Air Lock Industries Suppressor

[StupidLightweight]

I've not used the Airlock Zero Gravity suppressor, but an ultralight hunting can that sounds as good as this should intrigue nearly every member of this forum. The weights of their two suppressors are unheard of. I'm excited to learn more about how they hold up from use.

 

[DannyB]

There seems to be a disconnect with Form when it comes to safety. A suppressor separating during normal use is unsafe (insert Scythe Here). A suppressor failing at over double its rated temperature is a very different scenario. From an engineering standpoint, long-term durability and high-temperature failure are two separate metrics for evaluation.

Every titanium suppressor manufacturer cautions not to exceed ~800°, because the material’s strength drops quickly beyond that. In this case, I pushed one close to 2000°. That’s far outside intended use, and failure at that point is expected.

It’s like a bridge: if it can safely handle stress for hundreds of years, is it suddenly “unsafe” because it can’t survive those same stresses at 350°? Context matters. Our focus is building hunting suppressors, not belt fed suppressors. Safety is our number 1 priority, performance and weight follow.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

There seems to be a disconnect with Form when it comes to safety. A suppressor separating during normal use is unsafe (insert Scythe Here). A suppressor failing at over double its rated temperature is a very different scenario. From an engineering standpoint, long-term durability and high-temperature failure are two separate metrics for evaluation.

Every titanium suppressor manufacturer cautions not to exceed ~800°, because the material’s strength drops quickly beyond that. In this case, I pushed one close to 2000°. That’s far outside intended use, and failure at that point is expected.

It’s like a bridge: if it can safely handle stress for hundreds of years, is it suddenly “unsafe” because it can’t survive those same stresses at 350°? Context matters. Our focus is building hunting suppressors, not belt fed suppressors. Safety is our number 1 priority, performance and weight follow.

So, “don’t do this” is clearly explained to the consumer?


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[5811]

Yes, that was my original understanding as well. That is why I looked into it further. You can permanently damage your ears without ringing. And ringing is not automatically a sign of permanent damage.

Like I said, permanent vs temporary but it still indicates some level of damage.

There is an aspect of temporary damage that is cumulative.

I agree, wear ear protection as much as you can. But I wouldn't say ringing ears =/= damage.

 

[DannyB]

So, “don’t do this” is clearly explained to the consumer?


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

Every suppressor we ship comes with a card detailing safety information, proper use and maintenance, legal restrictions, warranty, ammunition and barrel guidelines, and additional recommendations.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Every suppressor we ship comes with a card detailing safety information, proper use and maintenance, legal restrictions, warranty, ammunition and barrel guidelines, and additional recommendations.

If it was me - and I have said this about several companies - I would put it on the advertising material on your website as well. In today’s legal climate, I wouldn’t hang my company’s liability risk on something that isn’t searchable online. That helps a lot with “knew or should have known.” And I certainly wouldn’t want any discrepancy between what marketing says and what the engineers know and/or put into the product guidelines. If someone doesn’t buy your suppressor because they read that they cannot fire 50 rounds of 5.56 through it at a high rate, you don’t want their business anyway.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[MagnumHntr]

Every suppressor we ship comes with a card detailing safety information, proper use and maintenance, legal restrictions, warranty, ammunition and barrel guidelines, and additional recommendations.

It would be helpful if those details were on the website description also.

 

[DannyB]

It would be helpful if those details were on the website description also.

Thanks for the input. We have a page in our website builder that, for some reason, didn’t publish, and it also hasn’t been indexed by Google yet, so the URL isn’t searchable at the moment. Both of these issues will be fixed this weekend. We’ll also add the page to the description section so it’s accessible there as well.

 

[jonnyviceroy]

I think they each have their pros and cons but intended use matters. I don’t own a semiautomatic rifle of any kind and wouldn’t ever use something like the airlock on it anyways. But that doesn’t make it suddenly not a good suppressor.

