Ks vs Radials

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
vaeevictiss
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 172
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:04 pm

Ks vs Radials

Post by vaeevictiss »

So im working on a K 9mm can right now and it will only see subsonic ammo. I see a lot of support here for Ks in pistol cans and maybe its just the ease of making for a form 1 builder. But, are radials better than Ks? It seems most of the good pistol cans coming out now have radials and only a handful, usually 22lr cans, are using Ks.

So which is really better?
User avatar
fishman
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:15 pm

Re: Ks vs Radials

Post by fishman »

vaeevictiss wrote:So im working on a K 9mm can right now and it will only see subsonic ammo. I see a lot of support here for Ks in pistol cans and maybe its just the ease of making for a form 1 builder. But, are radials better than Ks? It seems most of the good pistol cans coming out now have radials and only a handful, usually 22lr cans, are using Ks.

So which is really better?
I don't know which is better, but id bet the manufacturers are producing radials because they're much cheaper to CNC. Ks are easier to do on a manual lathe but take more time than radials to machine.
300 blackout form 1: http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=137293

5.56 form 1:
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=141800&p=955647#p955647
BinaryAndy
Silent Operator
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue May 06, 2014 4:05 pm
Location: Lancaster County, PA

Re: Ks vs Radials

Post by BinaryAndy »

"Radials" (I just call them cones because they're basically cone-shaped and I don't see anything radial about them) are indeed easier to make than K's, especially with a CNC lathe. It's not an enormous difference, but it's significant enough.

All things being equal, IMHO a good K baffle will usually outperform a good cone by an amount inversely related to the pressure and volume of gas produced by the cartridge. To better explain that using arbitrary and mostly meaningless numbers, in a 22lr can the K baffle works, say, 15% better than the cone baffle. In a 308 Win can, the K works, say, 0.01% better than the cone. Anything in between is, well, somewhere in between. I'm sure there are people who know more than I do and would disagree, and they're probably right, but things make more sense to me this way and I like for things to make sense.

K baffles also become less practical for higher-pressure cartridges for durability reasons. The design is susceptible to axial compression (in other words the baffles go all accordion-like) unless they're built pretty heavy. Cones have spacers that do a better job of dealing with the axial forces involved, so the baffle stack can be made either lighter or stronger.

So to sum that all up, both designs have their benefits. Cones are easier to make, more durable, and potentially lighter weight. K baffles are potentially a bit quieter. As the cartridge you're suppressing gets bigger, the strength of the cone becomes more important, and the difference in sound becomes smaller. As such, for a 22 can I would usually suggest K baffles and for a big rifle I would always suggest cones. Subsonic 9mm is in that in-between zone where both options make a lot of sense, so you'll need to decide which attributes are most important to you and choose your design accordingly.

I really should learn to write shorter posts...
Andy Gamble
Binary Arms
07/02
0101silent
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:09 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Ks vs Radials

Post by 0101silent »

--
Last edited by 0101silent on Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
vaeevictiss
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 172
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:04 pm

Re: Ks vs Radials

Post by vaeevictiss »

BinaryAndy wrote:"Radials" (I just call them cones because they're basically cone-shaped and I don't see anything radial about them) are indeed easier to make than K's, especially with a CNC lathe. It's not an enormous difference, but it's significant enough.

All things being equal, IMHO a good K baffle will usually outperform a good cone by an amount inversely related to the pressure and volume of gas produced by the cartridge. To better explain that using arbitrary and mostly meaningless numbers, in a 22lr can the K baffle works, say, 15% better than the cone baffle. In a 308 Win can, the K works, say, 0.01% better than the cone. Anything in between is, well, somewhere in between. I'm sure there are people who know more than I do and would disagree, and they're probably right, but things make more sense to me this way and I like for things to make sense.

K baffles also become less practical for higher-pressure cartridges for durability reasons. The design is susceptible to axial compression (in other words the baffles go all accordion-like) unless they're built pretty heavy. Cones have spacers that do a better job of dealing with the axial forces involved, so the baffle stack can be made either lighter or stronger.

So to sum that all up, both designs have their benefits. Cones are easier to make, more durable, and potentially lighter weight. K baffles are potentially a bit quieter. As the cartridge you're suppressing gets bigger, the strength of the cone becomes more important, and the difference in sound becomes smaller. As such, for a 22 can I would usually suggest K baffles and for a big rifle I would always suggest cones. Subsonic 9mm is in that in-between zone where both options make a lot of sense, so you'll need to decide which attributes are most important to you and choose your design accordingly.

I really should learn to write shorter posts...

This is a good explanation though, thanks. So SS 9mm is probably on that line where Ks and "cones" are about even in the event both designs are perfect. Though i can see a good k baffle out performing a bad cone, and vice versa. I do feel however there is a difference in a standard cone, like a 60 degree cone, and the radial/parabolic frustum cone/whateverthehellitscalledtoday cone.

where do the omega baffles come in then? because it seems silencerco is slowly moving away from their proprietary design for more cone type baffles? did they just not work as well?
BinaryAndy
Silent Operator
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue May 06, 2014 4:05 pm
Location: Lancaster County, PA

Re: Ks vs Radials

Post by BinaryAndy »

There is certainly a difference, you're right. We need a better name for the "radial" baffle. It's really not radial at all. They used to be called frusto cones, but they're not frustoconical, and normal 60° cones are in fact frustoconical, so that's no good either.
Andy Gamble
Binary Arms
07/02
vaeevictiss
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 172
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:04 pm

Re: Ks vs Radials

Post by vaeevictiss »

BinaryAndy wrote:There is certainly a difference, you're right. We need a better name for the "radial" baffle. It's really not radial at all. They used to be called frusto cones, but they're not frustoconical, and normal 60° cones are in fact frustoconical, so that's no good either.
then i say we call them "roundy cones". That should catch on, and if it does it would be hilarious.
User avatar
T-Rex
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:38 pm
Location: CT - The AntiConstitution State

Re: Ks vs Radials

Post by T-Rex »

I think they're called radials simply because the cone is formed with a radius... makes sense

They're actually a parabolic frustum.

