Getting into Suppressor Mounting Interfaces
- Alex Strashko
- Nov 3, 2025
- 6 min read
They say war never changes, but in reality, it’s the nature and eternal truths of war that remain constant, while the development of weapons and their associated systems never stops.
In modern times, it is essential not only to shoot accurately but also to remain unnoticed for as long as possible. The latter is made more challenging by the reduced use of distinctive identification markings by opposing forces and by the presence of devices on the modern battlefield that detect targets at night and in the thermal spectrum. While colored unit markings on uniforms helped for a while with the first issue, and the fight against visual and near-IR signatures is still actively pursued with scrim, cloaks, and camouflage, those measures concern the individual soldier. What about the weapon? That’s where flash suppressors and sound moderators (suppressors) come in handy.
In theory, you can simply buy a device and fit it to a weapon, but in practice, there are a significant number of mounting interfaces, depending on thread pitch, weapon type/platform, and the mounting practices of different manufacturers.
How to successfully choose a muzzle device and avoid getting the wrong mount type, the pros and cons of the different interfaces, and KRUK’s approach to solving this problem — we explain all of that below.
Why the difference?
Every shooter has encountered several different types and styles of mounts that differ from one another. The reason lies in design and manufacturing decisions made early in a weapon’s development—different barrel thread pitches, caliber, action type and operating system (if present), and, more generally, the platform’s compatibility with flash- and sound-suppression devices.
Mounting Interfaces history
The widespread adoption of muzzle devices dates to the 1920s–30s. These were compensators for automatic weapons, intended to counter muzzle rise — there was not yet any focus on fighting muzzle flash. They were fitted primarily to threaded interfaces or to bayonet-type mounting systems.
Already during World War II, muzzle devices were used to gain an edge on the battlefield — and despite the popular media image of elusive snipers with “silencers,” they became more common in the hands of sabotage and reconnaissance units, fitted to pistols and purpose-built weapons such as the U.S. Secret Service’s favored High Standard HDM, or in more extreme implementations like the De Lisle carbine, where the suppressor enclosed a ported barrel to provide maximum internal volume for the device.
Later, in the 1950s–1970s, muzzle devices began to spread onto the civilian market — after all, hearing matters. The vast majority of those suppressors used threaded attachments, and the number of manufacturers grew to meet demand, flooding the market with units having diverse internal designs.
It’s worth noting that around that era the suppressor also acquired a bad reputation as a gadget for thieves and hitmen — why would an honest sport shooter or deer hunter want to hide their shot?
It seemed like everything had been invented and worked as intended, but in practice, the shooter had to buy different muzzle devices for different calibers, or even for different models within the same family, spending money on proprietary suppressors that were either not interchangeable or did not function correctly when mounted on incompatible firearms.
The large number of manufacturers and lack of communication between them pulled the suppressor market in every direction and downward at once, and you, as a shooter, had to “pledge” allegiance to a particular maker and use their ecosystem. But that couldn’t last forever — in the early 2000s–2010s everything changed fundamentally with the appearance of one promising interface…
The dawn of Quick Detach
It’s worth lingering on quick-detach systems — these adapters have their own standards, but their main advantages over threaded mounts are shared: speed and versatility. Essentially, a QD adapter is a two-piece system — one part is attached to the barrel/muzzle, and the other screws into the muzzle device itself. The two halves then lock together.
Adapters are divided into passive and active types — passive units are simply held by the thread, while active ones use a locking mechanism to secure to the host device (for example, a muzzle brake or flash hider).
Special locking mechanisms allow suppressors to be mounted and removed rapidly. A single suppressor can also be used across multiple weapons where a QD adapter is fitted, and modern muzzle devices with interchangeable front sections for different calibers give even more flexibility for use across your personal arsenal.
There are downsides, of course — many shooters view these attachment points as additional failure modes or potential problems under fire, and carbon/fouling build-up can degrade adapter performance (from impaired function to loss of quick-detach capability), so careful cleaning is essential. And, naturally, adding another coupling between the firearm and the device increases weight.
