the tube and endcaps are 316, the first two baffles are 17-4, and the Ks and spacers are 7075.
1.625" OD (fits underneath YHM handguards) 11" OAL

why does that help performance? i figured that was just a cheaper way to manufacture them.delta9mda wrote:port in parallel to bore (not the angled bore thru) for the port that leads to around cone. look at the tirant etc k's.
Draw it both ways & look what happens to the 'little sharp pointy part'.fishman wrote:why does that help performance? i figured that was just a cheaper way to manufacture them.delta9mda wrote:port in parallel to bore (not the angled bore thru) for the port that leads to around cone. look at the tirant etc k's.
thank you for the input.CMV wrote:I'd suggest something other than AL - even 7075 - for the K's for 2 reasons. 1. 300BLK subs are absolutely filthy (at least mine are w/ A1680 & some of the commercial) so it's nice to throw the guts in the ultrasonic. 2. Questionable longevity if you're shooting a lot of high velocity ammo. The subs are Hollywood so you'll probably be like most of us & feed it 90% (made up stat) subs, but the HV quiets down a good bit as well so there is potential to really like that as well.
I don't know how well K's work vs 60° smooth cones, but I know the cones will get it Hollywood.
Generally speaking, 100% supers, 100% subs, or a mix of both?Bendersquint wrote:For a 300BLK I would higly recommend a variant of the cone baffle, will perform much better than a K baffle.
I wouldn't mix the baffles styles it won't make it better for one or the other.fishman wrote:
More cones, less Ks, and updated K design. is that better?
my thought process behind that was that Ks are better for low pressure applications and cones are better for high pressure. while 300Blk does have some high pressures, it also has a low charge weight (at least in the subsonic loads, 208gn, 220gn. i stated earlier that subsonic performance is my priority). since the volume of gas is not large due to the low charge weight, the pressure will drop quickly when expanding in the silencer. thats why i had 2-4 cone baffles in my design followed by Ks. I have no idea if this would yield me good results, that was just my thought process.Bendersquint wrote:I wouldn't mix the baffles styles it won't make it better for one or the other.fishman wrote:
More cones, less Ks, and updated K design. is that better?
Yes, we have tested mixed designs and saw more impact than benefit.fishman wrote: It seems the concensus is to go with all cones or all Ks. does anyone have any experience with mixed baffle designs? i dont know of any commercially made cans that have mixed cones and Ks. that might answer my question whether its a good idea.
Are you referring to these types of cones?Bendersquint wrote:For a 300BLK I would higly recommend a variant of the cone baffle, will perform much better than a K baffle.
like this?LavaRed wrote:clipped cones should get you in the sweet spot. Ported spacers that are smaller than the suppressor ID offer improved gas delay while also optimizing volume and reducing weight. ... With your projected length and OD, I'd probably have a blast chamber of about 2", followed by some 10 cone baffles starting at 1/2" spacing and gradually increasing to 1" spacing at the end. About 1" OD for the spacers should do it. Endcaps no thicker than 1/4" each. Anything else is a waste of volume.
All steel construction so it can be fully welded and soaked in solvents, and you have a winner.
Spacers to the wall, not coaxial will perform better.fishman wrote:like this?LavaRed wrote:clipped cones should get you in the sweet spot. Ported spacers that are smaller than the suppressor ID offer improved gas delay while also optimizing volume and reducing weight. ... With your projected length and OD, I'd probably have a blast chamber of about 2", followed by some 10 cone baffles starting at 1/2" spacing and gradually increasing to 1" spacing at the end. About 1" OD for the spacers should do it. Endcaps no thicker than 1/4" each. Anything else is a waste of volume.
All steel construction so it can be fully welded and soaked in solvents, and you have a winner.
i drew it with equal sized spacers for simplicity.
how would you recommend I clip and/or port the cones if i make them the same diameter as the tube?Bendersquint wrote:Spacers to the wall, not coaxial will perform better.
Now it's my turn to ask. Why do spacers to the wall work better? I mean, if the spacers are heavily ported, wouldn't it make little difference?Bendersquint wrote:Spacers to the wall, not coaxial will perform better.fishman wrote:like this?LavaRed wrote:clipped cones should get you in the sweet spot. Ported spacers that are smaller than the suppressor ID offer improved gas delay while also optimizing volume and reducing weight. ... With your projected length and OD, I'd probably have a blast chamber of about 2", followed by some 10 cone baffles starting at 1/2" spacing and gradually increasing to 1" spacing at the end. About 1" OD for the spacers should do it. Endcaps no thicker than 1/4" each. Anything else is a waste of volume.
All steel construction so it can be fully welded and soaked in solvents, and you have a winner.
i drew it with equal sized spacers for simplicity.
It will impede air movement into coaxial spaces. But it also impedes return OUT OF coaxial back into boreline.LavaRed wrote:Now it's my turn to ask. Why do spacers to the wall work better? I mean, if the spacers are heavily ported, wouldn't it make little difference?Bendersquint wrote:Spacers to the wall, not coaxial will perform better.
Thanks, Lava
While agreeing w most of what you say, I must take exception w 1 aspect b/c you didn't address gas jet velocity. Yes, trapping small packets of high pressure gases early makes good sense.LavaRed wrote:Ported spacers that are smaller than the suppressor ID offer improved gas delay while also optimizing volume and reducing weight. Spacing is also critical. Note that the gases lose pressure in every subsequent chamber, so that for a given longitudinal distance, a gas particle will travel a lesser distance axially; i.e., the gas will have less tendency to expand. Therefore, the first baffles should be spaced closer, and the spacing should increase towards the exit. Not the other way around, contrary to what most do.
With your projected length and OD, I'd probably have a blast chamber of about 2", followed by some 10 cone baffles starting at 1/2" spacing and gradually increasing to 1" spacing at the end. About 1" OD for the spacers should do it. Endcaps no thicker than 1/4" each. Anything else is a waste of volume.
I would think all the way to the wall would win. The gas will want to follow the wall. Let it until it goes as far as it can, then it has to redirect. Interrupting its path with a small spacer as you have pictured is keeping the gas from following the cones wall as far as it can (and losing velocity as it does.) It's going to re-direct either way, so why not let it travel farther before redirecting?Now it's my turn to ask. Why do spacers to the wall work better? I mean, if the spacers are heavily ported, wouldn't it make little difference?
Thanks,
Lava
Code: Select all
/\
/ \
/ \