Booster-less micro cans vs slide weight

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
User avatar
unclemoak
Silent Operator
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:19 am
Location: NE Wisconsin

Booster-less micro cans vs slide weight

Post by unclemoak » Tue Jul 12, 2016 11:55 am

For those that are familiar with designing and building smaller, booster-less cans, what is the relationship like between reducing the slide weigh in respect to how heavy of a can that wil still reliably cycle?

E.G. If I reduce the weight of my slide 1oz, does that mean it could cycle with a 1oz heavier micro can?

I'm considering designing a micro can for my G19 and just curious if lightening the slide would allow me to get away with a slightly heavier can. In theory, with all other things remaining the same, a lighter slide would have more inertia to unlock then a heavier stock one. So my thought is if I lighten the slide, I should be able to get away with a slightly heavier (whether that means more baffles or larger volume) design. With that said, I understand the reduction limitations of a smaller can and except them. The academic pursuit outweighs the cost of the stamp and materials. I'd consider making muzzle weight that threads onto the barrel to test my theory, but want to put a feeler out there to see how grounded my thoughts are before chasing down a rabbit hole.
Engineer looking for a new job, PM me

garredondojr
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 5:50 pm

Re: Booster-less micro cans vs slide weight

Post by garredondojr » Tue Jul 12, 2016 8:20 pm

I don't think it's going to be that simple. I want/wanted to do the same thing but gave up on the idea and going to just run a booster. I would think you'd have better luck trying to keep your weight further rearward than looking at total weight. the further your weight is from the fulcrum point the greater the force will be on the other end. not to mention you will gain volume faster with diameter than you do with length. In my opinion a short fat can will have a higher chance of cycling than a small diameter longer can (of equal weight)

now as for suppression I'm still new to that arena. not sure about the relation of volume to baffles for quietness? i'm trying to find that out as well. would a smaller can with more baffles suppress more than a large volume can with less baffles or vice versa?

User avatar
RPM509
Senior Silent Operator
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 9:54 pm
Location: 66048

Re: Booster-less micro cans vs slide weight

Post by RPM509 » Wed Jul 13, 2016 9:35 am

You will need to calculate the fulcrum point and the weight distribution (probably not using the right terms to describe this).
The weight of the slide moving vertically under recoil forces is not equal to the energy needed to unlock and raise the barrel
against the recoil spring and weight of moving parts, so a 1 to 1 equivalency does not exist. What the ratio is, I do not know;
but considering that the barrel fulcrum is usually much closer to the chamber than the bore, extra weight at the muzzle will need
a lot more energy to raise.

I suspect lightening the slide would make the whole cycle less reliable as it will have less reciprocating mass/energy to unlock and lift the barrel with suppressor.
"a butt tuba" - Palindrome

CThomas
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1274
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:48 pm

Re: Booster-less micro cans vs slide weight

Post by CThomas » Wed Jul 13, 2016 9:46 pm

garredondojr wrote:I don't think it's going to be that simple. I want/wanted to do the same thing but gave up on the idea and going to just run a booster. I would think you'd have better luck trying to keep your weight further rearward than looking at total weight. the further your weight is from the fulcrum point the greater the force will be on the other end. not to mention you will gain volume faster with diameter than you do with length. In my opinion a short fat can will have a higher chance of cycling than a small diameter longer can (of equal weight)

now as for suppression I'm still new to that arena. not sure about the relation of volume to baffles for quietness? i'm trying to find that out as well. would a smaller can with more baffles suppress more than a large volume can with less baffles or vice versa?
The OP is talking about a micro can thus we are not talking about anything with real length.
I cannot speak to reducing slide weight, but if you hang anything over a certain weight on the end of handgun that is designed with the browning tilting barrel system you cannot go beyond 3.2-3.3 ounces in weight or it will not cycle.

Example a Gemtech Aurora which was a wet/wiped can was about 3.2 ounces, and when put on the end of a G19 I have heard cycling was fine and there are recent vids to show that, but I have heard that it is hit or miss on a G26. The shorter barrel leads to a more severe angle thus making unlocking more difficult.

speed6
Senior Silent Operator
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:18 pm

Re: Booster-less micro cans vs slide weight

Post by speed6 » Fri Jul 15, 2016 9:23 am

I think this is a pretty complicated problem, possibly involving numerical solution (i.e. iterative/goal-seek solving or a simulation of sorts) or at least solution in several parts. Location of pivot point and barrel length affect the moment on the barrel from the muzzle weight (as does distance of the CG of said weight from the end of the barrel), and the motion occurs in stages (initial rearward motion, pivoting, then free movement of the slide; all of this under a constantly changing pressure that is affected by the back-pressure from the suppressor). Just solving for bolt velocity in a blow-back system involves a numerical solution, so the browning system would be even more complicated.

Dropping the spring rate of the recoil spring might help cycling as well and is much easier than hogging off part of the slide.

User avatar
Prince Yamato
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 2:55 am

Re: Booster-less micro cans vs slide weight

Post by Prince Yamato » Fri Jul 15, 2016 7:47 pm

I think it's 4 oz. or under to keep it cycling. The Thompson Poseidon clocks in at 3.8 oz. As a rule, the lighter the better.

In another thread, I was talking about Form 1-ing a can. I'm going to do .25 auto on a fixed barrel, but I was looking at larger calibers on Browning barrels as well. It all amounts to weight of the can. Any of the cheaper European cans (the ones folks in Finland use, for instance) are under 4 oz. In most cases, you're looking at a wiped can though.

Figure Titanium body, spacers made from titanium, and then wipes. Keep it under 4" long. You'll be under 4 oz. Your gun will cycle. (This is based on what I've been looking at, not what I've tried).

Nielson devices are a Godsend though.

Red_SC
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Booster-less micro cans vs slide weight

Post by Red_SC » Fri Jul 15, 2016 9:01 pm

I'm interested as well, I've been toying with putting a mini can on a Glock 34. The longer barrel should reduce the unlocking angle I'd think. I hate to send in a check without knowing how well it would work though.

User avatar
unclemoak
Silent Operator
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:19 am
Location: NE Wisconsin

Re: Booster-less micro cans vs slide weight

Post by unclemoak » Wed Jul 20, 2016 11:12 am

All interesting thoughts. Hopefully once my meters get back, I can start gathering some baseline info.
Engineer looking for a new job, PM me

User avatar
whiterussian1974
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2678
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:37 am
Location: On 8th line of eye chart.

Re: Booster-less micro cans vs slide weight

Post by whiterussian1974 » Mon Jul 25, 2016 11:45 am

You're using a .5" longer barrel. Plus adding the added exhaust effects of the can. So those increase the cycling inertia vs moment.

But, the added length to the lever beyond Fulcrum, means that you'll be looking at a Factor. Like 1oz added to 2" beyond muzzle = 2.5oz of slide mass. So reducing the recoil spring strength would be the preferred option. 20-35% less strength. 15# instead of 21# type of ratio.

Using heavier slugs helps too.They remain in the barrel longer and push harder against the chamber. You can't increase the Slide velocity. So you need to transfer the slug velocity into Mass to compensate.

Just some 'nearly exhausted from no sleep' thoughts.
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
Well I AM 1/16 Demon on my Father's Side!-Dresden Files

c5_nc
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 4:00 pm

Re: Booster-less micro cans vs slide weight

Post by c5_nc » Mon Jul 25, 2016 2:01 pm

I've often heard the 4.0oz thrown out as a general guide. You have some room to tune with hotter loads and lighter recoil springs.

User avatar
Capt. Link.
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2518
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:05 pm
Location: USA.

Re: Booster-less micro cans vs slide weight

Post by Capt. Link. » Tue Jul 26, 2016 4:58 pm

Have you considered building a mini can that uses a Nielsen device.You can add considerable attenuation if you do and a working quiet suppressor is more impressive.
The only reason after 243 years the government now wants to disarm you is they intend to do something you would shoot them for!

BCJ
Senior Silent Operator
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 2:18 pm

Re: Booster-less micro cans vs slide weight

Post by BCJ » Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:46 pm

I built an all aluminum 4" long auppressor for my 40 cal Glock. It's roughly 4oz and cycles perfect on the stock pistol.
Image

Samson1044
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:05 am

Re: Booster-less micro cans vs slide weight

Post by Samson1044 » Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:05 am

BCJ wrote:I built an all aluminum 4" long auppressor for my 40 cal Glock. It's roughly 4oz and cycles perfect on the stock pistol.
Image
But how does it sound compared to the much longer can??

BCJ
Senior Silent Operator
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 2:18 pm

Re: Booster-less micro cans vs slide weight

Post by BCJ » Mon Aug 01, 2016 9:30 pm

It's not as quiet as the full length can but it still very quiet. I shoot it wet with a 1/4" this wipe

It wasn't supposed to be as quiet as the full size, the adantage of the small size is it fits in the nightstand drawer with the auppressor attached

User avatar
whiterussian1974
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2678
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:37 am
Location: On 8th line of eye chart.

Re: Booster-less micro cans vs slide weight

Post by whiterussian1974 » Mon Aug 01, 2016 9:43 pm

There was a "$189 Blowout" of Factory overruns several months ago. The thread is still here if you search for it. Those people wrote why they liked its diminutive size and how it performed for them.

Of course size is a trade-off for performance. Didn't SilCo make a 36"L pistol can April of 2015? It was fly fart quiet. There was a whole Promotional Video that they released the beginning of April 2015.
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
Well I AM 1/16 Demon on my Father's Side!-Dresden Files

Post Reply