I disagree with the need for full inconel/stellite baffles. 17-4ph stainless is sturdy enough. Here's a direct quote from Griffin Armament about why they don't use either:
"Our current heat treated 17-4 baffles are approximately twice as strong as stellite, and are lighter per unit of volume, so stellite is exponentially heavier for equal system strength. There are some really horrible options in the stainless alloy family, but 17-4 is a super alloy compared to 300 series stainless steels. Manufacturers almost universally use 17-4 for muzzle devices including brakes. Muzzle devices are the most abused part of the suppressor system. This should tell you something about 17-4 and it's worthiness as a material.
Not my attempt to say stellite is a bad material to use, both of these materials are good materials when compared to the formerly market leading 300 series stainless alloys. Just hoping to help people to understand that the upper echelon materials in the suppressor industry are comparably good with each possessing unique merits. We feel we are using the superior material. We chose 17-4 because we believe it to be the best material option on the market.
This is to some extent a philosophical engineering argument. I feel people have to have a very good understanding of what it is that the suppressor needs in order to be equipped to answer that. The questions will be, "what is more important- safety or wear resistance, weight, or performance." We chose safety, lightweight, and high performance. We want our products to have the highest safety factor possible within their product category.
"Years of internal testing has found 17-4 stainless steel to provide longer service life than 718 Inconel, the prior market leading alloy. 17-4 stainless is also twice as strong as cast Stelite 6."
If inconel or stellite was the end all, be all suppressor material, why wouldn't brakes (used as sacrificial baffles) be made of this wonder material?