patents/US6575266: Snorkel Chamber Suppressor Design 2003

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
Historian
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3503
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:37 pm

patents/US6575266: Snorkel Chamber Suppressor Design 2003

Post by Historian »

Reviewing N.R. Parker's impressive "Firearm Suppressor Patents"
I found on page 283 a version of the snorkel suppressor design
once seen in 1960's at Parker Hale of an MM1 .22 with no
baffles, just an inverted snorkel. Imitation is indeed the sincerest
form of flattery.

Ref: << https://www.google.com/patents/US6575266 >>
by Gehse & Weekend

If and when suppressors are finally and intelligently taken off
the NFA list perhaps some tests can be made to baseline this
minimalist design.

A variation that comes to mind is then to insert a coiled spiral trapazoidal
made from a SS sheet whose cross section looks like Fermat's spiral:

<< http://www.kidsmathgamesonline.com/imag ... spiral.jpg >>

Some parameters that come to mind: large surface area; full length of tube
used for gas expansion and maximizing time of exit delay;
concomitant temperature/pressure reduction.

Someday maybe someone will run across an original PH MM1 snorkel can
and post a picture to prove that it was not a passing figment of the imagination. :)
User avatar
whiterussian1974
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2857
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:37 pm
Location: On 8th line of eye chart.

Re: patents/US6575266: Snorkel Chamber Suppressor Design 2003

Post by whiterussian1974 »

It's basically a reflex design w no baffles. Porting into the reflex and sealing it to end of barrel would be FAR more effective. A basic tank cannon fume evacuator.
This design would be fine for MGs, but baffles are needed to increase performance post muzzle.
Ferrat's spiral is incorporated into OSS's Ops designs. Very effectively, though diminishing returns for all the machining.
The Darkest Corners of Hell are reserved for those who remain Neutral!-Dante
The Death of One is a Tragedy, a million only a statistic.-Stalin
silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=135314
User avatar
gunny50
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 782
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:11 am
Location: EU

Re: patents/US6575266: Snorkel Chamber Suppressor Design 2003

Post by gunny50 »

whiterussian1974

The Gehse & Weekend patented design was used on large caliber auto canons like the Mauser.
I did a post about these once. Incl pictures of the Mauser canon.


Porting the inner tube would NOT benefit as now that gas is trapped all the way in the front with long way to exit, also that gas will work against itself when entering th tube.

Research ;-)
Gunny
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=135514
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=77913
User avatar
gunny50
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 782
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:11 am
Location: EU

Re: patents/US6575266: Snorkel Chamber Suppressor Design 2003

Post by gunny50 »

Ferrat's spiral


Image
noice level advertised at 85 decibel
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=135514
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=77913
User avatar
whiterussian1974
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2857
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:37 pm
Location: On 8th line of eye chart.

Re: patents/US6575266: Snorkel Chamber Suppressor Design 2003

Post by whiterussian1974 »

gunny50 wrote:Porting the inner tube would NOT benefit as now that gas is trapped all the way in the front with long way to exit, also that gas will work against itself when entering th tube.
I don't understand this Sentence. The grammar has me confused.
I spoke about porting b/c the holes would act as valves to restrict gas flow. Perhaps you mean that the total surface area of the plane surrounding the muzzle is equal or less than the total of all the ports combined?
Or that the 2nd tube acts as 1 large port thereby restricting gas flow by similar means? That makes sense now that you've pointed it out.
Thanks :)
The Darkest Corners of Hell are reserved for those who remain Neutral!-Dante
The Death of One is a Tragedy, a million only a statistic.-Stalin
silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=135314
User avatar
whiterussian1974
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2857
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:37 pm
Location: On 8th line of eye chart.

