Suppressors stainless vs TI for can material

R

raider1v1

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Mar 16, 2010
357
49
Kansas City, MO
#1
Im comparing the Liberty Freedom vs the Victory and i dont know if the TI is better than the SS on an AR used for prairie dog hunting and shooting at the range.

what are your thoughts on this? i have seen multiple posts on "it will be fine dont worry about it" and the ones that say the "ti is better than SS" and dont give a reason.
 
#2
Re: stainless vs TI for can material

For a semi I would tend to go with SS over Ti. Only for the reason that Ti and high rates of fire do not jive. Other then that Ti wins hands down, for bolt guns they are the new standard.
 
#4
Re: stainless vs TI for can material

Titanium has greater strength than stainless steel. So it is safer / possible to build lighter, and with less material (lighter again) in titanium.

Over 800F however, materials like stainless steel and inconel are more suitable, so products that are going to see high sustained rates of fire are a less than ideal fit for titanium.

high temp properties of grade 5 TI.
This link shows that temperature and strength is fairly linear decline between room temperature and 800F and that between 800 and 1000F, strength begins to be lost more rapidly to the extent that strength would probably not support safe operation at somewhere around 1300-1400F. That's a theoretical projection I'm deriving from the trend as I haven't found data on the material for over 1000F. The material is not recommended to be used at temperatures exceeding 800F <I really don't know why (as the link shows high strength at 1000F, but it is hard to find any information on the high temperature properties of Grade 5.

316L SS by comparison is recommended for service to 1400F.

Remembering that titanium suppressors weigh ~40% less than stainless suppressors they likely also heat faster so it might be possible to hit even 1300F in 100 rounds of full auto fire. It's also conceivable that in the interest of designing a light suppressor, a designer might exploit the low temperature strength of the material which is quite high, and that would influence a lower maximum temperature threshold.

Some of the titanium suppressors on the market are also Grade 2, and G2 is only strong to about 600F, relegating this material to bolt guns and precision light use semi-autos only.
 
#5
Re: stainless vs TI for can material

If you dump a 20 or 30 rounder in under a minute...
Full auto....
3 rd burst

Rapid fire engagements are ok as long as they are 2-3 rounds with an equal amount of time to cool off.
 
#6
Re: stainless vs TI for can material

I don't think burst fire would change the dynamic that much, Robert Silvers did a test once and heat generation was 85F lower for 200 rounds fired at ~1.5 seconds per round in something like ~270 seconds [917F] vs 200 rounds fired on automatic in a ~55seconds on the same 14.5" barrel [1002F]. Granted that was stainless so maybe the cooling rate of titanium would prove superior to the effect that it would have a lower temperature?

In our testing, 112 rounds of full auto on a 10.5" barrel resulted in measured temperatures of 1200F on a 19 ounce inconel 625 suppressor in other words shorter barrels will create more heat with less rounds. A 15.5 ounce suppressor developed 910F in 84 rounds. So it seems the lighter the weight the faster the heat generation as well. A Gemtech Trek T is 10.5 ounces- maybe 65 rounds for it to 910F?< If that's Grade 2, that would be dangerously hot.

Basically for a military or carbine class heavy type training user, the stainless steel is going to beat titanium most likely.

The stainless/inconel is also cheaper than titanium, and probably longer wearing.

Titanium is lighter, stronger at lower temperatures, and better for bolt and precision rifle users who aren't going to abuse the product.
 
#7
Re: stainless vs TI for can material

chart.jpg


Robert Silvers had posted this picture online. The odd thing is that material data from my link, and this data are very different-

So which set of numbers is more correct? The chart that says 10KSI yield at 900F or the one that says 60KSI yield at 1000F?

Silvers chart definitely has a strong correlation to the 800F maximum service temp, where the data sheet suggests the material should have a higher rating.

Titanium property data is harder to find, probably because it isn't very often used. Grade 5 costs 6 times the price of 316SS, or just slightly more than 718inconel [round bar].
 
#8
Re: stainless vs TI for can material

Thanks Griffin Armament, I really appreciate your answers in this thread so far!

So really the last question is how much heat is generated per shot? From the data above it seems that each shot in rapid succession was about 5 degrees.

I really don't see myself doing a 200 round rapid shot type deal, at least not with the rifles this suppressor would go on. They are mostly 24/22" heavy barrel varmint rifles in the AR pattern.

Although, besides the physical weight while carrying it around, what is the downside of a heavier SS can vs a TI can? Is the only difference a greater POI change?
 
