Air Lock Industries Suppressor

If it makes you fellas feel any better, in the OEM engineering world it's a never ending argument about appropriate duty cycles, use cases, what's expected service vs abuse, etc. for product design and validation.



Companies spend fortunes data logging customer duty cycles and distilling it down into test cycles, load collectives, etc. and it's a never ending.
 
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.
Serious question, there's no scenario where this couldn't be true? Also didn't the guy say there was a defect in that particular suppressor?
 
I believe virtually all suppressors are overbuilt, but with the $200 tax stamp going away, I expect more companies to push the boundaries in terms of ultralight, low-volume firing schedule suppressors. Why? Because when cans are cheap enough, they won't need to be a forever purchase that withstands abuse from an automatic .308 with a 10-inch barrel.

It'll be interesting to see how low manufacturers can go in terms of price and weight yet still withstand realistic abuse. The big question, as others have asked, is what's realistic in terms of round count? This is obviously subjective, but is it 10, 20, 50, or 100 rounds?

I may be an outlier, but short of the zombie apocalypse — or maybe a case of Boone & Crockett buck fever — I can't imagine putting more than 10 rounds straight through a can before letting it cool. If i caught a buddy running more than a full mag through any of my suppressors, i'd be livid.
 
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.

Possibly, but you should take a look at fatigue limit.

There are lots of different failure models, they are all wrong, but sometimes helpful in the right situation.

 
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.

A Nomad XC will not get damage from 50 rounds of 223 with an 11.5” barrel. At least not that I’ve seen. You’re seeing a very conservative minimums/maximum restriction with most good manufacturers. As in, they are real confident that there will be no issues at that restrictions, but also that there is a built in level of margin too.
 
If you read saami spec Z299.6-2025 they leave the firing schedule, cartridge and barrel rating up to the OEM. There are no minimums.

Basically they just want you to shoot 150% of the rated firing schedule as validation.

For cartridge rating at a given barrel length they want you to test at 50% higher pressure than at the muzzle which is done by shortening the barrel by 47%.
 
When corrected for change in size and with an 0.8 ounce DT hub adapter in a nomad XC, airlock is just a hair lighter built. Enough so that I wouldn't doubt if a removable end cap and hub interface account for the difference.

Can someone link the post with the zero gravity on an AR?
 
A Nomad XC will not get damage from 50 rounds of 223 with an 11.5” barrel. At least not that I’ve seen. You’re seeing a very conservative minimums/maximum restriction with most good manufacturers. As in, they are real confident that there will be no issues at that restrictions, but also that there is a built in level of margin too.
I did some calculations comparing the 7.45 oz (vs 5.75) suppressor you shared on another thread. Considering weight, length (8” vs 5”), overall diameters (1.5" vs 1.7"), and material volume, the material-to-volume ratio is nearly identical to ours, not even counting the extra material needed for the reflex. Again the suppressor used was a pre-production BLEM. Yes 50 rounds on a 11.5 shooting 5.56 will damage the blast baffle in a fairly serious way on most titanium suppressors. I am just trying to draw comparisons.
 
If you read saami spec Z299.6-2025 they leave the firing schedule, cartridge and barrel rating up to the OEM. There are no minimums.

Basically they just want you to shoot 150% of the rated firing schedule as validation.

For cartridge rating at a given barrel length they want you to test at 50% higher pressure than at the muzzle which is done by shortening the barrel by 47%.

That's interesting approach, I could see many configurations where that not only increases pressure, but also temperature if everything else is held constant. Extra safety factor never hurt anything, other than weight, cost, and complexity :)
 
@Formidilosus did you have a hand in this :unsure: :LOL:

3. TESTING REQUIRMENTS
a. Drop Test.
The suppressor shall be attached to the muzzle in accordance with the suppressor manufacturer’s recommendations.
ii. The suppressor shall be capable of passing the below test criteria for drop testing from a height of 4.00 feet (1.22 meters) onto a drop test surface meeting the requirements detailed in the American National Standard SAAMIZ299.5, backed by concrete.
iii. The drop test surface and concrete shall be large enough so that when the gun is dropped it will fall and come to rest without interference within the perimeter of the surface.
iv. The 4.00 feet (1.22 meters) drop height shall be measured from the surface of the drop test surface to the center of gravity of the firearm, with the suppressor mounted.
v. The center of gravity shall be determined to an accuracy of ± 1.00 inch (25.4mm) by any recognized method for finding the center of gravity of anirregular shaped object.vi. A separate firearm and/or suppressor may be used for each drop.

b. Test Procedure
i. The firearm(s) shall be dropped in such a way as to strike the drop test surface in each of the following attitudes:
1. Barrel vertical, muzzle down.
2. Barrel vertical, muzzle up.
3. Barrel horizontal, bottom up.
4. Barrel horizontal, bottom down.
5. Barrel horizontal, left side up.
6. Barrel horizontal, right side up.
 