Re: patents/US6575266: Snorkel Chamber Suppressor Design 2003

Post by whiterussian1974 »

gunny50 wrote:noice level advertised at 85 decibel
I went to the site but didn't see dB rating or other info. Just description and pics. (I just found it under "downloadables." I didn't notice the link b/c it wasn't a different color.) I'm extremely skeptical about a noise rating of only 85dB as they claim this for .338 also. 85dB is about how loud the firing pin and primer ignition are.
http://delta.gov.ge/en/productcategory/small-arms/
It seems similar to GemTech's G-series monoblocks.
1 problem that others have faced is something called an "infinite screw" effect. I don't recall the particulars. They said that it's good for reducing pressure w/o increasing stagnation for MG apps.

I myself have wondered if diverting the 1st chamber's gas into a pair of twisting conduits that spiralled about the closed baffle section would improve performance. Maybe venting through small holes in the far endcap. Otherwise the pressure would drop in the boreline quicker than it could build in the spiral section.
So the concept would be diverting some % of gas from boreline and using length and time to expand the gas so that it wouldn't travel down boreline.
The Darkest Corners of Hell are reserved for those who remain Neutral!-Dante
The Death of One is a Tragedy, a million only a statistic.-Stalin
silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=135314
Historian
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3503
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:37 pm

Re: patents/US6575266: Snorkel Chamber Suppressor Design 2003

Post by Historian »

"85 Db" ? Huh?

Best measurements for .22 are around 114 Db.

Any clue what instrument they are using to get those numbers:
lower than spoken words.

About as believable and accurate as seeing how far a sleeping cat will
jump when your discharge the arm. :)
User avatar
whiterussian1974
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2857
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:37 pm
Location: On 8th line of eye chart.

Re: patents/US6575266: Snorkel Chamber Suppressor Design 2003

Post by whiterussian1974 »

Historian wrote:About as believable and accurate as seeing how far a sleeping cat will
jump when your discharge the arm. :)
:lol:
I usually get my best ratings when aiming for the test cat's head.
Sorry PITA...PETA. :(
The Darkest Corners of Hell are reserved for those who remain Neutral!-Dante
The Death of One is a Tragedy, a million only a statistic.-Stalin
silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=135314
User avatar
gunny50
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 782
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:11 am
Location: EU

Re: patents/US6575266: Snorkel Chamber Suppressor Design 2003

Post by gunny50 »

Historian wrote:"85 Db" ? Huh?

Best measurements for .22 are around 114 Db.
I'm skeptical as well that is why I posted the numbers they published.

I guess they might have done that at unknown distance with unknown Phone app. :lol:

Gunny
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=135514
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=77913
Historian
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3503
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:37 pm

Re: patents/US6575266: Snorkel Chamber Suppressor Design 2003

Post by Historian »

gunny50 wrote:
Historian wrote:"85 Db" ? Huh?

Best measurements for .22 are around 114 Db.
I'm skeptical as well that is why I posted the numbers they published.

I guess they might have done that at unknown distance with unknown Phone app. :lol:

Gunny
+1

After I stopped laughing from your astute suggestion I imagined
their Phone App. was on two dixie cups with a tight string between
the arm and the tester. :)

Or was it the old joke "Polish Db Meter" ... fingers in the ears.
User avatar
gunny50
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 782
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:11 am
Location: EU

Re: patents/US6575266: Snorkel Chamber Suppressor Design 2003

Post by gunny50 »

Historian wrote: +1
After I stopped laughing from your astute suggestion I imagined
their Phone App. was on two dixie cups with a tight string between
the arm and the tester. :)
Or was it the old joke "Polish Db Meter" ... fingers in the ears.

They do make a nice looking 9x19 pistol with integral / ad on silencer.
with offset bore.

Gunny
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=135514
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=77913
User avatar
whiterussian1974
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2857
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:37 pm
Location: On 8th line of eye chart.

