1.5" x .188 wall 6061 for .223 can?

Yes, it can be legal to make a silencer. For everything Form-1, from silencer designs that are easily made, to filing forms with the BATF, to 3D modeling. Remember, you must have an approved BATF Form-1 to make a silencer. All NFA laws apply.

Moderators: mpallett, bakerjw

Post Reply
plodder
Silent Operator
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:38 pm

1.5" x .188 wall 6061 for .223 can?

Post by plodder »

I have my hot new Form 1 in hand and am beginning to try to finalize design for a 7" can to use on .22LR and .223/5.56. Will 1.5" x .188 wall 6061 aluminum hold up to the .223? I am planning on 6061 K baffels with stainless or exotic blast chamber baffle. Any advice appreciated.
Still awaiting an original & riveting thought for signature line; stand by...........
User avatar
McLarenross
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 551
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:22 pm
Location: Eagle River Alaska

Re: 1.5" x .188 wall 6061 for .223 can?

Post by McLarenross »

Are you stuck on alum for the tube? Even .065 wall 1018 steel would be better and probably lighter than 6061.
There are no "ex-Marines", just Marines who arent active anymore.
Historian
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3503
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:37 pm

Re: 1.5" x .188 wall 6061 for .223 can?

Post by Historian »

McLarenross wrote:Are you stuck on alum for the tube? Even .065 wall 1018 steel would be better and probably lighter than 6061.
+1


For example lab grade 316/316L SS Seamless Tubing
as a starting point.

As our wise Gray Beards suggest ... "Length better than width".

For .22 a survey of literature indicates 1" - !.25" by 7"- 8".

Innards K's.

Best.
plodder
Silent Operator
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:38 pm

Re: 1.5" x .188 wall 6061 for .223 can?

Post by plodder »

McLarenross wrote:Are you stuck on alum for the tube? Even .065 wall 1018 steel would be better and probably lighter than 6061.
I'm not necessarily stuck on aluminum, but this is my first attempt and I have a 6 x 12 Smithy 3 in one to use as a machining center. I just figured that if the aluminum will be acceptably durable for mostly .22LR shooting with occasional .223 it would be easier to work with for the threading I plan to do.
Still awaiting an original & riveting thought for signature line; stand by...........
Fulmen
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1045
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:36 am

Re: 1.5" x .188 wall 6061 for .223 can?

Post by Fulmen »

No worries, I have a 222-can made from 6061T6, it has 35mm (1,38") bore and 2mm (0,079") walls (2,5 at the threads).
Edit: Here's a link to the build. OD is 40mm (turned down to 39 between the threads), ID 35mm:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=96087
User avatar
Capt. Link.
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2829
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:05 pm
Location: USA.

Re: 1.5" x .188 wall 6061 for .223 can?

Post by Capt. Link. »

Stainless steel is a superior choice and within the capabilities of your lathe.A 316 pressure tube with 416 baffles and end-caps is a good recipe.
The only reason after 243 years the government now wants to disarm you is they intend to do something you would shoot them for!
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
User avatar
McLarenross
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 551
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:22 pm
Location: Eagle River Alaska

Re: 1.5" x .188 wall 6061 for .223 can?

Post by McLarenross »

I know when I was starting out with my smaller machines I was afraid of turning stainless but honestly its not much different than regular high carbon steels. Feeds and speeds are key. Carbide helps but HSS can be used too. Aluminum will work for what your trying to do but with the tax stamp on these things and wanting them to last my lifetime Im gonna stick to stainless for all mine.
There are no "ex-Marines", just Marines who arent active anymore.
Fulmen
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1045
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:36 am

Re: 1.5" x .188 wall 6061 for .223 can?

Post by Fulmen »

McLarenross wrote:with the tax stamp on these things and wanting them to last my lifetime
I understand the red tape and tax must be a pain, but we're not talking thousands of dollars here. So what if it wears out after a few years? By that time you would probably spent 10 times the tax on ammo and learned enough to replace it with a far better design.
User avatar
Capt. Link.
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2829
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:05 pm
Location: USA.

Re: 1.5" x .188 wall 6061 for .223 can?

Post by Capt. Link. »

Can you tell us why aluminum is a better choice than stainless steel.
The only reason after 243 years the government now wants to disarm you is they intend to do something you would shoot them for!
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
plodder
Silent Operator
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:38 pm

Re: 1.5" x .188 wall 6061 for .223 can?

