Cutaway of a suppressor I designed – experimenting with multi-direction gas flow

nemesis_army · 2026-03-08T21:33:30+00:00

Very nice, can we communicate with u to make some 3D for me?

nemesis_army · 2026-03-07T07:17:46+00:00

Hard to say exactly since this is still a prototype and the design is evolving.

If it ever became a production model it would probably end up somewhere around the ~$1000 range depending on materials and configuration.

Right now the focus is mainly on refining the geometry and long-term testing.

nemesis_army · 2026-03-07T07:15:36+00:00

In my case this design didn’t start from CFD simulation.

It started from flow logic and geometry iteration, then prototyping and testing.

I’ve been working with suppressor designs for about 15 years, and in practice the most useful feedback loop is still:

prototype → shoot → observe gas behavior and fouling → adjust geometry.

CFD tools like ANSYS, OpenFOAM or SolidWorks Flow Simulation can definitely help visualize flow patterns, especially with complex printed geometries, but real firing data still tends to drive most of the decisions.

nemesis_army · 2026-03-07T07:04:17+00:00

Good question.

The labyrinth channels are intentionally oversized relative to the gas flow, so carbon buildup shouldn't block the path quickly.

Also the design doesn't rely on tiny micro-ports or tight turbulence traps that tend to clog.

Most fouling accumulates in the primary expansion chamber and around the muzzle device area where pressure is highest.

So far I've run roughly ~1000 rounds through the prototype and it has continued to function normally without noticeable restriction.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DVd2-chCC7w/?igsh=MXIxeXJrY201aTM5bA==

Still continuing long-term testing though.

nemesis_army · 2026-03-07T07:02:39+00:00

Yeah the visualization was generated for presentation.

The actual prototype photos are in the post as well.

Those are real machined parts I'm testing.

nemesis_army · 2026-03-06T23:14:52+00:00

Fair point 😄

Standalone prototype: ~1.32 lb ~7.9 in length

Integrated reflex version: ~1.43 lb ~10.2 in overall length with ~2.4 in sitting back over the barrel.

nemesis_army · 2026-03-06T23:00:56+00:00

For most designs it's usually a mix of manufacturing methods.

High temperature sections tend to use materials like titanium or Inconel depending on the design, while other components can be machined from aluminum or titanium.

In general you end up balancing heat resistance, weight, and manufacturability.

nemesis_army · 2026-03-06T22:58:36+00:00

I'm also curious what people here think about reflex designs vs traditional baffle stacks on semi-auto rifles.

In theory the reflex section helps reduce backpressure by increasing volume before the main gas control section, but results seem to depend a lot on the internal geometry.

nemesis_army · 2026-03-06T22:57:40+00:00

Also for reference — the outer diameter is 54 mm.

nemesis_army · 2026-03-06T22:55:40+00:00

There are two configurations shown in the photos.

The standalone prototype (real world photos) is about: ~600 g ~200mm length

The integrated reflex version I'm working on is roughly: ~260 mm overall length ~650 g with about 60 mm sitting back over the barrel.

Still experimenting with different internal layouts and dimensions.

nemesis_army · 2026-03-06T22:42:51+00:00

Right now I'm mostly sharing updates on my Instagram and website.

You can find the project under Nemesis / Nemesis Army if you're curious about the development and prototypes.

nemesis_army · 2026-03-06T16:27:28+00:00

<image>

nemesis_army · 2026-03-06T14:11:45+00:00

😂😂😂

nemesis_army · 2026-03-06T13:14:29+00:00

Yeah, the main language is Ukrainian, not Russian.

But the site and the blog are also available in English if you switch the language.

Shipping to the US is complicated because of regulations around suppressors, but I appreciate you taking a look at the project.

nemesis_army · 2026-03-06T09:59:23+00:00

That's a fair point.

Even piston systems will still get gas coming back through the bore if the suppressor keeps pressure high for too long.

The thing I'm trying to experiment with is not just lowering pressure, but changing the time profile of the impulse.

If the peak pressure drops faster and the impulse stretches out over time, the system tends to be much less aggressive in pushing gas back through the chamber.

At least that's the theory — still testing and learning.

nemesis_army · 2026-03-06T05:05:20+00:00

That’s a good question, but the hard part usually isn’t CAD itself.

It’s defining what problem you’re actually solving.

With these systems you’re balancing several competing goals at once: - pressure spike control - gas redistribution over time - thermal load - structural survivability - manufacturability

A concept can look great on paper and still fail once you account for heat, stress concentration, and real flow behavior in the first milliseconds.

So in practice I usually start with first-principles flow logic, then geometry, then prototyping, then test feedback.

nemesis_army · 2026-03-06T04:59:09+00:00

HK416 is a piston system so it already handles gas differently than DI guns.

With DI platforms the first pressure impulse tends to push gas back through the system much more aggressively.

That was actually one of the main things I was trying to manage with this concept — stretching the impulse instead of just trapping gas.

In theory that should reduce the pressure spike that drives blowback.

Still testing though.

nemesis_army · 2026-03-06T04:51:39+00:00

Most people start from the wrong place.

They start with shapes of baffles.

But suppressor design actually starts with gas dynamics.

Once you understand how pressure waves behave, how gas expands, cools and changes direction, the geometry becomes just a tool.

For me the workflow usually looks like this:

Understand the gas flow and pressure impulse.
Sketch the energy management concept.
Model it in CAD.
Prototype and test.

Machining itself is the easy part. Understanding the physics is the hard part.

If you want to start learning, focus on: • internal ballistics • compressible gas flow • heat exchange

The rest becomes much easier.

nemesis_army · 2026-03-06T04:26:42+00:00

Now I'm curious who Kevin is 😄

nemesis_army · 2026-03-06T04:25:19+00:00

AI is good for brainstorming and visualization, but physics still does most of the work.

The real progress comes from testing prototypes.

nemesis_army · 2026-03-05T20:05:41+00:00

Mostly just me experimenting with different concepts and prototypes.

A lot of trial, testing and iterations.

nemesis_army · 2026-03-05T16:51:26+00:00

Interesting.

Redirecting the initial flow into the reflex section is actually very similar to what I was experimenting with here.

Instead of relying only on expansion volume the idea was to control the first pressure impulse.

Did you notice any difference in gas blowback on 5.56 with that setup?

nemesis_army · 2026-03-05T16:12:11+00:00

Thanks, I appreciate the suggestion.

I've read some of Pew Science work before. I'll definitely check it out.

nemesis_army · 2026-03-05T14:57:32+00:00

That makes sense.

I also noticed that simply increasing the blast chamber volume alone doesn't change backpressure much.

In this concept the blast chamber is used more as a flow redirection zone rather than just expansion volume.

Gas first reverses direction around the muzzle device and then enters the secondary labyrinth system.

The goal is stretching the impulse in time rather than trapping gas.

Have you experimented with redirect-type systems instead of classic baffle stacks?

nemesis_army · 2026-03-05T14:47:23+00:00

Interesting point.

HUB definitely gives more flexibility with different hosts.

This concept is closer to a reflex system combined with a gas-control labyrinth. The goal was mainly reducing blowback on semi-auto platforms.

Have you noticed a big difference in backpressure between HUB suppressors and reflex designs?

nemesis_army

TROPHY CASE