hole pattern on K baffle design

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

rtv900
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 4:44 pm

hole pattern on K baffle design

Post by rtv900 »

sorry if this has already been discussed, but I am starting my K baffle design for a 223 and I want to go with the style where the baffle has the hole circle on the bottom flange, this is for machining purposes. I'd prefer to be able to just drill it vertically rather than a setup where milling needs done for the 'mouse hole' design.

I have created what i think is a nice baffle design, the bottom flange is .075" thick and the cone portion is .055 thick titanium.
so I'm unsure how many and what size holes to put around the bottom flange.
My guess on paper was .200 holes and either a pattern of 6 or 8?
but I have no actual understanding of how these decisions affect real world performance. Initially I was thinking the more holes the better but I realize I might be totally off base.

My overall design is a 1.5" OD stainless tube, .055 wall, 1-7/16-28 threaded ends for end caps, everything titanium except for tube.
rtv900
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 4:44 pm

Re: hole pattern on K baffle design

Post by rtv900 »

sorry, 8" total length also
User avatar
T-Rex
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:38 pm
Location: CT - The AntiConstitution State

Re: hole pattern on K baffle design

Post by T-Rex »

Your best bet is to post a picture or design prints.

However, take these into consideration:
-K-baffles are not going to be anywhere near your best bet, with high velocity, centerfire rifle calibers. They can be designed well, but a first timer isn't going to want to deal with it. Just make 60deg cones. Stupid easy to make and very efficient.
-The baffles seem extra thick, especially considering the use of Ti
-Mouse holes are a thing of the past
-I don't know where you're putting these holes, but I think you've seen or heard something that's either untrue or very outdated.
-Again, ditch the K baffles and make simple cones. Put 8 or 9 of them in your 8" tube, give them a single clip, and you'll be very happy.
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/
rtv900
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 4:44 pm

Re: hole pattern on K baffle design

Post by rtv900 »

ok I could change my baffle design at this point
I guess I'm not positive of these design names and it's remarkably hard to get clear info on it
So when you say cone style, you mean the type that basically looks like a cylinder that transitions into a cone, and the cylindrical sections are what stack up and the cone section is offset by the length of the cylindrical section?

to describe as a print for example:
cylindrical portion of 1.39" OD maybe .600" in length, step in to 1.25 OD, then goes to cone 30 per side another .600" long to end hole of .320 or so?
So the round sections stack up every .600?

admittedly I am totally new to this so I know some of these questions probably seem basic. I am however not new to good machining equipment and I am going to do this on a cnc lathe that I run and program regularly for other jobs.
User avatar
T-Rex
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:38 pm
Location: CT - The AntiConstitution State

Re: hole pattern on K baffle design

Post by T-Rex »

You got it. If you can design and have access to machine tools, this will be a breeze.

Below, in my signature is a link to completed builds. If you want to learn a little silencer theory, start on page 1. If you just want a more modern design, to be done with it, start on the last page. There's tons of places you can search, on the internet, but those couple pages will net you 99% of what you need to know.
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/
rtv900
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 4:44 pm

Re: hole pattern on K baffle design

Post by rtv900 »

cool thanks
yes the machining aspect should not be an issue. I have plenty of experience machining tough metals like 316, copper and bronze. The titanium I've practiced on seems to machine kind of like 316 from a hardness perspective and copper from a gritty rough cut perspective as far as I can tell, but finishes are coming out great and tooling is holding up fine.

Now that I look at the cone style you suggested that does appear way nicer and as far as I can tell it allows gas into all the spaces without any holes drilled in anything.
The only thing I notice from some pics is that there appears to be a small cut out milled out from the hole in the top of the cone, I guess to kind of make a side vent for gas just before the hole, makes sense.
3strucking
Silent Operator
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 7:37 pm

Re: hole pattern on K baffle design

Post by 3strucking »

The cut out on the nose of the cone is the clip T-rex referenced in his post. You will want to do that and also align them.
ECCO Machine
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:34 pm

Re: hole pattern on K baffle design

Post by ECCO Machine »

rtv900 wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 6:48 am the machining aspect should not be an issue. I have plenty of experience machining tough metals like 316, copper and bronze. The titanium I've practiced on seems to machine kind of like 316 from a hardness perspective and copper from a gritty rough cut perspective as far as I can tell, but finishes are coming out great and tooling is holding up fine.
316, copper and bronze are not even in the ballpark of "tough" materials, and if you feel the Ti is behaving like 316 but with rough finish, it's probably not 6/4. Sounds like you have some gr. 2 (CP), which isn't much stronger than 6061 aluminum.