Why HUB is such a big deal
There’s no single clear start date for the history of the HUB 1.375×24 TPI (1⅜″-24) mounting standard, but its adoption is credited to U.S. companies YHM, Dead Air, and SilencerCo. By aligning their products with that mounting standard, they delivered a level of end-user interoperability previously unseen: a user could now mix and match host devices, mounts, and the suppressor “can” itself from different manufacturers—provided the compatibility requirements were met.
That was also driven by the specifics of obtaining a suppressor in the United States, which requires paperwork and approval time, so owning one device for multiple firearms made sense.
The HUB standard mounts on the external thread of a compensator or other muzzle device on one side, and on the other side, the muzzle device itself is secured. You can use different adapters and locking mechanisms depending on needs and preferences.
Despite the Hybrid Universal Base being adopted as the de facto industry standard, several other mounting systems offer QD functionality, so it’s worth taking at least a brief look at their advantages and disadvantages.
Interface comparison
Let’s use a threaded-barrel mount as our point of reference.
Advantages: a simple, reliable method of attachment with no added weight.
Disadvantages: the opposite of “quick-detach” — it requires periodic retightening on the threads over time.
Moving on from barrel threads — in 9 out of 10 cases, an AR-pattern rifle leaves the factory fitted with an A2 “birdcage” flash hider (A2 compensator), and if it isn’t, those are very cheap to source. Choosing a suppressor that’s compatible with A2 mounting saves you the cost of an additional host device.
Advantages: the host device is usually already fitted to the weapon or can be bought cheaply, and mounting/removal is relatively fast.
Disadvantages: improper manufacturing quality or fouling can damage the suppressor or the mount; moreover, A2‑compatible host devices are not always much cheaper than universal interfaces — they can even cost more — and overall reliability will depend on the weakest link in the whole setup, namely the A2 component.
Threaded taper attachment of a suppressor to a muzzle device was common before a single standard emerged. In that arrangement, the flash hider or muzzle brake stays permanently fitted to the barrel, while the suppressor is attached and removed as required.
Advantages: achieves repeatable alignment on install and resistance to backing off.
Disadvantages: manufacturers may use whatever thread they deem appropriate, reducing interoperability, and such an interface is not truly quick‑detach. Fouling can make suppressor removal difficult.
Quick‑Detach HUB — a new industry standard that enables countless combinations of host muzzle devices, HUBs, and suppressors, and their use across the different weapons in your inventory.
Advantages: fast, repeatable mounting and removal of suppressors without tools; a wide selection of compatible system components.
Disadvantages: although technical requirements for the 1.375×24 TPI (1⅜″‑24) standard exist, adherence and any modifications are up to each manufacturer, so compatibility rates depend on choosing high‑quality components for the whole setup. Another significant downside is weight — even a simple HUB (non‑QD versions included) adds a hundred to a couple hundred grams (or more) to the muzzle.
The approach to the choice of mounting interfaces by KPYK
The first suppressor in the KPYK lineup was the Minizhaba — a device that let us master Inconel 718 additive manufacturing, validate a truly effective internal suppression baffle layout for both sound and flash, and produce the lightest, most compact unit using a threaded‑barrel mount — saving length and weight and eliminating tolerance error introduced by intermediate mounting parts.
As Minizhaba evolved and we accumulated design knowledge, numerous test cycles, improvements, and a wealth of user feedback, we developed the Hipnozhaba — a completely different device designed specifically for short weapons such as the M4, the CZ Bren 2 with an 8″ short barrel, and other short carbines with barrels under 12.5″ that still use threaded mounts — preserving the weight and handling advantages of a short weapon.
So, building on what we’ve learned and the manufacturing processes we’ve mastered, and using proven muzzle device designs, we continue development of a QD‑mount system with a HUB interface as an industry standard supported by manufacturers worldwide — giving owners of KRUK muzzle devices a wide choice of host devices, mounts, and suppressor combinations.
Comments