Page 1 of 1

K buffer vs REGULAR freeze plug (.22lr)

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:08 pm
by TotalAmateur
Hi there,

I have been searching but have not come around the physics explanation as to the benefit of a cone shaped buffer. Many people here in NZ make custom suppressors and don't use cones. Would anybody be kind enough to explain the benefit -if any- of a cone shaped buffer a opposed to a standard drilled freeze plug?

Thanks a lot!

A complete amateur.

Re: K buffer vs REGULAR freeze plug (.22lr)

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 6:31 pm
by Bendersquint
TotalAmateur wrote:Hi there,

I have been searching but have not come around the physics explanation as to the benefit of a cone shaped buffer. Many people here in NZ make custom suppressors and don't use cones. Would anybody be kind enough to explain the benefit -if any- of a cone shaped buffer a opposed to a standard drilled freeze plug?

Thanks a lot!

A complete amateur.
Main benefit is they are much quieter.

Re: K buffer vs REGULAR freeze plug (.22lr)

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:45 pm
by TotalAmateur
So not so much about accuracy? I ask because I am not getting good groups on my old can.

Thanks for the reply.

Cheers,

CA

Re: K buffer vs REGULAR freeze plug (.22lr)

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:55 pm
by Bendersquint
TotalAmateur wrote:So not so much about accuracy? I ask because I am not getting good groups on my old can.

Thanks for the reply.

Cheers,

CA
There are as many baffle designs as there are makes/models of cars if not more, each has their benefit.

99% of people want it as quiet as possible.

Some designs greatly enhance accuracy others destroy it.

Re: K buffer vs REGULAR freeze plug (.22lr)

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 10:50 pm
by Tony M.
Bendersquint wrote:99% of people want it as quiet as possible.
At least in the U.S.

Since for us suppressors are generally considered lifetime purchases, things like 'the quietest', 'the lightest' or 'the tacticalest' matter more than they do in places where they are more akin to earmuffs than the family silver.

Re: K buffer vs REGULAR freeze plug (.22lr)

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 11:07 pm
by Bendersquint
Tony M. wrote:
Bendersquint wrote:99% of people want it as quiet as possible.
At least in the U.S.

Since for us suppressors are generally considered lifetime purchases, things like 'the quietest', 'the lightest' or 'the tacticalest' matter more than they do in places where they are more akin to earmuffs than the family silver.
Agreed.

With lack of regulation comes lack of performance.

Re: K buffer vs REGULAR freeze plug (.22lr)

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:06 am
by Fulmen
I disagree, the first thing to go is usually weight, cost and durability. Without regulation they become consumable parts that are replaced when worn out, that allows the use of aluminium to keep the weight and cost down. At least that's the trend here in Norway where silencers are almost as common as bread. A telescopic rifle silencer cost from 1500-3500NOK (250-600$), a rimfire around 5-600NOK (less than 100$). These cans have good performance, and are expected to last 3-5000 rounds if treated properly. The latest trends are modular construction allowing for simple replacement of worn baffles and the possibility to adjust length to either improve performance or reduce weight. Several designs also use stainless steel inserts that eliminate most of the wear, effectively increasing life span to almost that of steel cans.

For a simple explanation as to why cones are usually preferred do a search for the "coanda effect". Basically a gradual taper allows the gas to flow along the edges, forcing it to expand. With a flat washer most of the flow will simply pass straight on "tunneling" through the bore of the can as if it was just another length of barrel.

As for accuracy, few designs other than wipes should hurt performance if installed properly. Most can improve accuracy, mainly by adding weight to the barrel reducing harmonics.

Re: K buffer vs REGULAR freeze plug (.22lr)

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:17 am
by SPdotCOM
+1 to Fulmen comments.

Let me add some minor comments about Cones:

1) For the same room (ie. 1.5 x 1.5) using Cones you can have up to 60% more contact surface and that's key for heat transfer.
2) Bigger contact surface, in this case, means longer path to end of the Baffle what means more time to work out the incoming gas in a given point and lowering down pressure more efficiently.
3) Add some steps (or flutes, blind holes, ...) to the Cone surface and you can have even bigger contact surface and better coanda conditions.

Fender Washers are not bad Baffles, think about them like 180 degree Cones; they behave like that. Just try a fluted Fender Washer and you'll be suprissed how much better they get. Or simple go B-Baffles by means of pressing a ball bearing at the center and creating some sort of conical/spherical shape on it.

Finally, a little comment on the "new" trends: Yes, modular designs are a good step into "Suppression on Demand" and, in short, you'll have to add "Guts on Demand" when SLS 3D Printers go cheaper and/or new polymers come into place (ie. Celazole, amazing overall performance but still expensive to print). And this is no longer the future, it's here right now and have come to stay for long.

Best,

Paul

Re: K buffer vs REGULAR freeze plug (.22lr)

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 12:58 pm
by Tony M.
What are you guys disagreeing with?

Re: K buffer vs REGULAR freeze plug (.22lr)

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 5:08 am
by dark2023
Some designs greatly enhance accuracy others destroy it.
Can you please give a few common examples of each?

Re: K buffer vs REGULAR freeze plug (.22lr)

Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2014 5:30 am
by fastfire
Can you please give a few common examples of each?



Please do, Been reading here for several months and get small tidbits of what works and doesn't.