Clipping design idea.

[TheBlueFox]

Hi all. I am new to the suppressor world as our state just passed a law allowing them. That being said take it easy on me being a noob. I'm trying to absorb as mush info as I can.

I am going to do a m baffle design. From what I have gathered a clipped cone is more effective due to the turbulence it creates. The general design is a slot cut with an end mill most using a ball end.
My thinking is what if you used a two radius approach to it? So instead of creating a u shaped channel you had an m shape or a widows peak. It would be the same width as the u but two seperate radius for for turbulence. I even thought that if you tipped the end mill 20* on each side opposing each other it may direct the flow out into the chamber more churning things up more.

Do you think there is any gain in this or would there be too much speed and flow that it would make any difference? Or would the single radius be so abrupt that it would be more effective than the two radius design?

[whiterussian1974]

So a tooth sticking up between the 2 slots? Wouldn't that create an obstructive blockage instead of allowing maximal throughput?

I don't know. But you could always try it and then remove the spike if it doesn't perform to your satisfaction.

[mcmaster]

Pretty sure I saw pictures of a surefire can with holes drilled through the inconel baffles in all different directions. They were visible toward the barrel end of the can, the first baffle the gas would hit. That would make for some turbulence, I don't think it messes up the bullet flight because it was designed for use with a muzzle brake inside of the can. Like the brake is really the "first" baffle then the slowed down gas hits the actual suppressor baffles for turbulence.

If I'm not mistaken the idea is to slow down the gas from behind the bullet at the first/second baffle and then you can turbulence it all you want without affecting the bullet flight, so the surefire idea seemed pretty clever.

Using the brake grants them another baffle for turbulence. As for drilling holes every which-a-way in the cones, I can't say how it works compared to clipping.

[whiterussian1974]

Do you think there is any gain in this or would there be too much speed and flow that it would make any difference? Or would the single radius be so abrupt that it would be more effective than the two radius design?

The purpose of clipping the Mouth is to create a bore cross-jet. Not "turbulence" per se.

If you're seeking turbulence, perhaps you'd be better served by creating projections INSIDE the cone volume. But that's just conjecture on my part, since there are few Commercial Models that use this. Many seek to "trap" gas pockets in the coaxial spaces as the Omega and others have.
---
mcmaster: The skirt porting that Surefire uses creates some other effects. It helps "normalize" both sides of the baffle to lower material fatigue. But YES, it also creates hydraulic jet turbulence that also benefits suppression.

There's another thread where Surefire's porting is discussed. There aren't any good opinions on how well it works. Or what theories explain just WHY they use it. It would seem that it lets they pressure through more quickly, thereby loosing the Benefit of added Dwell Time to the design.

[mr fixit]

There's another thread where Surefire's porting is discussed. There aren't any good opinions on how well it works. Or what theories explain just WHY they use it. It would seem that it lets they pressure through more quickly, thereby loosing the Benefit of added Dwell Time to the design.

I wonder if the design is not aimed at semi/full auto gas guns, and if so it might help with less blow back?

[Bendersquint]

There's another thread where Surefire's porting is discussed. There aren't any good opinions on how well it works. Or what theories explain just WHY they use it. It would seem that it lets they pressure through more quickly, thereby loosing the Benefit of added Dwell Time to the design.

I wonder if the design is not aimed at semi/full auto gas guns, and if so it might help with less blow back?

The baffle design of the Surefire is not from their engineering, i'll just leave it at that.

[whiterussian1974]

The baffle design of the Surefire is not from their engineering, i'll just leave it at that.

So an Artifact of Production Method?

Or the DoD's requirement for draining water from the stack after it has been submerged in water? Like water crossings in the field?

[Hatchetjoe]

Draining water.

[gunny50]

The baffle design of the Surefire is not from their engineering, i'll just leave it at that.

PATENT Oswald P. Seberger .Jr.
4.576.083 filed Dec 5th 1983
4.907.488 filed March 29th 1988

Gunny

[jreinke]

Ya beat me to it, Gunny! Phil Seberger's muzzle brake design is also kick ass (5,476,028), I'm surprised that Surfire didn't buy the rights to that too.