I was just told by a very reputable suppressor manufacturer that titanium was the only material that was holding up to the 375/408 CTs. I'd think that hardened 17-4 stainless, while being heavier, should take the punishment just as well...
Suppressors Titanium the only material?
- Thread starter zenbiker
- Start date
Re: Titanium the only material?
Time for a new "reputable suppressor manufacturer."
Time for a new "reputable suppressor manufacturer."
Re: Titanium the only material?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1ZNUF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was just told by a very reputable suppressor manufacturer that titanium was the only material that was holding up to the 375/408 CTs. I'd think that hardened 17-4 stainless, while being heavier, should take the punishment just as well... </div></div>
Did you get any specific details? I would be very interested to know how they came to this conclusion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1ZNUF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was just told by a very reputable suppressor manufacturer that titanium was the only material that was holding up to the 375/408 CTs. I'd think that hardened 17-4 stainless, while being heavier, should take the punishment just as well... </div></div>
Did you get any specific details? I would be very interested to know how they came to this conclusion.
Re: Titanium the only material?
someone is drinking some bad kool aid
someone is drinking some bad kool aid
Re: Titanium the only material?
I would consider them a "disreputable" suppressor manufacturer from now on.
People have been making .50BMG suppressors from steel for many, many years. Those take far more punishment than any CheyTac cartridge dishes out.
I would consider them a "disreputable" suppressor manufacturer from now on.
People have been making .50BMG suppressors from steel for many, many years. Those take far more punishment than any CheyTac cartridge dishes out.
Re: Titanium the only material?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Conqueror</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would consider them a "disreputable" suppressor manufacturer from now on.
People have been making .50BMG suppressors from steel for many, many years. Those take far more punishment than any CheyTac cartridge dishes out. </div></div>
I don't have experience with 50 caliber suppressors, but I did hear that the Cheytac people had problems with a lot of suppressors failing and settled on QSM's titanium unit as the one that worked best for them.
Steel is very strong but not quite as strong at lower temperatures as better grades of titanium. I would bet none of the cans that came apart were steel, because most manufacturers are using corrosion resistant alloys almost exclusively (stainless steel or titanium).
Stainless steel is significantly weaker than steel and would probably explain failures that occurred.
17-4 would certainly work, but is not commonly available in tube which would probably cause it to rival Titanium for expense of manufacturing. Everything would have to be machined from solid bar stock.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Conqueror</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would consider them a "disreputable" suppressor manufacturer from now on.
People have been making .50BMG suppressors from steel for many, many years. Those take far more punishment than any CheyTac cartridge dishes out. </div></div>
I don't have experience with 50 caliber suppressors, but I did hear that the Cheytac people had problems with a lot of suppressors failing and settled on QSM's titanium unit as the one that worked best for them.
Steel is very strong but not quite as strong at lower temperatures as better grades of titanium. I would bet none of the cans that came apart were steel, because most manufacturers are using corrosion resistant alloys almost exclusively (stainless steel or titanium).
Stainless steel is significantly weaker than steel and would probably explain failures that occurred.
17-4 would certainly work, but is not commonly available in tube which would probably cause it to rival Titanium for expense of manufacturing. Everything would have to be machined from solid bar stock.
Re: Titanium the only material?
I don't know who CheyTac tested, but the fact that they settled on cans from QSM and STW suggests to me that they didn't test many cans from higher end manufacturers. The Cyclops didn't exist at that point, but the stainless AWC Turbodyne certainly did. You think a Turbodyne underbored for .40cal projectiles would come apart? AWC cans are heavy but built like tanks.
Again, stainless has been used in .50BMG cans for years, the material is proven and I find your statement that "it probably explains the failures" to be dubious. I think it more likely that they either didn't test really good suppressors, or perhaps their solicitation requirements made steel cans prone to failure (ie, demanding a certain low weight which made the steel too thin). Then again the STW and QSM Ti cans weigh as much as a medium sized car, so maybe I'm wrong.
I don't know who CheyTac tested, but the fact that they settled on cans from QSM and STW suggests to me that they didn't test many cans from higher end manufacturers. The Cyclops didn't exist at that point, but the stainless AWC Turbodyne certainly did. You think a Turbodyne underbored for .40cal projectiles would come apart? AWC cans are heavy but built like tanks.
