Integrally Suppressed 45acp Bolt Action

[Joenavy85]

I'm currently in the planning stages of a Delisle Carbine build and I'm looking for some advice on the suppressor. I was initially planning to use a 17.5" length, 1.25" OD barrel. The plan included turning the barrel down to .875" and cut threads right next to the receiver. The shell of the suppressor will slide over the barrel and thread on to lock in place. The shell will have 2 end caps that will be drilled offset so that the suppressor will hang low on the barrel like the original. I originally was going to back bore the barrel to .5" for the last 8" of the barrel and then drill "baffle holes" (perpendicular to the barrel), increasing in size as it progresses towards the muzzle. I've seen this done on a .22 rifle, but that builder said he wasn't sure how well the design would work for a 45.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_20/19974 ... ml&page=12

paul463's post is where I got the idea from. Would this be feasible? I'm hoping so, since it would be much easier than having to make a baffle stack and worry about alignment (since the Delisle carbine's can wasn't centered on the barrel.) Thanks in advance for any help you may give, and sorry for dragging out the post.

[Scared_of_zombies]

What tools/machines do you have access too?

[Enfield577]

I'm currently in the planning stages of a Delisle Carbine build and I'm looking for some advice on the suppressor. I was initially planning to use a 17.5" length, 1.25" OD barrel. The plan included turning the barrel down to .875" and cut threads right next to the receiver. The shell of the suppressor will slide over the barrel and thread on to lock in place. The shell will have 2 end caps that will be drilled offset so that the suppressor will hang low on the barrel like the original. I originally was going to back bore the barrel to .5" for the last 8" of the barrel and then drill "baffle holes" (perpendicular to the barrel), increasing in size as it progresses towards the muzzle. I've seen this done on a .22 rifle, but that builder said he wasn't sure how well the design would work for a 45.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_20/19974 ... ml&page=12

paul463's post is where I got the idea from. Would this be feasible? I'm hoping so, since it would be much easier than having to make a baffle stack and worry about alignment (since the Delisle carbine's can wasn't centered on the barrel.) Thanks in advance for any help you may give, and sorry for dragging out the post.

PM me your email address, i have a book about the DeLisle with a few drawings in

Cheers

[Joenavy85]

What tools/machines do you have access too?

I have a small milling machine and a 7x16 lathe.

[ACKF]

I have a delisle and love it. The can is not of modern technology though, this gun was made to be an exact duplicate of the original. And yes, it is quiet. I like it for sure.

[PyroGuy]

I'm interested also in seeing some drawings of the original. I was always fascinated with this weapon, and as it turned out the arms room at Ft. Benning had one. I was not allowed to shoot it, but did take a peek. The next time I saw one was as a tourist in London (Imperial War Museum) and after that, I had to have one.
In Michigan, we only recently were allowed suppressors, but we are a "Non-SBR" state as well, so I can't be historically accurate. My plan was to get one of the kits sold in NV, and make a monocore to slide in the shroud, which must be welded at the chamber end. Since we have a CNC at our disposal, this seemed like a good first try at a monocore, but I don't really have any data on designs for internals.
Has anyone done a "Maxim Pattern" monocore ?

[Bendersquint]

I'm interested also in seeing some drawings of the original. I was always fascinated with this weapon, and as it turned out the arms room at Ft. Benning had one. I was not allowed to shoot it, but did take a peek. The next time I saw one was as a tourist in London (Imperial War Museum) and after that, I had to have one.
In Michigan, we only recently were allowed suppressors, but we are a "Non-SBR" state as well, so I can't be historically accurate. My plan was to get one of the kits sold in NV, and make a monocore to slide in the shroud, which must be welded at the chamber end. Since we have a CNC at our disposal, this seemed like a good first try at a monocore, but I don't really have any data on designs for internals.
Has anyone done a "Maxim Pattern" monocore ?

What is a Maxim patter monocore?

[PyroGuy]

Maxim (Alexander Maxim, of machine gun fame) patented a silencer design where the can is below center. I presume it was to allow the weapon to use it's regular sights. My impression of the DeLisle is that it is a copy of that design. I guess my only real concern would be that it not rotate in the shroud, and that should not be hard to achieve.
I'm literally sending out my next form 1 today.

[Enfield577]

So I guess you just mean a monocore with offset bore ?

That would be interesting

Lets see what the others think

[mollinst]

Actually, Hiram P. Maxim gave us the modern silencer, his father, Sir Hiram S. Maxim invented the machine gun and, Hudson Maxim, Sir Hiram's brother and H.P.'s uncle, invented smokeless gunpowder, and the self propelled torpedo among other stuff. Just sayin'

Bill

EDIT: A other thought, the baffle system in a Maxim can will not work as a monocore, "as is", because it was not a 2D, for lack of a better term, design. Each baffle section was folded in upon itself hemispherically, in full profile, with an off-set bore.

[PyroGuy]

Oops! I called him Alexander. You would think I'd remember, since Hiram was Grandpa's name!
So, RKI's - - What about it ? This seems like the logical way to go.

[mollinst]

Sorry... RKI's?

There is no reason why a monocore with offset bore shouldn't be examined further. Look at the Osprey, a fine example however, it is my belief that, even that design could be more efficient than it is. A higher volume tube will lower the internal pressures by the percentage of its size over a smaller tube ie; (just for round figures and, not factoring in baffle volume/displacement), lets say you have a 1" X 6" can where, at ignition, the blast pressure is 5,000 psi. If you switch to a tube that is 2" X 6", and given the same proportionate baffle volume/displacement, your internal blast pressure is automatically reduced to 2,500 psi. Twice the volume halves the pressure.

So, the moral of the story is - carefully design your monocore element to maximize diffusion but with an eye toward minimizing the amount of internal volume that the monocore eats up.

