Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Company specific discussions and announcements.

Moderator: SilentMike

User avatar
Schulze
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:03 pm
Location: TEXAS

Re: Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Post by Schulze »

starlingstalker wrote:
My expanation AIN'T garbage. Your cheap shot snide remarks ARE.
Look at the 1st pictures of this thread. The 1st baffle is BRIGHT/shiny and it's near smooth. That's the Inconel baffle. It's holding up pretty well. The others after that are flame cutting. Self evident. The can is literally losing its innards. Especially with 22 cal bullets in a 30 caliber bore. Inconel in any rifle can rules! Stainless anything is a distant 2nd. Pictures are near impossible to dispute ESPECIALLY these. I took the time to give an explanation.
So, quit spewing Your garbage. It's self evident.
Or at least elaborate why and how You have a BETTER explanation,duh!. :mrgreen:
starlingstalker :D
I'm talking specifically about your comments that a smaller bullet than the bore causes this. That is so patently stupid that there is no frame of understanding in which to explain to you how off the wall idiotic it is.

Yeah, inconel is stronger. My explanation for the flaking baffles is impurities in their stainless steel.
User avatar
firefighter509
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:33 am

Re: Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Post by firefighter509 »

doubloon wrote:good thread
I only post good threads :lol:

So, I was able to get on the phone with mike this morning. I have to say GREAT CUSTOMER SERVICE and it is always a pleasure speaking with mike. He went through each rifle I listed and explained what I was probable seeing.

We both agreed that the 308 host guns I have used are not the best when looking for suppressor accuracy.

Both the M1A and the POF-308 have had notable and Well document problems running suppressed and maintaining accuracy.

So, where are we going from here...

I will be testing this can on my AAC 700-SD bolt gun when it arrives. I will post what I find when I get it.
Thanks again,

J
I MAY DIE IN A DITCH, BUT I WILL BE LYING IN A BED OF BRASS!
LIKE REGAN WATCH THIS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49zqB6qV7hI&feature=related
User avatar
m1garand30064
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Roswell, GA

Re: Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Post by m1garand30064 »

starlingstalker wrote:FYI,

On Silencerco's Saker website http://www.silencerco.com/?section=Products&page=Saker

They say "The baffles are made from an exotic material that has never been offered in silencers and is approximately 30% stronger than Inconel®"

So, really man. I hope the Saker does well for them. But, please stop saying things in this thread that are not true.
Ok, I'm corrected on that. Surely didn't mean to misquote or mislead fer sure. Hopefully whatever it is, it would be a steep upgrade from Inconel. And I need that "Best-est" new metal in my next AAC can.
starlingstalker :D[/quote]

Time will tell if the Saker really is an upgrade over the M4-2000 design in terms of wear. I'm skeptical until I see it in my dealer's hands and has demoed it hard in front of multiple audiences. His M4-2000 still sounds great after 50,000 rounds of MG fire through it. Let's see what the Saker's baffles look like and how it sounds after the same treatment.

You cant always believe the marketing and pamphlet.
AAC 762SD
AAC M4-2000
Allen Engineering AE30
SilencerCo Sparrow (Aluminum)
SilencerCo Sparrow (Stainless)
SilencerCo Osprey .45
SWR Spectre II
SWR Octane 9 HD
User avatar
JohnInNH
Elite Member
Posts: 3313
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: SW NH

Re: Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Post by JohnInNH »

Just a quick note, I have shot mostly 5.56 ammo through my Cyclone-K. I do not have ANY erosion like that. The baffle wear is slight and even, a light fine sand blast kind of finish. I have NO jagged sharp flame cutting nasty shark tooth edges on my baffles.

It almost looks like micro fracturing with small chunks being knocked off of brittle metal. Not saying it is but looks sorta like that on the pics of the SD.

I want to know HOW THE HELL HE TOOK THOSE PICTURES!

What camera.. etc. Depth of field was excellent. On Macro my depth of field goes to nil, then I would need to use a long time exposure if the aperture was shut down to get any depth of field.

NICE PICTURES!
Last edited by JohnInNH on Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Long distance, the next best thing to being there!
User avatar
1_ar_newbie
Industry Professional
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Post by 1_ar_newbie »

doubloon wrote:good thread
:D
Mike Mers
L.E. and Commercial Sales
Advanced Armament Corp.
770-925-9988 x 101 (phone)
770-925-9989 (fax)
[email protected]

Gun Gallery 4 Life!
User avatar
doubloon
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 11897
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:02 pm
Location: Houston-ish

Re: Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Post by doubloon »

1_ar_newbie wrote:
doubloon wrote:good thread
:D
Yeah, well the first page is good, the second page starts to decline about halfway through and the third page picks up where the second left off. I guess it's only up from here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDtd2jNIwAU MUSAFAR!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI This is Water DavidW
Complete Form 1s http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
User avatar
Sigproshooter
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:29 am

Re: Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Post by Sigproshooter »

1_ar_newbie wrote:
Sigproshooter wrote:My 2nd can was an SRT Shadow.

