Page 1 of 2

Integral Mk III plans

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 5:27 pm
by halfsquelch
Within a few months I should be able to start working on an integral build for my Ruger Mk III and have a few questions.

First, for the people here who have built .22 suppressors before what bore diameter did you use?

Second, I was planning on just making K's for this build but I had a lot of extra time in the past few days and decided to draw up a few possible other designs. With the single wipe removed (occasionally how I will shoot it) which of these designs in everyone's opinion do you think would be the quietest?

Third, although I would like to make my mk3 as quiet as I can and the only for sure way to do that is via wipes, is placing a wipe in the path of such a small round a good idea or even worth it, or should I just remove it and add an extra baffle?

Fourth, the tube and end cap will be made from steel to match the gun but all the internals will be made from 7075, what wall thickness for both the baffles and outer tube is recommended for .22LR?

Image

Current planned dimensions for those of you who I know are going to ask...
Diameter: .99" the same as the MK III receiver
Total length: 9.25"
Barrel length 4.5" I will be cutting 1" off the barrel
Muzzle to end of suppressor: 6.25"

Re: Integral Mk III plans

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 5:57 am
by gunny50
halfsquelch wrote: Diameter: .99" the same as the MK III receiver - Total length: 9.25" - Barrel length 4.5" I will be cutting 1" off the barrel - Muzzle to end of suppressor: 6.25"
I would go with 1 or 5.
loose the current end-cap design - make it so it holds the wipe.
No need for the extra space after wipe, extend your core / baffles.

Gunny

Re: Integral Mk III plans

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:09 am
by whiterussian1974
My inexperienced oppinion would be 1 or 3.
2 would do better w higher pressures.
4 is symmetric, so less turbulence.
5 needs sharper geometry to work properly. As is, the gas will follow boreline because the apperatures don't divert at a severe enough angle.
There are a couple variants of 5 that I "think" are called Epsilon and Psi baffles.
I would also place the wipe w/i the endcap. But instead of extending the stack, I would shorten the tube. Long pistol suppressors cause unwieldy platforms. Unless you are going for a superquiet hiss, a 1/2" shorter can is preferable. Since you are using a wipe, it should already be great. Even w/o wipe it should be hearing safe, just not snake slither.
No need for normalization chamber and "snorkle" will help hold wipe in place/resist deformation.

If you had posted a week ago I would have loved to exchange ideas on these styles. But I am leaving to visit my Grandma tonight. So I probably won't visit this Site again until this Fall, when lower Temps let me run the Computer enough to justify getting the Net again. Unless April's Forecast is for more cool weather.
Our Library blocks firearms sites, so I can only login from home. :(

BTW, love your Avatar. Have you been photoing our Dept's Assistance Calls?

Re: Integral Mk III plans

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:30 am
by jreinke
I would go with #2, it's been done before (by Mageever) and it works, very good. I did a similar design, but without the ridges in the outside chambers and I'm very pleased with the results.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=60118&p=639568#p639568

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=23320

Re: Integral Mk III plans

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:21 am
by Historian
Lots of luck and fun machining.

In case you have never seen the Gold Standard .22 Can:

<< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GbjXvH7xJA >>

Just might require some wrist strengthening exercises. :)

Re: Integral Mk III plans

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:51 am
by halfsquelch
LOL Historian as funny as it would look I am not trying to make a 3 foot long hand gun. Besides, the limit for this from the receiver to the end of the suppressor is 10" and the shorter I can make it with the action being louder than the pop the better.

Thanks everyone for the input about moving the wipe into the end cap, I will be remodeling it while I am sitting around at work for 72 hours this weekend.

As far as the baffles go I will machine whichever core is most likely to be the quietest but I am leaning towards 1 or 2 just because they will be easier to make.

Re: Integral Mk III plans

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:03 pm
by Bendersquint
#1 core will be the quietest.

Re: Integral Mk III plans

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:16 pm
by Capt. Link.
Bendersquint wrote:#1 core will be the quietest.
As long as you fix the porting first :D .

Re: Integral Mk III plans

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:20 pm
by Bendersquint
Capt. Link. wrote:
Bendersquint wrote:#1 core will be the quietest.
As long as you fix the porting first :D .
Didn't look close enough at the porting really, just know the K will perform best in this platform.