This is why I always buy the 4" PVC pipe...

Bill

[Scared_of_zombies]

lets say you have a 1" X 6" can where, at ignition, the blast pressure is 5,000 psi. If you switch to a tube that is 2" X 6", and given the same proportionate baffle volume/displacement, your internal blast pressure is automatically reduced to 2,500 psi. Twice the volume halves the pressure.

Bill

That would be 4 times the volume. V=(pie)r^2 x H

[mollinst]

DOH! You're right. I was typing too quickly to realize what I did there.

[PyroGuy]

"RKI" = Reasonably Knowledgable Individual
I shot a DeLisle reproduction last friday, indoors, and I could NOT believe how quiet it was. I must do this now. It seems a MonoCore design would be fairly easy for this, but I don't have a clue as to what design would work best. As I also stated, another consideration is that it must have a fixed outer shroud.
Any suggestions/drawings out there ??

[Bendersquint]

"RKI" = Reasonably Knowledgable Individual
I shot a DeLisle reproduction last friday, indoors, and I could NOT believe how quiet it was. I must do this now. It seems a MonoCore design would be fairly easy for this, but I don't have a clue as to what design would work best. As I also stated, another consideration is that it must have a fixed outer shroud.
Any suggestions/drawings out there ??

No drawings out there for anything current, but you can still find the DeLisle original blueprints from time to time.

Why the need for the fixed outer shroud? You can make it removable pretty easily, just use some ingenuity thats all.

[Machine Gun Matt]

Maxim (Alexander Maxim, of machine gun fame) patented a silencer design where the can is below center. I presume it was to allow the weapon to use it's regular sights. My impression of the DeLisle is that it is a copy of that design. I guess my only real concern would be that it not rotate in the shroud, and that should not be hard to achieve.
I'm literally sending out my next form 1 today.

So do You know about the 3rd Mauser Brother?

Rudy Mauser!

[mollinst]

"So do You know about the 3rd Mauser Brother?

Rudy Mauser!"

Didn't he play for the Red Skins?

[PyroGuy]

I must have a fixed outer shroud because in Michigan there are NO SBR's ALLOWED. Why? nobody knows.

[Capt. Link.]

A step baffle would be a great choice to build your De-lisle and at 16" it will be not much longer than the original.I would plug weld them in place.The welding is to cure the main problem the De-lisle and the Patchet suffered from**baffle strikes**What will be the host weapon ,or are you looking for a Enfield we have a member here that has made conversion kits to simplify it.PM me for his info!
This is a great topic I'm surprised that more people have not jumped in.I purchased a metal shaper years ago so I could build my own proportional sized receivers for the .45acp.Last month I finally got the last piece of equipment to do the whole job in house.Historian has a lathe that can be used like a shaper its a shame that China has not copied some of the extra features of hobby sized old American iron.

[Enfield577]

A step baffle would be a great choice to build your De-lisle and at 16" it will be not much longer than the original.I would plug weld them in place.The welding is to cure the main problem the De-lisle and the Patchet suffered from**baffle strikes**What will be the host weapon ,or are you looking for a Enfield we have a member here that has made conversion kits to simplify it.PM me for his info!
This is a great topic I'm surprised that more people have not jumped in.I purchased a metal shaper years ago so I could build my own proportional sized receivers for the .45acp.Last month I finally got the last piece of equipment to do the whole job in house.Historian has a lathe that can be used like a shaper its a shame that China has not copied some of the extra features of hobby sized old American iron.

That takes me back a bit, only in the first year of my apprenticeship did I use a shaper.

Your De Lisle sounds interesting, one on my list when I get around to it

Cheers

[Historian]

A step baffle would be a great choice to build your De-lisle and at 16" it will be not much longer than the original.I would plug weld them in place.The welding is to cure the main problem the De-lisle and the Patchet suffered from**baffle strikes**What will be the host weapon ,or are you looking for a Enfield we have a member here that has made conversion kits to simplify it.PM me for his info!
This is a great topic I'm surprised that more people have not jumped in.I purchased a metal shaper years ago so I could build my own proportional sized receivers for the .45acp.Last month I finally got the last piece of equipment to do the whole job in house.Historian has a lathe that can be used like a shaper its a shame that China has not copied some of the extra features of hobby sized old American iron.

It is interesting that you bring this up. I have simulated a shaper with the Atlas 618 during my self-imposed
'apprentice' learning curve on small aluminum blocks. I jury rigged a moveable arm as can be found on
the Hobby sites as Practical Machinist, HMEM, etc. Coincidentally I saw last night on the Retro Movie Channel
the 1949 James Cagney movie "White Heat" a shaper in the prison workshop that the movie was filmed in.
Also there were memory reviving long Southbend lathes in the background.

My next evolution from 'shaper' to 'mill' has been to use the Atlas Milling Attachment supplemented with
the coupling of a heavy duty Toolmakers precision vise, screw-less, which allows me to hold a block
firmly, move it in the x-y-z position, while holding the end mills in an MORSE TAPER MT 2 END MILL HOLDER,
never in the chuck unless you want it to spin out and perform creative spatial loops with your face as final destination.

In miniature I have been getting better in shaping progressively more complex configurations such as milling wells,
model Luger P08 toggle parts, etc. ... all in inexpensive aluminum. Each time I get a delta-x better but oh the
bumper sticker I saw long ago tessellates vibrantly before my eyes at the failures: OH NO! NOT ANOTHER LEARNING EXPERIENCE.

As for the Chi-Com lathes, intel says they do produce excellent repros of American Atlas Lathe ... but are kept only for
internal usage in secure desert locations. This was reported in the 2012 Intel Briefing: "Eyes Only - Trail Across
The Gobi Desert" by Huan Hung Lo.