IMO, you're doing it all backwards from a material standpoint. Make your tube from CWSR Ti and internals from a martensitic SS like 17-4 or 15-5 and heat treat it. Will be lighter and stronger.
FFL07/02SOT Gunsmith & Machinist
rtv900
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 4:44 pm

Re: hole pattern on K baffle design

Post by rtv900 »

well you are right it is grade 2 I have
I just didn't want to use stainless because it is so heavy, although I have plenty of 316 or 17-4ph around.
This isn't going to see extreme useage by any means so I didn't think it was important that I have ultra strong resistant materials, my goal was weight but I figured aluminum was just too plain weak.
I'm surprised that grade 2 titanium wouldn't be hardly any stronger than aluminum?
User avatar
T-Rex
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:38 pm
Location: CT - The AntiConstitution State

Re: hole pattern on K baffle design

Post by T-Rex »

Use the 17-4, in a tubeless design. It's strong enough to have smaller cross-sections and, foregoing the tube, you've dropped even more weight. If you ever get it hot, you need not worry due to the strength retained.
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/
rtv900
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 4:44 pm

Re: hole pattern on K baffle design

Post by rtv900 »

are cross section thicknesses of .050 realistic?
or could I go even thinner with 17-4?

Would end caps made of the titanium be a bad idea with the 1-7/16-28 thread?
ECCO Machine
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:34 pm

Re: hole pattern on K baffle design

Post by ECCO Machine »

rtv900 wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 9:42 am I just didn't want to use stainless because it is so heavy, although I have plenty of 316 or 17-4ph around.
This isn't going to see extreme useage by any means so I didn't think it was important that I have ultra strong resistant materials, my goal was weight
If you have the ability to TIG weld circumferntially, do as T-Rex suggested and make a tubeless design with 17-4. The material strength allows you to go quite thin. The one on top in the photo is my Accipiter .30 model, 1.6" diameter by 9.0" long. It is full auto rated and can take 300 RUM from 16" barrels. Weight (Including the Omega adapter in it) is 21.6 ounces, about the same as the AAC SDN-6 below it.

Image
rtv900 wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 9:42 ambut I figured aluminum was just too plain weak.
I'm surprised that grade 2 titanium wouldn't be hardly any stronger than aluminum?
It's actually weaker than alloys like 7075-T651 and especially 7068 T6511. It also doesn't have good fracture toughness like the Al-V alloys

Gr. 2 CP Ti has a UTS of about 60 KSI, the same as 2024-T6 aluminum.

7075-T651 is 83 KSI
7068-T6511 is 103 KSI
gr. 9 CWSR is 125 KSI
6/4 AMS4928 is 130 KSI and
6/4 AMS 4965 is160 KSI
4140 Chromoly 1,000° temper is 165 KSI
17-4 H900 is 210 KSI
422 SS 980° temper is 245 KSI
440C can reach 285 KSI
FFL07/02SOT Gunsmith & Machinist
User avatar
T-Rex
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:38 pm
Location: CT - The AntiConstitution State

Re: hole pattern on K baffle design

Post by T-Rex »

ECCO Machine wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 3:03 pm
Why did you leave off C350? :(

UTS 342 @ ~58Rc :lol:
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/
rtv900
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 4:44 pm

Re: hole pattern on K baffle design

Post by rtv900 »

I have an endless supply of 440 stainless
should I just consider using that?
and should it be heat treated?

I can tig very well, but I guess I don't really understand what is meant by tigging a tubeless design?
I've tigged a lot of stainless and it distorts horribly, so I just don't see how it is possible to put much weld on something like this and keep it straight?
User avatar
Capt. Link.
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2829
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:05 pm
Location: USA.

Re: hole pattern on K baffle design

Post by Capt. Link. »

This is a old school K baffle with mouse hole.

Image

The mouse hole was abandoned after it was found they do not add to suppression on pistol caliber suppressors.
I have never seen any study that says this applies to rifle caliber suppressors.I have also never seen any study if clipped cone type are better in suppression than K baffles w/ mouse hole in rifles either.

Clipped cone type baffles are cheaper to make because of time in machining and replaced K type baffles in rifle calibers.

I'm not knocking clipped cones but history says that K baffles worked well for rifle calibers. AWC made a suppressor called the Thundertrapp based on K type baffles.It not only had great suppression but the tone was a low more pleasing one plus it was noted for accuracy.Its still a excellent design.

As cost reduction steered the industry towards cone type baffles it would be interesting to see if the more expensive K type baffle would give better results if further developed.

-CL
The only reason after 243 years the government now wants to disarm you is they intend to do something you would shoot them for!
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
User avatar
T-Rex
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:38 pm
Location: CT - The AntiConstitution State

Re: hole pattern on K baffle design

Post by T-Rex »

rtv900 wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 5:54 pm I have an endless supply of 440 stainless
should I just consider using that?
and should it be heat treated?

I can tig very well, but I guess I don't really understand what is meant by tigging a tubeless design?
I've tigged a lot of stainless and it distorts horribly, so I just don't see how it is possible to put much weld on something like this and keep it straight?
I'd HT the 440. Why not? You're only gaining.

Plenty of ways to prevent or minimize SS warping. The parts would equate to thin wall tubing so an excessive amount of amps/heat isn't required, pulse welding should always be used, purge gas can help keep it cool. In reality, the circumferential weld takes less than a minute and tacking the stack can also be useful.

Plenty of Mfr's are going to this style of fabrication. The other poster, ecco, also does this as well as a 5.56mm one I've made.
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/
Ridge Runner
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:15 pm

Re: hole pattern on K baffle design

Post by Ridge Runner »

One thing worth noting when discussing cones compared to K or M baffles is that suppressors for any supersonic projectile have a lowered performance expectation because the sonic crack of the projectile is impossible to suppress. Once you start dealing with a projectile that generates 120dB from 3' reference measurement getting the suppression for the muzzle blast much below 120dB becomes a bit moot.

To be clear I am not claiming to know whether the value stated above would better be stated as 90dB or as 150dB rather than 120dB. What I am claiming is suppressor technology for even basic designs is ahead of the ability to deal with sonic projectile reports. Where an additional dB of suppression can matter is going to be where projectiles are slow enough that the air they are passing through never reaches mach 1. This means the projectile has to be below the transonic threshold which is a bit slower than the speed of sound.

I would be surprised to see any well built suppressor perform noticeable less effectively than any other suppressor if the projectile is leaving the barrel at 2700 to 3200 feet per second. Fine details in suppressor technology are best focused on with ~950 fps projectiles.
ECCO Machine
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:34 pm

Re: hole pattern on K baffle design

Post by ECCO Machine »

T-Rex wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 4:05 pm
ECCO Machine wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 3:03 pm
Why did you leave off C350? :(

UTS 342 @ ~58Rc :lol:
I don't consider carbon, manganese or nickel steels for suppressors. Maraging steels have enough Ni to be more corrosion resistant than many grades, but they're not stainless.
rtv900 wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 5:54 pm I have an endless supply of 440 stainless
should I just consider using that?
and should it be heat treated?
As long as the can won't be run at high temperatures, 440 is a great choice. It's just not designed for high temp applications, doesn't hold strength & hardness as well as alloys such as 422. Good choice for pistol cans and rifle cans for lower volume of fire work. I've used it in some 338 Lapua cans.

Definitely heat treat, and definitely temper. Annealed 440 is not very tough at all, and full hard is quite brittle.

Any of your 400 series stainless alloys need heat treated to be worthwhile. Otherwise, might as well use 300 series for the higher corrosion resistance.

That's one of the many wonderful things about 17-4; in addition to being decently hard, really strong and extremely tough, it has corrosion resistance nearly as good as 304. It also has excellent weldability in all conditions, and does not need to be annealed after welding to heat treat.
rtv900 wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 5:54 pm I can tig very well, but I guess I don't really understand what is meant by tigging a tubeless design?
I've tigged a lot of stainless and it distorts horribly, so I just don't see how it is possible to put much weld on something like this and keep it straight?
As with any material, certain things have to be done certain ways to weld it. Most stainless grades weld readily, especially 300 and 600 series. 400s can be a pill. You have to control your heat well, including cooling between running beads. I use a damp rag after welding each segment to bring it down to <300° before the next one. Otherwise, the pressure from the spring loaded fixture will cause the hot steel to warp, even start to collapse baffle walls.

By controlling my temp well and running appropriate amperage with a good machine, I can keep TIR to <.010" over a 9"+ long can.

