Suppressors Has Suppression hit a Ceiling?
- Thread starter jeep94
- Start date
I don't know if suppression has hit a ceiling but mounting solutions certainly haven't. Some manufacturers still need to figure out how to make a common sense mounting system that's reliable and consistent for shooters.
Seriously?
"Everything that can be invented has been invented." - Charles H. Duell, US Patent Commissioner, 1899
"Everything that can be invented has been invented." - Charles H. Duell, US Patent Commissioner, 1899
I absolutely think there’s room for improvement. I feel like suppressors advance rather quickly to be honest. They continue to become more efficient while cutting length and weight.
i think the firearms industry as a whole is kind of plateauing right now......more or less firearms technology hasnt had any MAJOR advancements in the past 40-50 years.
we are limited by our manufacturing technology, and our current materials.......and we wont see any significant advancements in firearms tech until we see advancements in those.
i think additive manufacturing and polymers are going to play a big role in manufacturing in the next 10 years.
as far as suppressors go......it wouldnt surprise me one bit to see polymer incorporated in the near future (are you listening magpul).
the biggest boost would come from supressors being taken of the NFA.......right now the market is tiny, meaning many big companies are not divesting money and research into it.......make them easy to buy like handguns and youll see a large boom in suppressor development.
The next step is to magically knock $200 off every can by removing them from the NFA!
I was thinking a material needs to be developed that helps absorb sound but strong and heat resistant as the current metals
Probably the next big wave of innovation waiting to happen is man portable hypersonic guided projectiles and directed energy weapons.
Add that to a power armour suit & now we are joining predator on the hunt.
Add that to a power armour suit & now we are joining predator on the hunt.
My suppressor design uses critically endangered pangolin scales as baffles. They absorb 100% of the heat, and absorb 150% of the sound, including the sonic boom of the bullet. Yea, it’ll probably be the end of the pangolin once beta testing is done....it’s worth it.
I don't know who you are but from what I've seen from you in the past few threads, you're doing God's work.
I don't think this is a coincidence.
Until we figure out how to suppress the sonic crack... yeah I think we’re about at the ceiling performance wise.
Now I think that they will continue to get smaller and lighter and maybe even cheaper, improving in that sense. But if you’re talking about sound suppression, POI consistency, etc. then I think we’re close to the peak.
Now I think that they will continue to get smaller and lighter and maybe even cheaper, improving in that sense. But if you’re talking about sound suppression, POI consistency, etc. then I think we’re close to the peak.
Just put it off until 2020 so I can financially recover and order the whole new lineup.Pretty sure there are a few more dB we can work out
Well, said it once, I'll say it again: the quietest suppressor ever built for a firearm was for the 9mm Welrod. ~60dB with sub ammo. This was the 1940's. They aren't built that quiet today.
For most designs you reach a point of diminishing returns, no so much a ceiling. I have two monocore .22 cans, an Essence and a Regulator both from Liberty. The Regulator is quieter than the Essence and the biggest difference is that the Regulator has fewer, less complex "baffles" and more room to expand. It results in almost no FRP and quieter than even the Essence, which was already very quiet, and with 1cc water it has NO FRP and is practically silent.
Now I have an integral, also a Liberty product, and it has about a foot long baffle core. The two thread on cans are six inches. The Regulator on an SBR's 10/22 isn't that much louder than the integral 10/22 (but it's still loud enough to tell the difference). So despite having a baffle core twice as long, both having 4" bbl.'s, the integral is far from being twice as quiet but is still quietest. Being an integral it looks like a 16" 10/22 so size here isn't a problem.
With centerfire cans, the newer, well built short ones (Omega 9k, Ultra 5) get the job done by utilizing more internal volume, wider baffle spacing, comparatively. The Ultra 5 only has what, four baffles? But it gets the job done for its size, especially on .300BLK subs.
The ones that seem to work best IME have been ones that have more internal volume for gas to expand and cool, and baffle designs that slow the gas down by creating lots of turbulence (which is why I think these monocore cans work so well for .22's and even 9mm and .300 subs). So sometimes fewer baffles is better than more.
