I wonder if their would be any advantage to building the core out of beryllium copper to draw the heat out of the gases entering into the suppressor?
I know it would add a lot of weight but the old style suppressors that used copper screen to draw the heat out worked well for their time.
The copper would handle the heat a lot better than Aluminum does .. Just thinking out loud...
K
Monolithic baffle stack
I wouldn't machine beryllium in any form... it's some very dangerous s--t and if small flecks get embedded under your skin, it's bad news. If it gets in your lungs (grinding, sanding, welding) it's VERY bad news.
Concerns are rising about the number of people potentially affected by beryllium disease. At the time, there were no safety standards for working in a beryllium plant and many people may have been directly or indirectly exposed to it. Even wives washing uniforms may have come into contact. Beryllium is a carcinogen. Symptoms of beryllium poisoning may not become evident for 40 years, beryllium sensitivity and chronic beryllium disease include shortness of breath, sudden weight loss, tiredness, skin problems and night sweats. Treatment can be effective if the disease is diagnosed early enough.
-
BoilingLeadBath
- Member
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:13 am
- Location: PA (USA)
Oh, there will be some benefit to increasing the rate of heat conduction of the metal, but I don't know enough about the scenario to tell you if it is a significant amount.
However, I have looked at simpler scenarios, and...
I would suspect, given the brief nature of the exposure, that only the top several thousandths (or couple hundredths, at the most) of the material really matter. The rest of the material probably doesn't experience any significant temperature change during the interval we are interested in.
So the conducting layer we are interested in is thin, and thus conducts really fast whatever it is made of.
Further, gas isn't really very effective at transmitting heat into surfaces, in most scenarios, so the material doesn't need to really be an excellent conductor to get a reasonable amount of heat absorption.
IE, plastic spudgun barrels absorb almost as much heat (some 80-90%, IIRC) as copper ones.
And, of course, whatever material you use will quickly build up a layer of fouling, which will mask the effect of the different conductivities.
...so I don't expect that there will be a great big difference between steel/alluminum/copper/fancy copper alloy.
But then I don't have a quantitative understanding of the flow conditions in a suppressor, so I didn't do any math.
Certainly, it should be more effective to make a steel or aluminum finned-heatsink-type device which would increase the surface area presented to the gasses - probably the important variable - tremendously.
However, I have looked at simpler scenarios, and...
I would suspect, given the brief nature of the exposure, that only the top several thousandths (or couple hundredths, at the most) of the material really matter. The rest of the material probably doesn't experience any significant temperature change during the interval we are interested in.
So the conducting layer we are interested in is thin, and thus conducts really fast whatever it is made of.
Further, gas isn't really very effective at transmitting heat into surfaces, in most scenarios, so the material doesn't need to really be an excellent conductor to get a reasonable amount of heat absorption.
IE, plastic spudgun barrels absorb almost as much heat (some 80-90%, IIRC) as copper ones.
And, of course, whatever material you use will quickly build up a layer of fouling, which will mask the effect of the different conductivities.
...so I don't expect that there will be a great big difference between steel/alluminum/copper/fancy copper alloy.
But then I don't have a quantitative understanding of the flow conditions in a suppressor, so I didn't do any math.
Certainly, it should be more effective to make a steel or aluminum finned-heatsink-type device which would increase the surface area presented to the gasses - probably the important variable - tremendously.
Beryllium copper
I've worked with Beryllium copper for over 30 years now and am very familiar with the toxic problems with Beryllium. We use it for cores in injection molds to solve cooling problems.
The only 2 real problems involve breathing the fumes you get when overheat the material when machining and if you grind it (I never grind beryllium).
According to OSHA topical exposure to beryllium copper is not a major problem.
It is a BIG problem if you breath the dust or fumes as it causes
a disease similar to tuberculosis. Which can become cancer.
I don't much care for the stuff .. but it does work well.
Your concerns are valid and for people not familiar with machining the stuff it could be a major problem.
Thanks
The only 2 real problems involve breathing the fumes you get when overheat the material when machining and if you grind it (I never grind beryllium).
According to OSHA topical exposure to beryllium copper is not a major problem.
It is a BIG problem if you breath the dust or fumes as it causes
a disease similar to tuberculosis. Which can become cancer.
