 0.57-inch groups with Remington HV ammo when fired from a Ransom Rest (see Table 4). A Browning Buck Mark insert for the Ransom Rest could not be obtained in time for this study to provide a rigorous analysis of the Dragonfly’s intrinsic accuracy.

In terms of sound reduction, it is interesting that the ultralight Dragonfly was only 1 decibel louder than the Phoenix shot on the same day under the same weather conditions, regardless of the ammunition used. The Dragonfly delivered an impressive 35 dB sound reduction with Remington High Velocity ammo, and it did so while delivering a muzzle velocity of 1,005 fps. That’s virtually the ideal velocity (1,000 fps) for providing the optimum mix of penetration, flat trajectory, and lack of ballistic crack over a wide range of temperatures. Achieving solid sound reduction without overly reducing projectile velocity is a most welcome design decision for anyone who may use the Dragonfly for hunting, animal control, or the selective destruction of objects (if one is an armed professional). Advanced Armament gets bonus points for optimum projectile velocity. It is also interesting that the Dragonfly retains a slightly larger percentage of velocity—compared to an unmodified parent pistol-than the Phoenix.

AAC gets higher marks for the 40 dB sound reduction delivered by standard velocity and subsonic ammunition. A suppressed .22 pistol that delivers 40 dB or more sound reduction has entered the realm of the Holy Grail.

Using the sound of the bolt closing on an empty chamber at 52 degrees Fahrenheit as the yardstick, AAC’s Dragonfly had an action noise of 110 dB, while AAC’s Phoenix had an action noise of 109 dB. Using subsonic fodder, the Buck Mark/Dragonfly delivered a mean (average) sound signature that was within 3 dB of action noise. The Ruger/Phoenix produced mean sound signatures that either equaled or were 1 dB louder than action noise, depending upon temperature. This is dandy performance.

Both the Dragonfly and the Phoenix get serious bonus points because they cycle flawlessly with subsonic fodder. Not every integrally suppressed pistol does, particularly if they have aggressive barrel porting.

What’s the bottom line? Advanced Armament’s Dragonfly integrally silenced Browning Buck Mark pistol is handsome, lightweight, quiet, accurate, user-friendly, relatively maintenance-free compared to a silenced Ruger, and downright fun. The Dragonfly is a lot of pistol for $795 retail (or $695 for a silenced barrel assembly with front sight). I give Advanced Armament’s Dragonfly two enthusiastic thumbs up.

Literature Cited

Browning, John, and Curt Gentry. 1964. John M. Browning; American gunmaker. Doubleday & Company, Inc., New York. 323 pp.

Browning, John, and Curt Gentry. 1994. John M. Browning; American gunmaker. Second edition. Browning Arms Co., Morgan, UT. 390 pp.

Paulson, A.C. 1996. Silencer history and performance. Volume 1. Sporting and tactical silencers. Paladin Press, Boulder, CO. 424 pp.

Paulson, A.C, N.R. Parker. 2002. Silencer history and performance. Volume 2. CQB, assault rifle, and sniper technology. Paladin Press, Boulder, CO. 429 pp.

Smith, W.H.B. 1966. Book of pistols and revolvers. Sixth edition. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 752 pp.

Sources

Advanced Armament Corp.
Dept. SAR
3100 Five Forks Trickum Road SW, Suite 201
Lilburn, GA 30047
Phone 770-985-3109
Fax 770-985-3110
Website: www.advanced-armament.com

Aero Peltor
Dept. SAR
90 Mechanic Street
Southbridge, MA 01550
Phone 508-764-5500
Fax 508-764-0188

Browning Arms Co.
Dept. SAR
One Browning Place
Morgan, UT 84050
Phone 801-876-2711
Fax 801-876-3331
Website: www.browning.com

Greg Cartmell
Cartmell Gallery
609 22nd Avenue
Meridian, MS 39301
Phone 601-485-1122
Website: www.cartmellgallery.com