Again, stainless has been used in .50BMG cans for years, the material is proven and I find your statement that "it probably explains the failures" to be dubious. I think it more likely that they either didn't test really good suppressors, or perhaps their solicitation requirements made steel cans prone to failure (ie, demanding a certain low weight which made the steel too thin). Then again the STW and QSM Ti cans weigh as much as a medium sized car, so maybe I'm wrong.
Re: Titanium the only material?
Also, per their website, QSM cans are glued together, not welded.
Also, per their website, QSM cans are glued together, not welded.
Re: Titanium the only material?
Stainless is horrible at heat transfer so I could see a stainless suppressor failing from heat fatigue, especially near welds at least in theory from extreme conditions. Maybe full auto would do it?
Stainless is horrible at heat transfer so I could see a stainless suppressor failing from heat fatigue, especially near welds at least in theory from extreme conditions. Maybe full auto would do it?
Re: Titanium the only material?
This is a QSM can. Amazing the bullshizzle that come from some people associated with the firearms industry. I have and AWC Turbodyne, but at 9 lbs in stainless is too heavy for this rifle - at least in my opinion.
Sometimes I'll hear something that goes so against what I think I know that I have to stop and check. I was skeptical of the claim, but was so taken aback I just said..."Gee, I didn't know that"
This is a QSM can. Amazing the bullshizzle that come from some people associated with the firearms industry. I have and AWC Turbodyne, but at 9 lbs in stainless is too heavy for this rifle - at least in my opinion.
Sometimes I'll hear something that goes so against what I think I know that I have to stop and check. I was skeptical of the claim, but was so taken aback I just said..."Gee, I didn't know that"
Re: Titanium the only material?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Conqueror</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would consider them a "disreputable" suppressor manufacturer from now on.
People have been making .50BMG suppressors from steel for many, many years. Those take far more punishment than any CheyTac cartridge dishes out. </div></div>
I don't have experience with 50 caliber suppressors, but I did hear that the Cheytac people had problems with a lot of suppressors failing and settled on QSM's titanium unit as the one that worked best for them.
Steel is very strong but not quite as strong at lower temperatures as better grades of titanium. I would bet none of the cans that came apart were steel, because most manufacturers are using corrosion resistant alloys almost exclusively (stainless steel or titanium).
Stainless steel is significantly weaker than steel and would probably explain failures that occurred.
17-4 would certainly work, but is not commonly available in tube which would probably cause it to rival Titanium for expense of manufacturing. Everything would have to be machined from solid bar stock. </div></div>
That was my impression of the scuttlebutt as well. The original suppressor CT used had a high failure rate. The QSM is at my class III dealer's awaiting my form 4 approval, and it is a beautiful piece of work; that's saying something, because titanium is extremely difficult to machine. It makes working with 17-4 seem like cutting aluminum. Not to mention is only weighs 3 lbs and change, where my AWC Turbodyne is about 9 lbs and is just too heavy for the my rifle.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Conqueror</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would consider them a "disreputable" suppressor manufacturer from now on.
People have been making .50BMG suppressors from steel for many, many years. Those take far more punishment than any CheyTac cartridge dishes out. </div></div>
I don't have experience with 50 caliber suppressors, but I did hear that the Cheytac people had problems with a lot of suppressors failing and settled on QSM's titanium unit as the one that worked best for them.
Steel is very strong but not quite as strong at lower temperatures as better grades of titanium. I would bet none of the cans that came apart were steel, because most manufacturers are using corrosion resistant alloys almost exclusively (stainless steel or titanium).
Stainless steel is significantly weaker than steel and would probably explain failures that occurred.
17-4 would certainly work, but is not commonly available in tube which would probably cause it to rival Titanium for expense of manufacturing. Everything would have to be machined from solid bar stock. </div></div>
That was my impression of the scuttlebutt as well. The original suppressor CT used had a high failure rate. The QSM is at my class III dealer's awaiting my form 4 approval, and it is a beautiful piece of work; that's saying something, because titanium is extremely difficult to machine. It makes working with 17-4 seem like cutting aluminum. Not to mention is only weighs 3 lbs and change, where my AWC Turbodyne is about 9 lbs and is just too heavy for the my rifle.
Re: Titanium the only material?
I have a titanium and very pleased with it.
I have a titanium and very pleased with it.
Re: Titanium the only material?
My cheytac can is stainless and is rock solid.
My cheytac can is stainless and is rock solid.
