• 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 Thunderbeast Suppressor Blew Up?

orkan

orkan

Primal Rights, Inc.
Banned !
Minuteman
    • Oct 27, 2008
    4,268
    3,999
    South Dakota, USA
    www.primalrights.com
    So I just heard from a customer that a Thunderbeast 338 can failed and launched its baffle stack 150yds down range a few days ago. The suppressor was mounted on a DTA 18" 338. If I recall correctly, it was a 338 norma, shooting a mild load with a 200gr bullet. Anyone hear about this? After hearing about it, I did a quick search and apparently this isn't the first time this has happened.

    http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/snipers-hide-suppressors/206274-my-thunderbeast-exploded.html

    Obviously they are being subjected to fierce punishment by these short 338's... but for the cores to be launching out like this, there must be something not quite right. If it happens this frequently on the short barrels, would it not stand to reason that it will happen on a longer barrel as well if subjected to enough repetition? Granted that is just my redneck logic being applied there, as I'm not an engineer.

    In any event, as a DTA dealer, this is a very important issue that deserves some awareness. That's twice it's happened that I know of. Short barrels and Thunderbeast cans do not seem to mix.
     
    Thunderbeast Suppressor Blew Up?

    I've seen it happen with a 223P-1 can used incorrectly, meaning mounted on a short barreled full auto AR. He should have used the TBAC .223 can that was rated for short barrels and full auto.

    But I've never seen it with a .338 can. It's probably a muzzle pressure issue due to the very short barrel.
     
    Last edited:
    I may be wrong but recall that TBAC recommended a minimum barrel length for 338's after that event.
     
    It happened recently on a 20" AX338 and the DTA that blew up happened in a class I taught last week. They were from out of state, at least one was, so word was easily gonna spread.

    The student had a DTA Covert with an 18" 338 Barrel. He was shooting 200gr Speer Bullets @ 2700fps (I chonographed each student on Thursday Night) On Friday morning about mid way through his baffle stack launched and the recoil broke his Clavicle.

    I am also aware of a customer of Mile High's with a 20" 338 AX that had the same thing happen not too long ago. I know Zak responded to the linked thread but I am not aware of a warning going out to his dealers as the guys who sold the suppressor had not idea this was an issue. The warning needs to be widespread, not everyone reads a specific thread.

    The end cap broke off and the baffle stack launch clean in one piece. I am no suppressor design expert but the blast chamber had no holes in the cone and resembled a rocket engine inside. To me this caught the pressure and launched it. The sleeve is not welded to the stack it appeared to be a press fit and with the thin cover it didn't hold.

    This is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed. The can was a direct thread model (as I understand it, the brake models are stronger) but the weak link was forward not at the threads. The sleeve stayed on the rifle.

    Be aware if you are shooting a short barreled 338 with a suppressor
     
    From the original thread:

    Zak Smith said:
    The pressure at the muzzle for a full power .338LM load from a 16" barrel is extreme. Like almost twice the pressure of a 26 or 27" barrel. For comparison, it'd have pressure similar to a .308 10" SBR barrel, but with 2x+ the powder behind it. I realize we do not have a barrel length limit published for our .338 cans, but we would not recommend the 338P-1 for use on a 16" .338LM simply due to the extreme muzzle pressure.
    Click to expand...

    Sounds like there needs to be a recommended minimum barrel length, I can easily see a suppressor made for accuracy and relatively light weight failing on a 18" 338. I'm sure TB will take care of him, though.



    orkan said:
    Obviously they are being subjected to fierce punishment by these short 338's... but for the cores to be launching out like this, there must be something not quite right. If it happens this frequently on the short barrels, would it not stand to reason that it will happen on a longer barrel as well if subjected to enough repetition? Granted that is just my redneck logic being applied there, as I'm not an engineer.
    Click to expand...

    No, with most metals as long as you don't hit plastic deformation (putting enough stress on the material that it doesn't return completely when the stress is removed), it will continue to perform. Once you cross that threshold, it will fail quickly. Not that I'm an engineer either.
     