I've heard, many many times, that they're not called radials, but never once have I come upon the "industry" name for them.... bueller, bueller...
Completed Builds www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=79895
Burst Calculator www.engineersedge.com/calculators/pipe_bust_calc.htm
Silencer Porn www.instagram.com/explore/tags/silencerporn/
BinaryAndy
Silent Operator
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue May 06, 2014 4:05 pm
Location: Lancaster County, PA

Re: Ks vs Radials

Post by BinaryAndy »

T-Rex wrote:I think they're called radials simply because the cone is formed with a radius... makes sense

They're actually a parabolic frustum.

I've heard, many many times, that they're not called radials, but never once have I come upon the "industry" name for them.... bueller, bueller...
They're not parabolic; parabolas are convex. It is roughly a frustum of a hyperboloid or a pseudosphere, but "pseudospherical frustum" just doesn't have quite the right ring to it. Of course, if the cone is formed with a radius, then it would be part of a torus. Perhaps "toric cone" would make a good, reasonably accurate name?
Andy Gamble
Binary Arms
07/02
Ghost-Delta
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 10:11 am
Contact:

Re: Ks vs Radials

Post by Ghost-Delta »

I have heard of people having excellent results with K's specifically for 9mm and smaller. Radials work well, however IMHO I don't think they work better than K's on 9mm.

Good luck with you build ,and let us know what you end up going choosing.

Happy shooting!
www.julietdeltacustoms.com

Juliet Delta Customs- Custom machined solvent traps, cups, direct thread mounts, and much more.

[email protected] or [email protected]
User avatar
gunny50
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 782
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:11 am
Location: EU

Re: Ks vs Radials

Post by gunny50 »

BinaryAndy wrote: Perhaps "toric cone" would make a good, reasonably accurate name?
Andy,

I do not understand where all the names and renaming issues are coming from. :lol:

For year people have been calling them Frusto cones even back when some Russian guy's started developing them and producing these as Modular silencers.

So lets keep calling them what they where called from the start.

Gunny
User avatar
T-Rex
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:38 pm
Location: CT - The AntiConstitution State

Re: Ks vs Radials

Post by T-Rex »

BinaryAndy wrote: They're not parabolic; parabolas are convex. It is roughly a frustum of a hyperboloid or a pseudosphere, but "pseudospherical frustum" just doesn't have quite the right ring to it. Of course, if the cone is formed with a radius, then it would be part of a torus. Perhaps "toric cone" would make a good, reasonably accurate name?
I have to disagree. A Parabola is both convex and concave, depending on which side of the curve you're referring (differentiable functions). But, I see where you are going, with your mention of Hyperbolas. Typically, these would be the result of a section through our solid feature. In this case, the parabola and hyperbola would yield a near identical section. I would only mention a Torus if it is a section of the negative central space to which you're comparing to our shape.

I would almost agree with Pseudosphere, but this would include the mirrored shape across the plane to which the largest OD occupies. And isn't this reserved for space-time discussions :lol:

I believe the true geometric shape would be closer to Gabriel's Horn.

What about Hyper-Cone?


Good discussion :D
Completed Builds www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=79895
Burst Calculator www.engineersedge.com/calculators/pipe_bust_calc.htm
Silencer Porn www.instagram.com/explore/tags/silencerporn/
BinaryAndy
Silent Operator
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue May 06, 2014 4:05 pm
Location: Lancaster County, PA

Re: Ks vs Radials

Post by BinaryAndy »

T-Rex wrote:I have to disagree. A Parabola is both convex and concave, depending on which side of the curve you're referring (differentiable functions). But, I see where you are going, with your mention of Hyperbolas. Typically, these would be the result of a section through our solid feature. In this case, the parabola and hyperbola would yield a near identical section. (Note: I was talking about hyperboloids, not hyperbolas)I would only mention a Torus if it is a section of the negative central space to which you're comparing to our shape.

I would almost agree with Pseudosphere, but this would include the mirrored shape across the plane to which the largest OD occupies. And isn't this reserved for space-time discussions :lol:

I believe the true geometric shape would be closer to Gabriel's Horn. (Yes, very close to that, or a funnel)

What about Hyper-Cone? (Unfortunately, a hypercone is already a thing, and it's 4-dimensional. That's too many deminsions.)


Good discussion :D
A cone with a radius on the profile would be a section of a surface of revolution generated by revolving a circle in three-dimensional space about an axis coplanar with the circle, which is the definition of a torus, so the shape is definitely toric.

Gunny, the problem with "frusto cones" is that they're not frustoconical, and normal, straight, 60 degree cones are exactly frustoconical. I don't remember exactly where the name came from, but it's a misnomer, and it doesn't sound very good either which is probably why people started calling them radials.

Anyway, sorry about the rabbit trail, that probably should have all been in a different thread. My bad.

vaeevictiss, your last question was about Omega baffles. I haven't done anything with Omegas. My understanding is that they're functionally very similar to K's, and they should be a little more sturdy. Seems like a good design. I don't know why Silencerco has moved away from it.

I think a big part part of the reason manufacturers have been switching from K baffles to toric cones is the attempts to make suppressors work with larger calibers. There are now 22 cans rated for 5.7, and pistol cans rated for 300 BLK. From a strength perspective, that's easier to do with toric cones than with K's.
Andy Gamble
Binary Arms
07/02
Post Reply