waterhouse

June 17, 2008, 11:45 AM

Is there some sort of ideal ratio of length to diameter on suppressors?

Most 5.56 cans on the market seem to be 1.5" in diameter by 6.5-7" in length. I know soundtech had the Fatboy, which was closer to 2" in diameter and about 5", but these are not popular dimensions amongst the different manufacturers.

The sight height on an AR is pretty high, so it doesn't seem like added diameter on the can would be any sort of issue, but it would be nice to have a shorter can on something like an SBR while still maintaining high DB reduction. Do the baffles just not work well if they get too tall, or is it that baffles have to be a certain width to work and shortening the can would cut down on the number of baffles?

If I'm doing the math correctly, a 6.8" long can with a 1.5" diameter (YHM Phantom, for example) has a volume of about 12 cubic inches. If the can's diameter is increased to 2", a length of 4" would give a volume of 12.5 cubic inches, a greater volume in a suppressor that is almost 3" shorter.

Is there just not a market for this sort of thing, or is there some part of the design process that makes short, stocky suppressors poor performers?

Most 5.56 cans on the market seem to be 1.5" in diameter by 6.5-7" in length. I know soundtech had the Fatboy, which was closer to 2" in diameter and about 5", but these are not popular dimensions amongst the different manufacturers.

The sight height on an AR is pretty high, so it doesn't seem like added diameter on the can would be any sort of issue, but it would be nice to have a shorter can on something like an SBR while still maintaining high DB reduction. Do the baffles just not work well if they get too tall, or is it that baffles have to be a certain width to work and shortening the can would cut down on the number of baffles?

If I'm doing the math correctly, a 6.8" long can with a 1.5" diameter (YHM Phantom, for example) has a volume of about 12 cubic inches. If the can's diameter is increased to 2", a length of 4" would give a volume of 12.5 cubic inches, a greater volume in a suppressor that is almost 3" shorter.

Is there just not a market for this sort of thing, or is there some part of the design process that makes short, stocky suppressors poor performers?