• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Suppressors soup can sized suppressor?

lanwickum

lanwickum

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Mar 31, 2004
777
25
46
Middle of nowere, MT
Anyone know of one in production? I want one for my DTA covert. I want to keep it as short as possible and the handgaurd is about 2.5" diameter anyway. That size can would go right in line with everything and keep it short.
I may end up building one on a form 1. Problem is the pressure against the baffles in a can that big. 2.5" is a lot of area the gases are pushing against. Not really sure even how to figure out what the pressures would be. Can be a lot of volume for the gasses to expand in a can that big diameter. Anyhow, if someone is already producing one that would be much easier on me, and I would feel safer about it since I would like to shoot 338 lapua out of it some day.
 
Re: soup can sized suppressor?

He doesn't have the .338LM one on his site but I am pretty sure he makes one.
 
Re: soup can sized suppressor?

The trouble with a short fat suppressor is the the time the gas spends in the can is greatly reduced , even in the internal volume is the same the time the gas spends in their is far shorter giving less time for the baffles to obstruct and cool them

And long thin can with the same internal volume (probably less) will be alot for effective than a short fat can.

I hav seen a 10" long x 1.25" OD , 223 suppressor with K-baffles which are not optimal for rifle rounds , work great and even better than a 5" long x 1.75" OD with good cones which are optimal for rifle rounds.
 
Re: soup can sized suppressor?

Two issues you might run into with the DTA:
1: short cans are louder than long cans (so mid to upper 140's on a .30 cal, and maybe 150DB if it is bored for .338LM.
2: The distance from your head to the suppressor is seriously reduced. This of course means you have more at the ear noise.

150DB at the 1m left of the muzzle location will likely be 145 at the ear on a DTA. (bullpup rifle)

In other words the DTA user needs a better performing suppressor for similar performance, not a louder one.

Something like the Thunderbeast 338P1 on the other hand would drop the 1M read to maybe 137DB and then at the ear would be in the ballpark of 132DB (well below the OSHA risk limit for impulse noise).
 
Re: soup can sized suppressor?

They are loud. Think of them less as suppressor and more as moderators. Better? Yes. Anywhere near optimum suppression? No.

.338? Not a chance in hell that it would be anywhere near modern capabilities (blast quieter than an unsuppressed .22lr)
 
Re: soup can sized suppressor?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They are loud. Think of them less as suppressor and more as moderators. Better? Yes. Anywhere near optimum suppression? No.

.338? Not a chance in hell that it would be anywhere near modern capabilities (blast quieter than an unsuppressed .22lr) </div></div>

I assume you are talking about the Delta P Design Brevis cans here. What platform did you shoot the .338 model on?
 
Re: soup can sized suppressor?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They are loud. Think of them less as suppressor and more as moderators. Better? Yes. Anywhere near optimum suppression? No. </div></div> I beg to differ, I have one in 6.5 and shoot it on a fast .260 and a fast .223. I have shot the .30 cal on many many different platforms and have yet to have an instance of something not being hearing safe.
 
Re: soup can sized suppressor?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DeltaPDesign</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They are loud. Think of them less as suppressor and more as moderators. Better? Yes. Anywhere near optimum suppression? No.

.338? Not a chance in hell that it would be anywhere near modern capabilities (blast quieter than an unsuppressed .22lr) </div></div>

I assume you are talking about the Delta P Design Brevis cans here. What platform did you shoot the .338 model on? </div></div>

It might be easier to just state a performance specification if you have one.

The only test I saw had the 7.62mm Brevis in the upper 140's. As .338 is a larger bore diameter and more powerful round than .308 Winchester, it would stand to reason that the result would be louder.

Not to nock the suppressor- it's a nice looking product, and small, but obviously people buying this kind of niche marketed product are more likely to be satisfied if they have reasonable expectations going in.

Edit: Not to confuse anyone- the drop was ~10DB from 1M to the shooter's ear in that test- meaning it would be loud compared to most other products, but hearing safe. Still the sound is likely to be louder in .338 and the DTA would have less drop to the firer's ear due to proximity closer than that of a std bolt action.

Still the 1M with competitive full size cans would be ~10DB lower, or perceived as half as loud. That would be accompanied by 6-10DB drop at the firers ear.
 
Re: soup can sized suppressor?

Here is where it gets difficult. In reality, with supersonic ammo, nothing short of perhaps .22s are hearing safe in real terms, nothing. Quieter, yes, of course. But nothing over 118dB is anything other than harmful in short pulse and anything near 128-130 is downright damaging. Don't let the OSHA standards confuse the issue, their own actual allowable duration within 24 hours for 130dB is less than three (3) seconds. Three seconds within 24 hours. And that is if you actually can turn in 130dB as 135dB is twice the perceived sound level. Its just under 4dB for a halving, or doubling.

As Griff says, reasonable expectations have to be set early and, in comparison, whatever value can be had with a shorty can has to be compared to the real suppression values. That is a nice way of saying that when somebody like Surefire themselves make a statement about their newest and heavily marketed SHORTY, they know that after ten rounds and heat saturation, the can operates very differently. Add to that the real world use of a 10" or 14" barrel and things go South fast. Again, better than nothing? Oh my yes. Think of it as taking it from obnoxious loud to standard loud. Key word there? Loud. But the guy standing next to you will certainly appreciate the real difference.

Look, whenever you use precious internal volume for a flash/brake you know where this is going. The actual active suppression comes from a 1.75" baffle/chamber set.