#9
Re: stainless vs TI for can material

<span style="font-weight: bold">I think for the use you've talked about, there is no advantage of stainless over titanium. Your intended fire schedule is not by any means rapid enough to overwhelm the ability of titanium to cool.</span>

For me personally, I would probably have a slower pace also with .30 caliber suppressors. With 5.56 suppressors however (or 30 caliber suppressors on 5.56 weapons) I can see myself dropping a couple magazines on auto, or firing 180 rounds in aimed controlled pairs in 6-10 minutes.

<span style="font-weight: bold">I apologize for the wordy nature of my explanation, but suppressor heating is a fairly complicated topic.</span>

The heat generation is going to vary by suppressor and by weight and material as well as by temperature gradient- as the air will have more cooling effect when the temperature is more extreme like 1000F+, so higher temperatures attained will result in lower per round heating because cooling will offset the data.

In my examples- a 10.5" barrel 5.56 application with M193ball, I saw an average of 9.53 degrees F per round with a 15.5ounce suppressor, and 9.91 degrees F per round with a 19ounce suppressor. (it was ~90F on the day of the test.

I used an IR thermometer to scan the suppressors and used the highest reading with the greatest temperature as the recorded number. (this was typically near the blast chamber of the suppressor).

AAC saw ~4.72 degrees F per round using a 14.5" barrel (this test not necessarily the hottest point, but was a thermocouple in a specific location that may or may not have been the hottest point- I don't recall where Robert said he put the thermocouple). The AAC suppressor also is a tube/spacer design and thermal transfer between the two tubes may not be 100% effective- IE the heat of the core or elements of the core may be higher temperature while the heat of the outer tube may peak at a lower temperature.

I believe Al Paulson cited 7-14 degrees per round in articles he has written as the heat generation of 5.56 suppressors.

Al's number suggests that for you to have a problem with a 5.56 suppressor peaking over 800F, you would have to fire at least 60 rounds in as short a time period as possible.

I'd imagine .308 could be twice the heat generation, as there is double the volume of powder, although the data above suggests that increased barrel length allows for more effective powder burn resulting in lower heat generation in the suppressor, to the effect that 16" .308 would probably mirror my 10.5" 5.56 results, and 24" .308 could nearly mirror the 14.5" 5.56 results.

 
#10
Re: stainless vs TI for can material

You have gotten some good advice and data points to consider. The use of Ti components in cans is something that has been going on for quite some time. Its the use of 100%, completely Ti cans that is really new and, perhaps, at the core of your question. And, as you might imagine, there is a great deal to consider.

I think Griff's first sentence above covers your question as asked.

Having said that, and if you want to know more, the abandoning of the use of standardized, thin wall, imported titanium envelopes (the exterior superstructure tube) was a crucial step forward. They did not provide the required tonal values, structural strength attributes and required internal and external dimensions required by some of the more advanced construction techniques. In other words, everyone was building cans severely restricted by commercially available titanium envelopes. Most still do and the can your considering does. Retrofiting new designs to the same restrictive tube diameters and wall thicknesses is an old loosing Ti game. In order to achieve the new results required by knowledgeable clients, some can makers are committing to creating new titanium envelopes out of solid titanium billets. This requires a new line, new machinery and new techniques. The wall thickness can now be customized, much thicker when required, where required and provide unheard of strength and, importantly, new thermal radiation effects. Griff touches on a very important observation when he mentions the thermal implications of double wall construction. Whether the use of spaces, perf cores or the inherent conflict brought about the monocore's armature, it has a huge impact, especially in Ti. The can you are considering is deeply impacted by Griff's accurate observation and my concurrence that it can be a game stopper. With the right welding techniques, welding to new internal dimensions, now much thicker, new strength and different total qualities in Ti has come for some. Also, some now know that even 360 degree circumferential welding does not solely stop a unique tonal characteristic generated within titanium cans, a tonal signature uniquely found Ti cans. In the new generation Ti can, enormous effort is put into determining the sources of tonal aberration and silencing it. The effort led to the dampening effects of deep penetration welding, also required thicker superstructure at precise points within the envelope. Completely machined baffle facings that were not high pressure, particulate capture, that are not monocores (first developed in the 60's)as they do not create anywhere near the designed turbulence required, nor can they as they do not allow for conical surfaces. Angular? Yes. Single radial curves? Yes. Full spiral machine conicals, with gas diverters that radically lower pressure and move the gas forward for system purge? No. Monocores can't do that. The secret is flow...for cleanliness and heat dispersion.