Re: Integral Mk III plans

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:28 pm
by Capt. Link.
Bendersquint wrote:
Capt. Link. wrote:
Bendersquint wrote:#1 core will be the quietest.
As long as you fix the porting first :D .
Didn't look close enough at the porting really, just know the K will perform best in this platform.
Agreed Ks are King...........Hi "B".

Re: Integral Mk III plans

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:49 pm
by Dr.K
Style #1 with different endcap.

As an aside. .22 rounds are by far the easiest thing to suppress, any of the designs would likely tone it down very well, but it seems #1 as your options go.

I might add, that I made a very very simple cone style baffle that mimicked the Spectre 2's design, the spacer included on the cone, and a small rounded clip on each cone tip. The overall result was it sounded exactly the same as a Spectre 1, but was an inch longer. I'll get a pic up sometime, but I (and observers present ) were very impressed, and not sure the extra machining involved with K's would outweigh the simplicity of my Spectreish design .

Re: Integral Mk III plans

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:43 pm
by twodollarbill
Here's the link to my MKII Integral build.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=121918

Re: Integral Mk III plans

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 6:17 pm
by halfsquelch
Thanks everyone for the input, I have decided to go with Ks both because they will be easier to make and because the consensus is they will be the quietest. I moved the wipe into the end cap and realized that with doing this I not only would be able to add a second wipe but also shave a 1/2" off the overall length.

Image

I am also not sure what you mean by fix the porting, I have never made Ks before only 60deg cones for a .308 so all I know about them is what I have read on these forums. From what I have read one port is dropped on the blast side of the baffle using a ball end mill and the other port is dropped opposite it through the skirt. If that is incorrect or incomplete info any hints would be greatly appreciated.

Other than the ports if there is anything anyone else can see that I can do better with this please let me know, I want to get the blue prints perfect before starting so I don't screw this thing up.

Re: Integral Mk III plans

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 7:34 pm
by Dr.K
You shouldn't need any wipes with that thing. It'll be stupid quiet already.

Re: Integral Mk III plans

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 7:47 pm
by Bendersquint
Dr.K wrote:You shouldn't need any wipes with that thing. It'll be stupid quiet already.
Absolutely agree, that many baffles should be stupid quiet.

Lose the wipe and add another baffle or shorten the can.

Re: Integral Mk III plans

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 8:55 pm
by halfsquelch
My goal with my mk 3 is to not just make it stupid quiet but to make it so all that is heard is the firing pin drop followed by the gun cycling. I personally would prefer to not have an expendable part in my can so if you are 90%+ confident I can do that or at least come close to it without wipes then I have no problem pulling them or shortening the can. Again I have not suppressed a 22LR before so I do not know how it will sound with it designed the way it is right now.


EDIT:
So basically what you are saying is that I could do either of these and the difference in sound reduction would be indiscernible enough that it is not worth the extra bulk or expendable parts?

Image
Image

Re: Integral Mk III plans

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 10:46 pm
by Dr.K
halfsquelch wrote:My goal with my mk 3 is to not just make it stupid quiet but to make it so all that is heard is the firing pin drop followed by the gun cycling. I personally would prefer to not have an expendable part in my can so if you are 90%+ confident I can do that or at least come close to it without wipes then I have no problem pulling them or shortening the can. Again I have not suppressed a 22LR before so I do not know how it will sound with it designed the way it is right now.


EDIT:
So basically what you are saying is that I could do either of these and the difference in sound reduction would be indiscernible enough that it is not worth the extra bulk or expendable parts?

Image
Image
Do what is pictured in the 2nd photo, and you'll have a winner.

Re: Integral Mk III plans

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:34 pm
by halfsquelch
Dr.K wrote:Do what is pictured in the 2nd photo, and you'll have a winner.
Fair enough, that is what I will plan for then.

I still have two unanswered questions though...
Currently the wall thickness of the 7075 throughout is .05" and the wall thickness of the 316 tube is .04" are these correct for a 22 or can I safely make them thinner?

I also have the bore size set with .03" clearance at .28" should this change and if so bigger or smaller?

