SilencerCo Scythe Ti failures

[3 oh 8]

Just picked up a Theorem-S the other day. My scythe will stay on the 6.5cm now. If it pops again it pops.

 

[fister0083]

How much n570? I’ve got 81.6gr in mine… a bit scared to use it after reading all this, as it’s coated to match my rifle.

80.0 with a Berger 210 2.903 CBTO. 22 inch barrel

 

[JJ.]

Yes, I am. Mine lives on a .223 too. Have a reaper coming so I can shoot my .270 again…

You have multiple scythes? I’m sorry but thank you for showing me the positive side of only having 1…

Same hear, on both statements. Except it ain’t for a 270

 

[MuleyFever]

I just clicked on this thread and holy cow a 20% failure rate?

 

[AZ Gator]

I just clicked on this thread and holy cow a 20% failure rate?

The stats haven’t recovered since the poll was lost when the thread got moved to the suppressor forum. It should be closer to 13%, IIRC

 

[BjornF16]

There were several more second failures as well before the move.

 

[AZ Gator]

There were several more second failures as well before the move.

I thought it was a total of three in the multiple failure category, and one of those was someone that had two scythes that each failed. But don’t quote me on that

 

[Marbles]

Post in thread 'SilencerCo Scythe Ti failures' https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/silencerco-scythe-ti-failures.386687/post-4329747

 

[Terrapin]

I have no dog in this hunt, but the more I read this thread, the more I wonder if this is a case of secondary explosion caused by unburnt powder residue. Unburnt powder could easily build up in the eddy areas of any suppressor and would be difficult to predict and replicate. When the next round is fired, there is a chance that the unburnt powder will hit critical mass (for lack of a better term) and have a secondary explosion.

This would be largely independent of caliber, however larger powder charges would logically be more likely… especially if the internal ballistics favored incomplete combustion & pulverization of the kernels.

If anything, this would be exacerbated by a slower firing rate. My guess is running the suppressor hot would cause the powder to burn off rather than accumulate and then explode… kind of like burning the carbon out of a motor.

Secondary explosion has been studied extensively in reduced rifle and shotgun loads (or grain bins for that matter). It’s a known phenomenon, but it’s difficult to consistently replicate. The conditions that cause it are similar… unburnt, pulverized powder distributed in a large volume, again think grain silos.

One thing to note is how many people said the bullet impacted in the group even though the suppressor failed… clearly, the event happened after the bullet left the suppressor. Consistent with a delayed explosion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

One thing to note is how many people said the bullet impacted in the group even though the suppressor failed… clearly, the event happened after the bullet left the suppressor. Consistent with a delayed explosion.

The gas is behind the bullet normally- unless there is a baffle strike, the bullet will hit correctly.

 

[Rifleman86]

I have no dog in this hunt, but the more I read this thread, the more I wonder if this is a case of secondary explosion caused by unburnt powder residue. Unburnt powder could easily build up in the eddy areas of any suppressor and would be difficult to predict and replicate. When the next round is fired, there is a chance that the unburnt powder will hit critical mass (for lack of a better term) and have a secondary explosion.

This would be largely independent of caliber, however larger powder charges would logically be more likely… especially if the internal ballistics favored incomplete combustion & pulverization of the kernels.

If anything, this would be exacerbated by a slower firing rate. My guess is running the suppressor hot would cause the powder to burn off rather than accumulate and then explode… kind of like burning the carbon out of a motor.

Secondary explosion has been studied extensively in reduced rifle and shotgun loads (or grain bins for that matter). It’s a known phenomenon, but it’s difficult to consistently replicate. The conditions that cause it are similar… unburnt, pulverized powder distributed in a large volume, again think grain silos.

One thing to note is how many people said the bullet impacted in the group even though the suppressor failed… clearly, the event happened after the bullet left the suppressor. Consistent with a delayed explosion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s my working theory, at least for some of them, given the reports of MASSIVE increases in recoil when a failure occurs.

I think mine is gonna get a CLR soak about every 100 rounds to be safe.

 

[Formidilosus]

That’s my working theory, at least for some of them, given the reports of MASSIVE increases in recoil when a failure occurs.

I think mine is gonna get a CLR soak about every 100 rounds to be safe.

It is incorrect. Heat and/or pressure both make them fail at the same welding spot, on brand new cans.

 

[packgoatguy]

That’s my working theory, at least for some of them, given the reports of MASSIVE increases in recoil when a failure occurs.

I think mine is gonna get a CLR soak about every 100 rounds to be safe.

I did not experience a massive recoil increase when mine failed.