By Al Paulson

I love the intrinsic beauty, the exceptional accuracy, the user-friendly balance, the compact and easily holsterable envelope, and the satisfying sound signature of a state-of-the-art, integrally silenced Ruger Mark II pistol. That said, if I only had one sound suppressor, it would be a .22 caliber muzzle can. Why? The reasons are manifest. The muzzle can is cheaper, easier to clean, and kicks less crud back out of the barrel and into the action. Therefore, the parent firearm needs to be cleaned less frequently. The sight radius of a pistol with muzzle can is less than that of an integrally silenced pistol, which is an advantage if you have tired old eyes and wear progressive multifocal glasses like me. A big advantage of the muzzle can is that the parent firearm need not be dedicated to suppressed use, so the muzzle can may be removed from the firearm for hunting in those states where hunting with a sound suppressor is illegal. A corollary is that a single silencer may be switched among any number of rifles and pistols, adding to the muzzle can’s versatility and cost-effectiveness. Last, but by no means least, the muzzle can has a greater service life than an integral can. This latter consideration is important to very large volume shooters such as animal-control professionals. The Scarab sound suppressor from Advanced Armament Corp. is an excellent example of a relatively small and efficient muzzle can that works combustion gases hard, but not so hard as to degrade accuracy. In fact, accuracy with high velocity and standard velocity target ammo is significantly better with the Scarab than the same pistol without the Scarab.

The Scarab sound suppressor features a tube and end caps fabricated from 304 stainless steel. The baffle stack is machined from aluminum alloy to minimize weight, which is a consideration when the can is mounted on a pistol. The can is available in a polished stainless or a matte black finish. The matte black is worth discussing briefly. This is baked-on milspec molybdenum resin produced by John Norrell Manufacturing (Dept. SAR, 2608 Grist Mill Road, Little Rock, AR 72207; fax 501-225-7864;e-mail smg1022@aol.com) that adds lubricity and sheds grime readily. This Moly Resin Professional Firearms Finish is an outstanding product that is used by government contractors for USSOCOM. This is a specially formulated thermally reactive phenolic resin dissolved in a proprietary solvent that becomes impervious to an amazingly wide variety of solvents after proper heat curing. Moly Resin ™ stands up to a number of cleaning products with which I’ve killed other finishes. Carburetor cleaner, for example, dissolved some other moly resins and painted finishes. Castrol Degreaser killed a factory pistol finish. Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK) killed another baked-on finish. Not only do these products have no effect on the Scarab, Norrell’s Moly Resin even stands up to nitric acid, which attacks unprotected steel, foaming vigorously, spewing corrosive byproducts, and producing volumes of colorful noxious gases. If you want a black finish rather than bright stainless, Norrell’s Moly Resin™ is a dandy way to go.

AAC’s Scarab silencer has a length of 5.7 inches, a diameter of 1.0 inch, and a weight of 6.3 ounces. Thus a stainless steel Ruger Mark II with 5.5 inch target-weight barrel, which is commonly known as the Model KMK512 pistol, weighs 47.2 ounces with the Scarab. The can evaluated in this study is threaded with the industry standard 1/2×28 TPI. AAC also offers the Scarab with two other mounting options for smaller pistols than the Ruger Mark II: 3/8×24 TPI (Scarab LOA 5.4 inches); and 7/16×28 TPI (Scarab LOA 5.25 inches). If you have your pistol threaded by AAC gunsmith, Dan Dansberry, you are in for a treat. This guy is more than a master gunsmith. He is an artiste. The thread protector he provides has the same diameter as the target-weight barrel, and the front of the protector is radiused to give the pistol a very finished and unmodified appearance when the thread protector is installed. The seam between the barrel and thread protector is so tight as to be almost invisible.

One of the few things I don’t like about muzzle cans is that the suppressed pistol is longer and heavier than an integrally suppressed pistol with a similar baffle stack (such as AAC’s Phoenix pistol). This has two principal consequences. (1) The pistol with muzzle can has a more muzzle heavy balance than the integrally silenced pistol. This slows the speed of target acquisition and accelerates shooter fatigue. And (2) the extra length of the pistol with muzzle can makes it very difficult to find a holster to accommodate the system. This makes carrying a pistol with muzzle can into the field rather impractical.

