Hmm, thats interesting. I would love to see some pics sometime if you got them. In our experience, PPA-CF had performed exceptionally well to even 556.
Granted, our schedule of fire was lower than what you were describing, when testing the FTN.5
And during the FTN.4, PPA-CF wasn't really a thing yet, nobody in the beta was printing it
If you are making D cell baffles, I expect that they would perform very well, because layer adhesion is not relevant. There is some concern for brittleness, so it is possible that a high pressure rifle caliber could cause a thin baffle design to snap. But from an erosion perspective, it should do very well.
We do have experience with PPA-CF and can say that PPA-CF performs phenomenally well as a baffle. Much less erosion than PA6CF.
That's an interesting chart, I hadn't seen it before. Actually what is most striking on there is the interlayer adhesion of pa6cf is much higher than the others. That confirms our experience too.
I had heard that Bambu's formulation of PET-CF was particularly heat resistant. I have no hands on experience with it, so I couldn't comment.
As far as moisture, if you are in a humid environment, that could be a problem for you. Specifically for your question about an upright print, it Could induce a failure, more likely on 9mm and less likely on 22lr. You may be better off with PA12-CF or PA612-CF. If you are doing one of the upright unreinforced prints, that would be my suggestion.
Hope this helps.
In suppressors specifically, there is so much nuance in filament selection because it is a direct loadbearing part (unlike most receivers/frames), and there are a lot of properties to balance.
Hyperniche sounds about right, there are a few specific situations (like mags) where rigidity and lack of creep are essential.
It is far from a general use filament.
I would like to hear more about PPA and PPS, those are pretty interesting and directly applicable to suppressors. PPA-CF has amazing erosion resistance. PPA-CF baffles seem to last forever.
We had seen some potential creep issues, and perhaps lower strength compared to PA6CF, but that is limited testing, and only sirayatech was used.
I tend to be pretty wordy when talking about filament selection, so bear with me. Tl;dr it is a mediocre choice, and if you have the ability to print PET-CF, you can probably print other filaments that are better.
In our testing, we find PET-CF to be reasonably temp resistant, but tends to be a bit brittle, and doesn't have as good layer adhesion as PA6CF. For upright prints, layer adhesion is absolutely critical. For sideways reinforced prints, it isn't as critical.
PSR made an FTN.4 pistol in PET-CF and it seemed to do fine. I know several people who have made FTNs in PET-CF and it seemed to do okay.
If you were to compare PLA+ to PET-CF, of course PET-CF wins due to the temperature resistance.
However if you have a hardened steel nozzle, and can print hotter than the ender 3, there are so many better options
Hmm, thats interesting. I would love to see some pics sometime if you got them. In our experience, PPA-CF had performed exceptionally well to even 556.
Granted, our schedule of fire was lower than what you were describing, when testing the FTN.5
And during the FTN.4, PPA-CF wasn't really a thing yet, nobody in the beta was printing it