    Last edited:
    I just got Thunderbeast approved and then found out that it's not for barrels 20" or less (mine being 18"). Since I no longer have a SRS and just have a 338 LM Covert, I'm not a very happy camper. I don't recall that warning being on their website when I ordered the can, nor did I see it when I was researching cans for the SRS. I was shooting Retumbo and was planning on trying VV N570 (from when I had my SRS). So now I just picked up some H4831SC which is a quicker powder and showing much lower muzzle pressure in Quickload. Once my range opens back up, I'm planning on doing some ladder test and hopefully finding a node that will allow me to use the Thunderbeast. If your local in WA I have some Retumbo and VV N570 for sale. I'd hate to just use my Thunderbeast on my 308. Oh well. I'll have to run his numbers through Quickload to get an idea of the muzzle pressures to stay away from.
     
    Last edited:
    With 9 months to a year wait, that warning should have gone out to their dealers. Again the TBAC Dealers had no clue this was an issue and once a dealer is set up, what would cause them to return to the TBAC website in order to find this ?

    prior to this change, you can easily have several who purchased the suppressor already owning an 20" 338 or shorter with no idea this was an issue. If you go back 9 months, how many owners who haven't taken possession of their cans due to ATF delays know about this ?
     
    MLC said:
    I may be wrong but recall that TBAC recommended a minimum barrel length for 338's after that event.
    Click to expand...
    I just looked at their website, and I see this on the 338BA page: "Minimum recommended barrel length is 20" for the 338BA. " Frank says one blew up on a 20" too. Perhaps that needs to be changed to 26", or 28" or something? What happens when one blows up on those length barrels? That should be re-worded. Instead of a recommendation, it should be a warning.

    Anyone know of any other manufacturers cans that have blown up on similarly configured rifles? I've not heard of others, but would definitely like to know if there is. It's my job to ensure my customers are presented with all the appropriate options for their intended applications... and I take my job very seriously. In the past I've recommended thunderbeast as an option when someone wanted a can for their DTA... but unless I see a design change, that won't be happening in the future.

    Not trying to poo poo thunderbeast here... but this is pretty damn serious. Facts are facts. If I owned a thunderbeast 338 can, my confidence wouldn't be enhanced by seeing 3 shooters blow their cans up, and in at least one case seriously injuring the shooter. Especially when one of those rifles meets their "recommended minimum barrel length" of 20". Most likely the dealers that sold these cans were aware of the configurations they were being used on. I wonder if the dealers were made aware of the seriousness of this issue, so they could pass that recommendation along to their customers?

    From where I'm sitting... if the 338 can can't do its job on the short barrels, then why would I trust it to do it on the long barrels? I for damn sure wouldn't recommend that one of my customers use that can, when there are other options out there that have proven they can take the abuse of the short 338's. We've sold a pile of the DTSS 338 cans, and they aren't exploding on the short 338's. (or anything else for that matter) I know Elite Iron cans are being used on them with success too.

    A warning should be in bold bright red print on the thunderbeast product page, advising people to NOT use those cans on anything shorter than 28" or whatever the hell they deem feasible. Obviously 20" still isn't "safe." Better yet, put out a friggin notice to all the dealers describing the issue so they can inform their customers. Then I'd probably go back to the drawing board and come up with a new design, which gets tested on a 12" 338 or something.

    I'm sure thunderbeast will chime in here at some point... but this is bad news all around.
     
    Last edited:
    Lowlight said:
    With 9 months to a year wait, that warning should have gone out to their dealers. Again the TBAC Dealers had no clue this was an issue and once a dealer is set up, what would cause them to return to the TBAC website in order to find this ?

    prior to this change, you can easily have several who purchased the suppressor already owning an 20" 338 or shorter with no idea this was an issue. If you go back 9 months, how many owners who haven't taken possession of their cans due to ATF delays know about this ?
    Click to expand...
    Fair enough... I have no idea when the verbiage regarding barrel length was added to the 338BA page. I will say that I have a 338BA in NFA jail now, and I go check out the product page periodically when I start thinking about the money I've spent on it and get lonely as a result... ;)
     
    sinister said:
    Over the last 30-odd years I've seen numerous suppressors fail or launch from rifle muzzles from 5.56 to 338. It happens.
    Click to expand...

