$vboptions[bbtitle]
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: New Internals Design Idea

  1. #1
    Registered User sniperdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    2,730

    New Internals Design Idea

    I'm thinking that a complete redesign of the standard Baffle or Monocore systems may be the next big breakthrough in silencer technology.
    Maybe the internal parts should capture the gas, hold it for a short period of time, and release it slowly. (Analogy: a slow leak in a balloon vs a sudden pop)
    It would need to work like an air tank; the gases would pressurize the silencer up to a certain level, then gradually release the cooled gases (like the Safety Valve on your Air Compressor tank)

    Feedback? Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    227
    The only "valve" that can allow passage of a bullet but slow down gas escape I am aware of is called a "wipe".

  3. #3
    Registered User sniperdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    2,730
    I'm thinking maybe pressure activated flaps.

  4. #4
    Registered User sniperdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    2,730
    The "flaps" could be hypothetically placed over vents in a tube, and when the bullet passes the flap, it flips down, allowing the gas to enter a pressure chamber. When the pressure in the tube drops (bullet exits), the flap closes automatically.

  5. #5
    Registered User sniperdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    2,730
    The release valve would be located on the outside of the can.
    It would slowly release the pressure.
    Kinda inspired by the recharge of a portable nail gun, but venting to the atmosphere.
    The gases from the fired cartridge would "charge" a "reservoir", essentially like an air compressor charges an airtank.

  6. #6
    UZI Talk Supporter
    Captain murrica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    860
    I'm not an expert on this subject by any stretch of the imagination, but it sounds like more gas in the face letting pressure build, there is no way I see to keep it from traveling backwards to your face. You would have to capture it in the can and then vent, which thinking now is probably what you were getting at. Disregard everything I just said haha. But I still see one major problem, that is you're basically creating a bomb inches away from your face and if the vent fails, well it's going to be a really bad day.
    God, Family, Guns.....Life is Good! ROMANS 10:9-10

  7. #7
    Registered User sniperdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    2,730
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain murrica View Post
    I'm not an expert on this subject by any stretch of the imagination, but it sounds like more gas in the face letting pressure build, there is no way I see to keep it from traveling backwards to your face. You would have to capture it in the can and then vent, which thinking now is probably what you were getting at. Disregard everything I just said haha. But I still see one major problem, that is you're basically creating a bomb inches away from your face and if the vent fails, well it's going to be a really bad day.
    Yes, the can will become a "pressure chamber", just like an air tank.
    Good call on the potential danger! I never thought of that.
    I guess the "fail safe" would have to be an end cap that flies off (releasing all pressure immediately) at a critical pressure.

  8. #8
    Registered User sniperdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    2,730
    This may take some serious work for FA Guns, but it should be doable for slow fire

  9. #9
    UZI Talk Supporter
    Villafuego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    409
    Pressure relief system ya say????


  10. #10
    Registered User sniperdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    2,730
    Quote Originally Posted by Villafuego View Post
    Pressure relief system ya say????

    Kinda.
    You are killing my Retirement Plan!

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,238
    Quote Originally Posted by sniperdoc View Post
    I'm thinking that a complete redesign of the standard Baffle or Monocore systems may be the next big breakthrough in silencer technology.
    Maybe the internal parts should capture the gas, hold it for a short period of time, and release it slowly. (Analogy: a slow leak in a balloon vs a sudden pop)
    It would need to work like an air tank; the gases would pressurize the silencer up to a certain level, then gradually release the cooled gases (like the Safety Valve on your Air Compressor tank)

    Feedback? Thoughts?
    This concept has been kicked around in various forms for over 100 years. See, for a few examples, U.S. patents no. 658,934; 832,695; 880,386; and 1,018,720.

    I would venture that among the reasons for the commercial failure of the concept include cost when compared to other, what now are conventional designs; and the problem that, even with that newfangled smokeless powder, the suppressor valve mechanism would quickly get fouled and become inoperative or ineffective.

    MHO, YMMV, etc.

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by sniperdoc View Post
    I'm thinking maybe pressure activated flaps.
    IIRC, one of the silencer books out there had a patent for a silencer that used a mechanical cap that plugged the bore after the bullet passed through, basically the increased pressure inside the tube moved a piston that used a linkage to move the cap over the exit hole. The general consensus was by the time any mechanical action took place the gases had already exited. Plus it would get fouled quickly and quit moving.

    Quote Originally Posted by sniperdoc View Post
    The "flaps" could be hypothetically placed over vents in a tube, and when the bullet passes the flap, it flips down, allowing the gas to enter a pressure chamber. When the pressure in the tube drops (bullet exits), the flap closes automatically.
    Co-axial suppressor, basically a larger outer tube covering a smaller inner tube, popular design for subgun cans back in the day. The inner tube has a conventional "M" baffle stack in the front and an expansion chamber in the rear. The expansion chamber area has tiny holes drilled in it, when fired the high pressure gas flows quickly through the small holes, pressurizing the outer tube and bleeding gas off behind the bullet. After the bullet exits the inner tube, the pressure drops and now the pressure in the outer tube flows back through the holes and into the inner tube where they exit out the front hole. Since the outer tube has a great volume to it and the gasses cooled expanding into it, the pressure going back through the small holes is less and thus it takes longer for the pressure to bleed off, lessening the noise of their exit. Some designs had ported bbls to pressurize the expansion chamber, increasing the efficiency since the bullet was still plugging the bbl when the gas started to flow into the suppressor. IIRC, the STEN MKII version had a screw on collar to block the holes in the bbl. So you could leave them open and bleed off the gas, making normal ball ammo subsonic like the MP5SD does, or block them with the collar and retain full pressure/velocity with heavier subsonic loads. Or tune for best reliability.

    Simple system with no moving parts, just requires a drill bit be run through the holes occasionally to keep them open. Drawbacks are bulk and weight, more modern designs work the gases through complicated baffle designs and produce similar sound signatures with less tube and less weight.

    Probably the most "outside the box" patent I have ever seen for a suppressor was essentially a dog whistle attached to the muzzle. The idea being the full volume was still there, just raised to a high enough frequency only Fido would hear it!

  13. #13
    Registered User sniperdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    2,730
    Doesn't the muzzle attachment for the AN94 have the "dog whistle" in it?

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by sniperdoc View Post
    Doesn't the muzzle attachment for the AN94 have the "dog whistle" in it?

    That was the rumor, but all the "official" press releases I have seen just call it a "self cleaning muzzle brake". In any event, plenty of vids of it being fired, if it reduces audible sounds at all it is only a Db or so!

  15. #15
    Registered User sniperdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    2,730
    Quote Originally Posted by slimshady View Post
    That was the rumor, but all the "official" press releases I have seen just call it a "self cleaning muzzle brake". In any event, plenty of vids of it being fired, if it reduces audible sounds at all it is only a Db or so!
    From what I've seen/heard, if it's designed to alleviate noise, it doesn't work.

+ Reply to 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


Please consider becoming an UZI Talk Supporter.