Running a Beretta 92 w/o Nielsen device

[CMV]

I've read these are good candidates to run suppressed without a recoil booster if the can is light enough. If that's true, does anyone know what max weight to run reliably is?

Is it just weight or does overall length make a difference too (longer might mean more leverage even if the weight is low)?

I'm thinking 1.125" OD which should be just enough to have limited use of the factory sights. All Ti up front & 7075 on back half with my best effort to copy element baffles as those look to be about the lightest. Maybe about 6" OAL. Sound like a good plan?

I have other projects to finish before starting this one (I swear that 10/22 will be built someday), but the 9mm is on the horizon. The only other host is a CX4 carbine which won't need a booster either. I don't think there'd be much point in putting it on a .357SIG

[zevdogs]

This is info I found when I did mine

Suppressor weight for beretta 92



If the can weighs less than 6.7ounces it will work on a Beretta 92 with no mods. That's the heaviest can we ever shot on one without a booster- it may tolerate more weight without swapping to lighter springs.


If you have a brand new Berreta get a 10 or 11 pound Wolff spring, done. But know this, you may not need even a new spring on a well designed can.

I needed to extend my barrel so I made this extension

[Bendersquint]

We have gotten much heavier than 6.7 ounce cans to cycle reliably on the Beretta. If you have an extension on the barrel(like ZevDog) then it will be lighter as the further the weight is forward the lighter it has to be to be reliable.

We have also found that some baffle designs are more reliable on the Beretta than others.

Be careful using Element style baffle as you describe they are patented and companies have been known to go after people for patent infringement.

[CMV]

You give me too much credit Bender - I'm not nearly a competent enough machinist to duplicate someone else's work closely enough to infringe

How about "element inspired"? What I'm getting at is very lean K's like theirs. I'd never get those half circle cuts in the face right (& wouldn't attempt) but would try for something with that face thickness and thin as practical walls. No alignment tabs and a very light scoop all the way around the face. Pretty much duplicate my .22 baffles but with thinner walls, more radius where the cone & base meet, and a very thin face. I don't think I have a pic of those posted anywhere but they look like most other .22 K's here & a lot like Enfield's more recent ones.

[MCKNBRD]

CMV, lemme know when you want to start working on that 10/22...I've got some ideas I want to run by someone more 'in the know' than I...I happen to know a guy that can do a MEAN 10/22 action job...

Byrdman

[CMV]

Start the 10/22 build? Re-start for the 3rd time is probably more like it Not that I don't want to finish it - just other projects & stuff keep getting in front of it.

CPT Link helped me work out the details & I think it will be a very nice rifle once I ever get around to finishing it. Laminated thumbhole target stock, Timney trigger pack, stainless receiver from a new 10/22T. Will have about 6" of ported barrel w/ sub chamber running into 12" of monocore, all wrapped up in a .030 wall highly polished (or else glass bead blasted, I'm still torn on matte vs glossy) Gr 9 tube. I still have to work out how to permanently attach the core to keep it 1 stamp - don't know if I can silver solder steel to AL & I don't have equipment (or skill) to spot weld AL over pins.
Meanwhile stamp is collecting dust....

Goal is to make it look like a nice target 10/22 on the outside that sounds like a gnat landing on a cottonball when fired But right now it's just a box of parts....