I intend to finally add a Surefire SOCOM RC2 5.56 silencer to the arsenal, by the end of this year. In comparing the RC2 to other offerings, a standout difference is the number of baffles. It's not uncommon for a contemporary center-fire rifle can to have as few as three or four baffles nowadays; the RC2 has ten or so. I think it's generally accepted that more baffles is better, but more baffles makes for less internal volume and more weight. I know the RC2 has a unique baffle design, that discourages catastrophic baffle strikes; perhaps compromises in sound reduction are so severe, in using these baffles, that they have to have more of them, in order to make up for it. Maybe the sheer number of baffles itself helps with the baffle strike mitigation. Folks who have used the RC2, or other baffles-dense cans, what do you think about baffle count and performance?

As you know from prior posts I'm a surefire user on CF semi's (I do run thunderbeast on bolt guns). But I'm stuck trying to figure out why on earth you would care about baffles, or for that matter any other aspect of internal construction. Do you care what welding type was used. All the CF rifle cans I have are sealed and I am unaware of any that aren't but maybe they exist. Its a complete black box to me. I can see the external variables that affect me like how it attaches, its size and shape, its sound characteristics, its permitted firing schedule, etc. etc. But I can't see what the baffles look like, how many there are, or really any construction details of internals of a sealed can. In fact I have to rely on the mfg. completely to tell me what they are made of and how.
SO I can't see why I care, its completely out of my control, and frankly they could change it over the production run and I wouldn't know. If all the external variables meet my needs I'm happy. And on the RC2 I'm completely happy. It like all surefire cans isn't the greatest on max suppression but overall it fits my needs and balances the things I care about. I can't see baffle count being an item in any comparison.

I am interested in silencers, from a design perspective, in addition to practical use. I have fun being curious and nerdy about them. I like guns other than my go-to AR15 for similar reasons; I am curious about how they're designed and why, and enjoy the slightly different experiences they offer. That being said, if silencer X has three baffles, and silencer Y has ten, I am curious as to why there is such a difference in two devices that produce similar performance results. In the SF cans, as mentioned above, they tout a unique design that encourages faulty projectiles to exit properly, as opposed to deadlining the can, by busting out the side; I think that is a very endearing quality, which you omitted from your list of things to care about. Because of my curiosity of silencers, I have always wanted a SF; I was always deterred enough by the cost, weight, and allegedly louder report, though, that I never prioritized one. My recent light baffle strike renewed my curiosity, and I have set my sights on one in earnest. Believe it or not, despite the impression my OP apparently made, I also shoot my guns/silencers in practical/tactical contexts.

Working from your list, we can talk about different motivations in silencer selection in a constructive manner: How it attaches is not of huge import to me; I put it on and leave it on; I don't even care if the gun doesn't function properly without it. You may have more insight on my recent post concerning QD functionality, it seems. Size and shape is damn similar, across all brands and models, with excessively long or fat cans being a minority, and doesn't factor greatly into my decision making. Seems as though we feel the same about sound reduction, considering your affinity for SF, and my affinity for short barrels and/or "K" cans. Firing schedules is certainly a practical factor worth considering; I don't have a transferable machine gun, or have regular access to a machine gun of any sort. That being said, I doubt I'd ever hurt any but the chintziest silencer. Where you had etc,etc, we'll add something like Surefire's unique baffle design which has recently become quite important to me; it is apparently unique to their cans, and is, IMO, worth much curiosity and consideration. In curiously shining a flashlight down a SF bore, and recalling the same view of other silencers, I found the number of baffles noteworthy, and figured I'd inquire about the contrast here on SIGforum, where we talk about such things.

I get the idea of enjoying the reasons for design differences and choices. No issue so my comments were not meant in a negative about that. I enjoy looking at, for example, forgotten weapons where various generations of guns are discussed to deal with issues learned. and I'm an addict about studying things that happened in WW2 to weapons to solve issues in the absolute shortest possible time. I simply can't personally help on that issue for suppressors as I know nothing about the design tradeoffs involved in designing one of these cans. If it matters its in ways that we have discussed before like the minimum barrel length that is supported or the size/shape.
But I have nothing to contribute on the number of baffles per se. sorry.

It just dawned on me that perhaps the sheer number of baffles is part of what achieves that performance aspect. The bullet has no time to yaw between baffles before it gets nudged straight again by the next baffle.

I ended up recently listening to a Forgotten weapons episode on suppressors with Ian and somebody who is a somebody in the suppressor world. And what he said is more baffles is better for sound reduction until it starts to compromise volume.