I have over 5k rounds through it.

It looks like new, only with carbon in it.

And it still shoots perfect,
That is their 28 oz thread mount 7.62mm silencer right?

Very different from a fast attach 19 oz silencer.

Also, how much 5.56mm ammo has been through your silencer?

Mike Mers

yes sir. apparently your weighs substantially less the more you shoot it.

no s--t, it doesn't have it's guts shot out like your can apparently. But what does fast attach have to do with his can being flame cut?

none, but unless he is shooting it on a 7" bbl 5.56, on automatic, a LOT, I really don't see how that excuses degradation of his can.


guess you kinda made my point in a round-about way,, :wink:
Last edited by Sigproshooter on Thu Feb 02, 2012 7:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys; look on them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death.
Sun Tzu
User avatar
Schulze
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:03 pm
Location: TEXAS

Re: Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Post by Schulze »

JohnInNH wrote:Just a quick note, I have shot mostly 5.56 ammo through my Cyclone-K. I do not have ANY erosion like that. The baffle wear is slight and even, a light fine sand blast kind of finish. I have NO jagged sharp flame cutting nasty shark tooth edges on my baffles.
I have at least 2000 rounds of 5.56 through my carbon steel 7.62 Phantom and the baffles look new. To suggest that a cartridge with DOUBLE the powder mass would be easier on baffles is laughable.
User avatar
JasonM
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1483
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:51 pm
Location: NoVA
Contact:

Re: Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Post by JasonM »

Wrong thread...
carry on.
Kick Ass Design
ten:pm media
www.facebook.com/VisualGravy
User avatar
1_ar_newbie
Industry Professional
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Post by 1_ar_newbie »

Sigproshooter wrote:
1_ar_newbie wrote:
Sigproshooter wrote:
"Snarling Drivel"
Sorry, I guess the point I was making is lost on you. I guess I am not really surprised.

For everyone else; my point was that a fast attach silencer of any flavor will focus the blast from the propellent gases at the blast baffle. This is can be mitigated by the use of a muzzle brake but really even with a brake the blast baffle will still see more abuse verse a thread mount. You see, in a thread mount silencer you rarely ever see erosion to the stack like the OP's can. See JohninNh's comments above.

Now 223 will erode most any silencer but the use of Inconel inside really helps. The other way to make a silencer last longer is to make it really heavy (thick baffles). Our customers, both military and civilian have told us over and over again that they want lighter weight silencers. So really I think the 762-SD offers a lot of performance for the cost/weight.
Mike Mers
L.E. and Commercial Sales
Advanced Armament Corp.
770-925-9988 x 101 (phone)
770-925-9989 (fax)
[email protected]

Gun Gallery 4 Life!
User avatar
m1garand30064
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Roswell, GA

Re: Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Post by m1garand30064 »

1_ar_newbie wrote: Sorry, I guess the point I was making is lost on you. I guess I am not really surprised.

For everyone else; my point was that a fast attach silencer of any flavor will focus the blast from the propellent gases at the blast baffle. This is can be mitigated by the use of a muzzle brake but really even with a brake the blast baffle will still see more abuse verse a thread mount. You see, in a thread mount silencer you rarely ever see erosion to the stack like the OP's can. See JohninNh's comments above.

Now 223 will erode most any silencer but the use of Inconel inside really helps. The other way to make a silencer last longer is to make it really heavy (thick baffles). Our customers, both military and civilian have told us over and over again that they want lighter weight silencers. So really I think the 762-SD offers a lot of performance for the cost/weight.
That's very interesting Mike. This is true even though the fast attach 762SD has a larger expansion/blast chamber before the blast baffle? I'd think that larger space would help mitigate it.

I'm sorry to see the 762SD go. I really like mine and I was surprised that AAC decided to discontinue it.
AAC 762SD
AAC M4-2000
Allen Engineering AE30
SilencerCo Sparrow (Aluminum)
SilencerCo Sparrow (Stainless)
SilencerCo Osprey .45
SWR Spectre II
SWR Octane 9 HD
User avatar
JasonM
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1483
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:51 pm
Location: NoVA
Contact:

Re: Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Post by JasonM »

m1garand30064 wrote:That's very interesting Mike. This is true even though the fast attach 762SD has a larger expansion/blast chamber before the blast baffle? I'd think that larger space would help mitigate it.

I'm sorry to see the 762SD go. I really like mine and I was surprised that AAC decided to discontinue it.

I think the blast chambers are very similar in size.