The thermal properties and resiliency of Ti cans is dependent not only on the "can," but a clear understanding of the chemistry of the propellant that moves through them. I have seen Ti cans take abuse that would destroy poorly designed or manufactured steel cans. Ti actually has attributes other than heat capabilities that are potentially more consequential in high volume firing schedules. Your use would not approach those levels. In fact, contrary to much that has been written, few do.

Buy your new suppressor for a lifetime of use, knowing as much as you can and definitely hear a good number of them FIRST as they shake out fast.


 
#11
Re: stainless vs TI for can material

I have found this explanation hugely helpful. For my purposes, long story short, TI is more than adequate for what ill be doing. if at some point in the future i feel the need to do multiple suppressed magazine dumps, i will just need to purchase a SS can to compensate for the increased heat.

this coupled with Zak pointing out that i will be unable to see anything due to mirage long before i hit 800F seals the deal.

I hope this thread is able to help others out as well that have the same problem deciding what material to go with.
 
#12
Re: stainless vs TI for can material

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Completely machined baffle facings that were not high pressure, particulate capture, that are not monocores (first developed in the 60's)as they do not create anywhere near the designed turbulence required, nor can they as they do not allow for conical surfaces. Angular? Yes. Single radial curves? Yes. Full spiral machine conicals, with gas diverters that radically lower pressure and move the gas forward for system purge? No. Monocores can't do that. The secret is flow...for cleanliness and heat dispersion.
</div></div>
P1010366.JPG


Well thank you!
I have been trying to figure out what the machining in the face of the TBAC 30P-1 baffles is for.
It would appear that they significantly to the excellent results that myself and others have reported.
(FWIW, the tone of the 30P-1 when wearing a TAB SAS3 cover is very pleasant.)
 
#13
Re: stainless vs TI for can material

DP...you actually read it? Well, your very welcome.

You are correct, fewer makers still use fully fashioned and surface worked conical baffles. They are expensive to make properly and the expense of welding them in place is the single most expensive operation in suppressors. I have yet to see any monocore that gets anywhere near the same disruption and gas pathing as top end, welded baffles. That TB baffle, is a fine place to start talking about fully fashioned baffles. It has the appearance of being EDM cut, we see that in the surface features. We also can see some other interesting "features" found on this baffle. For instance, it represents the efforts of someone seeking suppression based on uniform bore passages as compared to, say, some that seek suppression through asymmetrical bore designs. The game is to handle the gas jet, the pressure, the heat and the debris all while providing superb accuracy in regard to the projectile. There is a lot to talked about here, much more than most think. And that is why cans shake out fast. It is also why, to a very real degree, with the top tier cans, we can turn off the dB meter and actually concentrate on design application and their practical results.

At this point this discussion takes an interesting turn as some that would look at that baffle and have a real opinion. Some have seen it and say "high pressure turbulence" or perhaps even "entrapment conical." So lets step back here before somebody blows a fuse as this is the newest TB baffle. And I, like others, have a deep respect for any maker who is a shooter and gets results like ZAK and the TB.

Every designer makes decisions, and the lucky ones can build whatever they want to reach their goals. There is a very real difference between say a can for a precision bolt rifle that will see a much slower firing schedule and that of even a precision gas rifle with a much higher firing schedule. Subgun? Machinegun? Very different at the core. The designer of this can made a decision and, I would even go as far as to say, for a bolt gun. Here is why..When we look at the radial surface we see that each radial arm would actually fold the gas into the baffle. Follow it with your eye, high pressure hits the radial and follows the baffle into the "fold" made by the leading edge of the next radial. This kind of turbulence would constitute hard disruption. That would constitute a particular kind of pressure and a particular kind of forward flow for both pressure and debris. To a designer the next two questions would arise immediately, first would be "if the gas jet if thrown into the fold and out to a sealed baffle/envelope weld, how does the pressure move forward?" and secondly "I wonder if there is a secondary gas portal at the extreme baffle circumference?" Why? Well there are two major ways to get the gas jet to move forward and yes, we need to do that to insure safe pressure levels, heat distribution, particulate transfer, appropriate tonal modulation and a whole lot more. The two ways, first through the bore and secondly through the bore with secondary paths. I'm going with everything goes through the bore with this design. And that begins to tell us a lot again, as some would say that in order to achieve this the bore dimensions and finish itself is paramount. From there one might ask "is this constant bore, graduated bore or even choked, etc. Are all the baffles the same, do the faces reverse pattern? How are the chambers arranged and their capacities? Is pressure relieved solely by increasing bore? What is the internal surface of the final end cap?" We can expect a whole host of foundations features to the handful of great cans out there. Strength, weight appropriateness, material quality, construction quality, finishes, tolerance compliance, etc. One is encouraged to remember that results like say POI or pressures can be completely managed by, among other things, opening up the bore. Or that it doesn't take a genius to quiet a can down by increasing internal volumes, adding additional baffles, chambers, etc. The trick is in matching the right attributes to the application.

