17-4 ph baffles on a 10.5 sbr?
Moderators: mpallett, mr fixit, bakerjw, renegade
17-4 ph baffles on a 10.5 sbr?
Does anyone here have any experience running a suppressor with 17-4ph baffles on a 10.5 inch 5.56/.223 SBR?
Is there any baffle erosion to worry about using this type of material?
Is there any baffle erosion to worry about using this type of material?
Re: 17-4 ph baffles on a 10.5 sbr?
I am a newb when it comes to suppressors, but we use 17-4, stellite and Inconel for valve components at work all the time. The critical seating surfaces are stellite. We have found stellite to be the toughest, most wear resistant material to make nuclear steam valve seats from. Given that a 10.5” SBR can will experience a lot of wear I would go with stellite first, then Inconel, then 17-4. Just my 2 cents, I would wait to hear from others with more silencer experience though.
Re: 17-4 ph baffles on a 10.5 sbr?
Yes, 17-4 will erode fairly quickly on a 10.5 (assuming 5.56?)
inconel does a decent job, Silencerco is using stellite blast baffles but i don't know if the Saker has been out long enough to see real world results.
inconel does a decent job, Silencerco is using stellite blast baffles but i don't know if the Saker has been out long enough to see real world results.
Kick Ass Design
ten:pm media
www.facebook.com/VisualGravy
ten:pm media
www.facebook.com/VisualGravy
- whiterussian1974
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 2857
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:37 pm
- Location: On 8th line of eye chart.
Re: 17-4 ph baffles on a 10.5 sbr?
Don't they loan a sample to DoD for 10k rd abuse testing?JasonM wrote:Inconel does a decent job, Silencerco is using stellite blast baffles but i don't know if the Saker has been out long enough to see real world results.
Seems like having DoD supply the ammo and record/report results to Mfr would be a good testing protocol. Very low cost to Mfr and Sample is returned to Mfr upon completion for post-op accessment.
The Darkest Corners of Hell are reserved for those who remain Neutral!-Dante
The Death of One is a Tragedy, a million only a statistic.-Stalin
silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=135314
The Death of One is a Tragedy, a million only a statistic.-Stalin
silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=135314
Re: 17-4 ph baffles on a 10.5 sbr?
So this actually leads to a secondary question. I contacted my suppressor manufacturer about running their suppressor on the sbr, and they are saying everything will run fine. Based upon my research, it conflicts with what they are telling me.JasonM wrote:Yes, 17-4 will erode fairly quickly on a 10.5 (assuming 5.56?)
inconel does a decent job, Silencerco is using stellite blast baffles but i don't know if the Saker has been out long enough to see real world results.
If the 17-4ph is heat treated, will it erode as well?
Re: 17-4 ph baffles on a 10.5 sbr?
Everything will "run" fine, sure.uracowman wrote:So this actually leads to a secondary question. I contacted my suppressor manufacturer about running their suppressor on the sbr, and they are saying everything will run fine. Based upon my research, it conflicts with what they are telling me.JasonM wrote:Yes, 17-4 will erode fairly quickly on a 10.5 (assuming 5.56?)
inconel does a decent job, Silencerco is using stellite blast baffles but i don't know if the Saker has been out long enough to see real world results.
If the 17-4ph is heat treated, will it erode as well?
Baffle erosion is considered normal wear and tear.
Stainless will erode faster (pretty fast). Even if treated or coated…
The faster you shoot the faster it will erode. On a bolt gun, it's probably fine.
Having seen what SBRs do to cans, I'd not get a can with stainless baffles for that use.
Kick Ass Design
ten:pm media
www.facebook.com/VisualGravy
ten:pm media
www.facebook.com/VisualGravy
Re: 17-4 ph baffles on a 10.5 sbr?
No.whiterussian1974 wrote:Don't they loan a sample to DoD for 10k rd abuse testing?JasonM wrote:Inconel does a decent job, Silencerco is using stellite blast baffles but i don't know if the Saker has been out long enough to see real world results.
Seems like having DoD supply the ammo and record/report results to Mfr would be a good testing protocol. Very low cost to Mfr and Sample is returned to Mfr upon completion for post-op accessment.
DoD wouldn't care. They do test cans they adopt, but their testing results are not public and certainly don't include a wide variety of cans.
Kick Ass Design
ten:pm media
www.facebook.com/VisualGravy
ten:pm media
www.facebook.com/VisualGravy
- Bendersquint
- Industry Professional
- Posts: 11357
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:19 pm
- Location: North Carolina
- Contact:
Re: 17-4 ph baffles on a 10.5 sbr?
No they do not loan products to the .gov for testing.whiterussian1974 wrote:Don't they loan a sample to DoD for 10k rd abuse testing?JasonM wrote:Inconel does a decent job, Silencerco is using stellite blast baffles but i don't know if the Saker has been out long enough to see real world results.
