Suppressors Just my thought['s] on suppressor vs suppres

[michael sr.]

has been bouncing around in my head like a dime-in-a-can:

First off I think what I have read here on CAN vs CAN I have missed or has not been addressed: CAN VOLUME!

I've read most of the writings on the suppressor comparison's but just in <span style="text-decoration: underline">my head </span>it seems it is <span style="font-style: italic">a bit </span>of apples and <span style="text-decoration: underline">a bit </span>of oranges in CAN comparison's with these concerns in mind but not mentioned/addressed:


1) not of equal length.


2) not of equal diameter.


3) not of equal weight.


4) not of equal volume.

but other considerations nearly equal: material and thickness of material.

More importantly considering 1 & 2 & 3 with internal volume differences! We know internal volume differences is important when handloading because of safety issues and differences between BRASS..

So why not performance differences between cans with a different volume for gas/sound containment?

So if the Shark, Sandstorm or the other's tested and videoed have similar lenghts but different diameters,is a differnce in performance is due to those differences in physical traits.

The <span style="text-decoration: underline">real info </span>would be if they were 'identical'....

Without having any expertise at all I would say a longer can should have better suppression traits than an shorter can of the same diameter but.....

a shorter can with larger diameter and having more volume would 'suppress' better than a longer can with less volume...

So I think when info about one CAN being 'better' than another CAN...I am skeptical... since all is not 'equal' AND prolly can't be equal. Just the same all info is beneficial to me but I just get hung-up on some issue which I may have missed or has not been discussed.......

okay I'm dizzy, I mean really dizzy thinking this over and over and over: just can't get this volume issue outta my head..........done for now: gonna have a prune juice malt...

 

[blksno]

Re: Just my thought['s] on suppressor vs suppres

A cans volume definitely plays a role in it's ability to suppress, but it's not a trait that you can measure by looking at one. (like you can with OD and length)
Two cans can have the exact same out side dimensions and have completely different internal volumes simply to do baffle designs or sheer number of baffles. The one with more volume isn't necessarily going to be more quiet, although it sure could be.

I think the other reason volume isn't mentioned is because people don't care what the volume is. We want the shortest, lightest can we can get. Would you want to have a .308 suppressor 12" long, as big around as a beer can and 3 pounds just because the volume is larger? It may suppress well, and some people would buy them, but the majority isn't willing to accept that much size and weight for increased volume.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: beltloop[MikeSr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So I think when info about one CAN being 'better' than another CAN...I am skeptical... since all is not 'equal' AND prolly can't be equal. Just the same all info is beneficial to me but I just get hung-up on some issue which I may have missed or has not been discussed.......</div></div>
Can 1 doesn't need to be equal to Can 2 in order to compare them. They are likely VERY different, and one can still suppress better than the other. That's why it's the responsibility of the researcher (customer) to weigh the pros and cons of each option.

Can 1 may be 5db quieter than Can 2...but it could cost $300 more, be 2" longer and 10oz more heavy. In that instance, Can 1 is a better can...but I would continue to research and decide for myself if the better can is worth the negatives that come with it.

The can I purchased was 8oz heavier than my 2nd choice, but it suppressed better and cost almost $250 less. I was willing to accept the heavier can for better suppression at a lower cost. Internal volume was irrelevant for me.

 

[Bacarrat]

Re: Just my thought['s] on suppressor vs suppres

More volume doesn't always mean that it will be a quieter can.

 

[skinney_7]

Re: Just my thought['s] on suppressor vs suppres

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bacarrat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">More volume doesn't always mean that it will be a quieter can. </div></div>
+1 i just did a side by side with the same host, using two Ti cans, one about an inch shorter and a few ounces lighter than the other, and the shorter lighter can suppressed better IMHO... but it was a few hundy more!!!

 

[RollingThunder51]

Re: Just my thought['s] on suppressor vs suppres

..

Volume, with the exception of high ROF large diameter caliber subgun rounds, is not even near the top of the list for a modern design.
In fact, many use volume to make up for the lack of craft or unwillingness to take on the costs of designing and executing an advanced baffel bezzle face.