Advanced Armament offers two alternative solutions to this latter problem. (1) AAC issues a ballistic nylon belt pouch as standard equipment with every muzzle can they sell. With the Scarab, this enables end-users to carry their pistols in a conventional holster and the dismounted suppressor in its own pouch. (2) I discovered an even handier solution quite by accident. The holster designed for carrying AAC’s integrally silenced Phoenix pistol will also accommodate a KMK512 pistol with Scarab muzzle can mounted on the gun. Therefore, the silenced pistol is ready to shoot as fast as it can be drawn from the holster. While the Phoenix Holster completely protects the integrally silenced Phoenix pistol, the Scarab muzzle can does stick out from the bottom of the holster. This minor liability is outweighed considerably by the sheer convenience of being able to carry the Scarab mounted on the KMK512 when afield. It is worth noting that the holster completely encloses the Scarab if the KMK512 is shortened to a barrel length of 4.25 inches. AAC will shorten the barrel at no charge if requested when AAC threads the barrel.

As far as I know, this is the first holster expressly designed from the ground up for an integrally silenced .22 pistol. The Phoenix Holster is made exclusively for AAC by the London Bridge Trading Company, which has been quietly supplying the armed professional with top-quality nylon gear for more than 15 years. The holster features a full flap that protects the pistol and is secured by a quick-release fastener. An elastic loop (rubber coated bungee), which is an innovation peculiar to London Bridge holsters, can be slipped around the butt of the pistol as an added measure of security for rappelling or amphibious operations. The holster also incorporates a twin magazine pouch.

In the first generation Phoenix holster, the magazine pouch flap incorporated a pouch for a Clip Loader Mfg. magazine-loading tool. In the second-generation Phoenix holster, the pistol flap was made a bit smaller so the twin magazine pouch could be moved up to make room for a separate pouch for the larger and handier HKS Model 22-R Magazine Speed Loader. The flaps for the twin magazine pouch and the loading-tool are secured by both hook/pile and a snap. Both the first- and second-generation holsters provide two modes of attachment: a wide belt loop and Alice clips. The latest variant also includes a Kydex channel for the front sight. This improves both durability and the ease of presentation from the holster. The quality of materials and construction are outstanding, as is the thought that went into the holster’s design. I particularly like the “repetitious redundancy” of holster subsystems: both quick-release faster and elastic loop to secure the pistol, both hook/pile and snap to secure the flaps for the magazine and Speed Loader pouches, and two modes for mounting to a belt. Available in olive drab, woodland camouflage, desert camouflage and black, the Phoenix Holster is as good as it gets. It should come as no surprise that another London Bridge holster is reportedly used by U.S. Navy special warfare units. London Bridge makes a diverse array of holsters, backpacks, web gear, vests and bags worthy of the most demanding end-user (London Bridge Trading Company, Ltd., Dept. GW/LE, 3509 Virginia Beach Blvd., Virginia Beach, VA 23452; phone 757-498-0207; fax757-498-0059URL www.londonbridgetrading.com; e-mail lbtcl@pinn.net).

Performance

I tested the performance of AAC’s Scarab silencer on a Ruger KMK512 pistol, and compared that performance with the same KMK512 without the silencer, as well as with AAC’s integrally silenced Phoenix pistol. Sound testing was conducted using the specific equipment and testing protocol advocated at the end of Chapter 5 in the book Silencer History and Performance, Volume 1 (Wideworld, Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 1827, Conway, AR 72033; $50 plus $5 s&h, check or MO). Four kinds of .22 LR ammunition were used for the testing: Remington 40 grain high velocity (HV), Remington 40 grain standard velocity target (SVT), Remington 38 grain hollowpoint subsonic (SS), and RWS 40 grain hollowpoint subsonic (SS). Sound and velocity testing were conducted at an atmospheric temperature of 84 °F, while accuracy testing was conducted several days later at 88 °F. Ammunition was kept at ambient temperature in a cooler in the shade until needed. Unsuppressed peak sound pressure levels (SPLs) were measured 1 meter to the left of the muzzle, while suppressed levels were measured 1 meter to the left of the suppressor. Reported decibel levels represent the mean (average) of 10 shots.