Post by plodder »

Capt. Link. wrote:Can you tell us why aluminum is a better choice than stainless steel.
I don't know that aluminum is a better choice. I just assumed that aluminum might be easier to cut & work than stainless. As I said, I am a newbie to suppressor manufacturing and in the most recent 30 years, my machining efforts have been limited to hobby work and rather crude projects that required little more than a drill press & grinder. Although my first effort at a form 1 can, I would like it to look and perform on par with a store bought unit. Besides that, I have the aluminum.
Still awaiting an original & riveting thought for signature line; stand by...........
User avatar
Capt. Link.
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2829
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:05 pm
Location: USA.

Re: 1.5" x .188 wall 6061 for .223 can?

Post by Capt. Link. »

plodder wrote:
Capt. Link. wrote:Can you tell us why aluminum is a better choice than stainless steel.
I don't know that aluminum is a better choice. I just assumed that aluminum might be easier to cut & work than stainless. As I said, I am a newbie to suppressor manufacturing and in the most recent 30 years, my machining efforts have been limited to hobby work and rather crude projects that required little more than a drill press & grinder. Although my first effort at a form 1 can, I would like it to look and perform on par with a store bought unit. Besides that, I have the aluminum.
The question was aimed at Fulmen we have argued about this topic for years now.Hi guy.
The out of pocket cost to purchase SS to build a suppressor is small.The work involved is the same with either metal.Aluminum requires anodizing adding to the cost plus it will only last for a few years degrading with every use.I'm a Scotsmen and wasting money is a mortal sin!
I bet you wish it to disassemble as well and hold up to some spirited fun on the range both not good news for aluminum.Its not a question that it can be done,it can but won't last.
The only reason after 243 years the government now wants to disarm you is they intend to do something you would shoot them for!
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
Fulmen
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1045
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:36 am

Re: 1.5" x .188 wall 6061 for .223 can?

Post by Fulmen »

Capt'n:
It all depends on the intended use. If you plan on dumping mags trough it, expect serious wear. An all-stainless or at least baffles from stainless will increase life considerably. But for a 22 can with the occasional 223 wear isn't that big a deal. My can is made for hunting, so I wanted to keep it as light as possible. Aluminum (if properly sized) does keep the weight down, and it also prevents that good'ol "ping" when using subsonic ammo.
For me anodizing wasn't a drawback, far from it. I wanted it black, and since I can anodize it was simpler than sending it out for painting or getting the equipment to do it myself. Besides I find the anodized finish much more appealing than paint, that crap is for those that can't do a proper finish.

As for the work being the same I respectfully disagree. If you can't remove aluminum faster than stainless you're doing something wrong, this is especially true on smaller home-shop lathes. I see your point about wasting money, but have you ever done the math? How much ammo can you put through a can before it's worn out? How much does that cost compared to the cost of the silencer?

Not saying that aluminum is better for every use, far from it. But saying that stainless is better on all counts is equally wrong, it all boils down to your particular needs. For my can stainless would have been a crummy choice, your mileage might very well vary.
Fulmen
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1045
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:36 am

Re: 1.5" x .188 wall 6061 for .223 can?

Post by Fulmen »

Just wanted to add one problem I've had with aluminum: Large cans on small rounds and slow rate of fire. This can cause optimum conditions for corrosion, I've had that happen once on a large (commercial) can on a 300 bolt rifle. The powder produces water, and if the can doesn't get hot enough to dry it self out it can cause corrosion. If this happens the smell of ammonia will be quite noticeable, and can cause serious problems if not dealt with in time. Simplest fix is to place it somewhere warm for a few hours, if it can be taken apart a quick wipe down and perhaps a spray of WD40 is even better.

So no, it's not that I consider aluminum to be the perfect material, but the weight savings can make it the best compromise. My telescopic 222 can (1,57 X 7,9") weighs only 10,5 ounces, how many have made comparable cans from steel that match that weight?
Samson104
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:48 am

Re: 1.5" x .188 wall 6061 for .223 can?

Post by Samson104 »

If you want to use Aluminum for the can for the sake of easier machining buy a chunk of 7075 round bar from E-bay , drill and bore it to the ID you want , 7075 has about double the yield strength that 6061 has. I have a 308 can that is 7075 with .075" walls and 7075 baffles (blast chamber and first two cones are SS) and it holds up great on a 16" 308
Post Reply