    Yes, but this is due to pressures, not baffle strikes which is more prevalent (improper twist rates, misalignment, etc).
     
    orkan said:
    I just looked at their website, and I see this on the 338BA page: "Minimum recommended barrel length is 20" for the 338BA. " Frank says one blew up on a 20" too. Perhaps that needs to be changed to 26", or 28" or something? What happens when one blows up on those length barrels? That should be re-worded. Instead of a recommendation, it should be a warning.

    Anyone know of any other manufacturers cans that have blown up on similarly configured rifles? I've not heard of others, but would definitely like to know if there is. It's my job to ensure my customers are presented with all the appropriate options for their intended applications... and I take my job very seriously. In the past I've recommended thunderbeast as an option when someone wanted a can for their DTA... but unless I see a design change, that won't be happening in the future.

    Not trying to poo poo thunderbeast here... but this is pretty damn serious. Facts are facts. If I owned a thunderbeast 338 can, my confidence wouldn't be enhanced by seeing 3 shooters blow their cans up, and in at least one case seriously injuring the shooter. Especially when one of those rifles meets their "recommended minimum barrel length" of 20". Most likely the dealers that sold these cans were aware of the configurations they were being used on. I wonder if the dealers were made aware of the seriousness of this issue, so they could pass that recommendation along to their customers?

    From where I'm sitting... if the 338 can can't do its job on the short barrels, then why would I trust it to do it on the long barrels? I for damn sure wouldn't recommend that one of my customers use that can, when there are other options out there that have proven they can take the abuse of the short 338's. We've sold a pile of the DTSS 338 cans, and they aren't exploding on the short 338's. (or anything else for that matter) I know Elite Iron cans are being used on them with success too.

    A warning should be in bold bright red print on the thunderbeast product page, advising people to NOT use those cans on anything shorter than 28" or whatever the hell they deem feasible. Obviously 20" still isn't "safe." Better yet, put out a friggin notice to all the dealers describing the issue so they can inform their customers. Then I'd probably go back to the drawing board and come up with a new design, which gets tested on a 12" 338 or something.

    I'm sure thunderbeast will chime in here at some point... but this is bad news all around.
    Click to expand...


    From what Lowlight is saying, it sounds like the one that blew its stack on the 20" barrel was a direct thread model that is no longer made (hasn't been for some time - probably a year and a half or longer) and on the Thunder Beast website, it says the older 338 direct thread version should be used on 22" and longer barrels.

    Also, I was not sure by reading the posts if the one that recently blew up on the SRS was a direct thread or the newer brake attach design.

    The Desert Tech cans are stronger due to their mono core design. But they are noticeably louder than the Thunder Beast .338 BA suppressor. I use one on a 26" DTA SRS barrel with not issues whatsoever. I have a bunch of customers that do the same.

    I agree a warning should have gone out. I am not sure when Thunder Beast updated their website, but I knew about the potential for this issue months ago and have been advising my customers accordingly.
     
    Last edited:
    BurnOut said:
    Fair enough... I have no idea when the verbiage regarding barrel length was added to the 338BA page. I will say that I have a 338BA in NFA jail now, and I go check out the product page periodically when I start thinking about the money I've spent on it and get lonely as a result... ;)
    Click to expand...

    Call Zak or Ray at Thunder Beast Arms. Explain the situation to them and see what they can do for you. Obviously this can is not going to work for your intended purposes, but maybe there is something they can do to make it up to you.
     
    Last edited:
    Hey guys,

    Back when the 338P-1 was designed, it was just as Red_SC says, a lightweight can intended for full length .338's. At that time I don't think there were any production short-barrel .338's on the market. Since then, interest in short-barreled .338LM's has increased and we've had to develop a set of minimum recommended barrel lengths for our cans. The minimum recommended for .338LM on a 338P-1 is 22".

    The 338BA is a much stronger suppressor due to the internal brake, blast chamber size, and some other construction changes. It still has a minimum barrel length, though. We do make a suppressor for super short barrels in 5.56 (down to 7" and full auto): the 223A. We've never had a failure in one of those cans, but the downside is that it weighs almost twice what our regular precision/sporting 5.56 can does. In .338, there is a dramatic rise in pressure and force on the baffle stack when you start to get below 22" and proceed down towards 16". If you want one to withstand a 12" .338LM SBR, it's going to weigh a lot. There is no free lunch and if you want a very quiet and lightweight precision/long-range can, it's not going to be the same one you choose for a short barrel.