Velocities were measured using a P.A.C.T. MKIII timer/chronograph with MKV skyscreens set 24.0 inches apart and the start screen 8.0 feet from the muzzle (P.A.C.T., Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 531525, Grand Prairie, TX 75053; phone: 214-641-0049). Velocity data represent a mean value of at least ten shots. The speed of sound was 1,143 fps at 84 °F and 1,157 fps at 88 °F. Accuracy testing was conducted at a range of 25 yards using a Ransom Rest, with three rounds per group. Reported accuracy data represent the average of three groups. Group sizes represent the center to center distance between the two most widely spaced shots, using custom caliber-specific calipers made by Hunt’s Bullets (Dept. SAR, 6210 Lake Lugano, Jacksonville, FL 32256; phone 904-645-3140).

The peak sound pressure levels (SPLs) of suppressed and unsuppressed pistols are reported in Table 1. Net sound reductions appear in Table 2. It is worth noting that the same pistol was used for both the unsuppressed benchmarks and the Scarab benchmarks. This pistol has a barrel length of 5.5 inches. If the Scarab were tested on a pistol with a significantly shorted barrel, such as a Walther TPH or PPK-S, the unsuppressed sound signatures would be louder and the net sound reductions would likely be 3-4 dB better. I used a KMK512 with original barrel length because this is the most popular pistol configuration for most end-users. Muzzle velocities appear in Table 3. Accuracy data appear in Table 4.

Several of the conclusions to be drawn from these data were something of a surprise. (1) The Scarab really “likes” standard velocity target ammunition in terms of accuracy. I expected a preference for SVT ammo, but not to the extent seen here. The pistol with Scarab suppressor delivered maximum accuracy with this round, accuracy that was twice as good as the accuracy produced by same pistol without a can, and three to five times as good as the pistol with or without the silencer using subsonic and high velocity ammo. (2) I was also surprised that the Scarab “likes” standard velocity fodder so well in terms of sound suppression. The Scarab was just 1 decibel quieter with RWS subsonic and was actually 1 dB louder with Remington subsonic. Even first-round pop was significantly greater with subsonic ammo than it was with standard velocity fodder.

It is also important to note that the pistol with Scarab silencer produced a ballistic crack with high velocity ammo, while the Phoenix did not. Score one for the integrally silenced pistol. The pistol with Scarab silencer must be used with standard velocity or subsonic ammunition to avoid objectionable bullet flight noise. With RWS subsonic ammunition, the Scarab muzzle can was as quiet as the integrally silenced Phoenix pistol using high velocity fodder. That’s pretty darned good performance for a muzzle can.

Conclusions

AAC’s Scarab muzzle can delivers excellent performance in a relatively small and light package. Using high velocity ammunition, the pistol delivers significantly better accuracy than an unmodified pistol, although the system does produce a ballistic crack. Using standard velocity target ammunition eliminates the ballistic crack and produces a very stealthy sound signature and very tight groups. The muzzle can is easier to clean than an integral silencer, and it keeps the pistol action cleaner too. The Scarab can be removed for hunting or swapped between diverse firearms. And it is very cost effective. The Scarab silencer retails for just $395.

I also like the fact that Advanced Armament Corp. has a master gunsmith on staff. This enables AAC to offer custom options such as an outstanding trigger job for $100, including Volquartsen parts. Since about 50 percent of Ruger Mark II pistols come from the factory with poor triggers, this could be a very attractive option. Anyone using the pistol for animal control would benefit from the addition of IWI bar-dot tritium night sights for just $100. Barrel threading (including thread protector) is $75. Finally, a mandatory accessory in my opinion is the superbly designed, user-friendly Phoenix Holster, which retails for $70. I like the many options and one-stop shopping available from AAC. For more information, contact the Advanced Armament Corp., Dept. SAR, 221 West Crogan Street, Lawrenceville, GA 30045 (phone 770-277-4946; fax 770-277-4841; URL www.advanced-armament.com).