Armory Sponsor
Posted: 4/26/2010 9:57:43 AM EDT
|
Here is a pic of the blast baffle on my M4-2000..
Was wondering if the erosion on it is normal. Has about 1000 rounds through it.. Mostly 10.5in barrel.. Isnt that good of a pic. Hard to get in there with the camera.. 
|
|
I am not surprised, and my comments are valid for virtually all .223 suppressors on this barrel.
Everyone is enamored with the 10.5 inch barrels (and even shorter). The cartridge was designed for a 20" barrel, and the 14.5" is a compromise. At 10.5 inches, the gas pressure on exiting is 50% higher than the 14.5" and the powder has not burned nearly as completely as in a longer barrel. The result is a significantly higher velocity of partially burned powder particles (functioning like a plasma cutter) with significantly accelerated erosion of the blast baffle. Further, with barrels shorter than 14.5, the increased rate of fire when a suppressor is mounted is greater with increased rearward bolt velocity and increased wear on the weapon. The projectile velocity is also seriously compromised and the effective killing range of the bullet is seriously diminished. When you consider a 7" barreled .223, things are even worse with the exiting gas pressure approximately 50% higher than with the 10.5" barrel. The bottom line is that when you use a suppressor on a 10.5 inch barrel, you accelerate the wear and decrease the lifespan of the suppressor as well as the entire weapon. |
|
Quoted:
I am not surprised, and my comments are valid for virtually all .223 suppressors on this barrel. Everyone is enamored with the 10.5 inch barrels (and even shorter). The cartridge was designed for a 20" barrel, and the 14.5" is a compromise. At 10.5 inches, the gas pressure on exiting is 50% higher than the 14.5" and the powder has not burned nearly as completely as in a longer barrel. The result is a significantly higher velocity of partially burned powder particles (functioning like a plasma cutter) with significantly accelerated erosion of the blast baffle. Further, with barrels shorter than 14.5, the increased rate of fire when a suppressor is mounted is greater with increased rearward bolt velocity and increased wear on the weapon. The projectile velocity is also seriously compromised and the effective killing range of the bullet is seriously diminished. When you consider a 7" barreled .223, things are even worse with the exiting gas pressure approximately 50% higher than with the 10.5" barrel. The bottom line is that when you use a suppressor on a 10.5 inch barrel, you accelerate the wear and decrease the lifespan of the suppressor as well as the entire weapon. I'm pretty sure even opting for an 11.5" barrel would significantly reduce wear. Those baffles look pretty bad for only 1000 rounds. This is the blast baffle on a SCAR SD fired on a 10.5" SCAR for 1000 rounds using M855 and firing 210 rounds per day with range sessions lasting probably 10 minutes. 
The errosion you see is the Stainless Steel baffles forward of the inconel blast baffle At 2000 rounds the baffle looked very similar to that picture. That older blast baffle may fair better due to more mass to heat than the newer baffle- or maybe its thickess allowed AAC to age harden it to a higher RC scale number without experiencing heat cracking, in which case the newer baffles may not be quite as hard. I'm sure that the errosion is less meaningful as your second baffle probably looks 10% better and so on. There are a lot of baffles to errode inside the newer AAC silencers so that should imply high wear life when you consider you'll have to substantially errode several baffles prior to experiencing any negative performance characteristics. I've seen one of our silencers with 7000 rounds through it on a 14.5" barrel and it looked significantly better than these M4-2000 pictures, so it's pretty obvious you'll get ~5 times the life out of the 14.5" barrel combo. That particular silencer had a 718 inconel blast baffle that was not age hardened so it should have been 25RC. Obviously that is the difference between hot gas moving through baffles and hot gas with unburned powder particles moving through the suppressor. |
|
I think that looking at those two stainless baffles in my picture, anything will help but no muzzle device will be as significant an aid as a longer barrel. The triple tap muzzle device is a $300 muzzle device. It's probably a better idea to use a longer barrel, or a less expensive silencer if an economic savings over time is desired.
KAC may know. I'll bet it's less than 20%. My 10.3" barrel was throwing a 10-12" diameter 18-20" long cone of fire- that is the extent of the unburned powder/gas volume and it is still probably sufficient to reach every baffle inside a ~7" long silencer 10.3 video With the bullet inside the barrel, powder burning is more efficient under pressure and those 4" of barrel probably reduce that phenomenon by ~60-70%. |
|
Quoted:
Can someone post a picture of a brand spankin' new blast baffle so I see the difference? Mine has about 2k through it on a 10.5" gun. Thanks It looks the same, it's just clean and has sharper edges that aren't ragged and torn looking. 
As you can see this one looks almost exactly the same after 1000 rds. 
|
|
Quoted:
It looks the same, it's just clean and has sharper edges that aren't ragged and torn looking. http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd224/paintballplayer700/AACM4-2kMod08blastbaffle.jpg As you can see this one looks almost exactly the same after 1000 rds. http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b42/Whatfreakinnameisnttaken/DSC00699.jpg GreenO, is the second suppressor an older M4-2000? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can someone post a picture of a brand spankin' new blast baffle so I see the difference? Mine has about 2k through it on a 10.5" gun. Thanks It looks the same, it's just clean and has sharper edges that aren't ragged and torn looking. http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd224/paintballplayer700/AACM4-2kMod08blastbaffle.jpg As you can see this one looks almost exactly the same after 1000 rds. http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b42/Whatfreakinnameisnttaken/DSC00699.jpg GreenO, Which of those cans has 1000 rounds through it?? How did it get so clean?? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can someone post a picture of a brand spankin' new blast baffle so I see the difference? Mine has about 2k through it on a 10.5" gun. Thanks It looks the same, it's just clean and has sharper edges that aren't ragged and torn looking. http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd224/paintballplayer700/AACM4-2kMod08blastbaffle.jpg As you can see this one looks almost exactly the same after 1000 rds. http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b42/Whatfreakinnameisnttaken/DSC00699.jpg GreenO, Which of those cans has 1000 rounds through it?? How did it get so clean?? I think they're both new and he meant compared to the one he had pictured in his prior post. The one with the clean M4-2k is brand new as well. |
|
Quoted:
/snip I think they're both new and he meant compared to the one he had pictured in his prior post. The one with the clean M4-2k is brand new as well. Ah. I didn't know if it was a older M4-2000, a SCAR-SD, or if the brand new M4-2000's were shipping like that. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It looks the same, it's just clean and has sharper edges that aren't ragged and torn looking. http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd224/paintballplayer700/AACM4-2kMod08blastbaffle.jpg As you can see this one looks almost exactly the same after 1000 rds. http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b42/Whatfreakinnameisnttaken/DSC00699.jpg GreenO, is the second suppressor an older M4-2000? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile That's the style. I don't know what silencer that is, I just pulled that off a yahoo images search. Yeah obviously I was saying that the 1000 rds fired SCAR SD baffle looks almost the same as the one that is obviously brand new and in the white. I could see some very minor surface abrasion on the fired one, but it looked really good when you compare it to the cones pictured in the thread. It may have something to do with the chamfer they nocked into the parts. Obviously without a sharp edge it's harder to peen the edge over into the bore. At any rate it is a very durable component. |
|
Quoted:
Here is a couple of pics of my NT4. It has about 4k rounds through it, at least 3/4's of that was on a 10.5" while the rest were on an 14.5". http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/4116/dscf3798.jpg http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/7525/dscf3825u.jpg http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/9540/dscf3816j.jpg Thank you for the pics. Its nice to see how other manufacturers hold up. |
Armory Sponsor