Re: Integral Mk III plans

Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 12:12 am
by quietoldfart
The bore on my 6 K baffle integral, posted elsewhere on this site, is 0.25" throughout. Alignment with the bore is excellent as the bore is concentric to the outside of the barrel on my old French .22" pistol. No baffle contact, accuracy is good, suppression is, I'm guessing, better than it would be if the bore were 0.28". But it's up to you. As I understand US law (which isn't a lot admittedly) you are permitted to remove material from a suppressor after testing, but not add material. If this is correct, then perhaps you could try starting at 0.25", check bore alignment with a very straight rod of some sort polished smooth so as not to damage the bore or crown, then if you find alignment isn't as perfect as will ensure zero baffle strikes, drill the baffles out a little.

Re: Integral Mk III plans

Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:03 am
by Dr.K
halfsquelch wrote:
Dr.K wrote:Do what is pictured in the 2nd photo, and you'll have a winner.
Fair enough, that is what I will plan for then.

I still have two unanswered questions though...
Currently the wall thickness of the 7075 throughout is .05" and the wall thickness of the 316 tube is .04" are these correct for a 22 or can I safely make them thinner?

I also have the bore size set with .03" clearance at .28" should this change and if so bigger or smaller?
My solution is to make the shell first. Do a smallish hole on the endcap. Say. 235". Check visually for alignment. If looks good, fire a test shot and examine for contact. Open hole as necessary. When no contact then you know all baffles can be at least as wide as the endcap without strikes. That is my usual method.

Re: Integral Mk III plans

Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:22 am
by Bendersquint
Dr.K wrote:
halfsquelch wrote:
Dr.K wrote:Do what is pictured in the 2nd photo, and you'll have a winner.
Fair enough, that is what I will plan for then.

I still have two unanswered questions though...
Currently the wall thickness of the 7075 throughout is .05" and the wall thickness of the 316 tube is .04" are these correct for a 22 or can I safely make them thinner?

I also have the bore size set with .03" clearance at .28" should this change and if so bigger or smaller?
My solution is to make the shell first. Do a smallish hole on the endcap. Say. 235". Check visually for alignment. If looks good, fire a test shot and examine for contact. Open hole as necessary. When no contact then you know all baffles can be at least as wide as the endcap without strikes. That is my usual method.
.235" exit aperture?

I hope you are joking, .005" of clearance?

Re: Integral Mk III plans

Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:28 am
by MCKNBRD
halfsquelch wrote: Image
What I would do is take the last K baffle and reduce the OD of the skirt to let it sit inside your end cap. You're still keeping it quiet and all the baffles intact, but you're killing wasted space and length.

JMHO, of course...
Byrdman

Re: Integral Mk III plans

Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 12:50 pm
by Dr.K
Bendersquint wrote:
.235" exit aperture?

I hope you are joking, .005" of clearance?
I made one that was perfectly concentric once, and upon visual conformation that it was aligned, I put one thru it, and had no contact with the edges of the exit aperature.

As a side note though it was a short can for .22LR at 4", and I did open it up a touch, and made the baffles have a larger bore also, since there is some play between baffles and side wall. It ended up at .245" and have had no issues, it's not something I'd recommend other than with a form1 that you have all the control over, not something I would ever recommend for a mfg to do! If you have all the tolerances in check, then .005" clearance is fine.....until some buildup :lol:

Re: Integral Mk III plans

Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 3:40 pm
by halfsquelch
MCKNBRD wrote:What I would do is take the last K baffle and reduce the OD of the skirt to let it sit inside your end cap. You're still keeping it quiet and all the baffles intact, but you're killing wasted space and length.

JMHO, of course...
Byrdman

Great idea thanks for the input, that brings the overall length down to 8.25".
Image

Re: Integral Mk III plans

Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 4:13 pm
by a_canadian
An idle thought... What about using some of that volume taken up by the milled-out tube around the barrel as air volume instead of aluminum? It's not a lot, but every bit counts. You could make an initial spacer, or plug, the muzzle nesting into the face of it, then it becomes a cone flaring out to the edge of the first K and several large ports cut in the cone to vent back around the barrel. Might buy you another cubic centimetre of air volume around the barrel, while still securing the tube's relationship to the muzzle.