All Titanium can for .223

[Dr.K]

Well, my project list changed slightly from what I promised.

I've been killing pigs like crazy, and have decided that the .223 can (my first proper form1) is way way too heavy for stalking pigs a quarter mile through a corn field. So, instead of doing a 22lr all titanium, I'm gonna bust out with an all titanium .223.

So, in the interest of lighter weight, I'm thinking I might not do a full baffle stack, but rather 3-4 baffles with more spacing at the rear of the stack, and closer spacing toward the end.

I figure if it is just stupid loud, well, I can fit in a couple of more.

Any input on this idea?

[curtistactical]

I have done a lot of testing with titanium, its ok for rimfires and handguns but under extreme temps on centerfire rifles it swells like crazy, my thought would be first 2 baffles 17-4 ss then 7068 alum there after.

[Dr.K]

I don't plan on any extreme temperatures. This will be a hunting suppressor. Maximum conditions would be a 30 round mag at semi auto rate of fire. If the whole thing is titanium, then the expansion should be the same, and I don't see it being an issue at the temps I plan on running it.

What kind of test are you referring to?

And, I can't see aluminum being a better option, can you explain that one to me?

[curtistactical]

The worst case I saw was a can( I cant remember the manufacturer now) that was a titanium tube 5.56 can that we ran on a 249 saw, after a 200rd belt dump the diameter of the can grew about an 1/8" over the blast chamber and the can drooped down causing about a 1/4" key hole in the end cap. Titanium would work fine for what you are doing but so would the 7068 aluminum at a whole lot lower cost and way easier to machine and lighter. I think a lot of manufacturers use titanium so they can say they use it, Ill never use it in any of my suppressors, there are good uses for titanium I just don't believe suppressors are one of them.

[Dr.K]

So, this project is at the point of two titanium end caps grade 5, and a grade 9 tube. That's done already, but now my curiosity is bubbling about using some different materials in my schemes. Here's what direction I'm taking this.

I ordered a stick of tennalum or 7068 if you prefer, and also a chunk of 718 inconel,

I'm going to make a blast baffle with the inco 718, and then a couple of 7068 cones after that. I'll be using grade 9 Ti for the spacers.

No worries, I'll document my project with plenty of photos and details. I still may throw in a titanium baffle just because I've never made one, and want to give it a try.

Here's a teaser.

[MCKNBRD]

After a suppressor shoot here in NC a couple of weeks ago, I have a different mindset for centerfire cans. I heard all different kinds of cans; M4-1000, Omni, M4-2k, Lane Scorpion, 762-SDN-6, etc. To the ear, they really didn't sound much different, on similar hosts. The M4-2k probably meters better than the -1k, but my ear couldn't tell the difference. Point being that the -1k has what, 3 or 4 baffles, whereas the -2k has 7 or 8, right? Not to mention totally different blast baffles. I think the main advantage that the -2k has (other than NOT using the 18T mount) is reduced backpressure for gas operated rifles.

Now I'm SERIOUSLY considering just using 3 or 4 baffles in my .30 cal can for simplicity and weight savings; my forecast use is similar to yours, hunting, without a high volume of fire.

Just something to think about.

Byrdman

[Capt. Link.]

I would make the first two or three out of 718 inconel.5.56 is a hot round.While 7068 and other alloys have the strength for light use the titanium will out last it ten fold.High pressure and hot gas will erode the aluminum alloy why build it twice for no weight savings and shorter life.
Nice work as always looking forward to future updates.

[Capt. Link.]

After a suppressor shoot here in NC a couple of weeks ago, I have a different mindset for centerfire cans. I heard all different kinds of cans; M4-1000, Omni, M4-2k, Lane Scorpion, 762-SDN-6, etc. To the ear, they really didn't sound much different, on similar hosts. The M4-2k probably meters better than the -1k, but my ear couldn't tell the difference. Point being that the -1k has what, 3 or 4 baffles, whereas the -2k has 7 or 8, right? Not to mention totally different blast baffles. I think the main advantage that the -2k has (other than NOT using the 18T mount) is reduced backpressure for gas operated rifles.

Now I'm SERIOUSLY considering just using 3 or 4 baffles in my .30 cal can for simplicity and weight savings; my forecast use is similar to yours, hunting, without a high volume of fire.

Just something to think about.

Byrdman

Longer cans with more baffles can exhibit less back-pressure through porting and spacing depending on baffle design.Long cans with or without large numbers of baffles often are much better at hiding the flash better than a short can and for that reason alone may be better for some end users.
I have built mostly high powered rifle suppressors and use not more than 5 baffles for super sonic use as 6 just adds weight without gain.To suppress sub-sonic rounds the baffle count goes up in the same caliber to get the most suppression.

[L1A1Rocker]

use not more than 5 baffles for super sonic use as 6 just adds weight without gain.To suppress sub-sonic rounds the baffle count goes up in the same caliber to get the most suppression.

Provided the variables stay the same in your example, How many baffles would you use for sub-sonic? When the rifle will be using both supers and subs, would you build the can with the higher number of baffles. I'm thinking 300blk here.

[Capt. Link.]

use not more than 5 baffles for super sonic use as 6 just adds weight without gain.To suppress sub-sonic rounds the baffle count goes up in the same caliber to get the most suppression.

Provided the variables stay the same in your example, How many baffles would you use for sub-sonic? When the rifle will be using both supers and subs, would you build the can with the higher number of baffles. I'm thinking 300blk here.

The variables are not the same for the ammo but if the host was the same I would use more if subsonic ammo was being used.

[LavaRed]

I agree that titanium is much better than aluminium for weight savings. Titanium will last through very high round counts without observable erosion.

As for spacing, I would suggest having shorter spacing towards the back and longer spacing towards the front. It works much better.

[Dr.K]

Finally got back around to this project.

Here I'm turning down some grade 9 tube for spacers.





And here is the 718 inconel chucked up a and ready to carve out the. blast baffle.

[Historian]

Finally got back around to this project.

Here I'm turning down some grade 9 tube for spacers.





And here is the 718 inconel chucked up a and ready to carve out the. blast baffle.

Compelled to compliment your great photography ... and subject, of course.
In the 70's one would need a SINAR-P 4x5 to get this quality. And the industrial
lighting is worthy of the old premier German photo magazine GrossBild*.

You rock!





* << http://www.google.com/search?q=German+p ... 62&bih=976 >>

[Dr.K]

I had the baffle almost cut and a wad of swarf bound up between the cutter and the work causing a deflection which in turn caused a wobble. I was going to part it and see if it would work out, but the carbide snapped off in the parting line, again due to the wobble.

So now that 5 hours worth of work is down the river, I've got the work turned down and re chucked. I had convinced myself it would be OK with the adage that the hang out was only 2.5 times the diameter. Live and learn.

In the photo I've already turned down the diameter.

[Historian]

I had the baffle almost cut and a wad of swarf bound up between the cutter and the work causing a deflection which in turn caused a wobble. I was going to part it and see if it would work out, but the carbide snapped off in the parting line, again due to the wobble.

So now that 5 hours worth of work is down the river, I've got the work turned down and re chucked. I had convinced myself it would be OK with the adage that the hang out was only 2.5 times the diameter. Live and learn.


In the photo I've already turned down the diameter.

Do you have a steady rest that you could support the piece near the parting point?

Making an arbor to hold a large slitting saw I held and parted for exercise a 1.5" x 8" rod
holding the one end in 4 jaw chuck and the steady rest back an inch from the parting point.
Even on the 'door stop' Atlas 618 the cut was clean. Oh, I parted from the rear with the blade
upside down.

E.g., << http://www.machinistblog.com/wp-content ... gTool3.jpg >>

My next 'fun for the foot loose indolent' project is to build this Myford, love those Brit machinists, heavy duty
rear parting blade holder.

<< http://www.myford-lathes.com/Images/lar ... st_5_3.JPG >>

[Dr.K]

Don't judge.

I broke two parting tools and trashed a saw blade, so I resorted to alternative means to get the baffle parted off.

It's getting cleaned up now, and already looks better.

[Dr.K]

looks better, right?

And only you guys will know I had to plasma cut it, ha ha.

[CMV]

I like your dog

Reminds me of a reddish-brown doberman who showed up at our door when I was about 12 and decided to adopt us as her new family. We didn't have room for a dog that size so she went to my uncle in the country. What a great dog - I miss her. Very friendly, obedient, playful, and yet still crazy protective. She used to go to the pasture next door and herd the cows. Who ever thought of a Doberman as a herd dog? That's what the dog did for amusement - went & herded the neighboring cows for some reason.

I haven't worked with Inconel yet. Might not after seeing that! I'm maybe 2/3 thru with a .223 build. All Ti except the tube is 316. I like your blast baffle more than what I was planning so I might shamelessly copy it

[HandyMan]

Don't judge.

I broke two parting tools and trashed a saw blade, so I resorted to alternative means to get the baffle parted off.

It's getting cleaned up now, and already looks better.

Yeah, Inconel can be... fussy.

I don't part it if I have the choice. Bandsaw works much better.

When I did have to part it, I would part down to around 150% the width of the insert. Then step over between .020-.040" and cut to the same depth plus another 150% the width of the tool. Then step back to the original Z position and keep going back and forth. A little more waste, but the tools thanked me.

Inconel galls worse than stainless, and the extra clearance prevented the chips from rubbing on the sides of the groove as they were ejected.

Anyway, nice job so far. You are the first home build that I have seen use Inconel. Good stuff.

[L1A1Rocker]

Glad you were able to salvage it!

[Dr.K]

Here is the 7068 baffle. I plan on letting it live in the very end of the can where the least amount of abuse takes place. Plus after cutting all that inconel, I'm not sure my psychological well being could handle going straight over to titanium. Cutting the aluminum was pleasantly relaxing.

I did however start my titanium baffle.

[hotbrass]

And only you guys will know I had to plasma cut it, ha ha.

I thought you used det cord!

[Dr.K]

From right to left, Inconel 718, 6al4v titanium, 7068 tennalum. I used a die grinder and diamond bit for the clipping. I may still go deeper with the clips.

[Dr.K]

15.1 ounces. It's actually a lot quieter than I thought it would be for only having 3 baffles. I'm happy.

[CMV]

...I used a die grinder and diamond bit for the clipping....

What did you buy that mill for again?