Air Lock Industries Suppressor

[khuber84]

Looks like it'll hold up to whatever normal abuse a hunter would subject the zero gravity to!

 

[ACHILLES]

Nice! When is the 6mm version coming out?

 

[4th_point]

Our design takes a different path. Instead of relying solely on volume, our suppressor creates significant turbulence right from the start, and that turbulence makes each baffle work more effectively.


Another key factor is bore diameter. While it may not have a major impact on some suppressors, it plays a critical role in ours. A smaller aperture slows the transfer turbulent gases from baffle to baffle, improving efficiency and overall performance.

Holy smokes - this thread has 22k views in just over a month!

Anyway, questions for @DannyB

1. Since the internal design creates significant turbulence to achieve high suppression for a compact can, have you seen the need to perform more frequent cleaning? We can actually see slowed exhaust jetting with your design vs others in the videos, which is awesome, but I wonder if it also traps more residue?

2. Is it any harder to clean than other designs, given the tortuous path?

3. Does it play well with gas guns? With some flow-though designs there is minimal blowback on something like an AR with DI gas system. How about the Airlock?

 

[DannyB]

@ACHILLES Spring of 2026 is the plan for the 6mm.

@4th_point

1. Cleaning frequency: Yes and no. Our 16" 6.5 PRC rifle has needed zero cleaning in the first 500 rounds, though it gets hot during testing. I’ve seen one of our 6.5 CMs require cleaning after about 100 rounds, but generally, it seems to be rifle-dependent.
2. Suppressor maintenance: No special cleaning required—same regimen as any other sealed suppressor.
3. Gas guns: Due to the high pressure, these suppressors don’t perform well on gas-operated firearms. We recommend either taking 1–2 seconds between shots on a semi-auto or using a bolt-action rifle, since the suppressor captures a lot of gas.

 

[4th_point]

Thanks, Danny!

I really appreciate your openness, and willingness to answer questions here.

 

[4th_point]

They have done destructive testing- I thought the videos were posted, and just got off the phone with Cliff- he thought they were. The person that ran the media/web apparently did not. They will be posted.

Looking forward to seeing what was done and the results. Thanks.

Edit - that's for the OG by Unknown and not Airlock. Sorry for mixing.

 

[4th_point]

What has been shown by lots of companies and is known by more, is that muzzle forward cans historically have not shown enough dB reduction from 6.5 bore to 30cal to make it worth it. That’s still true for most designs. However, OTB for some reason does show a relatively large difference. This was confirmed by a couple other large suppressor companies- one which sells OTB and one that doesn’t. Both stated that they aren 100% sure why, and that their muzzle forward cans don’t show it.

I'd think an analyst would be able to create a BEM (Boundary Element Model) to predict the difference, without needing to run a CFD for the flow. That's assuming the OTB portion is just an expansion chamber and not part of a long tortuous path. That stated, I collected and processed data for BEM and CFD correlation, but never worked as an analyst running the sims.

Or to think of it another way, the aperture can be used as a flow limiter for OTB (and apparently the Airlock) but not for other non-OTB cans. Why? Really high turbulence (Airlock), or resonator (OTB)? Just thinking/typing out loud.

 

[4th_point]

Because it has shown to not match reality often enough that it’s not really worth it. Very often designs that should be “the best” are terrible in real life when built and tested, and designs which should be “terrible” are quite good when actually measured.

One of the best cans from a dB and sound standpoint was made in a garage nearly 40 years ago, and the computer analysis that I’ve seen on it says it should be a POS. Another- one of the best suppressor companies on the market came up with their design on a napkin at a bar- again, the fluid analysis said it shouldn’t be good.

What year were those CFD done? Do you know who ran the simulations, and what SW packages were used?

A key limitation of using CFD for cans is modeling turbulence. That, and nobody likes doing the meshing! However, the SW and computing power keep getting better so what was state-of-the-art just 10 years ago is not necessarily relevant today. For example, there are new turbulence models that came out since I left the field just a few years ago.

Disclaimer: I was not an analyst, but collected data for CFD and other sims. The CFD models were never correct with the first iteration, even by an experienced PhD. So correlation studies were done, which is common across industries, to improve the models.