Suppressors Design Critique Please

B

BruxBarrels

Private
Minuteman
May 19, 2010
73
0
36
Lodi, WI
www.bruxbarrels.com
#1
Hey guys. This is the design that I have so far. Nothing is set in stone as work won't be started on it for 5 or 6 months of course. Monocore and end cap to be made of 416r stainless(who would have guessed) and the tube will most likely be titanium. Going on a 300BLK with an 8 inch barrel shooting almost always subsonic. If it performs well with supersonic rounds then thats just gravy. Let me know what you guys think. Any critiques are welcome. Right now it looks like it will weight right around 26 ounces. Not too concerned about weight seeing as it will be centered over the middle of the handguard.

Suppressor20-1.jpg


Suppressor20Iso-1.jpg



Thanks in advanced.
 
#3
Re: Design Critique Please

You're going to want more than .5" of threads on that side (.630 would be good [you don't want threads in the blast chamber getting fouled and them having to wear on the suppressor every time you take it off]).

The shaped solid baffle up front is just a waste of volume and weight. I'd move the baffling forward to close that chamber space a bit (.25"?), because the baffles further out front will be more efficient, and make the front of that chamber flat and parallel with the front of the muzzle.

Strength might be gained by adopting a .1875" thick, flat blast baffle located at the same 1.25" spacing (where the 1.25" dimension is) with 4 large (.25x.25" depth of cut) end mill or ball end mill cut "ports" ~.1" off the vanes running the length of the sides. <this way instead of a baffle shape that wants to flex inward on firing- with no supporting members, you then have a shape that doesn't want to flex so you gain a lot of strength where the pressure is highest.

The thicker geometry of the current blast baffle might make sense for the second baffle. (this more for supersonic .300BLK on short barrels, or .308 use than for subsonic .300 BLK which is more like 9mm). The second baffle could nearly touch the flat baffle- so whatever the thickness of the cutting tool is should be fine.

You might also find that it performs better with 2 more baffles- closing spacing to something like .5".
 
#6
Re: Design Critique Please

With your current design I don't think it is going to last long with an 8" barrel shooting supersonic. I would have to agree with Griffin and say a beefier blast baffle might help you out. I never really gave the idea much thought on baffle flex with those type baffles you show, but now that its been brought up I can see some serious erosion happening with supersonic ammo.

If you plan to shoot only subsonics..... clone a 9mm can and call it good.
 
#8
Re: Design Critique Please

here is the AAC titan core , its a good desgine and is said to be the same thing used in the AAC 300SD
aactitan.jpg

just a couple more neat core desgines if you like the mono core idea , persoanly i like the idea of a series of cones
New SS sparrow
Silencerco-22Sparrow-01.jpg

dont know what this is but looks reasoably easy to build
OffsetIsocloseup.jpg

The 762-SDN-6 is bassicly just an M4-2000 with an extra baffle , its supposed to be a great can for the 300 Blk round and its pretty small and light weight. Here is a pic of the newer M4-2K cut in half , baffles are 60 deg and spaced at .375"-.400"
M4-2000new.jpg

This last pic is a cut away of the 762SD can made for the 308 (its the tall one on the right)
762SDright.jpg
 
#9
Re: Design Critique Please

I just finished a new can of my 10.5" AR , uses 17-4 SS for the end caps ,tube and blast baffle , the remaining cones are grade 5 Titanium with grade 9 tube spacers , im using a brake/mount desgine

Brake and rear cap which is blast chamber also
IMG_3278.jpg

Blast baffle which is tig welded to the rear cap/blast chamber
blast2.jpg


remaining 60 deg titamium cones , they ave that grooved look on purpose
cone2.jpg

Over all length is sub 6" , OD is 1.625" and suppression on a 10.5" AR with Hornady TAP ammo is as good or better than any comercial can ive heard including the AAC M4-200 Surefire and SRT Hurricane
 
#10
Re: Design Critique Please

I've seen those but other than it being a cone why do you think they are so much more efficient than my design? It's basically the same thing, just a monocore instead of cones. Also, my baffles are thicker than all but the titan core you posted. I'm not getting angry, haha, just curious.
 
#11
Re: Design Critique Please

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Brux Barrels</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've seen those but other than it being a cone why do you think they are so much more efficient than my design? It's basically the same thing, just a monocore instead of cones. Also, my baffles are thicker than all but the titan core you posted. I'm not getting angry, haha, just curious. </div></div>
Not saving your desgine isint good but a cone would have more surface area for the gas to impact and the wall of the cones only being .065" would reduce weight alot
 
#15
Re: Design Critique Please

One problem with the question you're asking is that there is no set answer. Your design looks fine as far as it goes. Build one and test it. I don't think there is any need to build it from Ti or Steel as even supersonic loads don't use that much powder or build that much heat. Subgun cans for 9mm, .40 cal and .45 probably handle as much heat so you should be able to use aluminum for both the baffles and tube. Ti's expensive and hard to get after all. You could use a steel insert in the primary (blast) baffle to prevent erosion and still keep the weight down. After dealing with quite a few 300 fireball, whisper, and other WTF 300's from which remington copied their design I can't see any reason to get too elaborate with the material. Also remember powder quantity and gas generated are very proportional so you should be able to use a reasonable volume can with good results. If you're a class 2 building and testing a number of designs will give you some idea of what works for you best. If not try to get out and see what some of the others have done. Monocores are neat and simple but not always the best for suppression. More complex baffles frequently give better performance but can be more work to produce.

Good luck
Frank
 
#18
Re: Design Critique Please

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYS338</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The 762SD-N6 is not lightweight! Its got more inconel then the 762SD therefore its a little heavier. I have one on my 300 Blackout 9" SBR.... </div></div>

It's just over a pound only a couple ounces more than the M4-2000 which it's basically the same thing with an extra baffle (maybe 2) and a bigger bore. It's got alot more baffles than the 763SD so overall the amount of material is very close to the same even through the 762SD is longer. The difference in weight between inconell 316 stainless and regular mild steel is very very slight , if you built three exact parts out of those three materials you couldent tell the difference between weights
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hic28
Suppressors Abel Co Pi - Rimfire & 5.7 suppressor
Replies
12
Views
1K
4O6shootist
4O6shootist
mmlook
Optics Cool New Stuff - MDT Crush IT Timer, Prefit Barrels, Tripod Weights, Gray ops AW Mags, Tangent Theta, JP Rails, Vectronix Pre order
Replies
20
Views
2K
mmlook
mmlook
GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT
Suppressors Introducing The NEW DUAL-LOK™ HRT-762™ Suppressor From GRIFFIN ARMAMENT
Replies
0
Views
904
GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT
GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT
GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT
Suppressors Introducing the Recce 5K™ Suppressor From GRIFFIN ARMAMENT
Replies
9
Views
2K
thedude824
T
gr8fuldoug
Heads Up On Some Great Optics
Replies
0
Views
678
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts