M? Baffle Design. Please evaluate

[kutworksinc]

Ok, So after a little reading, I think I decided to use M baffles on my build.

The cone is 60 degrees, and the bottom is balled milled. Top and bottom are each beveled to lock together when inside the can. This SHOULD make disassembly easier, and the baffles shouldnt solder themselves to the can with lead from the .22LR.

Am I on the right track now

https://ibb.co/dPZUgp
https://ibb.co/dG5D7U
https://ibb.co/eS4Ugp

[Capt. Link.]

Ok, So after a little reading, I think I decided to use M baffles on my build.

The cone is 60 degrees, and the bottom is balled milled. Top and bottom are each beveled to lock together when inside the can. This SHOULD make disassembly easier, and the baffles shouldnt solder themselves to the can with lead from the .22LR.

Am I on the right track now

https://ibb.co/dPZUgp
https://ibb.co/dG5D7U
https://ibb.co/eS4Ugp

K baffle is far superior.
-CL

[T-Rex]

If you have the capability (machines and design experience) than you're shorting yourself.
You've designed a glorified freeze plug baffle.
Suppression? Sure, but at what costs?

A straight 60deg cone, w/ beneficial clipping, would lend greater performance. A single step or "disced-cone" would be above a straight cone.

As the Good Capt. alluded, K's are great for the low pressure stuff. Just do a bit more homework and don't be shy in asking for pointers as they can be tricky to get right the first go round. Plenty of documented builds, with plenty of theory discussion, can be found in the links.

[Capt. Link.]

kutworksinc you have made several posts but to be clear the group needs to know everything about what you wish.

Will this be a single cartridge suppressor. ie: .22LR only.

Will this be a maximum suppression effort and what are your dimensional limits.

What is the host weapon and the barrel length.

Do you have a strict budget for this build,do you have the machine tool experience.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing truly wrong with the M baffle. They were designed to eliminate spacers to reduce parts count and cost.

-CL

[kutworksinc]

kutworksinc you have made several posts but to be clear the group needs to know everything about what you wish.

Will this be a single cartridge suppressor. ie: .22LR only.

Will this be a maximum suppression effort and what are your dimensional limits.

What is the host weapon and the barrel length.

Do you have a strict budget for this build,do you have the machine tool experience.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing truly wrong with the M baffle. They were designed to eliminate spacers to reduce parts count and cost.

-CL

Any cans I build will be single caliber only. I have 6 weapons in the safe I want to put supressors on. 3 22LRs, a 9mm pistol, a 300BLK, and a 5.56.

Dimensional limits? I honestly dont have any EXCEPT for one for the .22 pistol. Needs to be kinda light and short.

22s have a 3.5", 5", and 16" barrels, 9mm has a 4" barrel, and the 300blk has a 10.5" barrel.

Budget? No budgets in mind.

I own a CNC mill, with index lathe head. Im extremely proficient with it, meaning I can chuck barstock in it, and cut monocores all day long with little to no effort, or any other vertical milling application.

What I don't have, is a freaking lathe. I was planning on buying the tubes and endcaps. I can turn things on the index head, but i cant cut threads, or do any type of concentric boring or drilling. I can only machine from the outside, down towards the table.

I have been trying to come up with the best baffle I can, without having to spin it on a lathe, which isnt a problem, except for K baffles. I can cut cones, M baffles, basic "freeze plug"s, whatever. I can even load the tubes in, engrave the tube with the required info, and cut helical decorative ball milled sprials, or whatever else you wanted to do to the outside. I laid out some pretty cool stuff for the aesthetic part of the project.

Im not trying to science the s--t out of it, and spend hours and hours trying to design the perfect baffle to chase that last .5dB. I just want it to work well, and look like a professionally made piece.

[ECCO Machine]

The only upshot to M baffles over skirted cones is that they're more material efficient. But that generally comes at the cost of a smaller cone portion relative to the baffle diameter, which may or may not be problematic.

Whether cones or Ks work better depends on the overall design, though. My longer, thinner 1.25" x 8" 9mm Phoenix uses one 17-4 60° cone for a blast followed by 5 Ks, while the 1.375" x 7".45 Phoenix is rockin' 8 60° clipped cones. I have tried 5 and 6 K baffles in the .45 version, and no matter what I do to them with ball mills on the back, mouse holes, various cone angles, the 60° cones just work better.

I don't see why you can't do cones or Ks if you can do Ms. Or why you have a problem boring and threading with a CNC; you can do beautiful thread milling work with a CNC that is very low tool pressure on thin parts. I made a 5698 brushless motor powered gearbox with an ER32 collet for just this reason, to thread really thin material on my manual machine by running the thread mill in the ER collet while manually rotating the chuck with half nuts engaged.

[John A.]

In having used several cans with 22 through it, I can say in order of the least suppression to the better suppression are:

cones (they don't do real good with lower pressured rounds)
pressed fender washers baffles that are more of a radial cone
stepped baffles (engine valve retainers) sounded the best of the 3 above.

Just my humble experience. If you can make a monocore stack, think about doing one similar to what gemtech is doing these days.

[Capt. Link.]

You need a rotary table to cure the lack of a lathe.These normally have a 60:1 gear ratio for machining while in motion.Older units are fine if not damaged, new Phase II units are recommended.Make sure it will sit flat and at a right angle.

I'm guessing you have not applied for a tax stamp as the wording on that document will limit dimension.Its best to tackle one project at a time.I would start with the shortest one while you learn more about CNC threading.

K baffles have set the suppression world afire. Pre 1980 cones flat baffles and wire mesh ruled we have come so far.Hybrid suppressors can be very effective as ECCO Machine noted. My favorite combination is three cones followed by four K type for medium caliber rifles.

-CL

[kutworksinc]

I don't see why you can't do cones or Ks if you can do Ms. Or why you have a problem boring and threading with a CNC; you can do beautiful thread milling work with a CNC that is very low tool pressure on thin parts. I made a 5698 brushless motor powered gearbox with an ER32 collet for just this reason, to thread really thin material on my manual machine by running the thread mill in the ER collet while manually rotating the chuck with half nuts engaged.

Mostly cant do threading because my cam software lacks the threading capability.

As far as K baffles, If I machined the bore, and interior cone on the table, and then chucked it into the rotary, I could possibly cut K baffles. It would just be a very slow process. I could have to cut all the angles with ball mill bits, which means lots and lots of tool paths. As far as operating my table manually, it aint happening. I dont have any way to operate it manually whatsoever, other than the control pad. Its not designed or intended for manual use.

[T-Rex]

If you have full CNC control, including rotary/lathe head, than you absolutely can create anything on it that a lathe could. Tool paths are ok. There are some pics of baffles with the face of the coaxial baffle portion having "ridges". In theory, they should aid in suppression.

[kutworksinc]

If you have full CNC control, including rotary/lathe head, than you absolutely can create anything on it that a lathe could. Tool paths are ok. There are some pics of baffles with the face of the coaxial baffle portion having "ridges". In theory, they should aid in suppression.

Lemme draw one up, and see how the toolpaths work out, and you guys can critique it.

[Hannibalbarca]

I have an idea for you. First off, have the tube body be 17-4 stainless for the best durability but grade 9 tubing could also work or grade 5 from bar stock, depends on budget and ability. You’d need to get bar stock and hollow it out. Make it thin walled too. Have it be modularized with two sections. One 5 and one 4 excluding the caps. Thread pitch for the tubes should be B cell so you can use liberty boosters but the baffle portion of the tube doesn’t need to be this. Have also a blast chamber extension to be used with rifles, say two inches. So three sections of this modular suppressor. Baffles can be 17-4 or from grade 5 but I’d choose 17-4, theyd need to be thin if you want weight savings except for the first couple. You can have the cap be in 22 and the suppressor on the form 1 and use a 1/2x28 cal for 9mm, it would be dual purpose but still have maximum suppression for 22. Baffle type id choose 60 degree cones or perhaps dms baffle design, griffin armament also has some interesting baffle designs to look at. Perhaps even have the stack welded and use a 17-4 tube for the housing, the caps should be threaded to the baffle stack though and same with the booster but like this you can’t take it all apart. Your choice. With the 17-4 tube and depending on the internal volume and the dimensions you choose you might even be able to use magnums or large calibers with this(long barrels though) I’d also consider perhaps making a stellite or Inconnel blast baffle(s). I know it’s over kill for 300 blackout/22/9mm but it’d be very versatile and also very neat.

[kutworksinc]

I have an idea for you. First off, have the tube body be 17-4 stainless for the best durability but grade 9 tubing could also work or grade 5 from bar stock, depends on budget and ability. You’d need to get bar stock and hollow it out. Make it thin walled too. Have it be modularized with two sections. One 5 and one 4 excluding the caps. Thread pitch for the tubes should be B cell so you can use liberty boosters but the baffle portion of the tube doesn’t need to be this. Have also a blast chamber extension to be used with rifles, say two inches. So three sections of this modular suppressor. Baffles can be 17-4 or from grade 5 but I’d choose 17-4, theyd need to be thin if you want weight savings except for the first couple. You can have the cap be in 22 and the suppressor on the form 1 and use a 1/2x28 cal for 9mm, it would be dual purpose but still have maximum suppression for 22. Baffle type id choose 60 degree cones or perhaps dms baffle design, griffin armament also has some interesting baffle designs to look at. Perhaps even have the stack welded and use a 17-4 tube for the housing, the caps should be threaded to the baffle stack though and same with the booster but like this you can’t take it all apart. Your choice. With the 17-4 tube and depending on the internal volume and the dimensions you choose you might even be able to use magnums or large calibers with this(long barrels though) I’d also consider perhaps making a stellite or Inconnel blast baffle(s). I know it’s over kill for 300 blackout/22/9mm but it’d be very versatile and also very neat.

While I appreciate a really slick modular design, Im not interested in building one. I would consider buying one, but not doing a form 1. Reason being, Anything I build is going to gun specific. The vast majority of the cost is going to be the 200$ stamp, not the actual build. I have piles of scrap material to cut anything I would need, and the capability to machine it. If I were buying a $600+ can, I would be all for a modular design so I can get the best bang for my buck, but at that price point, its either 800 for one can and a stamp, or I can just pay for four form 1 stamps.

Im waiting on one to come back now for the .22, and Im trying to figure out a gameplan for the larger calibers, and as soon I feel like I have a design that is sufficient and im slightly more experianced, Im going to send off the rest of the form 1s I have. Once Ive built, and abused, my first approved form 1 can, Ill know if its something I want to continue to pursue, or if ill just buy some off the shelf and be done.

[John A.]

While I appreciate a really slick modular design, Im not interested in building one. I would consider buying one, but not doing a form 1. Reason being, Anything I build is going to gun specific. The vast majority of the cost is going to be the 200$ stamp, not the actual build. I have piles of scrap material to cut anything I would need, and the capability to machine it. If I were buying a $600+ can, I would be all for a modular design so I can get the best bang for my buck, but at that price point, its either 800 for one can and a stamp, or I can just pay for four form 1 stamps.

Very good point.

I've been down this very same road myself.

My first can, I wanted it modular so I could use it on most anything that would fit through the hole. And that was so long ago, no one was even doing that.

While it worked well and I've shot a ton of lead through it, these days, I've been building gun specific cans, and for the exact reason you mentioned.

I'm waiting on my 5th F1 suppressor stamp as I type this for a 17.5" integral 22lr.

Even though during my first one, I said I was going to build one and done.

Looking back, that was just crazy talk. I should've known better.

[kutworksinc]

I intend on suppressing everything I have with a threaded barrel, especially if I can be effective with a form 1 can.
I already own the equipment, and the material is free. So its really costing me nothing but time and a stamp.

And lets be honest, if I don't spend the $200 on the stamp, Ill end up buying some crap the wife wants, or taking the family out to eat twice.

[ECCO Machine]

Anything I build is going to gun specific.

That's the best way. "Do-all" cans just don't do much very well. Take the SiCo Hybrid, for example; about the only thing it works well for is supersonic starts-with-a-.4 big bore rifle rounds. It's a pig on the end of a handgun and gives mediocre performance with subsonic loads, the aperture is too large to suppress smaller calibers well (despite claims, it's NOT hearing safe with 5.56 or .30 cal full power rounds, well into the 140s on my B&K 2209). I own one, don't ever use it.

My own Phoenix XLV, a Titanium 1.375" x 7" .45 cal pistol can, is strong enough to take full power rifle rounds, but it does no better than the Hybrid with 5.56 or .308.

So, yes, definitely preferable to optimize materials, dimensions and baffle profile for specific cartridges (or class of cartridge). I build cans ranging from 2.3 ounce rimfire critters up to machine gun rated cans that weigh the better part of 2 pounds, and the differences in material and design from one to the next are done for good reason.