Re: Titanium the only material?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Conqueror</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't know who CheyTac tested, but the fact that they settled on cans from QSM and STW suggests to me that they didn't test many cans from higher end manufacturers. The Cyclops didn't exist at that point, but the stainless AWC Turbodyne certainly did. You think a Turbodyne underbored for .40cal projectiles would come apart? AWC cans are heavy but built like tanks.
Again, stainless has been used in .50BMG cans for years, the material is proven and I find your statement that "it probably explains the failures" to be dubious. I think it more likely that they either didn't test really good suppressors, or perhaps their solicitation requirements made steel cans prone to failure (ie, demanding a certain low weight which made the steel too thin). Then again the STW and QSM Ti cans weigh as much as a medium sized car, so maybe I'm wrong. </div></div>
From the Quicksilver website:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">CheyTac has told us that no other .408 silencer has performed to the new standard set by Quicksilver Manufacturing for accuracy, sound reduction and light weight. The CheyTac .408 is well known for having destroyed various stainless steel silencers by other manufacturers. Durability testing has been completed with over 600 rounds through one of CheyTac's QSM silencers.. </div></div>
Not to get into a pissing match, but I read, "Alloy steel" on AAC's website for instance to mean, "Chrome Moly".
There are probably several 50 caliber suppressors on the market built of stainless steel, and they are probably all used at very close to room temperature on bolt action weapons. I wouldn't be surprised if some had a minimum safety factor of 1 or even lower than 1 for all I know, not having the actual pressure measurements and blueprints of the products.
Typically when the better companies design something they shoot for a minimum safety factor of 2 or higher. That means someone can get them very, very hot before they fall below one. I think the military wants 1.75 (if memory serves me correctly) even in inconel suppressors which possess 80% of room temperature strength to 1200F.
This, and a desire to remain relatively light probably explains why AAC chose to use "alloy steel" for their 50 caliber offering.
I did see an x-ray of a Sound Tech 50 caliber suppressor floating around on the internet, and that had what looked like 4 plug welds securing the blast baffle to the outer tube. That sort of construction would obviously be less than ideal. This is an example of just one of many possible construction methods used on the market in products of this class.
Common grades of stainless steel (AKA 304 & 316) have moderately low yield stength, requiring fairly thick (think .1875") wall tubing to be used. That is why products built with these materials are usually very heavy. The 38 ounce, .338LM AAC Titan for instance is stainless steel, and they've lightened it from the original ~45 ounces since it was designed. DTA's .338LM suppressor in Titanium weighs 1.1 lbs by comparison. So obviously stronger materials help to make things adequately strong at lighter weight.
Obviously that information doesn't mean a safe suppressor could not be made of many different materials for .408 or 50 caliber use. It does however suggest the superiority of materials with higher strength to weight ratios for the application due to the volume requirements and high pressures likely to be encountered in big bore sound suppressors.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Conqueror</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't know who CheyTac tested, but the fact that they settled on cans from QSM and STW suggests to me that they didn't test many cans from higher end manufacturers. The Cyclops didn't exist at that point, but the stainless AWC Turbodyne certainly did. You think a Turbodyne underbored for .40cal projectiles would come apart? AWC cans are heavy but built like tanks.
Again, stainless has been used in .50BMG cans for years, the material is proven and I find your statement that "it probably explains the failures" to be dubious. I think it more likely that they either didn't test really good suppressors, or perhaps their solicitation requirements made steel cans prone to failure (ie, demanding a certain low weight which made the steel too thin). Then again the STW and QSM Ti cans weigh as much as a medium sized car, so maybe I'm wrong. </div></div>
From the Quicksilver website:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">CheyTac has told us that no other .408 silencer has performed to the new standard set by Quicksilver Manufacturing for accuracy, sound reduction and light weight. The CheyTac .408 is well known for having destroyed various stainless steel silencers by other manufacturers. Durability testing has been completed with over 600 rounds through one of CheyTac's QSM silencers.. </div></div>
Not to get into a pissing match, but I read, "Alloy steel" on AAC's website for instance to mean, "Chrome Moly".
There are probably several 50 caliber suppressors on the market built of stainless steel, and they are probably all used at very close to room temperature on bolt action weapons. I wouldn't be surprised if some had a minimum safety factor of 1 or even lower than 1 for all I know, not having the actual pressure measurements and blueprints of the products.
Typically when the better companies design something they shoot for a minimum safety factor of 2 or higher. That means someone can get them very, very hot before they fall below one. I think the military wants 1.75 (if memory serves me correctly) even in inconel suppressors which possess 80% of room temperature strength to 1200F.