    Perhaps that needs to be changed to 26", or 28" or something? What happens when one blows up on those length barrels?
    Click to expand...
    To the question of durability, Red_SC was again on the money with this:
    No, with most metals as long as you don't hit plastic deformation (putting enough stress on the material that it doesn't return completely when the stress is removed), it will continue to perform. Once you cross that threshold, it will fail quickly. Not that I'm an engineer either.
    Click to expand...
    Up to the yield point, a material is elastic and basically won't be harmed. If the elastic limit is exceeded, it will fail quickly. If shot on the recommended length barrels, the yield region is not exceeded.

    Sinister posted that he's seen numerous suppressors fail or get launched over the last 30 years. We've also seen failures of other manufacturers with failure modes similar to this one. Mistakes can happen during manufacturing, be it a bad weld or a material defect. Shooting something with a muzzle pressure of 18,000 psi is going to find any problems a lot faster than 12,000.

    If anyone has a DTA Covert or another .338LM with a short barrel and did not know that their 338P-1 or 338BA isn't appropriate for the barrel length, please give us a call and we'll do what we can to make it right.
     
    orkan said:
    Anyone have any hard data on 338LM pressures at the muzzle on a 22" barrel vs. a 26" barrel?
    Click to expand...
    Not sure this helps but running my .338 Norma Magnum AI and my 22" barrel using the 300 SMK I used the magnetospeed to get a velocity of 2721 and pressure per quickload is about 17,907 psi
     
    I communicated with Zak via email about these issues as I run the 338BA as well. He did caution me to stay away from the factory 18", hence I went with "pre-approved" lengths via Mark Gordon/SAC.

    Zak also pointed as listed on the TBAC site that the can is good to go if under 100 grains of powder and 20" minimum.

    Since I like to hunt the mountains with the DT I am running 16" 308 covert barrel, a 22" 338L and a 22" 6.5x47 for the higher elevation/packing trips. I run 92.6 ret/250 Scenar @3.6 OAL in the shorty and 94.4 @ 3.8 OAL in my SAC 29" with the 300 Scenar (I did not begin sealing the necks until I hit 94+ on the longer chambered setup).

    I run the 338BA on all the barrels /the dual ported brake and so far so good, however I am sure that was the case with the 3 failures...it is only going to happen once! Zak did point out the double ported 338BA brake is indeed more effective than the direct thread in dispersing the pressure prior to hitting the stack.

    BUT it does give me significant pause to see these things blowing up!

    Perhaps the 22" 338 will remain can-less on future (this weekend) Elk hunts...Better yet I will set up an OP, run the 29" and do a lot of glassing.

    I am really glad I checked with TBAC before running the 18's
     
    That's a little dangerous. It should be addressed before someone gets hurt.
     
    RMW said:
    Call Zak or Ray at Thunder Beast Arms. Explain the situation to them and see what they can do for you. Obviously this can is not going to work for your intended purposes, but maybe there is something they can do to make it up to you.
    Click to expand...
    I'm good... my 338LM has a 26" tube. I have to admit that the DTA intrigues me, but only for the reason that it would allow for a more compact package while still supporting a "full" length barrel. Besides... my wallet wouldn't be able to stand up to a DTA purchase...
     
    This thread led me to examine the material property difference between Titanium and Stainless Steel. Doing so, it isn't surprising that when a Ti can fails, it does so catastrophically.

    I have no clue what Stainless Steel or Titanium most suppressor manufacturers use, so I went with 8620 SS and Ti Grade 2 for a comparison. The actual strength here isn't important, but the difference in Ultimate and Yield strength is.

    SS 8620
    Tensile Strength, Ultimate 168000 psi
    Tensile Strength, Yield 121000 psi
    Per ASM Material Data Sheet

    Ti Grade 5
    Tensile Strength, Ultimate 138000 psi
    Tensile Strength, Yield 128000 psi
    http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MTP641

    SS has a difference of 47ksi and Ti has a difference of 10ksi. This is the type of difference you see in SS when it's heat treated for to long, which is why you see it fail when that happens.