Now you seem to be interested in what you see in cans, great. Go stare into some other superb cans and you will see some other equally successful and extraordinary approaches as well. They, like this can, provide the reason why we are all living in the Golden Age of suppression.
 
#14
Re: stainless vs TI for can material

RT51…

I make a point to thoroughly read your posts when I come across them.
They may be lengthy at times, but I have been know to post some long ones myself.
While your posts are sometimes controversial, they are always educational and I do appreciate you taking the time.
I would actually go so far as to put your commentary up there with Al Paulson.

I agree with you in regards to not needing a dB meter with top tier cans.
Any more, the dB levels are way down on my list of things to consider.
Accuracy, materials, weight, POI shift, and tone are much higher priorities than absolute dB readings are to me.

The TB baffle design intrigued me since the first time I picked it up an peered inside.
Not being familiar with fluid dynamics or other disciplines that impact suppressor performance, I just kind of scratched my head at the design.
I too admire Zak and the TB crew for achieving such outstanding results in a relatively short period of time.
Hopefully my photo is vague enough to not ruffle anyone's feathers.
I have access to a high end video bore scope but knew that posting any images from that would be crossing the line.
(If anyone at TBAC is upset about the image I posted, please let me know and I will remove it.)

Your explanation as to how this design manipulates the gas is very enlightening.
I can visualize how this would function.
When I examined the can with our video bore scope a few things really stood out to me.
The inside of the suppressor, just like the outside of the suppressor has no visible seams or welds.
Your conclusion that "everything goes through the bore with this design" is correct.
There are not any openings in the baffles other than the bore.
All of the baffles appeared to be identical to me and the internal surface of the end cap is flat.
My examination was very brief, unscientific and purely motivated by my curiosity of how well the 30P-1 performs .
(I was also curious over how dirty it might be after 1K rounds.)

What other "superb cans" would you recommend?
I'm always interested in learning new and exciting things.

Thanks again for the insight!
 
#15
Re: stainless vs TI for can material

Kind words. You own a great can, few as fine for precision. To see a completely different approach, one where there are secondary pathways, pressure reducing to the second chamber and forward purge, three different baffle facings and two distinctly different chambers, plus a fundamentally different approach to the bore flow, one in which the tail gas cannot follow the bullet in the same vector. Very different boost characteristics as well. Look down the new can by the company that Paulson put on the cover of both volume one and two.

How did the can look after 1,000 rounds? So much for cleaning sealed cans eh? I hope you left in whatever you found.
 
#16
Re: stainless vs TI for can material

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some have seen it and say "high pressure turbulence" or perhaps even "entrapment conical."
</div></div>

I would wonder how anyone could realistically suggest to know- certainly there is only about 1/5 of one baffle of the entire system visible without buying and deconstructing a suppressor to know anything about it. If that is EDM work, it's certainly a lot of wire time- maybe even an hour per baffle. 3D waterjet would make better sense if it could be integrated.

It works- Bravo- That's what I say. It's not a mono-core- again, good deal- mono-cores aren't very likely to be as strong as baffle/spacer systems. It's light, it's accurate, it's quiet.

 
#17
Re: stainless vs TI for can material

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How did the can look after 1,000 rounds? So much for cleaning sealed cans eh? I hope you left in whatever you found. </div></div>I did leave everything alone inside the suppressor.
The self cleaning concept has been proven with this can.
Using the 30P-1 on my 308 bolt gun & 10" 300 BLK AR, there is a uniform build up of carbon, but it only builds up a few thousands of an inch before it is knocked loose and purged.
Every time I remove the suppressor from the host, there is always a bunch of carbon that falls out.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would wonder how anyone could realistically suggest to know- certainly there is only about 1/5 of one baffle of the entire system visible without buying and deconstructing a suppressor to know anything about it.</div></div>I presume that RT51 has seen this design before and is familiar with the design concept.
Deconstruction is not necessary either.
Non-Destructive testing is a very big part of aviation and is capable of things that most folks never even thought possible.
A video bore scope like this:
everestvit-videoprobexlpro.jpg
everestvit-videoprobexlproplus1.jpg