Re: patents/US6575266: Snorkel Chamber Suppressor Design 2003

Post by whiterussian1974 »

gunny50 wrote:They do make a nice looking 9x19 pistol with integral / ad on silencer.
with offset bore.
Gunny
It's 9x17mm Morieli.
Wish that we could see the internals.
I'm just glad to be in a thread w 2 of my favorite Gents. (Dr K would be 3. :) )
---
Any comments on my previous post?
"1 problem that others have faced is something called an "infinite screw" effect. I don't recall the particulars. They said that it's good for reducing pressure w/o increasing stagnation for MG apps.

I myself have wondered if diverting the 1st chamber's gas into a pair of twisting conduits that spiralled about the closed baffle section would improve performance. Maybe venting through small holes in the far endcap. Otherwise the pressure would drop in the boreline quicker than it could build in the spiral section.
So the concept would be diverting some % of gas from boreline and using length and time to expand the gas so that it wouldn't travel down boreline."
The Darkest Corners of Hell are reserved for those who remain Neutral!-Dante
The Death of One is a Tragedy, a million only a statistic.-Stalin
silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=135314
Tony M.
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:42 pm
Location: FL

Re: patents/US6575266: Snorkel Chamber Suppressor Design 2003

Post by Tony M. »

I've got a sionics can with screw baffles. I wouldn't call it a step forward at this point.

I suspect with the snorkel design, an adjustable snorkel depth could prove interesting, and provide some level of tuneability for different pressures presented at the muzzle. I could especially see the design being effective in .22 caliber.
Historian
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3503
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:37 pm

Re: patents/US6575266: Snorkel Chamber Suppressor Design 2003

Post by Historian »

A real candidate for a "85 Db Silencer", the gold standard':

<< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GbjXvH ... re=related >>

A WAG from the best .22 cans around testing at ~114 - 118 Db
I would guess it would meter at about 105 to 108.

It will a nice next build if and when 'Hearing Protection Bill' passes
removing cans from NFA list and precious ATF research resources
can be directed to clear and present dangers. Then real measurements
can be taken.
User avatar
Capt. Link.
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2829
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:05 pm
Location: USA.

Re: patents/US6575266: Snorkel Chamber Suppressor Design 2003

Post by Capt. Link. »

Way to many people think a phone app or a inexpensive sound meter will give usable information without 20,000$ worth of equipment needed for true SPL figures.What's more amusing is when they try to develop designs based on the flawed SPL numbers.When someone starts talking about 85db and you believe them just click your ruby slippers together and return to fantasy land.

Many of these older designs do work well on a .22 rimfire but are larger heavier and not as quiet as today's state of the art.

Image
-CL
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
Joker31D
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 304
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 3:45 am

Re: patents/US6575266: Snorkel Chamber Suppressor Design 2003

Post by Joker31D »

I'm hoping suppressors come off the NFA because I want one of the Maxim cans that will suddenly be found.
Visit my Wounded Hunter Project Blog!
https://woundedhunterproject.wordpress.com/

It has a beard and its climbing mountains ... it must be a billy goat! wait, it has a Rifle!
Historian
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3503
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:37 pm

Re: patents/US6575266: Snorkel Chamber Suppressor Design 2003

Post by Historian »

Joker31D wrote:I'm hoping suppressors come off the NFA because I want one of the Maxim cans that will suddenly be found.
And then new designs can be created to take hearing damage and sound reduction to
lower levels.

Cans really are at the same level as magazines or replacement barrels.
Just as inert and benign.

Vibe!

Old 1940's Southie joke:

- What did one testicle say to the other?

- "Why were we hung when it was the guy in the middle
that did all the shooting."
Joker31D
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 304
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 3:45 am

Re: patents/US6575266: Snorkel Chamber Suppressor Design 2003

Post by Joker31D »

I just want one to put on my grandfathers 1911 he had threaded for one, he had a maxim for his 1911 and one for his thompson, had to turn them in when he died because in te 80's nobody knew what to do with them.
Visit my Wounded Hunter Project Blog!
https://woundedhunterproject.wordpress.com/

It has a beard and its climbing mountains ... it must be a billy goat! wait, it has a Rifle!
Post Reply