I don't much care for the stuff .. but it does work well.
Your concerns are valid and for people not familiar with machining the stuff it could be a major problem.
Thanks
Today I shot my 300 Whisper with the monolithic baffle stack and tested it against a Sheriff Dept's suppressed .308.
The .308 was a custom gun built by Aurora Tactical and the barrel was integrally supressed, a 12 inch barrel with what appeared to be an 1.250 tube until it flared out past the forearm to at least 1.5.
The load was 8,.4 grains of RedDot and it was shooting a 180 grain roundnose bullet which was supposed to be around 1030 FPS.
Using a Soundtronics Decible meter an average of around 15 shots was 113 db. all things condsidered, it was pretty quiet. The meter was held perpendicular to the muzzle at a distance of 3 feet.
Using the exact same setup, I averaged 110. db. My load was a bit different, using 8.2 grains of Accurate No.5, pushing a 220 grain Sierra Boat Tail Match HP.
Considering that his was a 2500 dollar gun bought with a grant, and mine was just a homeboy build using a Form 1, I'd say that my 200 bucks for the form was well spent.
The .308 was a custom gun built by Aurora Tactical and the barrel was integrally supressed, a 12 inch barrel with what appeared to be an 1.250 tube until it flared out past the forearm to at least 1.5.
The load was 8,.4 grains of RedDot and it was shooting a 180 grain roundnose bullet which was supposed to be around 1030 FPS.
Using a Soundtronics Decible meter an average of around 15 shots was 113 db. all things condsidered, it was pretty quiet. The meter was held perpendicular to the muzzle at a distance of 3 feet.
Using the exact same setup, I averaged 110. db. My load was a bit different, using 8.2 grains of Accurate No.5, pushing a 220 grain Sierra Boat Tail Match HP.
Considering that his was a 2500 dollar gun bought with a grant, and mine was just a homeboy build using a Form 1, I'd say that my 200 bucks for the form was well spent.
How was the look on the faces on the ones bringing the High$$$$$$ setup Re: .223?????
Jim, no one knows until it's tried. There's only been about 3 or 4 of these staggered-chamber monostacks made so far. Make one for 5.56 and give it a shot.madmacs wrote:I have seen this question asked several times in this thread and no real answer that I saw. Can this design be used effectively on .223???
Jim
I suspect you'll need some serious materials; stainless and/or titanium to pull it off.
Music pure music
Music to my ears ..... I have a Whisper AR and a Whisper Remington 788
I can't wait to get mu can ...
Thanks for the video...
I can't wait to get mu can ...
Thanks for the video...
SAK patented silencer
SAK( Finland) have a patented mono core/cross drilled silencer thats been a retail item a good few years now. It costs under $50 USD!!!
Cross drilling cannot be claimed in a patent as protected as its a "common process" any patent especially US ones are only as good as the challenges made against them. It is extremely unlikely that anyone would waste time and money trying to calim roghts to a common engineering process????
The mono core/slant wall baffles here in these threads are really excellent work!
Cross drilling cannot be claimed in a patent as protected as its a "common process" any patent especially US ones are only as good as the challenges made against them. It is extremely unlikely that anyone would waste time and money trying to calim roghts to a common engineering process????
The mono core/slant wall baffles here in these threads are really excellent work!
Re: SAK patented silencer
...Or EDM.emouse wrote: Cross drilling cannot be claimed in a patent as protected as its a "common process" any patent especially US ones are only as good as the challenges made against them.
Here is one that is in free float silencer. Extended back goes past the muzzle to slow down gases escaping from drilled barrel.
Murphy was an optimist!
9mm Suomi mag, Suomi barrel and DIY billet lower. I made that when I still understood "building an AR-15" as building, not assembling. 
If it would be .45, why drilling bleed holes to lower the velocity of the bullet? With 9mm and factory ammo it's very helpfull.
Here it is with Glock mag-lower. Silencer is yet missing and FF is short in this picture.
If it would be .45, why drilling bleed holes to lower the velocity of the bullet? With 9mm and factory ammo it's very helpfull.
Here it is with Glock mag-lower. Silencer is yet missing and FF is short in this picture.
Murphy was an optimist!