I have an idea for one that should be significantly quieter if it works, but have no means to make one. It's fairly complex but traps gasses and releases them slowly. Broadband cancellation is the holy grail but there's no way known to pull it off. There were ideas to use dog whistle type vents that would emit sounds that are the inverse of the noise in order to cancel that wave. But unless you can cancel all of the waves it won't work.
For most designs you reach a point of diminishing returns, no so much a ceiling. I have two monocore .22 cans, an Essence and a Regulator both from Liberty. The Regulator is quieter than the Essence and the biggest difference is that the Regulator has fewer, less complex "baffles" and more room to expand. It results in almost no FRP and quieter than even the Essence, which was already very quiet, and with 1cc water it has NO FRP and is practically silent.
Now I have an integral, also a Liberty product, and it has about a foot long baffle core. The two thread on cans are six inches. The Regulator on an SBR's 10/22 isn't that much louder than the integral 10/22 (but it's still loud enough to tell the difference). So despite having a baffle core twice as long, both having 4" bbl.'s, the integral is far from being twice as quiet but is still quietest. Being an integral it looks like a 16" 10/22 so size here isn't a problem.
With centerfire cans, the newer, well built short ones (Omega 9k, Ultra 5) get the job done by utilizing more internal volume, wider baffle spacing, comparatively. The Ultra 5 only has what, four baffles? But it gets the job done for its size, especially on .300BLK subs.
The ones that seem to work best IME have been ones that have more internal volume for gas to expand and cool, and baffle designs that slow the gas down by creating lots of turbulence (which is why I think these monocore cans work so well for .22's and even 9mm and .300 subs). So sometimes fewer baffles is better than more.
I have an idea for one that should be significantly quieter if it works, but have no means to make one. It's fairly complex but traps gasses and releases them slowly. Broadband cancellation is the holy grail but there's no way known to pull it off. There were ideas to use dog whistle type vents that would emit sounds that are the inverse of the noise in order to cancel that wave. But unless you can cancel all of the waves it won't work.
From SAR, http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=3446
"Indeed, the Welrod was tested, re-tested and continues to be tested, even years later, as seems to be SOP with silenced weapons. In one 1943 test, conducted by Division 19 personnel, under the supervision of Stanley Lovell and Col. Studler, their Welrod recorded a 118 dB pulse. A 1965 test of a rebaffled Welrod by officials at Aberdeen Proving Ground recorded a 115 dB reading, a drop of 35 from the unsilenced model. The lowest figure I have noted was conducted with a rebaffled Welrod Mark I in 1977. The reading was 110 with the 9mm model. The lowest reading I have noted for the .32 caliber Mark II is 103 dB."
"Indeed, the Welrod was tested, re-tested and continues to be tested, even years later, as seems to be SOP with silenced weapons. In one 1943 test, conducted by Division 19 personnel, under the supervision of Stanley Lovell and Col. Studler, their Welrod recorded a 118 dB pulse. A 1965 test of a rebaffled Welrod by officials at Aberdeen Proving Ground recorded a 115 dB reading, a drop of 35 from the unsilenced model. The lowest figure I have noted was conducted with a rebaffled Welrod Mark I in 1977. The reading was 110 with the 9mm model. The lowest reading I have noted for the .32 caliber Mark II is 103 dB."
Hey Zak, don't know where I read 60-something dB on the Welrod. It could have been wrong. I do know it's listed as being a 73dB setup on Wikipedia (http://www.timelapse.dk/thesilencer.php --this is their reference, says it used what look like wipes along with a ported barrel, .32 Mk2 didn't have ports as it was factory sub). I may have the design of the Welrod somewhere, I have the old army "silencer evaluations" manual from the 60's or 70's and I think it's in there. The most advanced one in there is one for a Walther SMG IIRC. You've probably either read if not own this book I'm sure.
So I got to looking up some math for another problem I was dealing with and came upon the FFT, or "Fast Fourier Transform" and thought of you and what it does is to take a portion of a broadband signal and isolate and analyze the constituent waveforms that makeup a broadband signal. Usually there are spikes and those broadband signals would be, IMO, the ones to target as they're responsible for most of the bang. The primer for sure, then any other peak. If a way to neutralize those waves could be found, that'd be the first step in making very, very quiet next generation silencers.