That’s kind of like comparing bungee straps to heavy-duty chains and saying bungees are useless and unsafe. Sure, the bungees would never hold down an excavator, but I’d never in a million years try to strap down an excavator with them. I’d only ever use them to hold down a cooler in the back of my truck, and for that they’re perfect. Same thing here — I’m never going to run my suppressor in a way that requires that level of durability, so what actually matters to me is how quiet it is for the way I use it.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

There seems to be a disconnect with Form when it comes to safety. A suppressor separating during normal use is unsafe (insert Scythe Here). A suppressor failing at over double its rated temperature is a very different scenario. From an engineering standpoint, long-term durability and high-temperature failure are two separate metrics for evaluation.

Every titanium suppressor manufacturer cautions not to exceed ~800°, because the material’s strength drops quickly beyond that. In this case, I pushed one close to 2000°. That’s far outside intended use, and failure at that point is expected.

It’s like a bridge: if it can safely handle stress for hundreds of years, is it suddenly “unsafe” because it can’t survive those same stresses at 350°? Context matters. Our focus is building hunting suppressors, not belt fed suppressors. Safety is our number 1 priority, performance and weight follow.

In general this line of thought makes sense to me. Once can certainly debate if they are comfortable with the limitation or not but it certainly merits acknowledging the unintended use case with high heat is a factor. Not sure if form has something in mind about how this could lead to long term low temp failures he hasn't articulated (like if the material is thin enough to let go when overheated it means the margin under normal use is less than he desires) or if he just isn't comfortable with an overheated can having little margin for overheating "misuse".

Anyways, thanks for having good dialogue.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

In general this line of thought makes sense to me. Once can certainly debate if they are comfortable with the limitation or not but it certainly merits acknowledging the unintended use case with high heat is a factor. Not sure if form has something in mind about how this could lead to long term low temp failures he hasn't articulated (like if the material is thin enough to let go when overheated it means the margin under normal use is less than he desires) or if he just isn't comfortable with an overheated can having little margin for overheating "misuse".

Anyways, thanks for having good dialogue.

Yes, the dialogue improved immensely once DannyB showed up and started calmly explaining things instead of throwing shade at competing companies.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Yes, the dialogue improved immensely once DannyB showed up and started calmly explaining things instead of throwing shade at competing companies.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

YO MAMMA IS THE LOUDEST.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

YO MAMMA IS THE LOUDEST.

____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[WeiserBucks]

Thanks for the input. We have a page in our website builder that, for some reason, didn’t publish, and it also hasn’t been indexed by Google yet, so the URL isn’t searchable at the moment. Both of these issues will be fixed this weekend. We’ll also add the page to the description section so it’s accessible there as well.

I'll be damned if I can find the website?

 

[Dunky]

Found this for comparison. this is what is on the product page for a thunderbeast ultra 7
"

Material Properties​

The Ultras were designed to be the "ultimate" lightweight precision rifle suppressor. This means we used materials to meet those goals. Titanium, even Grade 5, is ultimately limited by temperature. The Ultras are very strong but excursions above 800 degrees are not good for the material. If you take it far enough above 1000 degrees, it will get too weak to sustain the blast and you would eventually get a failure. We recommend keeping the Ultra series less than 800 degrees.

Full auto by itself does not really increase the pressure or stress on the can, it's the heat energy input in combination. Full auto or bursts would be fine on an Ultra as long as the material temperature does not exceed that 800 degree safety mark. In our testing, one magazine fired rapid (mag-dump) from from an AR-10 or AR-15 does not exceed 800 degrees. Keep in mind this is firing at a full-auto-like rate. At that point you'd just have to let it cool. The second magazine may or may not cause it to exceed it depending on ambient conditions, loads, barrel length, etc. A shorter barrel will cause more heat input into the suppressor and its temperature will rise faster."

 

[Formidilosus]

There seems to be a disconnect with Form when it comes to safety. A suppressor separating during normal use is unsafe (insert Scythe Here). A suppressor failing at over double its rated temperature is a very different scenario. From an engineering standpoint, long-term durability and high-temperature failure are two separate metrics for evaluation.