I TIG with a Lincoln SW200, use a Lincoln 3350 helmet. I have a gear motor driven variable speed fixture to rotate the cans, but still run pedal with my foot and hold the torch in my hand. Here's a couple more examples of my 17-4 welded tubeless critters before moly resin

Image

As for welding 440, it's not a real weld friendly alloy, prone to cracking and distortion, must be post-weld annealed and then heat treated. I wouldn't build a tubeless can from 440. Use 17-4, 15-5 or 422.
FFL07/02SOT Gunsmith & Machinist
ECCO Machine
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:34 pm

Re: hole pattern on K baffle design

Post by ECCO Machine »

Capt. Link. wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 7:00 pm I have never seen any study that says this applies to rifle caliber suppressors.I have also never seen any study if clipped cone type are better in suppression than K baffles w/ mouse hole in rifles either.
I tried a heck of a lot of K baffle designs, mostly in pistol cans. Radials and many other unique designs, too. Simple clipped cones with good geometry have outperformed everything, both on the meter and to my ears.

For rifle cans, I really like 50° cones, a mix of smooth and stepped. The 9" Accipiter pictured above? Yeah, 131 dBA average at ear on a 22" 300 win mag. 127 on a .308.
FFL07/02SOT Gunsmith & Machinist
rtv900
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 4:44 pm

Re: hole pattern on K baffle design

Post by rtv900 »

ECCO Machine wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 10:56 pm
I TIG with a Lincoln SW200, use a Lincoln 3350 helmet. I have a gear motor driven variable speed fixture to rotate the cans, but still run pedal with my foot and hold the torch in my hand. Here's a couple more examples of my 17-4 welded tubeless critters before moly resin

Image

As for welding 440, it's not a real weld friendly alloy, prone to cracking and distortion, must be post-weld annealed and then heat treated. I wouldn't build a tubeless can from 440. Use 17-4, 15-5 or 422.
cool, your welds look great, and honestly I can tig that well too. We have a couple miller synchrowave 250 DX's and I've done lot's of round parts on a rotary table with a variable speed foot pedal just like you described, so that style would be realistic for me to do.
We also have a heat treating oven as well and I do the shops heat treating and tempering all myself so that would also be totally realistic to achieve a certain temper. I do tons of 440 and 416 heat treating but we occasionally do 17-4 in various conditions. It seems H900 is the concensus on ideal condition for 17-4

Do you fully anneal after you finish welding and then take it to your desired condition? Or just weld and treat? Because obviously the welding is going to locally treat bands all around it.
User avatar
T-Rex
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:38 pm
Location: CT - The AntiConstitution State

Re: hole pattern on K baffle design

Post by T-Rex »

ECCO Machine wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 10:56 pm I don't consider carbon, manganese or nickel steels for suppressors. Maraging steels have enough Ni to be more corrosion resistant than many grades, but they're not stainless.
C350 has 1/2 the Carbon as 17-4, 1/10th the Mn, and >10% less Fe.
420 has 5x more C
422 has 8x more C
And 440? Woosh, 40x more C, at max.
And all of them have 10x the amount of Mn, than C350
Yes, the Cr is missing, but the high Ni content, in my experience, makes up for it. Yes, I'd prefer more Cr, but the addition of Mo helps make up for it.

In my field (industrial furnaces and boilers), yes, we do use a good amount of Stainless, but that's usually only where fuel touches the steel. This is so there's no surface corrosion, when parts are idle. This excludes our tips and fuel mixing plates, which are usually high hard 4140 (they're consumables so don't require the longevity factor). Most other parts are going to be Nickel alloys. Not specifically high Ni, but Ni based. We're talking environments having a continuous temp of ~2500F and an extreme amount of airborne particulates. Most of which contain levels of chemicals known to be not so friendly to exposed steel.

Anyway.
If you get some time and can find a small quantity, while not on the level of high Nickel alloys, in any blend, I'd like you to make a single suppressor (of the C350) and give her a little test :wink:

rtv900 wrote: Fri Apr 03, 2020 6:28 amDo you fully anneal after you finish welding and then take it to your desired condition? Or just weld and treat?
Depends on what condition you're machining. For simplicity sake, I like to machine in A, weld, passivate, treat to 900.
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/
User avatar
Capt. Link.
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2829
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:05 pm
Location: USA.