Maybe the answer is whistle ports in the brake and not the suppressor, and/or force gas through a "whistle chamber" that cancels the waves. Another more organic idea is that the entire construction of the can itself is designed with that in mind and every inch of interior surface plays a part.
I have no idea how to go about engineering something like that, I don't have engineering software or anything that I can use to play with changing physics or harmonics with respect to changes in the 3d construction of the suppressor and then witness the results virtually without building it. I wish I did, but wouldn't know which one to choose that can do what I need, or if it even exists. But hey, it's an idea. If it worked though, it'd be a gamechanger.
So I got to looking up some math for another problem I was dealing with and came upon the FFT, or "Fast Fourier Transform" and thought of you and what it does is to take a portion of a broadband signal and isolate and analyze the constituent waveforms that makeup a broadband signal. Usually there are spikes and those broadband signals would be, IMO, the ones to target as they're responsible for most of the bang. The primer for sure, then any other peak. If a way to neutralize those waves could be found, that'd be the first step in making very, very quiet next generation silencers.
Maybe the answer is whistle ports in the brake and not the suppressor, and/or force gas through a "whistle chamber" that cancels the waves. Another more organic idea is that the entire construction of the can itself is designed with that in mind and every inch of interior surface plays a part.
I have no idea how to go about engineering something like that, I don't have engineering software or anything that I can use to play with changing physics or harmonics with respect to changes in the 3d construction of the suppressor and then witness the results virtually without building it. I wish I did, but wouldn't know which one to choose that can do what I need, or if it even exists. But hey, it's an idea. If it worked though, it'd be a gamechanger.
Well Daniel Defense came out with a 3D printed silencer. I think the problem still goes back to market size, and the ability of companies to sink time and money into the R&D. I am curious to see as metallic 3D printers become more available if more silencer companies are going to try them out.
I disagree with the statement that we have not made progress in the last 40-50 years. I have been shooting for all of that and more. The changes are staggering. LRF's, good barrels, uniform, high BC bullets. Titanium actions, dozens of action choices. Try finding me a good 1960's scope that is Mil/Mil, zero stop, and tracks well. H59 preferred. No Lapua brass. The list goes on. Virtually no item from 1965 would be competitive today. I used that stuff and it sucks by todays standards.
No Lapua brass. The list goes on. Virtually no item from 1965 would be competitive today. I used that stuff and it sucks by todays standards.
I think we've hit a sound suppression ceiling.
Someone could make an ungodly huge can with an attachment to pre-purge the air but it would not be practical in use.
Someone could make an ungodly huge can with an attachment to pre-purge the air but it would not be practical in use.
I would argue that we are also limited by our regulatory environment. We might be able to see larger advancements on a quicker timetable if suppressors were less regulated. Manufacturers would be more apt to spend more bucks on wildcard R&D and consumers would be more likely to buy and try.
Agreed, which is what leaves a bunch of people "waiting for the reviews" or the general consensus on whether a product is good or bad before there is widespread adoption.
This makes product development inherently risky with new or "unproven" designs.
Like you say, there is a commitment before you purchase. A commitment with no gratification or return for up to a year.
Because the used market is essentially closed except for the rare few that choose to lose their $200, plus depreciation and the hassle of transfers plus fees... that commitment is final for all intents and purposes.
This makes product development inherently risky with new or "unproven" designs.
Like you say, there is a commitment before you purchase. A commitment with no gratification or return for up to a year.
Because the used market is essentially closed except for the rare few that choose to lose their $200, plus depreciation and the hassle of transfers plus fees... that commitment is final for all intents and purposes.
I think suppression has hit a ceiling. I own suppressors. If you could magically have a 5% reduction in decibles in a subsonic round, that would be huge. But some people could not tell the difference without a meter or a YouTube video. A 10% reduction in length and wt would be great and a big advancement. But it would not be in the whole perspective. With conventional powders, I think physical dimensions will get smaller and the decibal meter will go down slightly, but not enough to really notice and sure won’t be a gamechanger
No way, hybrid materials, hybrid sizes to play with air flow, even new baffle shapes and designs. I think there’s still a lot to come.
Similar threads