The Everest VT XL can take incredible images and even do measurements if so inclined.
If one needed to know other details, they could be had via a simple X-Ray.
I would never publicly post images that compromise proprietary technical information and do not condone the reverse engineering of products.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If that is EDM work, it's certainly a lot of wire time- maybe even an hour per baffle. 3D waterjet would make better sense if it could be integrated.</div></div>Machining techniques and technologies are very much out of my lane.
I can tell you that there are tool marks clearly visible on the baffles and the cuts on the flutes look to me as if they were made using a ball mill.
The tool marks on the baffles that are visible in my photo are the only tool marks that I can find on the entire suppressor.
(Those marks are consistent and are on every baffle though.)

Anyhow, my apologies to the OP for the hijack.
I hope you were at least able to gleam a bit of technical information from it.
 
#18
Re: stainless vs TI for can material

Griff, I can appreciate your comment. It takes a lot of time.

EDM would have been used to create the mold only. This one looks like it started out as a casting because of the waving seen even post potential secondary machining. I don't think an end mill would have skid like this coming out. Could have been cleaned up.

A live tool machine could cut this whole baffle. I think that is why we see TB making solid investments in new equipment (see TB's other thread).

P.S. the bright face is lead build up. Copper is there, too. Look to the left and you will see copper spec, to the right of the blur is a little as well. That is all bleed off.

In any event, one has to work at this....

sd7.jpg
 
#19
Re: stainless vs TI for can material

Great thread - interesting to hear the speculation about the baffle design. Some is close, some is far off.
cool.gif


Just a few points I'll mention:

It's much easier to examine the baffle in a 30BA or 338BA just because the hole in the back is bigger (although the brake does change gas flow). image here The baffle face design is not a big secret - anyone can shine a light down there and look.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">all while providing superb accuracy in regard to the projectile</div></div>
Yep. We're accuracy guys.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">P.S. the bright face is lead build up</div></div>
If we're looking at the same thing, the bright face in the baffle photo looks like carbon to me.

For those interested, the original 30P did have some "other than bore" gas paths.

Agreed about monocores. They are supposedly the sexy, "in" thing, but they are less efficient for simple reasons of topology.

RollingThunder51, your praise of our can is noted and appreciated.
 
#20
Re: stainless vs TI for can material

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Zak Smith</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If we're looking at the same thing, the bright face in the baffle photo looks like carbon to me.</div></div>Since I haven't shot anything but fully jacketed bullets through my 30P-1, I was curious how I got lead on the baffles.

Thanks again for hooking me up with my suppressor.
There isn't a competition that I go to where at least half a dozen people come up to me and comment on "how good is sounds".
It always leads to a lengthy discussion of your products.
 
#21
Re: stainless vs TI for can material

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Raider1v1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Im comparing the Liberty Freedom vs the Victory and i dont know if the TI is better than the SS on an AR used for prairie dog hunting and shooting at the range.

what are your thoughts on this? i have seen multiple posts on "it will be fine dont worry about it" and the ones that say the "ti is better than SS" and dont give a reason.

</div></div>

Designers/users jumped in pushed this thread off mission. I like my YHM Phantom 762 Stainless Steel for multiple host use. For a prone/bench gun or static prarie dog gun I think the additional weight will only serve you in reduced recoil. I've seen guys running this can on everything from a 22-250 to a .300WM. Price is right as well and I think the can will outlast the gun.
 
#22
Re: stainless vs TI for can material

Some really awesome information here guys, I would love to play with baffle design on a form 1 someday... if only I had experience turning =)

The quality of people here on SH is top notch. I have lots of shooting forum memberships, but this is one of the few I frequent on a daily basis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Suppressors Help Me Choose My Next Can.
Replies
84
Views
4K
mebgardner
M
Supersubes
Suppressors SiCo Scythe review
Replies
27
Views
9K
wind gypsy
W
Y
Arken 4-16 vs Athlon 4-14
Replies
8
Views
431
yosemite_sam
Y
S
Vectronix Vector X vs Sig Kilo10K Gen 2 Initial Impressions
Replies
18
Views
3K
GBMaryland
GBMaryland
iflyskyhigh
Rifle Scopes Burris XTR III vs Burris XTR Pro vs NX8 4-32...or
Replies
60
Views
4K
ARShooter91
A
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts