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.