Form 1 Monocore for .22

[ThaDoubleJ]

Hey all, new guy here. I don't know anything about machining or CAD, so I drew this on paint. Is it a viable design? Could it be made with a lathe and a drill press? Thanks all.
PS - I made the baffles like that on purpose, my head says it'll work good

[Bendersquint]

Hey all, new guy here. I don't know anything about machining or CAD, so I drew this on paint. Is it a viable design? Could it be made with a lathe and a drill press? Thanks all.
PS - I made the baffles like that on purpose, my head says it'll work good

Alot thicker than it needs to be, I would suggest you check out the baffle picture thread I started.

That design is not very effective.

[57fairlane]

I don't know anything about machining or CAD, so I drew this on paint. Could it be made with a lathe and a drill press?

How are you planning on cutting angles/pockets with round tools?

[ThaDoubleJ]

Ouch, my ego. I'll search for your post and see what looks like it's in my skill level, thanks.

Honestly, I was going to use a file... I got more time than money, that's for sure

[ThaDoubleJ]

Ok, I checked out the thread, and the common theme with monocores seems to be either all the baffles at the same angle (45 degrees-ish) or alternating triangle shapes with a blast chamber that looks to be about 150% of the rest of the chambers, does that sound about right?

What is it about my design that makes it ineffective, the pointy-ness of the baffles? In my head, I'm looking at this like a car muffler, since that's what I know, so I guess I kinda copied a flowmaster.

[Bendersquint]

Ok, I checked out the thread, and the common theme with monocores seems to be either all the baffles at the same angle (45 degrees-ish) or alternating triangle shapes with a blast chamber that looks to be about 150% of the rest of the chambers, does that sound about right?

What is it about my design that makes it ineffective, the pointy-ness of the baffles? In my head, I'm looking at this like a car muffler, since that's what I know, so I guess I kinda copied a flowmaster.

Car mufflers and firearm silencers have about as much in common as a fly trap and an electro magnet. They perform completely different functions and not even in the same genre.

[Capt. Link.]

[/quote]
Car mufflers and firearm silencers have about as much in common as a fly trap and an electro magnet. They perform completely different functions and not even in the same genre.[/quote]
I could not come up with a more tactful way of saying that.
OP offbeat designs have very low success rates.Look up our completed builds thread, that may give you a few ideas.

[Historian]

Car mufflers and firearm silencers have about as much in common as a fly trap and an electro magnet. They perform completely different functions and not even in the same genre.[/quote]
I could not come up with a more tactful way of saying that.
OP offbeat designs have very low success rates.Look up our completed builds thread, that may give you a few ideas.[/quote]

While cleaning my M1A1 for its winter hibernation I again marveled at
the design of the gas piston that in its short travel gives such an impulse
to the slide. I was mulling over designs that would incorporate
spring loaded pistons along the suppressor tube.

Fortunately your wise aphorism has saved me from putting off on a major
chapter distillation and getting to final goal state.
Spoil Sport!


Best.

[ThaDoubleJ]

They perform completely different functions and not even in the same genre.

Don't they both work with baffles and chambers to slow and silence expanding gasses? I thought I even heard of a silencer back in the day that used a perforated tube and some sort of packing material that required replacement at certain intervals. On my CR500, that part would be called the 'silencer'.

I'd really like to earn how silencers work, not just copy something on the forum. I've lurked here a while without signing up, and in my lurking have found a couple designs that have similar 'pointy' baffles closer to the muzzle, with other designs further out, so I just started there with my 'drawing' and planned to learn and modify until I had something that might work.

So what is it about my design that doesn't work, baffle shape, chamber size, overall dimensions? Why?

[CMV]

[snip]
I'd really like to earn how silencers work, not just copy something on the forum. I've lurked here a while without signing up, and in my lurking have found a couple designs that have similar 'pointy' baffles closer to the muzzle, with other designs further out, so I just started there with my 'drawing' and planned to learn and modify until I had something that might work.

So what is it about my design that doesn't work, baffle shape, chamber size, overall dimensions? Why?

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=63889 check that out for the first part of your question.

I think the part that doesn't work is the "crease". Monocore or stack, you still have individual baffles/chambers. Look at each chamber of yours as an individual bent piece of square metal with a hole in the center followed by some empty space. I think what's throwing you off is looking at cross-section drawings of round things & then trying to apply that to a square thing. When the gasses exit the bore hole they want follow the cone shape out to the edges (round thing). When I picture yours (square thing), I can see them wanting to follow those walls up & down, but not to the sides. There's nothing along that "crease" that would make the gas want to go left/right, only up/down. That would make it less efficient.

There is a member who posted something similar here & on arfcom. It was square pyramid baffles in a square tube. I think he was unhappy with the results & said it didn't work, but when turned around with the baffles facing the opposite way it did. I think it was cinched together with threaded rod or something - it's been a while so I don't remember the details or who it was to help you search. But that might be similar enough to yours - even a little better in theory - and it didn't work out well.

Look at the guts of an AAC Prodigy. That looks like a design that might work well as a square also. Maybe not, but it looks like it would. SilencerCo Osprey immediately comes to mind when square is mentioned too. Maybe those will give you some ideas on what direction to go.

[ThaDoubleJ]

Ah crap, my fault for assuming. My plan was to make that design, and then chuck it in a lathe and turn it to round so it could fit inside an outer tube. I guess I wasn't clear that the square-ness of it was just to make the machining easier for me.
I do see your point though, basically the high pressure gases would only utilize a portion of the baffle (above and below, lets say) while the sides would only get involved after pressures had already dropped. In the thread mentioned above about baffle pictures, there are several like this (Sorry for the crudeness of the drawing), but I can't determine if they're effective designs. How does that baffle design move the gases to the side?

[paul463]

[snip]
I'd really like to earn how silencers work, not just copy something on the forum. I've lurked here a while without signing up, and in my lurking have found a couple designs that have similar 'pointy' baffles closer to the muzzle, with other designs further out, so I just started there with my 'drawing' and planned to learn and modify until I had something that might work.

So what is it about my design that doesn't work, baffle shape, chamber size, overall dimensions? Why?

check that out for the first part of your question.

I think the part that doesn't work is the "crease". Monocore or stack, you still have individual baffles/chambers. Look at each chamber of yours as an individual bent piece of square metal with a hole in the center followed by some empty space. I think what's throwing you off is looking at cross-section drawings of round things & then trying to apply that to a square thing. When the gasses exit the bore hole they want follow the cone shape out to the edges (round thing). When I picture yours (square thing), I can see them wanting to follow those walls up & down, but not to the sides. There's nothing along that "crease" that would make the gas want to go left/right, only up/down. That would make it less efficient.

There is a member who posted something similar here & on arfcom. It was square pyramid baffles in a square tube. I think he was unhappy with the results & said it didn't work, but when turned around with the baffles facing the opposite way it did. I think it was cinched together with threaded rod or something - it's been a while so I don't remember the details or who it was to help you search. But that might be similar enough to yours - even a little better in theory - and it didn't work out well.

Look at the guts of an AAC Prodigy. That looks like a design that might work well as a square also. Maybe not, but it looks like it would. SilencerCo Osprey immediately comes to mind when square is mentioned too. Maybe those will give you some ideas on what direction to go.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_20/19974 ... ORM_1.html

[ThaDoubleJ]

Checked out both those threads, that square stack deal looks really complicated to build, but like I was saying, I only drew it square to show the general shape, then I was going to turn it round, thread it 1/2 x 28, and come up with an outer tube arrangement.

[MCKNBRD]

You're going to have to start with the round stock turned down to the correct OD; if you try turning a square piece, especially with this much material removed, you're going to waste a LOT of stock and time figuring it out.

Byrdman

[Baffled]

Haha, that was me. It's actually a square stack that fits in a round tube. It LOOKED funky and cool, and despite the visual complexity, it was actually quite easy to execute because I could batch-mill the baffles by binding them together with a threaded rod.

While it *worked*, it didn't work great and never will. Worst of all, I butchered a precious Kuehl .22LR AR barrel to fit a proprietary, Uzi-like mounting system.

That was my first can. I have learned since that individuals had best not try some goofy design... go with what is known to work, or something very close.

[ThaDoubleJ]

Baffled, have you come up with a more effective design, and how hard was it to manufacture? I really doubt I'll gain access to very complex machining equipment, if any at all, so I'd guess even a mill is out of the question. Might even end up using some hand tools, but like I said, I got some spare time laying around.

Byrd, would it be a case of the all the extra edges catching on the tool on the lathe, or is square stock hard to chuck properly? I seem to remember shop class in HS the lathe having three gripping surfaces, like a drill. Would you recommend a larger piece of round stock, then machining the baffles, then turning it down?

[MCKNBRD]

Byrd, would it be a case of the all the extra edges catching on the tool on the lathe, or is square stock hard to chuck properly? I seem to remember shop class in HS the lathe having three gripping surfaces, like a drill. Would you recommend a larger piece of round stock, then machining the baffles, then turning it down?

Its called an interrupted cut, and you're setting up hellacious vibrations and shock to the tool post, the bit, the material, and the lathe's driveline.

You want to turn the core to the required diameter, then mill your cuts for the baffles. When you're turning to final diameter, you're going to want to cut any threads BEFORE you start with your baffles. Baffles are really weak, structurally, so they are the last thing you cut, as the piece won't be easy to chuck up in a lathe or clamp in a vise.

To be honest, I'd recommend picking up a little time with an experienced machinist or taking a basic machining class at a local college, to be a little more familiar with setup and work flow.

Byrdman

[ThaDoubleJ]

Makes total sense, I guess the bit would smack into the piece several times each rotation. There's a local smith in town that does some work for me, maybe he'd be willing to give me a hand if I paid him for his time, he's got all the gadgets and tools.

[Baffled]

Turning square stock is possible if the infeed each pass is kept small and the tool radius small as well, but I'm having some trouble as to why one would do it when round stock is readily available, unless it is to turn a round end(s) on square stock.

For .22, there is no need to get cosmic unless the volume is small to begin with, like a modern pistol can. Start with a bit more volume, and you can get away with simple baffles and spacers and get respectable suppression.

In the end, without access to real machine tools, any suppressor is probably going to be pretty crude, with slip fit end caps and lateral screws, etc.

[Historian]

Stray thought:

Has anyone seen a 'jelly roll' unified baffle system?

Ref. Concept:

<< http://www.crazycreekquilts.com/free-je ... terns.html >>
<< http://www.joepastry.com/category/pastry/jelly-rolls/ >>

Gedanken Design example for a .22:

Cylinder 1" diameter by 7" long.

Roll copper flashing around a mandrel .25" diameter;
width 6" - to give room for primary expansion chamber;
with mesh such as the classic Choir Boy making up the 'jelly' in the roll.

Last length 3.14" ( A 'PI' PIE ) full 7" width to keep the set up
from falling back into the can.

Would this give an equivalent result as the complex cutting of bent
sheets, etc. ?

If our dear friends such as Lava Red or Enfield who are free to actually
reify the concept would report on it it would be a valuable calibration point.

[ThaDoubleJ]

Ok, here's my redesign that took weeks of hard work... Do I need more or less blast chamber? Same angle on all the baffles or would this work? Less chamber in the front? Thanks all.

[Bendersquint]

Ok, here's my redesign that took weeks of hard work... Do I need more or less blast chamber? Same angle on all the baffles or would this work? Less chamber in the front? Thanks all.

Congratulations you designed a YHM Mite minus a couple slant baffle.

Performance will not be that good. Why are you set on using a monocore?

[Capt. Link.]

That design is called a slant baffle its very effective but will cause bullet yaw if the blast baffle is at a angle.
United States Patent US7073426 (Mark White)

[doubloon]

...
Congratulations you designed a YHM Mite minus a couple slant baffle.

Performance will not be that good. Why are you set on using a monocore?

Out of curiosity.

Since these baffles are essentially a flat piece of steel is there any measurable performance advantage to slanted baffles vs vertical?

ETA: CL when you say yaw do you mean any particular direction in relation to the slant? Is it predictable/repeatable?

[Capt. Link.]

...
Congratulations you designed a YHM Mite minus a couple slant baffle.

Performance will not be that good. Why are you set on using a monocore?

Out of curiosity.

Since these baffles are essentially a flat piece of steel is there any measurable performance advantage to slanted baffles vs vertical?

ETA: CL when you say yaw do you mean any particular direction in relation to the slant? Is it predictable/repeatable?

I'm sure its repeatable and in relation to the slant orientation but the bullet rotates, so this and the older slant design the bore hole had to be opened up to avoid bullet strikes this degrades performance.
I know the slant works better than a flat baffle as it adds some turbulence and delay to the gases.
"B" I thought the mite worked well or are you saying this particular design.
I know everyone want's a unique design but cones or K's would work so much better in this size suppressor.