Not my numbers, but good source.

14.5” M4, XM 193

Surefire Micro – 151.2 dB
Surefire Mini- 146.1 dB
AAC Mini4 – 139.2

Like I said, think moderator, not suppressor. Be realistic and you wont be disappointed or misled. perhaps less than 4" more suppressor would cut the perceived sound by 300% a very great amount and take a very different firing schedule. In any event plug up.



 
Re: soup can sized suppressor?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is where it gets difficult. In reality, with supersonic ammo, nothing short of perhaps .22s are hearing safe in real terms, nothing. Quieter, yes, of course. But nothing over 118dB is anything other than harmful in short pulse and anything near 128-130 is downright damaging. Don't let the OSHA standards confuse the issue, their own actual allowable duration within 24 hours for 130dB is less than three (3) seconds. Three seconds within 24 hours. And that is if you actually can turn in 130dB as 135dB is twice the perceived sound level. Its just under 4dB for a halving, or doubling.

As Griff says, reasonable expectations have to be set early and, in comparison, whatever value can be had with a shorty can has to be compared to the real suppression values. That is a nice way of saying that when somebody like Surefire themselves make a statement about their newest and heavily marketed SHORTY, they know that after ten rounds and heat saturation, the can operates very differently. Add to that the real world use of a 10" or 14" barrel and things go South fast. Again, better than nothing? Oh my yes. Think of it as taking it from obnoxious loud to standard loud. Key word there? Loud. But the guy standing next to you will certainly appreciate the real difference.

Look, whenever you use precious internal volume for a flash/brake you know where this is going. The actual active suppression comes from a 1.75" baffle/chamber set.

Not my numbers, but good source.

14.5” M4, XM 193

Surefire Micro – 151.2 dB
Surefire Mini- 146.1 dB
AAC Mini4 – 139.2

Like I said, think moderator, not suppressor. Be realistic and you wont be disappointed or misled. perhaps less than 4" more suppressor would cut the perceived sound by 300% a very great amount and take a very different firing schedule. In any event plug up.



</div></div>

No problem RollingThunder51. I misunderstood and thought you had shot the .338 version you were talking about: my bad. I will be down in Phoenix near you next week at the SAR show, will you have a chance to come by and say hi while you are there? It is always great to meet a fellow enthusiast!
 
Re: soup can sized suppressor?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
14.5” M4, XM 193

Surefire Micro – 151.2 dB
Surefire Mini- 146.1 dB
AAC Mini4 – 139.2


</div></div>

Whoever gave you numbers might be accurate on the two Surefire products, but the AAC Mini 4 was tested with M855 on a 16" platform recently by Byron at silencer forum at 142.6DB. (~8.5DB louder than the 1.375" longer M4-2000)

Typically the 14.5" barrel is a louder platform than the 16", and 55 grain ammo is typically louder unsuppressed.

It is possible that the source used the mil-std left ear reduction on the Mini 4, and the 1M data for the two SF products. That would make the numbers make sense.

Certainly hitting 139DB at 1M with a 5.25", 4 baffle, 5.56mm, QD, production suppressor is highly unlikely. There just isn't enough volume to do it without seriously tightening bore diameters.

What the data does show though, is that there is no free lunch- the 1" lost from 212 to mini cost 8DBb as well (up from ~138DB on a 14.5" with M855). So you pay a premium for the loss of system length.

Definitely appears that the 212 and M4-2000 are the performance optimized designs- and the shorter variants are serious sound reduction compromises for short, cool looking physical characteristics.
 
Re: soup can sized suppressor?

DD, I cant make it out, would have liked to.

Griff, I'm good with your numbers.
 
Re: soup can sized suppressor?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Definitely appears that the 212 and M4-2000 are the performance optimized designs- and the shorter variants are serious sound reduction compromises for short, <span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">cool looking physical characteristics</span></span></span>.</div></div>

Yup, that about sums it up. I don't understand the want for 99% of the people who buy the Mini-4 or the SF Mini. So many people get wrapped up in the overall length of their rifle for signature purposes...really??? I guess it is just the tacticool factor or the fact that some guys are just stamp collectors.
 
Re: soup can sized suppressor?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Silenced America</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Definitely appears that the 212 and M4-2000 are the performance optimized designs- and the shorter variants are serious sound reduction compromises for short, <span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">cool looking physical characteristics</span></span></span>.</div></div>

Yup, that about sums it up. I don't understand the want for 99% of the people who buy the Mini-4 or the SF Mini. So many people get wrapped up in the overall length of their rifle for signature purposes...really??? I guess it is just the tacticool factor or the fact that some guys are just stamp collectors. </div></div>

Why have a long gun when you can have a short gun? especially on a SBR it's not like .223 is going to be all that quiet anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Can I get some input on my suppressor short list? 2024
Replies
40
Views
1K
Yondering
Y
Old Man with Gun
Big Magnum Revolver, what is just right?
Replies
66
Views
1K
stefan73
stefan73
L
Suppressors Looking for advise. Suppressor for 13.9in and 18in 5.56
Replies
24
Views
1K
FuhQ
FuhQ
M
Suppressors Help Me Choose My Next Can.
Replies
86
Views
2K
mebgardner
M
W
Do you use expanding mandrels after a full-length bushing die for neck sizing?
Replies
139
Views
4K
CheapBasterd
CheapBasterd
Top Bottom
Back