And I'm sad to see it go as well, it seemed like a clear value/performance leader...
Kick Ass Design
ten:pm media
www.facebook.com/VisualGravy
User avatar
m1garand30064
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Roswell, GA

Re: Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Post by m1garand30064 »

JasonM wrote:
m1garand30064 wrote:That's very interesting Mike. This is true even though the fast attach 762SD has a larger expansion/blast chamber before the blast baffle? I'd think that larger space would help mitigate it.

I'm sorry to see the 762SD go. I really like mine and I was surprised that AAC decided to discontinue it.

I think the blast chambers are very similar in size.

And I'm sad to see it go as well, it seemed like a clear value/performance leader...
Hmm. I'm going off of this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndmdEGVZ3G8

Not a big deal. I guess the flash hider directing the blast must have a really big effect. You'd think the break would have a really big impact on the erosion. But then again I'm not an engineer! :wink:
AAC 762SD
AAC M4-2000
Allen Engineering AE30
SilencerCo Sparrow (Aluminum)
SilencerCo Sparrow (Stainless)
SilencerCo Osprey .45
SWR Spectre II
SWR Octane 9 HD
User avatar
1_ar_newbie
Industry Professional
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Post by 1_ar_newbie »

m1garand30064 wrote:
JasonM wrote:
m1garand30064 wrote:That's very interesting Mike. This is true even though the fast attach 762SD has a larger expansion/blast chamber before the blast baffle? I'd think that larger space would help mitigate it.

I'm sorry to see the 762SD go. I really like mine and I was surprised that AAC decided to discontinue it.

I think the blast chambers are very similar in size.

And I'm sad to see it go as well, it seemed like a clear value/performance leader...
Hmm. I'm going off of this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndmdEGVZ3G8

Not a big deal. I guess the flash hider directing the blast must have a really big effect. You'd think the break would have a really big impact on the erosion. But then again I'm not an engineer! :wink:
Remember the 762-SD has a larger first chamber but most of that volume is taken up by the muzzle devise (flash hider, Brakeout or muzzle brake)
Mike Mers
L.E. and Commercial Sales
Advanced Armament Corp.
770-925-9988 x 101 (phone)
770-925-9989 (fax)
[email protected]

Gun Gallery 4 Life!
User avatar
shootertom
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1102
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Mid-West

Re: Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Post by shootertom »

Mike, would it be safe to assume that the brake will provide the longest life for the silencer? Thanks - T
User avatar
JohnInNH
Elite Member
Posts: 3313
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: SW NH

Re: Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Post by JohnInNH »

Ye,s a brake will help more than the flashider. The Brake is like the the TIRAD on the Evo-9 Tri-mount adapter.

Much of the gas is slamming up against the flat surface of the mount and w/o the can would be diverted to the sides. With the silencer it is not going much of anywhere put forwards.. but the brake will help more than the 3 pronged muzzle devise.

I had posted the muzzle pressures in a 5.56 and a 300 BLK with SBR lengths. The best way to avoid erosion is to reduce MP.

So pick the best balance of length, performance, caliber. The BLK being the best for reducing erosion in a SBR.
Long distance, the next best thing to being there!
Sdustin
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 322
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 1:21 pm
Location: Ga

Re: Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Post by Sdustin »

starlingstalker hope you have a place to sttach a spanner wrench on you guns.

Also diddnt know that silencerco was in the metal alloy business now too?
When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns
User avatar
1_ar_newbie
Industry Professional
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Post by 1_ar_newbie »

shootertom wrote:Mike, would it be safe to assume that the brake will provide the longest life for the silencer? Thanks - T

YES!
Mike Mers
L.E. and Commercial Sales
Advanced Armament Corp.
770-925-9988 x 101 (phone)
770-925-9989 (fax)
[email protected]

Gun Gallery 4 Life!
User avatar
shootertom
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1102
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Mid-West

Re: Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Post by shootertom »

Thanks for the heads up, Ill switch out my FH for a Brake on the blackout!
User avatar
firefighter509
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:33 am

Re: Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Post by firefighter509 »

JohnInNH wrote:Just a quick note, I have shot mostly 5.56 ammo through my Cyclone-K. I do not have ANY erosion like that. The baffle wear is slight and even, a light fine sand blast kind of finish. I have NO jagged sharp flame cutting nasty shark tooth edges on my baffles.

It almost looks like micro fracturing with small chunks being knocked off of brittle metal. Not saying it is but looks sorta like that on the pics of the SD.

I want to know HOW THE HELL HE TOOK THOSE PICTURES!

What camera.. etc. Depth of field was excellent. On Macro my depth of field goes to nil, then I would need to use a long time exposure if the aperture was shut down to get any depth of field.

NICE PICTURES!