Re: hole pattern on K baffle design

Post by Capt. Link. »

ECCO Machine wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 11:09 pm
Capt. Link. wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 7:00 pm I have never seen any study that says this applies to rifle caliber suppressors.I have also never seen any study if clipped cone type are better in suppression than K baffles w/ mouse hole in rifles either.
I tried a heck of a lot of K baffle designs, mostly in pistol cans. Radials and many other unique designs, too. Simple clipped cones with good geometry have outperformed everything, both on the meter and to my ears.

For rifle cans, I really like 50° cones, a mix of smooth and stepped. The 9" Accipiter pictured above? Yeah, 131 dBA average at ear on a 22" 300 win mag. 127 on a .308.
Its good to hear some feedback as the transition between the Finn tech to the clipped cone was only a very few years and little information was ever posted.The numbers on your Accipiter are impressive as my own thick film asymmetric baffles netted @ 132db on a 18" test bed in 7.62 NATO in a 9x1.5 inch tube using 5 wide spaced baffles.A 5 db gain in the ten years I have been retired is a huge gain by any standard!! Knowing the business, time is precious but would encourage you to revisit Ks w/mouse hole.The tone is different and more mellow sounding quieter than the numbers may indicate.FYI placing the mouse hole under the waist port seams to have the most effect in my limited studies of these baffles on rifles.
-CL
The only reason after 243 years the government now wants to disarm you is they intend to do something you would shoot them for!
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
Rich V
Senior Silent Operator
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 5:50 pm

Re: hole pattern on K baffle design

Post by Rich V »

T-Rex wrote: Fri Apr 03, 2020 7:41 am

Anyway.
If you get some time and can find a small quantity, while not on the level of high Nickel alloys, in any blend, I'd like you to make a single suppressor (of the C350) and give her a little test :wink:

.
T-Rex
The maraging steels have some amazing properties, high strength & hardness with great toughness and an easy heat treat.
If they were not so outrageously expensive they would be the top choice for suppressor builds. As for corrosion resistance they should hold up just fine in a suppressor. VOX uses it in their baffle stack. https://energeticarms.com/vox-centerfire-silencer/
Great strength compared to the usual alloys used.
Image
With the right design you could get very thin walls on the baffles and very light weights.
I was very lucky to pick up a piece of 2" x 24" 300C maraging bar for $100 delivered. It will be used for the blast baffle on a friends M60.
ECCO Machine
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:34 pm

Re: hole pattern on K baffle design

Post by ECCO Machine »

Rich V wrote: Fri Apr 03, 2020 4:55 pm
T-Rex wrote: Fri Apr 03, 2020 7:41 am

Anyway.
If you get some time and can find a small quantity, while not on the level of high Nickel alloys, in any blend, I'd like you to make a single suppressor (of the C350) and give her a little test :wink:

.
T-Rex
The maraging steels have some amazing properties, high strength & hardness with great toughness and an easy heat treat.
If they were not so outrageously expensive they would be the top choice for suppressor builds. As for corrosion resistance they should hold up just fine in a suppressor. VOX uses it in their baffle stack. https://energeticarms.com/vox-centerfire-silencer/
Great strength compared to the usual alloys used.
Image
With the right design you could get very thin walls on the baffles and very light weights.
I was very lucky to pick up a piece of 2" x 24" 300C maraging bar for $100 delivered. It will be used for the blast baffle on a friends M60.
Throw 422 stainless 980° temper into that graph and you'll see why I like it for hard use applications; has a much flatter curve as temps rise compared to most alloys, maintains 209 ksi UTS & 151 ksi TYS @ 900°F.

http://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet. ... 243050679d
FFL07/02SOT Gunsmith & Machinist
User avatar
T-Rex
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:38 pm
Location: CT - The AntiConstitution State

Re: hole pattern on K baffle design

Post by T-Rex »

ECCO Machine wrote: Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:41 pmThrow 422 stainless 980° temper into that graph and you'll see why I like it
Please, don't take my comments wrong. I'm not against your choices, they're very applicable materials. I was just reommending something I knew would be another good steel.

Also, your comment of "I don't consider carbon, manganese or nickel steels for suppressors" doesn't jive, when those you listed have exponentially more content of C & Mn than that of C350.

No worries. We're all shooting for the same goal.
Rich V wrote: Fri Apr 03, 2020 4:55 pmI was very lucky to pick up a piece of 2" x 24" 300C maraging bar for $100 delivered. It will be used for the blast baffle on a friends M60.
That's a smokin' deal and what a long blast baffle it'll make :lol:
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/
Post Reply