What say you? Square shroud has 33% more volume

Jump to latest Follow Reply
fe7565

fe7565

Member
Oct 13, 2015
1,855
243
VA, United States
Was looking at the odd square shroud on the Kalibrgun 60. Have not decided yet if I like it, but does not look completely off. However, the square shroud has 33% more volume than a tube shaped shroud of the same size and diameter. So, not only for shrouds but also for moderators: a larger volume for the same "footprint"? I do not think a square-form would work for firearms because of the extreme pressures, but for airguns...
 
A round tube of the same volume uses less material = lighter, and is stronger (more rigid), so again less material needed = lighter.

The Argus Ain't light , how much of this is down to the shroud?.



BUT, if it means not having to put a Mod on the rifle, then weight (plus length) saving. so, win win?.



Caveat, I am no expert on anything, feel free to correct me.




 
Upvote 0
fe7576... "square shroud has 33% more volume..."

harrymoreland... "BUT, if it means not having to put a Mod on the rifle, then weight (plus length) saving. so, win win?."

I wondered about the difference in volume because I have been wanting to make a square shroud. Not sure how to make the internals but 33% is a HUGE difference and useful. Square tube shroud at .062" wall and NO LDC seems like a cool thing.

I am going to research weight per inch between square and round. In my efforts it still always comes down to how much shroud is in front of the muzzle.
 
Upvote 0
There are rectangular firearms silencers (e.g. Silencerco Osprey). In an airgun you're not going to have to beef up the walls, nor is the tiny weight difference going to matter - it's all about expense. Round tube is cheap. Rectangular tube is significantly more expensive. 

GsT
Click to expand...

36" of ROUND in the above specs = $7.33

36" of SQUARE in the above specs = $20.60




 
Upvote 0
lol, i say more shootin and less whinin
1f60a.svg
but we could apply that to scopes to eh, more light right .. we could call it the 'squirrel gazer' ...
Click to expand...

Ok.
 
Upvote 0
So for airgun purposes having a square shroud versus a tube will not add that much weight that could be a dealbreaker. Cost wise when looking at a $1000 Airgun it also does not seem to add that much more in costs.


At the same time I am not sure if 33% more volume would let the Airgun designer off the hook on adding a moderator. I would like to see more deliberate shroud design that uses the shroud as a full-scale moderator instead of an afterthought.
 
Upvote 0
Was looking at the odd square shroud on the Kalibrgun 60. Have not decided yet if I like it, but does not look completely off. However, the square shroud has 33% more volume than a tube shaped shroud of the same size and diameter. So, not only for shrouds but also for moderators: a larger volume for the same "footprint"? I do not think a square-form would work for firearms because of the extreme pressures, but for airguns...
Click to expand...

Hmmm, 4/pi = 1.273 so ... Said another way a square of side equals 2 has an area of 4. The largest circle which can fit inside it has radius 1 so it has area pi. It would have been cool if that ratio was 2/3.

It is still not to my taste. It does seem like a pretty smart way to enlarge the volume of the shroud though.

Wright showed that form which follows function is beautiful. I guess that means I have no ascetic taste.
 
Upvote 0
I would like to see more deliberate shroud design that uses the shroud as a full-scale moderator instead of an afterthought.
Click to expand...

That's what I am talking about otherwise I wouldn't put a square dog poop looking shroud on an air rifle unless it was SIGNIFICANTLY better than round. A 33% volume increase is more than enough to eliminate a moderator, by far. I proved that on a Taipan Veteran Long by reversing the shroud and improving the innards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fe7565
Upvote 0
Let's not forget the Leshiy's offfset shroud design as well. Significantly more space vs a straight tube. Actually seems more than a square shroud of the same basic dimensions. 



That's what I am talking about otherwise I wouldn't put a square dog poop looking shroud on an air rifle unless it was SIGNIFICANTLY better than round. A 33% volume increase is more than enough to eliminate a moderator, by far. I proved that on a Taipan Veteran Long by reversing the shroud and improving the innards.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I am curious about this one since I have a Taipan.
 
Upvote 0
A round tube of the same volume uses less material = lighter, and is stronger (more rigid), so again less material needed = lighter.

The Argus Ain't light , how much of this is down to the shroud?.



BUT, if it means not having to put a Mod on the rifle, then weight (plus length) saving. so, win win?.

Caveat, I am no expert on anything, feel free to correct me.

————————————————————————————————————-

If you are going to carry a gun around, and are not really very interested in extreme accuracy, then yes, weight is a concern. But then why even HAVE a shroud at all, if its really just extra weight?

But, if you want the gun as quiet as possible for a given length, then using a shroud-type silencer with hige square tubing prolly would give great results,

I too have recently considered building a square shroud/silencer onto a new gun I’m making because i don’t ind exrtra weight but don’t want extra length way past the muzzle. My gun’s target weight is around 15 pounds.



LD

Click to expand...


 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu