I came back from the NRA show amazed at how many booths had suppressors in them. I was also amazed at how similar the builds were. I'd be interested in discussing the rationale of some of the builds if its OK to do so. Just the materials from sub to supersonic and from pistol to rifle are an amazing collection of thoughts. Anyway, if there is an interest and the forum is ok with the topic. I love to chat.
Suppressor designs
- Thread starter rockyboy
- Start date
- Status
I just bought a Wildcat Predator 12 which is a beast of a can since the first chamber is reflexed backwards over the barrel. It is made from aluminium and steel with various rubber o-rings and threads. I'll post pics in the morning.
All my other suppressors are muzzle-forwards designs.
All my other suppressors are muzzle-forwards designs.
Photo and radiograph of the Predator 12 on an R55 Benchmark. Red arrows indicate where the shoulder of the muzzle of the barrel sits inside the suppressor:
Check out the OSS suppressors that have a kind of turbine design instead of baffles. Pretty interesting and definitely unique to the standard suppressor design.
http://osssuppressors.com/
http://osssuppressors.com/
pdsmith505
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2013
- Messages
- 736
Starting from the most basic principles of silencers, the goal is to provide two things: volume for expanding gasses, and a means of dissipating energy (thermal and kinetic). Aside from genuinely novel designs like OSS, this is accomplished with baffles that impede the flow of gas.
Cans have come a long way since the days of steel / copper wool packing, leather wipes, and flat washers.
Now you have a multitude of designs all tailored to perform under specific circumstances. Radial and K-baffles for subsonic rounds, cones for high velocity rounds, omegas for a wide range... the occasional can that incorporates wipes when being super quiet is more important than longevity or accuracy.
Materials are used based on what goal you are trying to achieve as well. All stainless on a .22 can so it can be pin-tumbled or "dipped" to clean. Aluminum for light weight and cost savings. Titanium for light weight and longevity. Inconel and 17-4 stainless to withstand blast pressures of large rounds. A mix of materials to balance cost/weight/longevity... you get the idea.
Cans have come a long way since the days of steel / copper wool packing, leather wipes, and flat washers.
Now you have a multitude of designs all tailored to perform under specific circumstances. Radial and K-baffles for subsonic rounds, cones for high velocity rounds, omegas for a wide range... the occasional can that incorporates wipes when being super quiet is more important than longevity or accuracy.
Materials are used based on what goal you are trying to achieve as well. All stainless on a .22 can so it can be pin-tumbled or "dipped" to clean. Aluminum for light weight and cost savings. Titanium for light weight and longevity. Inconel and 17-4 stainless to withstand blast pressures of large rounds. A mix of materials to balance cost/weight/longevity... you get the idea.
Klint Beastwood
member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2017
- Messages
- 622
+1 for this
It's cool to hear the difference between wet and dry baffles as well. Though i recommend using lithium grease...don't use water to make wet baffles. The gas and powder burning with water inside accelerates decay of the baffles...
pdsmith505
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2013
- Messages
- 736
A lot of people suggest using water-based wire pulling gel. I've never really messed with it because the difference in sound isn't worth the hassle to me.
I thought it was interesting that db values were not attached to any gear at the show. Not sure if this is due to so many of the other variables that are other then the suppressor. I did not see a single wet suppressor and thought that was interesting. The rear facing, similar to that Odd Job shows, was used on some AR platforms where the rear portion was inserted into the hand guard. This cut the length in half. It's an interesting pic. I thought that if he had put cones in front instead of baffles he would have had a better product. But the guy's primary interest was in car parts. That's why the CNC. He just happened to be a gun guy and built then patented his design. Either way, it's a neat idea for a lot of space for that first expansion. I think the wet work better but the trade for care and replacement as well as the short life make them a hassle. Any ideas on a durable wet design that someone has out there?
Klint Beastwood
member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2017
- Messages
- 622
oh cool. ill have to look up data on that for some light reading.