Iphone 4S :shock:
I MAY DIE IN A DITCH, BUT I WILL BE LYING IN A BED OF BRASS!
LIKE REGAN WATCH THIS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49zqB6qV7hI&feature=related
User avatar
starlingstalker
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 304
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:47 am
Location: Astrodome

Re: Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Post by starlingstalker »

Sdustin wrote:starlingstalker hope you have a place to sttach a spanner wrench on you guns.

Also diddnt know that silencerco was in the metal alloy business now too?
Yes, as soon as I can get/FIND a brake for the AAC upper,my Craftsman wrenches are out and it goes on ASAP. None to be had at present. The factory flash hider will become a PERMANENT instant $100.00 paper weight hopefully not to be installed on any of my barrels ever. My SDN6 surely will NEVER SEE a flash hider EVER again. Never could understand why AAC mated their shorty 9" and the flash hider together with the majority of these short uppers to be installed with rifle cans. The booming blast would be noticeable and part Your hair for fer sure. When the inherent advantages of a brake that reduce major recoil as enclosed containment, deflect/reorient the blast 180 degrees and prevent serious flame cutting and gouging down range of ss baffles especially as an SBR shorty, why does it come with a flash hider that has a LOT of flash to hide? And my can is auto rated too. A factory brake on my new upper would have been turnkey, but no. Why?
So 2 sales for only one I originally needed!
Also, if the Saker is as good as it is hyped to be as the 556/223 is a profound (emphasis added!) PITA to suppress well that,if Silencerco has a new gee whiz alloy or out of the box design AGAIN, so be it, hype be damned. I'd like for all the makers to use it, too. It's a win-win for us buyers. Especially going off the deep end 1st with a 22 cal instead of a safer Saker in 30 cal. I already have mine in the AAC SDN6. Inconel is hard to beat and there are several grades. But it's going to have to be awfully REALLY good to squeak past the other 22 cal contenders. Maybe a new discovery that will stand out like a sore thumb that we all overlooked. It's called research. Sort of like finding the Holy Grail or something like that. Or inventing a perpetual motion machine. At least it's fun to hope for such a new discovery to boost can sales if this is the REAL Thing. Like that Coke commercial a long time ago. And anyone the world over in any language knows what Coca Cola is. What the hell....
Like a long shot in a good horse race and You have to look at the tape to see which ones nose is an inch ahead. And that old nag that everyone had forgotten that had not a single bet riding for - won. Yes, a deserving credit to Silencerco if they pull it off another winner. There are several outstanding unconventional designs in THEIR winners circle already. The stakes are exceedingly high. And I'm going to to be super critical if they don't do it again. May the chips fall where they may without reservation when the reviews are in. As You suggested, if Silencerco is in the metal alloy business, so we shall see.
OK, D Day is 4.28.12 here in Dallas. And see You there.
starlingstalker :D
Ban weapons, not firearms!
It may ONLY be a dollar but its STILL a Sux Tax!
Pssst, so let's change this infringing UNConstitutional Law!
User avatar
eric10mm
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:30 am

Re: Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Post by eric10mm »

1_ar_newbie wrote: 1. First baffle is made of heat treated 718 Inconel. It has a symmetrical bore aperture (the bore hole is round)
2. All of the middle baffles (as in not the first or last) are made of 316 stainless steel. They also have an asymmetrical bore aperture. That means one side of the baffle is shaped differently than the other.
3. Last baffle is made of 316 SS but has a symmetrical bore aperture.
Are those baffles machined form bar stock, or are they cast? That might make a difference in appearance as they wear.
Sdustin
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 322
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 1:21 pm
Location: Ga

Re: Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Post by Sdustin »

have you seen the videos of the saker and how the rear works? seems like a bitch, also do they not a enough confidence in their own mounts as to add opitions to use others? and as far as i know the Holy Grail hasent been found and id rather have a chevy truck that works good ALL the time than a lambo that might or might not work at all.
When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns
Sdustin
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 322
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 1:21 pm
Location: Ga

Re: Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Post by Sdustin »

also they didnt get the sparrow right right out of thegate did they didnt they "upgrade" it didnt they?
When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns
User avatar
jreinke
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1226
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: WI, USA
Contact:

Re: Baffle erosion 762 - SD with pictures

Post by jreinke »

1_ar_newbie wrote:
shootertom wrote:Mike, would it be safe to assume that the brake will provide the longest life for the silencer? Thanks - T

YES!
Well...in that case, when are you guys going to make another batch of 5.56mm 18-tooth muzzle brake mounts in 1/2-28 so my 762-SD doesn't die a premature death? :wink:
[url=http://militarysignatures.com][img]http://militarysignatures.com/signatures/member1236.png[/img][/url]
Post Reply