Seems like having DoD supply the ammo and record/report results to Mfr would be a good testing protocol. Very low cost to Mfr and Sample is returned to Mfr upon completion for post-op accessment.
- curtistactical
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 469
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:22 am
Re: 17-4 ph baffles on a 10.5 sbr?
A lot depends on the design of the suppressor, I use my 5.56 can on my 10.5" full auto m4 a lot probably at about 3000rds right now, I just design in a bigger blast chamber with a thick wall so erosion is no problem, I have always leaned toward better design vs better material, if erode .25" of 17-4 your really doing something.
Joseph Jones
Curtis Tactical
07/02
Curtis Tactical
07/02
-
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 707
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:20 pm
- Location: The South
Re: 17-4 ph baffles on a 10.5 sbr?
Everything will "erode" . . . its the "torture" you put the can through and the design of the can that will determine how long it will "live".uracowman wrote:So this actually leads to a secondary question. I contacted my suppressor manufacturer about running their suppressor on the sbr, and they are saying everything will run fine. Based upon my research, it conflicts with what they are telling me.JasonM wrote:Yes, 17-4 will erode fairly quickly on a 10.5 (assuming 5.56?)
inconel does a decent job, Silencerco is using stellite blast baffles but i don't know if the Saker has been out long enough to see real world results.
If the 17-4ph is heat treated, will it erode as well?
Something like a 60* cone is going to be the hardest to keep "alive". Stellite was designed for jet nozzles and as such is incredibly strong material even up to 2000*F so it lends itself to be at least used in baffle material.
Just FYI OP: everyone, and I literally mean every manufacturer uses some type of stainless for at least spacers in their silencers. 17-4 is a great material, just not for 60* cones on SBRs under full auto.
Re: 17-4 ph baffles on a 10.5 sbr?
Actually Stellite is far older than that, it was first made in the early 1900's for use in stainless cutlery (!). Talk about overkill, although I'd love to have a knife like that in my belt...57fairlane wrote:Stellite was designed for jet nozzles.
Also:
I thought cobalt alloys were generally avoided in nuclear plants...speed6 wrote:nuclear steam valve seats
- eastern_hunter
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 966
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:34 pm
- Location: Charleston, WV
Re: 17-4 ph baffles on a 10.5 sbr?
Don't have any experience with 17-4 PH baffles ... but do with a KAC QDSS-NT4 Inconel can. Holds up very well but does show some burn. As a result when I bought the second 5.56 can I did order a Saker. I would not fool around with anything that is not Inconel or Stellite based.
- curtistactical
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 469
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:22 am
Re: 17-4 ph baffles on a 10.5 sbr?
I had to dig a little for my properties charts but here goes, 17-4ph melting point 1400deg c, Inconel 625 melting point 1290deg c, tensile strength 17-4ph 930mpa, tensile strength 625 Inconel 920mpa just as a couple of important ones.
Joseph Jones
Curtis Tactical
07/02
Curtis Tactical
07/02
Re: 17-4 ph baffles on a 10.5 sbr?
Well said. Baffle geometry is almost as important as materials. I've seen blunt 17-4 baffles far outlast sharp 60 degree cone baffles in endurance testing.57fairlane wrote:Everything will "erode" . . . its the "torture" you put the can through and the design of the can that will determine how long it will "live".uracowman wrote:So this actually leads to a secondary question. I contacted my suppressor manufacturer about running their suppressor on the sbr, and they are saying everything will run fine. Based upon my research, it conflicts with what they are telling me.JasonM wrote:Yes, 17-4 will erode fairly quickly on a 10.5 (assuming 5.56?)
inconel does a decent job, Silencerco is using stellite blast baffles but i don't know if the Saker has been out long enough to see real world results.
If the 17-4ph is heat treated, will it erode as well?
Something like a 60* cone is going to be the hardest to keep "alive". Stellite was designed for jet nozzles and as such is incredibly strong material even up to 2000*F so it lends itself to be at least used in baffle material.
Just FYI OP: everyone, and I literally mean every manufacturer uses some type of stainless for at least spacers in their silencers. 17-4 is a great material, just not for 60* cones on SBRs under full auto.
Heat treating 17-4 only increases the hardness by a few RC at most. But anything helps. If you're not going full auto with your SBR, it can be done. Although, if you do a lot of rapid fire then I'd go inconel or stellite.
Re: 17-4 ph baffles on a 10.5 sbr?
Isn't the inconel used in suppressors 718 and not 625. The properties may be very different.curtistactical wrote:I had to dig a little for my properties charts but here goes, 17-4ph melting point 1400deg c, Inconel 625 melting point 1290deg c, tensile strength 17-4ph 930mpa, tensile strength 625 Inconel 920mpa just as a couple of important ones.
Kyle O.
- curtistactical
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 469
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:22 am
Re: 17-4 ph baffles on a 10.5 sbr?
