Med-Large Caliber K-Baffle Design for Subsonics AND High Velocity Ammo

[Pillar]

Ey Guys,
A few topics down in the silencersmithing forum, I read about using K's with cones in a .308 build, and I was just curious as to how .308 and higher calibers' K-baffle design differs, if it does differ.

I'm not looking to waste any metal just yet, but I'd love to hear from some guys who've had experience using K's in .308.

Thank Again

[Capt. Link.]

Ey Guys,
A few topics down in the silencersmithing forum, I read about using K's with cones in a .308 build, and I was just curious as to how .308 and higher calibers' K-baffle design differs, if it does differ.

I'm not looking to waste any metal just yet, but I'd love to hear from some guys who've had experience using K's in .308.

Thank Again

K baffles for high powered rifles must be reinforced against collapse from pressure.Forget about the little dainty light weight baffles used for pistols the design is very different.You can PM me or I will post if others are interested.
-CL

[Hasdrubal]

I would love to see info on this, sitting on a .30 cal form 1 that might go on a .308 and a .300blk.

[Skorch]

Captain,

I too was planning on taking your advice using K baffles for high pressure cartridge. I would be very interested in any differences mentioned. Lots of people putting different twists on things for them, but not real easy to compare.

[L1A1Rocker]

Ey Guys,
A few topics down in the silencersmithing forum, I read about using K's with cones in a .308 build, and I was just curious as to how .308 and higher calibers' K-baffle design differs, if it does differ.

I'm not looking to waste any metal just yet, but I'd love to hear from some guys who've had experience using K's in .308.

Thank Again

K baffles for high powered rifles must be reinforced against collapse from pressure.Forget about the little dainty light weight baffles used for pistols the design is very different.You can PM me or I will post if others are interested.
-CL

I'd love to see what you're talking about.

[mr fixit]

Ey Guys,
A few topics down in the silencersmithing forum, I read about using K's with cones in a .308 build, and I was just curious as to how .308 and higher calibers' K-baffle design differs, if it does differ.

I'm not looking to waste any metal just yet, but I'd love to hear from some guys who've had experience using K's in .308.

Thank Again

K baffles for high powered rifles must be reinforced against collapse from pressure.Forget about the little dainty light weight baffles used for pistols the design is very different.You can PM me or I will post if others are interested.
-CL

I'd love to see what you're talking about.

I also have a form 1 for 30 cal to use on 300 Blk both supers and subs. I would love to have the info. Also, doesn't Curtis Tactical do a 30 can with cones then K's?

[gunny50]

I also have a form 1 for 30 cal to use on 300 Blk both supers and subs. I would love to have the info. Also, doesn't Curtis Tactical do a 30 can with cones then K's?

His design work's well as it uses parts that thread together, creating a pulling force on the k's.
If you do not want to use that design feature . Make sure you use thin spacers that support the blast face of the K.

Gunny

[Capt. Link.]

I thread my tubes full length.This gives full support to the individual baffles and zero thrust on the stack.I use a modified type 1 baffle with a ramp cut.A crimped cone baffle or straight piece of tubing adds support to the baffles from crushing forces.I only have a few pictures and am not very computer savvy.I have a new camera to document further work but where the hell do you add the film .
This picture is from McDonaldsilencerwork.On the right is a type 1 the middle and the next are type 3's w/ a crimped cone.The type 3 morphed into the K baffle of today.

This is a modified type 1:
These are some of the hidden details:The holes lead to two coaxial chambers.A third coaxial chamber is formed by the skirt/cone spacer or a straight tube.The gases are split four ways per baffle.The flat surface reflects gases that are further mixed by the preceding crimped cone spacer or threaded spacer not shown.Yes there is a step to the surface and other details.
This is a early wet 5.56 suppressor for a MG.It uses no coaxial space and would out perform any suppressor of its day for its size.The left hand module holds enough ablative compound for a 20rnd mag dump! Total length 7" long.You could hear the sizzling of tracers!

