First form 1 can

[bp shooter]

So let me start off by saying that I have limited Internet service so I've been searching as much as I can when I can. Now onto the questions. My original idea was to build a 1.5×7 can to put on a bolt action 300 black out. Was planning on using 7075 aluminum. After submitting the app my wonderful wife points out the fact that it would be awesome if we could suppress her 6mmbr or her new 300 win mag. So now with that in mind is it something that is feasible out of a 7 inch can and what material would you suggest. I have several months to aquire material as at is at a 5 month Waite right now.
Would it be legal to have a separate blast chamber that could be added to the can for magnum use simular to the optimus system. Thanks in advance

[quiettime]

1.5"x7 can still be a good size for those hosts. 17-4 stainless is a favored material these days and if you use an effective baffle design it will still work ok for the Win Mag. Probably not going to be hearing safe though.

General concensus is "extra parts" are not ok for an individual builder. Somehow the mfg's have gotten them approved.

41f is not the end of the NFA world. Build your can and file another Form 1 later. You'll probably learn a thing or two that will help with the next one

[c5_nc]

I don't think the blast chamber spacer will qualify as a extra part. If all the parts fit in the "complete" configuration, I don't think there is a requirement that all parts be installed all the time. For example if you built a pistol can with 6 K cups, If you removed one and shot it with 5, the 6th part (which can be reinstalled) I don't think would qualify as a illegal suppressor.

[Bendersquint]

I don't think the blast chamber spacer will qualify as a extra part. If all the parts fit in the "complete" configuration, I don't think there is a requirement that all parts be installed all the time. For example if you built a pistol can with 6 K cups, If you removed one and shot it with 5, the 6th part (which can be reinstalled) I don't think would qualify as a illegal suppressor.

If you take one out then the baffles would bang around inside and cause damage to the can and host....especially with the calibers in discussion.

[RPM509]

I don't think the blast chamber spacer will qualify as a extra part. If all the parts fit in the "complete" configuration, I don't think there is a requirement that all parts be installed all the time. For example if you built a pistol can with 6 K cups, If you removed one and shot it with 5, the 6th part (which can be reinstalled) I don't think would qualify as a illegal suppressor.

If you take one out then the baffles would bang around inside and cause damage to the can and host....especially with the calibers in discussion.

Unless the design is such that each baffle segment is self-contained, i.e. AAC Ti-Rant 45M and the like.

[Bendersquint]

I don't think the blast chamber spacer will qualify as a extra part. If all the parts fit in the "complete" configuration, I don't think there is a requirement that all parts be installed all the time. For example if you built a pistol can with 6 K cups, If you removed one and shot it with 5, the 6th part (which can be reinstalled) I don't think would qualify as a illegal suppressor.

If you take one out then the baffles would bang around inside and cause damage to the can and host....especially with the calibers in discussion.

Unless the design is such that each baffle segment is self-contained, i.e. AAC Ti-Rant 45M and the like.

Individuals can not make modular cans. Manufacturers can because they get permissions to do some from Tech Branch for commercial cans.

[T-Rex]

I don't think the blast chamber spacer will qualify as a extra part. If all the parts fit in the "complete" configuration, I don't think there is a requirement that all parts be installed all the time. For example if you built a pistol can with 6 K cups, If you removed one and shot it with 5, the 6th part (which can be reinstalled) I don't think would qualify as a illegal suppressor.

The ATF uses the phrase "spare or replacement".
Your example of removing a baffle constitutes neither of those terms.
Having a part, additional to what is required for ordinary use, would form a spare.
Having a part, that takes the place of another, would define a replacement.

So, if you made a silencer, for 5.56mm, then slid in a thick spacer, for use on a magnum caliber, you'd have either a spare or replacement (depending on design) and an illegal silencer.

Just my interpretation.
I'd just fork over a couple more $$ and build another.

People buy: optics, mags, ammo, cases, etc, for a specific firearm. So, why not a suppressor, especially a Form 1 that can be made for pennies on the dollar (compared to a commercial).

[CMV]

Individuals can not make modular cans. Manufacturers can because they get permissions to do some from Tech Branch for commercial cans.

Why could you NOT do this?

One undersize K inside a sleeve. Remove that K leaving it's sleeve as a spacer. You could then switch from a small to large blast chamber if you wanted to do that for some reason. Not a spare part, not an extra part, just a part that is not currently installed.

[c5_nc]

I don't think the blast chamber spacer will qualify as a extra part. If all the parts fit in the "complete" configuration, I don't think there is a requirement that all parts be installed all the time. For example if you built a pistol can with 6 K cups, If you removed one and shot it with 5, the 6th part (which can be reinstalled) I don't think would qualify as a illegal suppressor.

The ATF uses the phrase "spare or replacement".
Your example of removing a baffle constitutes neither of those terms.
Having a part, additional to what is required for ordinary use, would form a spare.
Having a part, that takes the place of another, would define a replacement.

So, if you made a silencer, for 5.56mm, then slid in a thick spacer, for use on a magnum caliber, you'd have either a spare or replacement (depending on design) and an illegal silencer.

...

My last form 1 was approved with a removal baffle and spacer. The primary stack requires neither. I submitted plans of it, with its full configuration, and then installed on a reflex mount with a picture of the baffle and spacer outside the can with designation of "Not installed when suppressor is shot on a reflex mount". Prior to this I did the ask an expert and was told the same thing, I could shoot the can without all parts installed in it. I don't think it was necessary needed to do that, as there never been an indication you can't leave a part out of suppressor. In the OP's example I read it as it he was building it for the magnum caliber with the thicker spacer, but his stack design allowed him to shot the can with out the spacer, which would make it lighter for 5.56 use. This is consistent with the commercial cans where they aren't extra parts in this main configuration. I agree he can't have thin spacer for one and the thick spacer for the other, where there would be extra part, but disagree that he could not shoot the can with all parts installed.

[T-Rex]

Lol. I agreed with you in my first quoting, of your reply.
Shooting w/o all parts should be gtg.

We both agree that swapable blast chambers would be no-no.

The OP asked:
"Would it be legal to have a separate blast chamber that could be added to the can for magnum use simular to the optimus system."
The Optimus, in my eyes, is modular and has been beaten to death that this is a no-go area for form 1 (maybe a letter and submitted design gets you an OK). Also, the OP phrased the question to add the blast chamber for magnum use, not remove it for non-magnum use. Stated as such would constitute a spare or replacement part. The other way around would obviously be using w/o all intended parts and, what we both agree to, be legal.

[bp shooter]

Well spoke to the afternoon about it the said that after I receive my tax stamp I can send theme a certified letter with the coriented length. They also informed me that there is an inch of leeway that is acceptable so I did some revamping to my design and thinking about bumping up the diameter but what would be the ideal wall thickness using grade 9 titanium seamless tubing I was looking at .70 wall but not sure. What's your guys opinion. I'm going to be making a monocore with an out side nut to sandwich the tube rather than threading the tube

[CMV]

If not threading the tube and just holding it in compression you can go with thinner walls. Totally different application, but my integral 10/22 tube is only .020" wall.