Every titanium suppressor manufacturer cautions not to exceed ~800°, because the material’s strength drops quickly beyond that. In this case, I pushed one close to 2000°. That’s far outside intended use, and failure at that point is expected.

It’s like a bridge: if it can safely handle stress for hundreds of years, is it suddenly “unsafe” because it can’t survive those same stresses at 350°? Context matters. Our focus is building hunting suppressors, not belt fed suppressors. Safety is our number 1 priority, performance and weight follow.

It has nothing to do with belt feds- that is a red herring. The can will start glowing red over 800° F. 50 rounds of 223 didn’t exceed 800° F… well dear god if it is thin enough that it did.
For anyone that understands suppressor testing, safety, and what happens if anything goes wrong, anything- you have a fissure in the can from printing, you have a left over piece of Ti that didn’t get flushed, a slightly off print can, etc, etc- all things that can and do happen... You are so close to the edge of that can failing in normal use.

I do not want another stupid back and forth argument on here that just turns into a crap show- I have no personal care about Airlock- I was 100% genuine when I said I hoped it was the best can made. You are the owner or whatever- you can do whatever you want. If someone’s wants to make a can that is papier-mâché, and then put “can only be used for 1 round of 22LR an hour”- sure. If people want to buy that because “it’s light”, ok. Be big boys and girls. But I will offer caution to those people.

I was going to shoot an Airlock ion a 6.5cm and see how it is, but there is no way now that I would hunt and use one no matter what it sounds like or how light it is.

 

[Formidilosus]

Anyone reading this- if there were barrel manufacturer that produced barrels that split or belled out at the muzzle from 50 rounds of 223- would you buy and use those barrels? For any use whatsoever?
No, absolutely not. No one would.

There are practical limits to things. No one is saying cans should be able to do multiple SOCOM tests back to back. However, 50 rounds of 223 shouldn’t be damaging centerfire cans meant to shoot 6.5prc. That’s insanity.

A can that is having damage done from 50 rounds of 223 is structurally so close to failure that if anything goes wrong at all with 6mm or 6.5mm rifles, that suppressor can and will fail. There is a very large difference between a one off failure of a can design that it tested and designed correctly, that just had a thing happen that no one would catch; and a can that so close to failure that when it does fail, it’s an “it was going to happen to someone” event.

People complain that I didn’t speak up enough (apparently) when the Scythe came out, that they should proceed with caution. So here it is, this is Scythe 2.0 warning- Any can, for any centerfire rifle use that is getting damaged by 50 rounds of 223, and worse-trying to have it justified that it’s ok because it’s a “hunting can”… I would proceed with massive caution.

 

[Harvey_NW]

I'll be damned if I can find the website?

You can find it here.

 

[Formidilosus]

(like if the material is thin enough to let go when overheated it means the margin under normal use is less than he desires)

This is exactly it. If 50 rounds of 223 damages the can, it is so close to failure due to how thin the material is, that it will eventually have a stress failure with normal use and round counts. Even Scythes don’t get damaged from 50 rounds of 223.

For my use, I want 100 rounds minimum of whatever the cartridge and barrel length it is rated for, fired back to back, as fast as possible with no structural damage to the suppressor itself. That is a level of safety margin that I am comfortable with. That makes accidental failures in real use so unlikely, that safety really isn’t an issue.

 

[5811]

This is exactly it. If 50 rounds of 223 damages the can, it is so close to failure due to how thin the material is, that it will eventually have a stress failure with normal use and round counts. Even Scythes don’t get damaged from 50 rounds of 223.

For my use, I want 100 rounds minimum of whatever the cartridge and barrel length it is rated for, fired back to back, as fast as possible with no structural damage to the suppressor itself. That is a level of safety margin that I am comfortable with. That makes accidental failures in real use so unlikely, that safety really isn’t an issue.

You are not including the 11.5" component of the 223 test that you are basing your posts on. Is this unintentional or do you believe it does not matter?

Even a nomad xc has a 12.5" 5.56 barrel restriction.