World class designs that strip the gases off from behind the projectile, redirecting them, creating directional dwell with purging characteristics for debris and the ever present heat distribution and eventual controlled radiation providing for the means to allow modern cans to no longer rely on capacity based designs. The work found on the bezel face of an advanced baffel IS the game now. That face, that is the primary point where gas is stripped and redirected and how and more importantly where you send those gases is the secret to great designs. Add to that the requirement to radiate the heat captured as efficiently as possible and you preserve those suppression characteristics as long as possible. There is much more too, little of it having to do with increased volume.

A great design, a compact design has significantly more work found in the machining of the baffel facing, gas ports that create directional turbulance dwell, the tuning of the chamber stacks, the final end baffel reflective surfaces. Houses are constantly trying to avoid that work, that machining requirement. We see that in monoblocks, remember, if there is little or no work on the bezzle face, if the can captures gas and debris with no path forward, your looking at 1990 technology. Slanting the leading face is junk science, alternating the slants is junk science. All done to cut down on detailed maching and eliminate attachement costs (welding) and all requiring volume in part to get anywhere near acceptable levels. Will volume work? Sure, there are 35 year old volume based .45 cans that makes an Osprey sound like shit. You can dump 30 through it in under 3 seconds and it never sounds louder than a hammer in wet mud. But like most volume designs...they are HUGE.

Machining Ti is not for everybody, nor is welding it. But get it right and the resulting can is shorter, stronger, lighter and much more quiet.

 

[BEARTACTICAL]

Re: Just my thought['s] on suppressor vs suppres

So bottom line, what is the best 338 Lapua suppressor available today. I'm talking in terms of sound suppression. I have a Gemtech HALO on my M4 and it has not impressed me at all except for its ease of adaptablilty.
Thanks,
Robert S.
SGT/USMC

 

[blksno]

Re: Just my thought['s] on suppressor vs suppres

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BEAR TACTICAL</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So bottom line, what is the best 338 Lapua suppressor available today. I'm talking in terms of sound suppression. I have a Gemtech HALO on my M4 and it has not impressed me at all except for its ease of adaptablilty.
Thanks,
Robert S.
SGT/USMC </div></div>Unless you're getting numbers from a facility that does all it's comparison testing under identical conditions, all you're going to get is a bunch of opinions or factory published numbers.

 

[operator45]

Re: Just my thought['s] on suppressor vs suppres

beltloop feel free to call me. PM sent

 

[BEARTACTICAL]

Re: Just my thought['s] on suppressor vs suppres

I actually woudlike some opinions from the guys who actually have, use and like them. Also, if you know of any that are not as good then I would like that information.

 

[Tuukka]

Re: Just my thought['s] on suppressor vs suppres

To reiterate some of the above comments, not all small suppressors are effective and not all large suppressor are effective.

I've posted this example earlier with regards to this type of topic, but it is a pretty clear one.

On the left is our older S series S5 * and a BR T8 Reflex. Both are c. 140 dB one metre left of the muzzle on a 20" barreled .308 Win rifle.

* the whole S series has been updated last year, with the new SL5 weighing 390-430g, instead of the 590-600g of the S5.

Take Care!

Tuukka Jokinen
Ase Utra sound suppressors

 

[cal50]

Re: Just my thought['s] on suppressor vs suppres

Rifle cans have more of a balance to maintain. I would say weight followed by size. Added weight will cause an impact shift at some point. Size is of less concern because of longer distance firing unless your doing CQB stuff. For comparison I had a Sionics M16 suppressor with the 3 point lock up and gas exhaust port. Big, long and heavy. It worked well. My next can was the AWC / CQB on the same host rifle. Less than 1/2 the size and actually quieter. It used radical stepped baffles. Today that was replaced with my AAC M4-2000. I would say it's the best of the lot for .223 cans I have owned and zero impact shift.

Anyone in the market for a can has some really great cans to choose from. I love technology. There are some very efficient designs to choose from but its still hard to beat added size.