Brake with integrated cone?

[silence_is_yellowish]

I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of this, but searching didn't produce anything. I'm building a .308 rifle can, and this is a thought I had to do a slightly better job than a standard brake at getting lateral gas movement in the blast chamber. The brake still sits in a standard sized blast chamber, everything sized to handle my muzzle pressure, yadda yadda. I won't be firing this without the suppressor attached, so no need for it to behave nicely without a can. I have a CNC milling machine, so the geometry isn't difficult for the machine and a small ball end mill.

Thoughts?

[T-Rex]

Not to crap on your idea, but I don't see this doing anything that a blast cone won't.
The purpose of the MB or FH inside of a can is the take the initial impulse of hot gas and powder.
This saves wear and tear on your blast cone.
Your'e, effectively, just moving the blast cone closer to the muzzle.
With your equipment, I'd make a proper MB or FH. QD or taper lock, if that's your sort of thing.

[silence_is_yellowish]

Hmmm. This is definitely food for thought. I think my real question is this: Since I don't plan on ever shooting the gun without the can covering the brake, what changes can I make to the design to make the can work better for me? Could it be quieter, lighter, less complex, etc, because I don't need a brake to function as a brake without the suppressor?

Another way of putting it is this:

The manufacturers are making compromises when they design a brake into their systems. They need that brake to function as a brake when the can isn't on it, because the customers largely want that. I don't need to make those compromises. I can design the brake to be more optimized for my situation. What choices can I make in the design to accomplish this?

This is why we build Form 1 suppressors, after all, isn't it? To make something even better than what we can buy off the shelf.

[fishman]

This is why we build Form 1 suppressors, after all, isn't it? To make something even better than what we can buy off the shelf.

my first form 1 was filled because I was a college student who could make a can for 1/3 the price. Making them is half the fun imo.

I don't think your brake idea will work. With your cone, the gasses have a shorter distance to expand after leaving the muzzle. But before passing through the front of the brake. Just my $0.02

[ECCO Machine]

This is why we build Form 1 suppressors, after all, isn't it? To make something even better than what we can buy off the shelf.

The extreme majority of form 1 cans I've seen are nowhere near as good as contemporary production offerings. There's a lot of high-tech development in the industry, and many parts which would be difficult bordering on impossible for the hobbyist or amateur to equal or exceed.

I went through about 40 prototypes before I had a couple of designs that outperform other commercial cans in at least one category without giving up something important in another. Some were dead ends, some were developed into my production designs, but I'd have had to spend close to 10 grand in tax stamps to get there without being an SOT.

Anyway, in designing your brake, remember that the principle for your suppressor brake is the same as the can itself; maximum airflow disruption with minimal bullet disruption.

[silence_is_yellowish]

All great insights. Thanks!

There's a lot of high-tech development in the industry, and many parts which would be difficult bordering on impossible for the hobbyist or amateur to equal or exceed.

Mechanical engineer here. I'm sorry, but I've been around the block too many times to believe this. In order to maximize income, they're building what the average customer wants, not what each individual customer wants. They're building using materials and processes that best fit their design criteria, and their budget. As Form 1 builders, we don't have the same constraints. We can absolutely do better than mass-produced designs.

I know that a suppressor with a muzzle brake designed to work with or without the can is a compromising design. I'm just asking what you guys would do if you knew the muzzle brake would never be used solely as a muzzle brake. How would you take this opportunity to fine tune that part of the suppressor for weight / performance?

Anyway, in designing your brake, remember that the principle for your suppressor brake is the same as the can itself; maximum airflow disruption with minimal bullet disruption.

Great advice for sure. Thanks!

[Rich V]

Since a muzzle brake is not a silencer part you are free to try as many designs as you wish. I too wanted to incorporate a cone design when I did my form 1s but the actual machining is near impossible on manual machines. One possible approach would be to make the brake modular*. That accomplishes two things. First making a cone is now trivial since you will have access to each "chamber" freeing you to try more exotic shapes. Second you can easily swap out pieces to mix & match for testing. Once you get the best performing configuration you either weld/silver braze the components together or just build one as 'one piece'.

Keep us up to date on your experiments.

* Each individual chamber is threaded for assembly or you bore out the brake so that individual chambers can be stacked inside. Internal threads on the end of the brake with a ported plug to hold the stack in place.

[yondering]

As Form 1 builders, we don't have the same constraints. We can absolutely do better than mass-produced designs.

Hmm. We don't have the same constraints, but in many ways we have more. Product development (i.e. build - revise - build again) is a huge difference between form 1 guys and manufacturers, as ECCO pointed out above, along with experience and design capabilities. Tooling costs are another; some mass produced parts on special tooling really are better than what the home shop guy can build, but you need to sell a bunch of parts to pay for the tooling. That doesn't work for F1 builders obviously.

It sounds like you're a fairly young/new engineer? More experience will (hopefully) let you see how important those things above really are. A number of others here (myself included) are also engineers, with experience in this stuff.

You're making some assumptions about compromises in mass produced suppressors that aren't necessarily true. The suppressor industry in the US is not like the auto industry where parts are cranked out as cheaply as possible with lots of compromises to meet that goal. As an automotive engineer myself, I'd compare most of the well-regarded commercial suppressor manufacturers to some of the smaller high end sports car manufacturers like Lamborghini, Saleen, etc, where the priorities lean more towards performance and quality.

[silence_is_yellowish]

I'm not a young engineer.

Looking at production cans, I see plenty of compromises. Baffles do not generally get thinner the closer they are to the exit, even though forces on them reduce in that direction. Outer tubes are usually constant wall thickness, even though they can be thinned drastically towards the exit. Threaded cans almost always use end plugs instead of end caps, even though caps are superior at maintaining thread engagement at high strains and enable thinner tube walls. Cans like the Saker are made using two different baffles, instead of a spectrum of several shapes that slowly change toward the exit. Most rifle cans have a heavy integrated brake and quick-change system (which I don't need in this design). Production cans are usually designed for relatively high rates of fire, and if I never shoot quickly, I don't need to design for high temperatures. I could go on and on.

If I start my design by reverse engineering a proven design, I don't know the "why" behind all the features, but I can get a really good guess at many of the design parameters, and I don't have to start from a blank sheet of paper.

Using this methodology, and rearranging the compromises, and using CNC equipment, you bet I can make a can that's nearly as attenuating, and certainly lighter than most factory counterparts. Even tweaking just a few of the compromises I listed let's me increase internal volume substantially, without adding weight. Maybe even packing an extra baffle or two inside a 1-inch longer tube, and there's no doubt I can overcome some of my losses due to lack of testing.