This photo is a end cap.The long tube dose not interfere with accuracy if the tube is wide and the pressure is low.This combined with the turbulence of the last baffle significantly increases performance.

With eight baffles the performance rocks.But there are costs involved....The weight is high up to 32oz and the back-pressure is very high.One was build for a AR-10 with a large expansion chamber to counter the back-pressure issue.Before I retired I offered him a free recore to cones but he declined.These are very effective on a precision bolt rifle.H&K type rifles w/ roller locks also work well do to the delayed opening.The sound is different than other baffle types it's a low tone and accuracy is excellent.With the use of "new" metals and a few upgrades not shown I may make more of these as retirement has its drawbacks.
I was blessed to see the early work of Charles Finn and Qual-A-Tec in the early eighty's.This combined with my father letting me shoot a "agency" supplied wet suppressor at a prepubescent age has lead to my life long study of silence.
God Bless
-CL

[Skorch]

Captain,

Thank you for sharing a design outside of the norm. Those baffles make me perplexed on how this stuff really works. Wish I knew the comparison between designs like this and the cone/K baffle designs. Right now my capability and equipment are my limiting factors. Please share anything else you care to share as I'm sure more people are eager to learn.

[Pillar]

Wow

From the bottom of my heart, thank you for sharing Captain.
I could never have imagined that high caliber rounds love such complexity. All this time I based my .308 K-Baffle designs on simple rimfire K's. Not to mention I could never quite get the sizes right. They would never have lasted.

You've made me wiser for certain. You've helped me realize protocol isn't perfect and that a man's imagination shouldn't have bounds.
I truly appreciate you sharing a design with us.

[Hasdrubal]

I hope one day that my machining skills will be up to the knowledge you've shared here. Not sure what to say, inspiring doesn't seem to cut it. Heartfelt thanks.

[Capt. Link.]

I appreciate the comments.These were designed for high pressure and long life with NATO calibers long before more modern designs.They do work well in subsonic and with coolants but have been surpassed by the newer ported cone designs in my opinion in performance,weight and simplicity of construction.I'm waiting to see if life of these newer designs will match the efficient design.
If you wish to build these let me know.They are simpler to build than they appear.
-CL

[Skorch]

Captain,

Please clarify what you are saying. Are you stating that the complex baffles you listed work good, but require more volume and complexity? The basic cone works better, but you question the longevity in comparison?

Could you also clarify your choice of baffles to use? You stated that K baffles can be used up to 120mm I believe, but do they loose their efficiency as it goes up? Others on this forum have stated that manufactures have went from K baffles to cones, and have gotten better results. Do you believe this is true?

[Capt. Link.]

C You stated that K baffles can be used up to 120mm

While I would like the challenge of trying to suppress a 120MM cannon/Mortar my hybrid car can't tow anything that large.
I can't even guess how much ammo cost would be per shot.............. Blowing up tax stamps for a hobby is truly extravagant.

Please re-read the thread.
Using the english language to decipher my poor use of it is my fault.

VS

[daviscustom]

Between you and CMV....folks are going to start thinking of ST as a warm SHARING environment again......better watch it.

It's good to see! ....there used to be a lot more collaboration and sharing of ideas here.

[mr fixit]

I appreciate the comments.These were designed for high pressure and long life with NATO calibers long before more modern designs.They do work well in subsonic and with coolants but have been surpassed by the newer ported cone designs in my opinion in performance,weight and simplicity of construction.I'm waiting to see if life of these newer designs will match the efficient design.
If you wish to build these let me know.They are simpler to build than they appear.
-CL

I would appreciate your input in on this thought;

Why not use a spacer that would fit over the cone portion of the "K" baffle and against the skirt front to back? Wouldn't this give support to the baffle by placing the stress along the outer diameter of the skirt against the wall of the tube?


Horrible drawing, but I hope you can understand the idea. I wonder would this not stand up to the high pressure of 5.56 and 7.62? What would the effectiveness of this be in say a 8'' stack with multiple baffles like this with spacers to take the pressure?

[Capt. Link.]

That is what gunny was talking about.The only difference is by threading baffles into the tube the tube handles the forward thrust.Spacers transfer the force to the end cap unless a internal shoulder is supplied.Plug welding each baffle is another way of using the tube to handle the thrust.

[mr fixit]

OK, I think I understand the thrust issue now. Aside from that, how well do supported K's suppress in high pressure rifle rounds?

[Pillar]

Between you and CMV....folks are going to start thinking of ST as a warm SHARING environment again......better watch it.

It's good to see! ....there used to be a lot more collaboration and sharing of ideas here.

+1

[Skorch]

Captain,

I understand that 120mm is not capable (although I was trying to imagine a way to silence an Abrams that would have really made my job fun), I was merely re-stating your statement. What I got out of it was that you believe k baffles are not pigeon holed into just pistol and rim fire applications.

You made several of us very interested in your statement. Mr. fixit stated the same question I am looking for now. When do K baffle become less efficient than cones or other baffle forms?

[daviscustom]

I think one of the things you will run into in K's for high pressure applications is they will tend to be heavier, simply because there is more material in a K vs. a cone....and the fact that you will have to make it heavier and or brace it with spacers (adds weight and reduces internal volume). You start to get into a performance vs weight dilemma if weight is a big concern for you in your design/application. The good Capt. may very well have some suggestions to modify the design to keep the weight down....since he has been there, and done that.

[1rflman]

That is what gunny was talking about. The only difference is by threading baffles into the tube the tube handles the forward thrust. Spacers transfer the force to the end cap unless a internal shoulder is supplied. Plug welding each baffle is another way of using the tube to handle the thrust.

In a "conventional" cone baffle and spacer serviceable-suppressor design, does not the end cap also support the forward thrust produced, which is transferred to the tube by the cap threads? ...Just an observation by a new member who has been learning a lot from this forum for about 5 months. Thanks.

[mr fixit]

I think one of the things you will run into in K's for high pressure applications is they will tend to be heavier, simply because there is more material in a K vs. a cone....and the fact that you will have to make it heavier and or brace it with spacers (adds weight and reduces internal volume). You start to get into a performance vs weight dilemma if weight is a big concern for you in your design/application. The good Capt. may very well have some suggestions to modify the design to keep the weight down....since he has been there, and done that.

Agreed. My thought though was in a 300Blk dedicated suppressor, the K baffles might improve performance with subs while still suppressing supers well.

it seems all i read about cans for 300Blk gives the idea to design for either subs or supers predominantly. just wanting to find a design that works great with both.

[daviscustom]

It would seem logical that if you can create a K that will work well and hold up to the pressure of supersonic rounds...it should be a given that it will work well for subs...assuming the design mods to the K are not so significant as to make it less effective for subs. I believe some folks here have had positive results with a mix of cones for the blast portion of the can and K's for the remainder.

As gasses travel through the suppressor, pressure drops as you get closer to the front cap.

[daviscustom]

That is what gunny was talking about. The only difference is by threading baffles into the tube the tube handles the forward thrust. Spacers transfer the force to the end cap unless a internal shoulder is supplied. Plug welding each baffle is another way of using the tube to handle the thrust.

In a "conventional" cone baffle and spacer serviceable-suppressor design, does not the end cap also support the forward thrust produced, which is transferred to the tube by the cap threads? ...Just an observation by a new member who has been learning a lot from this forum for about 5 months. Thanks.

Yes that is the point...the entire stack is pushing on the front cap....the back of one k is pushing on the front of the next one, but it is only the stiffness of the baffle (or a spacer that supports the front face) that keeps each k from crushing. If you support the front face of the k then it is much less likely to crush under high pressure and repeated impact.