Armory Sponsor
I thought it was helium injected, to make it float. How long/heavy is it? Seems like you are going with a single point mount. With typically long barrels for 50, why not use a two point mount and do some reflex over the barrel? |
What you see is a computer graphics rendering. AAC does not just do CAD drafting, but solid modeling with Finite Element Analysis and Computational Fluid Dynamics to optimize the design before physical prototypes are made. This has come out of the R&D done for the SCAR program for SOCOM. We [don't] make em the old fashioned way. This will be a fully-welded can. We are going to try it on an M2-HB with a belt of ammo. The design goal is for it to be able to handle that. |
About 3x18, goes over the barrel 3 inches, so adds about 15 inches, and 9 lbs. It is supported in the can by the very front of the muzzle brake, and then by the threads which are many inches back -- so it will be precise. Before anyone says "Yeah, but it is larger than other 50 BMG silencers, and weights more." True, but I believe it is necessary. Here is why: I put a lot of data into a spreadsheet to calculate the size -- the diameter and length of many 5.56mm and 7.62mm cans -- and factored in the volume, grains of powder of those cartridges, bore size, and dB reduction. I have determined a rule for about how big a can needs to be to reach a certain sound level. There are 240 grains of powder to deal with. It is like car engines -- a normal engine might be 80 HP per liter. A high performance engine might be 100 HP per liter. A really high performance engine might be 120 HP per liter. In all cases, you need to start with a reasonable displacement for the application -- and then you can optimize for the best performance. That means for a car engine, if you want 500 HP (and you want it to last) you need something in the 4-6 liter range. Likewise, for a hearing-safe 50 can, you need something in the 80-120 cubic inch range depending on if the baffles are basic or advanced. None of the nine 50 BMG models submitted to the military last year were hearing safe (Ref: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/semick.pdf) All seemed over ~145 dB. Some seemed to be ~155dB. I have personally never metered a 50 can which was hearing safe. This one will be. So that is one aspect of the design. The guts are another. The inside is really neat, and I might release an image of it later. |
Yes, it will be as good as other round muzzle brakes. Not as good as the best giant clamshell brakes. That is best tested also on a test-bed with instrumentation. I am not leaving that to chance. |
|
It doesn't look at all like a giant surefire/ops can. That comment is rediculous. A threaded muzzle attachment does not imply Ops or Surefire. "It is like car engines -- a normal engine might be 80 HP per liter. A high performance engine might be 100 HP per liter. A really high performance engine might be 120 HP per liter. In all cases, you need to start with a reasonable displacement for the application -- and then you can optimize for the best performance. That means for a car engine, if you want 500 HP (and you want it to last) you need something in the 4-6 liter range. Likewise, for a hearing-safe 50 can, you need something in the 80-120 cubic inch range depending on if the baffles are basic or advanced." That is a really bad example when there are ricers now that crank 500 or more horses out of engines smaller than 1.5liter. peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Massive_Yet_Tiny_%28MYT%29_Engine I understand what you are trying to say though and I don't think you can make a quiet can that isn't large enough to allow the expanding gasses to expand somewhat. I think that might be where an integral can work a lot harder with less space through porting in an integral design; the gasses can have a more controled exit. Given that your project requires a muzzle can, that is probably a good size to achieve your goals. Weight shouldn't be an issue, as you said earlier, that weight could easilly be chopped off the barrel- esspecially when the barrel needs threading anyway. That way added length might be only half that or less also. Does the "blackout" mean anything here? I thought the idea of the blackout division was carbon fiber. is it not? |
I posted a video of me shooting my 50 without a brake. It hurt. The brakes work well. A 50 BMG starts out in the 175 to 180 dB range -- so even a 30 dB reduction can is 145-150 dB. |
|
I completely understand the comparison to a car engine. Regardless of how much horsepower is created, a specific engine displacement will create a specific volume of exhaust gases. A 632 cubic inch Chevy Big Block likes a pair of 5" inlet/outlet diameter mufflers to breath, while a 2.2 liter Toyota is happy with a single 1.5" pipe. Personally, I believe the key to noise suppression is the volume (size) of a suppressor. I'll bet if a suppressor was built the size of a 55 gallon drum, the report would be dead silent, except for the obvious supersonic crack. Might not be practical on a rooftop though. 
|
Very often a smaller diameter can will be more efficient as it works the gas harder than a larger can. If volume were the most important factor, then no modern suppressor would be able to beat the huge 1960's era designs. |
|
"Very often a smaller diameter can will be more efficient as it works the gas harder than a larger can. If volume were the most important factor, then no modern suppressor would be able to beat the huge 1960's era designs." I think more likely, it is the size design and number of the individual chambers that makes an impact on performance more than the size of the can itself [IE 50 gallon drum could very well be louder than this AAC suppressor, without sophisticated internal baffles]; here though obviously AAC technology is going to make a suppressor that can net a specific DB reduction by cubic inch and more is more. In other words a 3.5inch SRT .22lr can is claimed to net 35DB, but it won't net more reduction than a 6inch built using the same technology and materials. |
When shown standing alone it looks a manageable size. When shown on that very large rifle that can looks HUGE...... Does the "lessening of felt recoil" apply to .50bmg suppressors? I know that the recoil feels softer, or maybe smoother is the right word, on the 5.56...does it translate to a similar effect for .50 cans? |
I also notice that a .308 with a can on it is super gentle to shoot, but it does not seem to work that way for 50 BMG. Out of the nine 50 BMG cans tested by the military in the last trial, about three of them matched the recoil of the muzzle brake, and the other six had more recoil. It warrants special attention in the design. |
The next interesting 7.62mm can will be the SCAR-H can. Nothing for 5.56mm beyond the SCAR-L and M4-2000 for the short term. There are several radical cans in development in general. I will show some of them inside and out over the next few months. They are really like nothing ever seen. |
Square baffles? |
|
I think it's good to remember that 50caliber rifles in military use aren't lithe game-guns. They are heavy as shit. 32 pounds for sniper rifles and probably a hundred for an M2. a six pound can is not going to hurt weight and maneuverability if 6-10inches of barrel can be removed. As far as maneuverability, the can quick detaching from a muzzle brake means it can be removed if the rifle needs to be more maneuverable. If the barrel is shortened and the suppressor comes off the weapon will actually be more manageable than it initially was capable of being rendered. |
| The can looks awsome! Let me see if I am getting this all right. The can should reduce sound to an "ear safe" level, and the recoil should be no worse than a normal round "shark gill" style brake? I'm amazed that you guys are using CFD and solidworks to model with, sounds like the aviation industry. Kudos, and I look forward to more progress reports. |
|
Guys do hump 50 cal sniper rifles. The M2's are deffinitely static or vehicular. of course extra weight and length are not good on vehicles. (hitting things and slowing the turret down are not desired). I had a buddy who had his turret pointing at two o'clock and the barrel of his M2 hit a truck they were passing. His turret spun and his finger almost got severed when it was pinched between a part of the turret and the geared ring that the turret crank indexes on. That it works is more important than weight, but if you guys are threading barrels anyway, why not shorten them a little if the government allows it? You could reduce the physical change in the recoiling barrel, and the length added by mounting the can. I know that could reduce effective range, but I really doubt the M2 without a specially developed mounting and optical sighting system is effective much beyond 500 to 1000yds anyway. Guys in my unit put down harrassing fire on the vicinity of a mortar crew at 2400meters once, but I don't think that had any effect. As an aside, my brother recently lost some hearing in his right ear and now has tinitus like I do from an incident where he was firing a 50cal [M2] on a Kuwait gun range and his ear plug worked loose. How well did the 3x20" BR toute do? |
Most of the 50s I am aware of are mounted on HUMVEES and other vehicles for IED detonation, checkpoints for vehicle disablement, etc. Very few are humped around by snipers. Soldiers in and around them rarely wear plugs 24x7, and do not have time to put them in when 50 needs to be shot. |
|
I think a soldier not wearing ear plugs while operating a 50cal is stupid. That's just me, but I like to think ahead. If I'm behind the gun I just might have to fire it, and if I do and it is a 50 it will result in severe hearing loss. I don't really think there is any way around that. I know what you mean though, some soldiers drive convoys without earplugs in spite of an IED threat that amounts to guaranteed ruptured eardrums regardless of wether the vehicle is penetrated with shrapnel. Most soldiers wouldn't wear them [even loose to be punched in if the need to fire arises] while sitting behind a 50cal on base defense either because they don't think ahead, are afraid of not being able to hear and locate a source of gunfire, or because they don't want to be uncomfortable. I guess this suppressor might solve all these problems except for the IED threat. |
Armory Sponsor