delta9mda wrote:osprey is all about volume.

Well yeah. Not exactly the most sophisticated design for the monocore.

There are a number of square and rectangle alloy tube that will contain 3 to 5 times the pressure of all but the most powerful magnum rifles. A 2" square tube has greater volume than a 2" dia round tube. I wonder how the sharp corners would affect gas flow in the square tube. What impact would the increased turbulence and volume have?

I understand that internal components for a round can would be easier to manufacture, but even the machine tool operators being turned out today should have little problem machining components for square tube. This is not a slam against the machine tool operators but they are not in the same class as the machinists of 25 or more years ago. Machines and tooling is much better however the operators ore not machinists or tool and die makers or gauge or pattern makers. Almost 30 years in the missile design and production business has demonstrated this many times over.

Here is a bit of video of an Uzi with a square 2" steel pipe suppressor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgTgc65Ol-o

kavic wrote:Why are suppressor tubes round? How would a square tube with the internals matched for the shape and the increased volume impact performance?

The Site Admin (Mr Silvers) has some patents and production models based upon rectangular stacks seated inside of round tubes.
The reverse would also work. In fact, OPS, inc. uses octagonal tube housings that hold spiralling interior tubes.

Another approach would be to devert blast chamber gases to sumps running along the corners, with the baffle stack contained w/i a round tubular housing. This would substantially increase dwell times.

From a cursory rereading of this thread, I don't think that it's mentioned anywhere about the use of tiny (1/64") ports around the outer circumference of the far endcap. This should lower the exit pressure/velocity of boreline hole by siphoning air mass outward. Plus, several tiny holes should cause less (external) air turbulance resulting in less sound vs single hole. The final baffle chokes the exit gas, so diverting to several tiny holes doesn't: lower dwell-time, increase flowrate, etc.
Similar to the use of metal foams for the tube. Only these ports won't erode or get clogged.

If a build has 6 or 8 takedown holes of say ? 1/8". Then extending the hole through the remaining endcap at 1/64" would rapidly slow and blosoom the exitting gas. Basically a fixed valve to choke airflow.

Just some thoughts. (And shamelessly revitalizing my Signature Thread.)

Happy new year to all.

Ports have been done.
Result was a pleasing tone.





Gunny

gunny50 wrote:Happy new year to all.
Ports have been done.
Result was a pleasing tone.
Gunny

Was this the only version you tried or just the better of them all?

T-Rex wrote:

gunny50 wrote:Happy new year to all.
Ports have been done.
Result was a pleasing tone.
Gunny

Was this the only version you tried or just the better of them all?

We tested several, but these kept the function of the last baffle space to the optimum and did split the gas behind the bullet to get less pop - uncorking sound.
The diffuser worked optimal, it was optimized for a weapon / caliber / barrel / silencer length combination.

We did design several options for models in use today, different end-caps with great result, including added and integral machined FH or brakes / diffusers.

Gunny

gunny50 wrote:Ports have been done.
Result was a pleasing tone.

Gunny

Thanks for the vindication Gunny.
Good to know the Theory works in Practice.

ETA: Actually you did FAR better than my best ideas. It never occurred to me to slant drill directly into the exit aperature!
Highest Accolades to one of the Site's resident Geniuses.
(Hat tip to Historian, DrK, Cpt Link, Silvers, Byrdman, et al.)