    I suspect we have a classic leak vs burst situation here, just a suspicion. It seems that the Ti has such a small difference in Ultimate vs Yield strength, that when you do push it past its failure point, you're seeing it burst. As opposed to a SS can that I'd suspect would only crack (leak), unless you somehow pushed completely past the yield point to the ultimate point in one fail swoop.

    I don't say this to dump on Ti cans. I lay this out to say, it'd be wise to take extreme caution to not push the envelope with a Ti can. There's obviously a fine line between safe operating pressures and kaboom with a Ti can. After looking at this data, short of being privy to a manufacturer's stress analysis of the can, I'll never use a Ti can on a magnum or sbr.

    I would be interested in knowing how thunderbeast determined an adequate FoS for their cans.

    I will add, that it's very possible that thunderbeast uses a Ti with a much greater difference in ultimate and yield strength, I have no way of knowing.


    Edited to change Ti Grade 2 to Ti Grade 5
    Ti Grade 2
    Tensile Strength, Ultimate 138000 psi
    Tensile Strength, Yield 128000 psi
    Per ASM Material Data Sheet
     
    Last edited:
    Most decent suppressor companies use Grade 5 and Grade 9 titanium.
     
    My friend had his launched down range too, but the great CS fixed it. Shooting a short magnum fast is a no go.
     
    sigfan27 said:
    Most decent suppressor companies use Grade 5 and Grade 9 titanium.
    Click to expand...

    Thanks!!!!

    It seems the strength of Grade 2 and Grade 5 are identical.

    Grade 5
    Tensile Strength, Ultimate 138000 psi
    Tensile Strength, Yield 128000 psi
    ASM Material Data Sheet

    However Grade 9 seems to be significantly weaker with a very similar difference in Ultimate and Yield Strength.
    Tensile Strength, Ultimate 89900 psi
    Tensile Strength, Yield 78300 psi

    I suspect that they used Grade 5.

    But anywho, thanks for helping me refine my post. I'll edit the original post.
     
    sigfan27 said:
    Most decent suppressor companies use Grade 5 and Grade 9 titanium.
    Click to expand...


    That said, anyone interested in a Ti can needs to contact the actual suppressor company and directly ask questions related to materials and processes used in the manufacture of the specific variant they are interested in so as as to confirm its compatibility with their intentioned use.
     
    Mike_Honcho said:
    That said, anyone interested in a Ti can needs to contact the actual suppressor company and directly ask questions related to materials and processes used in the manufacture of the specific variant they are interested in so as as to confirm its compatibility with their intentioned use.
    Click to expand...

    I'd say anyone interested in ANY can should at the very least do this, or at least take a spin through their website and read it fully, then if there's still any question follow up with CS.
     
    Having just completed my 338 Federal Arma-Lite project, this thread got me to thinking for sure! I am using a YHM Phantom on an 18" barrel. Just checked out the YHM website and noticed the minimum barrel length of 16".

    "The minimum barrel length for which the suppressor is warranted is 16 inches."
     
    This is not even the 4th story like this I have heard over the last year. For how much everyone boasts about the Thunder Beast cans on here I would not assume there would be this kind of problems fairly consistently. Also, makes my SureFire SOCOM choice a lot better.
     
    JMGlasgow said:
    Here we go, Surefire is the best (sarcasm). Thread derailment in 3...2...1...
    Click to expand...

    Not going to derail the thread saying SureFire is the best. Just stating the fact that ThunderBeast has had several Catastrophic Failure incidents this year alone with a little jab at the end I will admit. I don't see any thread like that on here for the SureFire's. Ceasing derailment 3...2...1...
     
    XRanger08 said:
    This is not even the 4th story like this I have heard over the last year. For how much everyone boasts about the Thunder Beast cans on here I would not assume there would be this kind of problems fairly consistently. Also, makes my SureFire SOCOM choice a lot better.
    Click to expand...

    Since you decided to go there, I didn't realize that SureFire had released their SOCOM 338 into the wild yet... Oh wait, you're happy because you have a SOCOM 7.62 or smaller. Apples to Oranges, the blast pressures from a 30 cal can are nowhere near that of a 338, which as you get down there on the shorter barrels (as it has already been pointed out very clearly) the muzzle blast of a 338 can exceed the forces Titanium is going to handle. It has nothing to do with the manufacturer so go take your fan boy flag and waive it elsewhere. It has nothing to do with this thread.
     
    ZombieMonkey said:
    Since you decided to go there, I didn't realize that SureFire had released their SOCOM 338 into the wild yet... Oh wait, you're happy because you have a SOCOM 7.62 or smaller. Apples to Oranges, the blast pressures from a 30 cal can are nowhere near that of a 338, which as you get down there on the shorter barrels (as it has already been pointed out very clearly) the muzzle blast of a 338 can exceed the forces Titanium is going to handle. It has nothing to do with the manufacturer so go take your fan boy flag and waive it elsewhere. It has nothing to do with this thread.
    Click to expand...

    Looks like I struck a cord with someone... I will DEBATE with you. The main point of my post was simply at how "Often" Thunderbeast is having problems with their suppressors whether 338 or other models. I also responded to another member who quoted my post "Just stating the fact that ThunderBeast has had several Catastrophic Failure incidents this year alone with a little jab at the end I will admit". I don't see any thread like that on here for the SureFire's. I realize that there is no SOCOM .338 (Commercially anyways, as you phrased "into the wild" but we saw it at SHOT2014) suppressor but there is the FA338SS Legacy suppressor from Surefire. I highly doubt that the Legacy .338 would be manufactured tougher then a SOCOM .338. I am not comparing my SOCOM 7.62 to the Thunderbeast 338 because like you said "Apples to Oranges". Trying to find any info here on the hide or going several pages into a Google and Bing search with anyone running a FA338SS on a short barrel proved fruitless. Hitting on the Short Barrel issue, I understand that is the main purpose behind the debate. Thunderbeast DOES indeed have a recommended MINIMUM barrel length,22" according to their website as of this posting. SureFire does not have a minimum recommendation on their site so one would (hopefully not) assume that it is safe on shorter barrels. In that area I guess we will never truly know until someone tries the FA338SS on a short barrel and either posts a "Pass or Fail" on the hide.
     
    It might not be clear from reading this thread, so I wanted to mention that the 338P-1 is a discontinued model. It was replaced entirely by the 338BA. I would encourage any 338P-1 owner who has a concern about their application to contact us directly.
     
    ZombieMonkey said:
    the shorter barrels (as it has already been pointed out very clearly) the muzzle blast of a 338 can exceed the forces Titanium is going to handle. It has nothing to do with the manufacturer
    Click to expand...
    Sure it does. The DTA DTSS is titanium. It's rated for short barrels, is lighter, is shorter, and has been used with success for several years. There are other manufacturers cans that have been used with success on short barrel 338's as well. To say that brand has nothing to do with it is only half right. Brand is important, in the fact that thunderbeast only has one 338 can, and it is not rated for shorter than 20". Their old one, is only rated for 22" and longer. Pretty important to know when considering the purchase of a $1700+ can if you have an 18" 338. If more people new about the fact that these thunderbeast cans weren't to be used on shorter barrel lengths, then these suppressors wouldn't be blowing up on the end of people's rifles... right? They didn't know, and that's the only reason they did it.

    Accurate information is important in all things. Clearly not all suppressors are created equal. Were that the case, we wouldn't have so many brands to choose from. Each company has its strengths and weaknesses. I see no reason to ignore the weaknesses if they exist, nor over-glorify the strengths. The truth in this instance is clear. Some brands of 338 suppressor can be run down to 18" with no issues. Other companies cans, can't. If surefire comes to the table with a 338LM can that can take shorter barrels... good for them. Though everyone knows their strengths seem to be in full-auto rated cans... not precision rifles. Each company will take what market share they can, with the products they have. Thankfully for everyone that sites such as Snipershide exist so that the truth of each of their products capabilities can be known.
     
    I recently received approval of my 338BA that I was planning on using on my Covert. I've been corresponding with Zak about this and he has been bending over backwards to try to make things right, I do appreciate that. Zak is a quality guy with a quality product. Unfortunately, it's not for my application. If I do need a can in the future, he will still be high on my list.

    Since this has happened a couple of times, Thunderbeast may want to engrave a warning on future cans with the barrel size limitations as well as notify current owners of this limitation. So is this the tube or guts that are failing? If it's the tube, would a thicker tube resolve the issue? If it's the internals, would an Inconel or other type of metal in the blast chamber work better or would two dissimilar metals cause other issues?
     
    I don't know why some of you guys are getting so worked up. It's obviously an issue and the owner is trying to make things as right as possible. I would totally understand the ruckus if the company tried to deny anything (like most companies do these days). I'm sure there was no 'malicious intent' like intent to hide the facts to sell more. They probably just didn't even know it was going to be an issue or the new popularity of short magnums. The products are relatively new so hence the growing pains. If century old auto manufacturers still do recalls, obviously getting everything 100 percent right all the time isn't always possible.

    Most important thing is the owner of the company is on here giving advice and troubleshooting all the time and trying to make the best of the situation.
     
    This thread is not happy reading for someone who just got a 30BA adn 338BA out of jail (thanks Rob!)

    Should this have been the answer? Says it's fusion welded......

    TiTAN-Ti™

    :-(
     
    It's the same type of welding. The 338BA has some design changes that make it a lot less susceptible to pressure problems that caused the 16" and 18" 338P-1 failures. We have never had a 338BA fail. Shoot yours with confidence. If you bought your 338BA intending to shoot it on an extreme short barrel, give us a call and we'll do what we can to make it right.

    All 338P/338P-1 owners will be contacted very soon regarding a program to upgrade their cans to the 338BA "guts."
     
    8620 is a bearing grade alloy steel and not Stainless Steel as far as I know. I have almost all grades of SS, carbon and alloy bar where I work.
     
    Additionally, it is extremely difficult to achieve a perfect full-penetration weld with titanium, with no oxidation, that maintains the same strength as the base metal.

    Much, much easier to do with stainless.
     
    HodgdonExtreme said:
    Additionally, it is extremely difficult to achieve a perfect full-penetration weld with titanium, with no oxidation, that maintains the same strength as the base metal.

    Much, much easier to do with stainless.
    Click to expand...

    Back purge when you GTAW Ti. No back purge=sugaring. Same with stainless.
     
    Titanium is great material but you are sacrificing strength for weight reduction. It also is more fickle for welding.

    It would be interesting to measure the OAL of a new can then measure again after several hundred rounds and look for any elongation or form distortion. I would keep an eye on the weld area for stress cracks or failure.
     
    Crap
    After 1 year and 15 days I just got my TBA 338BA can which I had planned on using for my 338LM DTA covert
    My parade just got rained on
     
    HodgdonExtreme said:
    It takes a lot more than a back purge to produce zero-oxidation welds in Titanium.
    Click to expand...
    You have to have a zero oxidation on both sides. If the color gets more than silver and shiny towards gold like a stainless weld it can be brittle and break quickly. If the wire is pulled from the argon coverage and not clipped off it can cause problems also. I don't have any cans yet but I read on all the threads about any since I hope to decide on one this fall.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Similar threads

    Supersubes
    Suppressors Diligent Defense Co, the can that recently showed up at the top of the Pew’s rankings
    Replies
    59
    Views
    10K
    carbonbased
    carbonbased
    Burdy
    Heartbreak 2022
    Replies
    9
    Views
    2K
    D_TROS
    D_TROS
    Blue Sky Country
    Maggie’s You are listening to Black Cove 107.1 FM. WHERE OUTLAW COUNTRY LIVES. All day and every day
    Replies
    20
    Views
    2K
    fpgt72
    fpgt72
    X
    DTA vs. Accuracy International Rifle Comparison
    Replies
    10
    Views
    2K
    SRPowah
    SRPowah
    T
    300 PRC
    Replies
    145
    Views
    28K
    rustyinbend
    rustyinbend
    Top Bottom
    Back