718 Inconel melting point 1400deg c , tensile strength 1200mpaDr.K wrote:Isn't the inconel used in suppressors 718 and not 625. The properties may be very different.curtistactical wrote:I had to dig a little for my properties charts but here goes, 17-4ph melting point 1400deg c, Inconel 625 melting point 1290deg c, tensile strength 17-4ph 930mpa, tensile strength 625 Inconel 920mpa just as a couple of important ones.
Joseph Jones
Curtis Tactical
07/02
Curtis Tactical
07/02
-
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 248
- Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:36 am
Re: 17-4 ph baffles on a 10.5 sbr?
Even if you did make a can with stainless baffles that lasted as long as one using inconel, it would have to be heavier and/or louder to do it. There's no advantage to stainless baffles other than cost. If that can isn't a whole lot cheaper (and cheaper is what you're willing to settle for in an item that you are going to wait a year or so to get and another year and $200 tax + cost to replace when it wears out), take the advice here and get something better suited for use on an SBR.
Don't buy things from people with that attitude. You don't need to be some dismissive (or just ignorant) jackass's paycheck.
Don't buy things from people with that attitude. You don't need to be some dismissive (or just ignorant) jackass's paycheck.
Re: 17-4 ph baffles on a 10.5 sbr?
This brings up an idea I have possibly missed in the history of suppressors, usingaries14482 wrote:Even if you did make a can with stainless baffles that lasted as long as one using inconel, it would have to be heavier and/or louder to do it. There's no advantage to stainless baffles other than cost. If that can isn't a whole lot cheaper (and cheaper is what you're willing to settle for in an item that you are going to wait a year or so to get and another year and $200 tax + cost to replace when it wears out), take the advice here and get something better suited for use on an SBR.
Don't buy things from people with that attitude. You don't need to be some dismissive (or just ignorant) jackass's paycheck.
ceramic coatings on inner surfaces to create a longer wear resistant unit. Could say
diamond dust ... carbon crystals ... create an impervious surface?
Just this week on cable news there was a piece on an Irish university's new break through in making
nano-tubes 'at home', using centrifuge and simple set ups. The researcher envisioned that in the
near future this technique could be incorporated into 3-D printing with the easily made nano tubes.
- Bendersquint
- Industry Professional
- Posts: 11357
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:19 pm
- Location: North Carolina
- Contact:
Re: 17-4 ph baffles on a 10.5 sbr?
Ceramic costings were tried a few years ago and didnt show to increase anything but cost.Historian wrote:This brings up an idea I have possibly missed in the history of suppressors, usingaries14482 wrote:Even if you did make a can with stainless baffles that lasted as long as one using inconel, it would have to be heavier and/or louder to do it. There's no advantage to stainless baffles other than cost. If that can isn't a whole lot cheaper (and cheaper is what you're willing to settle for in an item that you are going to wait a year or so to get and another year and $200 tax + cost to replace when it wears out), take the advice here and get something better suited for use on an SBR.
Don't buy things from people with that attitude. You don't need to be some dismissive (or just ignorant) jackass's paycheck.
ceramic coatings on inner surfaces to create a longer wear resistant unit. Could say
diamond dust ... carbon crystals ... create an impervious surface?
Just this week on cable news there was a piece on an Irish university's new break through in making
nano-tubes 'at home', using centrifuge and simple set ups. The researcher envisioned that in the
near future this technique could be incorporated into 3-D printing with the easily made nano tubes.
-
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 707
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:20 pm
- Location: The South
Re: 17-4 ph baffles on a 10.5 sbr?
There are several different grades of Stellite/Cobalt.Fulmen wrote:Actually Stellite is far older than that, it was first made in the early 1900's for use in stainless cutlery (!). Talk about overkill, although I'd love to have a knife like that in my belt...57fairlane wrote:Stellite was designed for jet nozzles.
Of which, Stellite 21 was not designed until the mid 1930s per Deloro's webpage (not wikipedia)
Stellite® 21 (previously known as Stellite® 8 ) was developed in the mid 1930s as a corrosion resistant CoCr alloy, and rapidly found application as a biocompatible hip implant and denture alloy. Many of the alloys currently used in medical applications are variants of the original Stellite® 21 composition. It was also one of the first heat-resistant alloys trialled for use in jet engines
So designed for jet nozzles might be a stretch . . . I don't know as I wasn't around in ~1935. Jet engines was indeed one of the first uses for Stellite 21/8 which is the alloy I was referring to when discussing silencer design/materials similar to Inconel being primarily grade 718 unless referring to tubing grade 625. I really don't know what alloy SilencerCo is using though . . . perhaps #1?
-
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 707
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:20 pm
- Location: The South
Re: 17-4 ph baffles on a 10.5 sbr?
curtistactical wrote:I had to dig a little for my properties charts but here goes, 17-4ph melting point 1400deg c, Inconel 625 melting point 1290deg c, tensile strength 17-4ph 930mpa, tensile strength 625 Inconel 920mpa just as a couple of important ones.
You should find the graphs of Strength/Temperature . . .