Wet vs dry suppressor - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Wet vs dry suppressor

  1. Quote Originally Posted by titon View Post
    if you don't know to keep the water out of the "tunnel" thru which the bullet must pass, yes. My baffles are made of folded, spindled and compressed screenwire, so they "hold" the water, unlike solid metal baffles. Also, the sleeve design puts most of the gases betweeen the 2 tubes, where the water can't get into the tunnel.
    Wholy crap how old is your suppressor or is it home made? Nobody uses screen anymore. It is horribly ineffective Also due to ATF rulings all suppressor parts are NON user serviceable or replaceable they must go to 02 sot for that. The danger is not so much he water as the expanding water vapor that can and hs caused many rifle caliber suppressor to pop like a zit on the mirror. Also this is why wire pulling GEL is the best choice as it sticks and does not run or evaporate like water does and unlike the white lithium grease they used to be popular it is not nasty and sticky and dirty.

  2.   
  3. #12
    u obviously don't know squat. Screen is the very best possible material for a silencer baffle. it is perfect for instantly absorbing the heat from the powder gases, then losing it instantly, so that repeat shots are just as quiet as the first one. My 223 can is 1 3/4" in OD, only 8" long, and it keeps 223 blast down to the same level of noise as a high speed, regular old ..22lr from a rifle barrel. nobody's baffles do a better job, and I can make a can's worth of baffles for $5 and in 1 hour. You go ahead and pay $1000 to somebody who's lying to you about how "superior" a solid metal baffle is. :-)

  4. Quote Originally Posted by trainor View Post
    u obviously don't know squat. Screen is the very best possible material for a silencer baffle. it is perfect for instantly absorbing the heat from the powder gases, then losing it instantly, so that repeat shots are just as quiet as the first one.
    I have been building and buying suppressors for 25 plus years I am also know many in the industry and have been to testing sessions where your theory has been show to be false. With one exception a screen wipe can can be AMAZINGLY quiet I agree with this 100 percent. However the fact these are good for 5 to 10 rounds tops kinds of makes them useless these days. As you may or may not know the BATF has classified screen, wipes and even Brillo as suppressor parts. Thus ONLY a manufacturer OR a 02 sot can replace suppressor parts. So if you shoot 20 rounds burn out your screen it is ILLEGAL for you to replace that screen. Suppressor parts as per BATF ARE suppressors thus illegal to posses. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WIPES THAT ARE PURCHASED. You can not longer cut your own.


    Quote Originally Posted by trainor View Post
    My 223 can is 1 3/4" in OD, only 8" long, and it keeps 223 blast down to the same level of noise as a high speed, regular old ..22lr from a rifle barrel.
    Unless it is the type of single use can I cite above then I call fowl. I woudl have to see numbers from a standard sound test to even start to believe that. I would be willing to put MONEY on that..


    Quote Originally Posted by trainor View Post
    nobody's baffles do a better job, and I can make a can's worth of baffles for $5 and in 1 hour. You go ahead and pay $1000 to somebody who's lying to you about how "superior" a solid metal baffle is. :-)
    Again this depends on your idea of "superior" as to what is best. Of course if your a assassin and only require a couple shots then a wipe can is a great choice. However if want a can that is solid and lasts there are better choices. My integral 10/22 is a monocore machined into a .920 barrel and all you can hear is the bolt. Of course the best baffle type depends on caliber and use. For example your screen suppressor for a 5.56 on my16 would likely cause the internals to turn to slag in a matter of a few mags I know this because I have done it. The primary reason you know a screen type can is not good technology anymore is that nobody makes them.


    Please fell free to let me know what state you are in and I will be happy to see if I can find someone close to you who has the equipment to test your "super" can. Or feel free to show up at any of the suppressor shoots and speak to a factory person most love to help people get there cans tested as a new better design could be worth allot of money. You never know your can could set you up for life but I would be willing to bet against it.

  5. #14
    you don't know squat. I make compressed screen wire donut baffles, like Walsh used to sell, they are approxmately 3/4" long, not single screen, they NEVER wear out, the bullets can't touch ANYTHING, if you expect rifle type accuracy, so what "wipe" are you talking out of your butt about?

  6. #15
    nobody is making enough money in cans to be "set for life" if they can keep every dime, much less just a 5% patent royalty. Your ignorance is showing, dude.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by trainor View Post
    you don't know squat. I make compressed screen wire donut baffles, like Walsh used to sell, they are approxmately 3/4" long, not single screen, they NEVER wear out, the bullets can't touch ANYTHING, if you expect rifle type accuracy, so what "wipe" are you talking out of your butt about?
    Maybe you should read. I said a screen/ wipe suppressor. This is a outdated way of making a suppressor using screen to redirect gas and wipes to contain it between chambers. And NONE last. Now as for the screen It is thin and very susceptible to heat thus on a m16 ( that is a MACHINE GUN ) the internals commonly last very short time.

    Everything wears out it is simply a matter of time.

    As for making money Kevin Brittingham did pretty dam well he sure is not hurting. ( he was the guy in case you did not know who started AAC as a hobby )

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast