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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

All interesting thoughts. Hopefully once my meters get back, I can start gathering some baseline info.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

But how does it sound compared to the much longer can??

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

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.