I did some calculations comparing the 7.45 oz (vs 5.75) suppressor you shared on another thread. Considering weight, length (8” vs 5”), overall diameters (1.5" vs 1.7"), and material volume, the material-to-volume ratio is nearly identical to ours, not even counting the extra material needed for the reflex. Again the suppressor used was a pre-production BLEM. Yes 50 rounds on a 11.5 shooting 5.56 will damage the blast baffle in a fairly serious way on most titanium suppressors. I am just trying to draw comparisons.
Was the failure on exactly round 50? Would be curious if y’all could try a current production can without any blems to see where the failure occurs. I’m interested in your 6mm can coming in the future.
 
I did some calculations comparing the 7.45 oz (vs 5.75) suppressor you shared on another thread. Considering weight, length (8” vs 5”), overall diameters (1.5" vs 1.7"), and material volume, the material-to-volume ratio is nearly identical to ours, not even counting the extra material needed for the reflex. Again the suppressor used was a pre-production BLEM. Yes 50 rounds on a 11.5 shooting 5.56 will damage the blast baffle in a fairly serious way on most titanium suppressors. I am just trying to draw comparisons.
First thank you for bringing things to market and willing to have discussion on them. I’m very interested in your suppressor due to the short length and it being quiet. I see you mentioned a few times about the can that failed being a blem. Have you done any other testing with cans that are not blems or do you plan to? Not trying to tell you how you should test them but just thinking if one that wasn’t a blem held up to or past the 50 round mag dump that might make people feel better. To be fair I have no intention to shoot 50 rounds in a row. The mirage would keep me from that. 10 shots in a row then switching rifles is more normal for me. I’m not an extremely serious shooter but enjoy shooting and appreciate sound and recoil reduction. Long way of saying that a suppressor of this length weight and performance is very appealing to me.
 
Was the failure on exactly round 50? Would be curious if y’all could try a current production can without any blems to see where the failure occurs. I’m interested in your 6mm can coming in the future.
I could be wrong but most front of barrel suppressors bore diameter doesn’t seem to affect db much so not sure it is necessary to wait. Also with the no tax stamp I think there will be a massive increase in suppressor sales because now everyone will buy their .22 cans and pistol cans that are cheap but now they don’t have to pay /x cost with tax stamp. Also you can now convert pistols to sbrs with no tax. I think there will be long wait times again. I hope I am wrong but we will see.
 
The reason this one failed is 2 reason, It was BLEM with a chip from a printing error in the end cap and because of the temperatures.
What kind of chip was the blem? Would a non-blem Zero Gravity pass 50 rounds of 223, or would you still recommend against it?
heat is the real enemy of titanium. Once it pushes into the 2000° range, the material weakens and any failure points start to show...

The reason Scythes tend to fail is because of welds - heat creates weak spots there...

From what I’ve seen, things only start to fall apart once temps climb past 800–1000°, where titanium begins losing strength.
Is it 2000 degrees or 800-1000 degrees?
Are welds generally weak spots in most suppressors?
Was the chip on the blem unit in the weld or on the surface?
 
What kind of chip was the blem? Would a non-blem Zero Gravity pass 50 rounds of 223, or would you still recommend against it?

Is it 2000 degrees or 800-1000 degrees?
Are welds generally weak spots in most suppressors?
Was the chip on the blem unit in the weld or on the surface?
Its a printed suppressor, No welds
 
It is not my meters or equipment to use, and I had no idea who you were.

Perhaps I'm missing something here but given the amount of times you've cited your experience testing surpressors, I'd assume it would be fairly easy for you to get a hold of some equipment? or ask Airlock to bring their own? I'd love to see you prioritize this given your public comments you've now shared on the Airlock's inadequecies (which are seemingly informed by an instagram video??).
 
I could be wrong but most front of barrel suppressors bore diameter doesn’t seem to affect db much so not sure it is necessary to wait. Also with the no tax stamp I think there will be a massive increase in suppressor sales because now everyone will buy their .22 cans and pistol cans that are cheap but now they don’t have to pay /x cost with tax stamp. Also you can now convert pistols to sbrs with no tax. I think there will be long wait times again. I hope I am wrong but we will see.
From the data I’ve seen, decreasing bore diameter does decrease the dB levels. They’ve also stated that the 6mm suppressor will be lighter and smaller than the 6.5 one out currently. I’m okay with waiting on the can because I already have an Ultra 7 and 9 that I really enjoy.
 
Back
Top