fishman wrote:The baffle clip looks like you did a plunge cut all the way through when it should really be a endmill run sideways through the baffle.
I run the clip perpendicular to the side of the cone.
Also agree on making the taper on the brake a lot more acute. I don't know what thread pitch you'll be using, but with 12 TPI, even a 20° included was too obtuse for a good lock. That's why I went to 12° Included.
T-Rex wrote:Looking good.
Personally, I'd make 3 revisions:
-Reduce the length of the muzzle brake, maybe to 1"
-Reduce the spacer on the blast baffle by half.
-Increase baffle spacing to approx 9/16 (.550 works almost perfect with the changes above)
My reasoning is that the blast chamber isn't doing nearly as much as the coaxial and baffle areas. A 1" brake, coupled w/ the spacing to the blast baffle and the cones length, should give enough volume. Get that gas into the coaxial area and have plenty of it. Also, each baffle spacing/volume will be more efficient than that of the blast chamber.
As an unregulated part, he can keep trying different brakes to adjust number, type & orientation of ports, and distance to blast baffle. As heavily ported as the model shows, I think it will work fairly well even with very little spacing to the blast baffle. He can also make different brake adapters, since his rear mount is yet another piece, playing with length and volume of blast chamber. But he can't make it any longer without a new stamp.
I would probably ditch the second taper, though. Trying to make both of those surfaces useful is gonna require some ridiculous tolerances. I understand the thought process behind it, but a single, larger diameter taper behind the threads works fine, is employed by many manufacturers.
T-Rex wrote:My fourth alteration would be to give every baffle the fins. They're thin enough that they shouldn't be an appreciable amount of weight or stealing from volume. The added material will work the gases and aid with heat dissipation. Run the numbers on weight and volume affect. The cnc makes it an easy enough call, based on effort.
I'll respectfully disagree here. With vanes running all the way up, you'd have pretty much the same effect as no vanes, with gas going straight into them and then trying to come straight back out. With only the first few bearing the helix, the gasses will be spinning around the core. Once they make it to the end, they want to come back out, but to do so, they have to get past the vanes that are more like walls for a vortex with the same rotation but opposite flow vector. That volume will be forced to stay in the coaxial chamber until everything has settled down enough in and out of the chamber for them to bleed out.
I don't have a professional resume involving fluid dynamics, but I do have an intuitive understanding of it, and have employed some form of helix in many of my designs with some very good results. And it's been more than a handful of cans & stacks with the luxury of being able to create at will under my 07/02 and then file a F2 once it's something worth keeping around for further development.
Next is the clip deign.
You're not a fan of the radiused assymetric? I'd run with it.