At the most basic level of design the ideal gas law is relevant. P is proportional to nRT/V. So reducing temperature via increasing heat sinking with finned features or latent heat of evaporation of sacrificial coolants reduces the peak pressure as does a larger containment volume. The rest of the work is done by increasing the residence time of the gas plume by directing the gas flow off the bore line into expansion volumes where pressure drops and time for heat transfer occurs.
Good baffle designs do this so well that over bored suppressors today can be very small and just as quiet as the volumous wiped cans of decades prior. Most of the newer designs have less point of impact shift than older designs with a good bit of that coming from lighter welded construction.
It really is a buyers market right now with great functional designs for mounting, a variety of refined materials, machining, and forms from short and fat, over barrel reflex, mini cans, and integrals. There are also a lot of really great online vendors with broad experience base who freely share their knowledge of product strengths and weaknesses.
Where I still see deficiencies is in host firearms. Lots of barrel makers still don't provide adequate thread relief or shoulder since most barrels will never see more than a brake or flash hider. Proper gas port sizing is another hit and miss item and has lead to an entire spin off industry of adjustable gas blocks and such.
Good baffle designs do this so well that over bored suppressors today can be very small and just as quiet as the volumous wiped cans of decades prior. Most of the newer designs have less point of impact shift than older designs with a good bit of that coming from lighter welded construction.
It really is a buyers market right now with great functional designs for mounting, a variety of refined materials, machining, and forms from short and fat, over barrel reflex, mini cans, and integrals. There are also a lot of really great online vendors with broad experience base who freely share their knowledge of product strengths and weaknesses.
Where I still see deficiencies is in host firearms. Lots of barrel makers still don't provide adequate thread relief or shoulder since most barrels will never see more than a brake or flash hider. Proper gas port sizing is another hit and miss item and has lead to an entire spin off industry of adjustable gas blocks and such.
Wet designs aren't as popular because of blowback and in the case of greases smoke. Water based coolants don't smoke but are messy and gunk up hosts. Most supersonic centerfire cans don't recommend coolant for risk of bore obstruction and pressure spikes. Plus the sonic crack dominates the sound signature enough that reducing the muzzle blast more becomes a moot point. As long as your baffles aren't bare aluminum just misting a little distilled water into a pistol or rimfire can reduces first round pop and isn't as messy as a load of wire pulling gel or grease. Titanium or stainless and even anodized aluminum hold up well to water based coolants if you clean up internals after use. K baffle cans also tend to have less blowback and are more conducive to running wet.
Does a supersonic crack remain the same regardless of what's making it? Perhaps this is a better way of asking this: If the only consideration of sound is the sound barrier breaking does the db level remain constant? Hmmm. Still bad. a .308, .223 and .22 all supersonic. if all are suppressed to the point where only the sound barrier is being broken, will they all sound the same? Thanks for putting up with me for this.
pdsmith505
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2013
- Messages
- 736
SWAG says the larger/faster the object traveling above Mach 1, the larger the resulting pressure wave.
Klint Beastwood
member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2017
- Messages
- 622
to the naked ear if you took a 308 and a hot 9mm side by side suppressed...the supersonic crack wouldn't be super noticeably different. Mostly because its going away from you.
Yep, although the shape of the object also has some effect.
climbnjump
Member
For example the "sonic boom" from an aircraft going supersonic as opposed to the sound of a bullet doing the same....
Whether they sound the same or different may also depend on where you are located in relation to them when they pass by. For example, when pulling targets at the 600 yard F-Class range, the bullets are passing by about 5 feet over my head. While not real different in sound, I can tell the difference between "small" caliber bullets and larger bullets when they are shot in sequence. If you were to put two shooters on the line, one with a .223 and one with a .308 and have them shoot in sequence, I could tell you which was which. But if you have only one of them fire and ask me which one it was, I would only be guessing.
- Status