This, and a desire to remain relatively light probably explains why AAC chose to use "alloy steel" for their 50 caliber offering.
I did see an x-ray of a Sound Tech 50 caliber suppressor floating around on the internet, and that had what looked like 4 plug welds securing the blast baffle to the outer tube. That sort of construction would obviously be less than ideal. This is an example of just one of many possible construction methods used on the market in products of this class.
Common grades of stainless steel (AKA 304 & 316) have moderately low yield stength, requiring fairly thick (think .1875") wall tubing to be used. That is why products built with these materials are usually very heavy. The 38 ounce, .338LM AAC Titan for instance is stainless steel, and they've lightened it from the original ~45 ounces since it was designed. DTA's .338LM suppressor in Titanium weighs 1.1 lbs by comparison. So obviously stronger materials help to make things adequately strong at lighter weight.
Obviously that information doesn't mean a safe suppressor could not be made of many different materials for .408 or 50 caliber use. It does however suggest the superiority of materials with higher strength to weight ratios for the application due to the volume requirements and high pressures likely to be encountered in big bore sound suppressors.
Re: Titanium the only material?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: half</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1ZNUF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was just told by a very reputable suppressor manufacturer that titanium was the only material that was holding up to the 375/408 CTs. I'd think that hardened 17-4 stainless, while being heavier, should take the punishment just as well... </div></div>
Did you get any specific details? I would be very interested to know how they came to this conclusion. </div></div>
I just came across this in the QSM website this morning; I believe this is what they are basing their claim on. Read the stats on titanium vs. steel; having worked extensively with titanium in my previous career, I can tell you everything they say regarding its physical properties vs. steel are true. The biggest 'problem' with using titanium is that it is difficult to machine; the material is more difficult than any carbon steel to cut, and way more difficult than even the most exotics stainlesses such as 15-5 and 17-4. Titanium tends to distort under the pressure of the cutting tool until a section being machined reaches a yield point, at which time a "chunk" tears away. Good machining of titanium requires exotic geometry cutting tools and special lubricants, but if you can do it, well, winner winner chicken dinner:
http://www.qsmsilencers.com/408%20suppressor%20stats.html
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: half</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1ZNUF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was just told by a very reputable suppressor manufacturer that titanium was the only material that was holding up to the 375/408 CTs. I'd think that hardened 17-4 stainless, while being heavier, should take the punishment just as well... </div></div>
Did you get any specific details? I would be very interested to know how they came to this conclusion. </div></div>
I just came across this in the QSM website this morning; I believe this is what they are basing their claim on. Read the stats on titanium vs. steel; having worked extensively with titanium in my previous career, I can tell you everything they say regarding its physical properties vs. steel are true. The biggest 'problem' with using titanium is that it is difficult to machine; the material is more difficult than any carbon steel to cut, and way more difficult than even the most exotics stainlesses such as 15-5 and 17-4. Titanium tends to distort under the pressure of the cutting tool until a section being machined reaches a yield point, at which time a "chunk" tears away. Good machining of titanium requires exotic geometry cutting tools and special lubricants, but if you can do it, well, winner winner chicken dinner:
http://www.qsmsilencers.com/408%20suppressor%20stats.html
I am not sure about the can you are referring to, I don't have it and not sure why there is an indication that I have it so I can't help you. I can tell you this there is very little that makes a .338 LM pleasant. Notice you referred to 6.5, I have a 6.5 creedmore on am Eliseo Chassis that is sweet to shoot. I am member of Haltom City R&P club and would be interested I your matches. I have never shot in one but would interested in learning more. I punch a lot of paper with a couple nice builds of Garland Gilbreath in Stephenville. I am also a dealer.
Have a great day!
Have a great day!
Ancient thread, man! But as long as I'm here...
Oh, I never disagreed with that. It's always preferable to use stronger material if the weight is either neutral or advantageous. But I still call "bullshit" on QSM's claims. A number of mfrs had .50cal cans on the market prior to the .408CT's development, and none of them were blowing up, coming apart, etc. And 50BMG is far more punishing to a silencer than a .408. So I would still wager that something is either fishy about Cheytac's testing, or QSM's claim. At the time of that testing, there were several .50BMG silencers on the market which I am confident would have easily survived use on a .408 bolt gun.
Good grief. :-(
Similar threads
Suppressors Abel Co Theorem L (Worth the wait!)