It would be a waste of volume if they were not drilled.HotGuns wrote:
Is it even worth drilling the mouse holes or is it quiete enough without them ?
Monolithic baffle stack
-
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 4679
- Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:49 pm
- Location: Artesia, NM
Update: I sleeved the first chamber in steel for strength and to help keep erosion at bay. I used a very tight 1/8" roll pin so that the sleeve will not move and misalign its bore holes with the rest of the stack.
I drilled a series of mouse holes on one flank only for now, 3/16", oriented in such a way as to proceed from the peripheral cuts and from there, BARELY contacting the bore hole.
Before the mouse holes - A string of 5 shots with CCI blazer .22 ammo out of a 8" bbl produced a dB reading between 71 and 74 on my cheap radio shack meter, with the meter about a foot away from the can, on a perpendicular axis. I'll get a few more readings witht he mouse holes.
I'm happy with it. It's doing a good job, and will be super-easy to maintain.
I drilled a series of mouse holes on one flank only for now, 3/16", oriented in such a way as to proceed from the peripheral cuts and from there, BARELY contacting the bore hole.
Before the mouse holes - A string of 5 shots with CCI blazer .22 ammo out of a 8" bbl produced a dB reading between 71 and 74 on my cheap radio shack meter, with the meter about a foot away from the can, on a perpendicular axis. I'll get a few more readings witht he mouse holes.
I'm happy with it. It's doing a good job, and will be super-easy to maintain.
-
- Senior Silent Operator
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:12 pm
- Location: CHIHUAHUA MEXICO- NEW ZELAND
- Contact:
HELLO MATES this is my silencer but i need help me my silencer Not greatly reduces the sound
By ganadero, shot with FinePix A350 at 2007-12-17
By ganadero, shot with FinePix A350 at 2007-12-17
By ganadero, shot with FinePix A350 at 2007-12-17
By ganadero, shot with FinePix A350 at 2007-12-17
The GREATNESS Of the MAN IS IN The STRENGTH OF ITS MIND IN The NOBILITY OF ITS SOUL And HER WILL TO WIN
NEW ZELAND
NEW ZELAND
The web between your holes is too wide, you should of spaced them closer. you lost a lot of internal volume.
Honestly as I posted earlier, the design is basically a inefficient flat washer design. You need volume w/ a inefficient design.
whats the dia of the stack? it looks small.
edited for typo
Honestly as I posted earlier, the design is basically a inefficient flat washer design. You need volume w/ a inefficient design.
whats the dia of the stack? it looks small.
edited for typo
Last edited by Mtdew on Mon Dec 17, 2007 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
to help with your focus problemGANADERO wrote:shot with FinePix A350 at 2007-12-17
Try turning on the macro - {the little flower symbol on the menu} for better close up picture. Or move the camera back and use zoom to get in close. that should help
Supressors
AAC - 7
Degroat - 2
AWC - 1
Don Floyd - 1
Tros- 1
HCA- 1
AAC - 7
Degroat - 2
AWC - 1
Don Floyd - 1
Tros- 1
HCA- 1
Actually...its not even close.Honestly as I posted earlier, the design is basically a inefficient flat washer design. You need volume w/ a inefficient design.
Notice that the hole in the baffle is round,a washer is flat. Since sound expands more like a bubble, than a stream the round vs .flat works much better... but on a .22 even a flat washer design can work pretty well.
GANADERO..
Your center hole may be too big. As already stated, your design wastes too much space in between the baffles. Tighten up the distance and go with start with a .250 hole. If you have good alignement, it shouldnt be a problem. If things are a bit out of concentric, you'll have to go bigger.
Well i'll disagree w/ youHotGuns wrote:Actually...its not even close.Honestly as I posted earlier, the design is basically a inefficient flat washer design. You need volume w/ a inefficient design.
Notice that the hole in the baffle is round,a washer is flat. Since sound expands more like a bubble, than a stream the round vs .flat works much better... but on a .22 even a flat washer design can work pretty well.
.
How many commercial can designs (current or in the past) have CONVERGING baffle walls? Like the front of each hole it this design.
IMHO this design is actually worse that a flat washer since there is less turbulence and flow disruption.
MtDew, my staggered stack is performing VERY well. I have heard flat washer designs, and this one is much better. My K-baffled CAC-22 is significantly louder, although to be fair, the volume difference is large.
I would have gone with a more conventional stack in a heartbeat, but this one gives me a huge advantage in the disassembly/cleaning department. My goal is large volumes of automatic .22LR fire. Because of the air gap between the stack and the tube, I can fire thousands of rounds without having the stack glue itself into a nasty, solid mass.
I would have gone with a more conventional stack in a heartbeat, but this one gives me a huge advantage in the disassembly/cleaning department. My goal is large volumes of automatic .22LR fire. Because of the air gap between the stack and the tube, I can fire thousands of rounds without having the stack glue itself into a nasty, solid mass.
Here's my design for a mono stack. Similar to Baffled's, but with larger coaxial chambers for increased volume. I also cut the "mouse holes" straight with a larger endmill, which leaves a sharp ledge in the round chamber which should "cut into" the swirling gas like the ledge on a coach's whistle, helping it flow quickly into the coaxial chambers.
I wish I still had access to a machine shop, I would gladly Form 1 this stack to try it.
I wish I still had access to a machine shop, I would gladly Form 1 this stack to try it.
Sorry I wasn't clear, i'm only talking about non staggered symmetric (all holes in the center line of the bore)Baffled wrote:MtDew, my staggered stack is performing VERY well. I have heard flat washer designs, and this one is much better. My K-baffled CAC-22 is significantly louder, although to be fair, the volume difference is large.
The staggered design has much more potential.
Update - more testing.
I added mouse holes along just one of the two possible sides of the stack. The diameter of the holes is 3/16"; where they merge in the bore is such that the mouse holes just touch the bore holes, forming a sort of "figure 8." This improved the can significantly. The original 5-shot string which averaged about 73 dB on my Radio Shack meter dropped to ~68. It is noticeably quieter too first round. The Radio Shack meter measurements are purely relative, meaning I use it to compare within my own system.
It is at a point now where I don't want to jerk around anymore except for finishing, which is going to be a manganese park. I still have not tested for accuracy yet. Unless the accuracy is absolutely gross, I am going to leave it alone because it is doing so well. It is a part of a bullet-hose system, not a varmint gun.
When it's done completely, I'll post some additional pics showing the mouse holes, and the whole can put together.
Conqueror - I LIKE that "coach's whistle" cut. The way you have them placed is perfect, I believe. The gas does a 180-degree bend and jetc out the cuts. Very nice, and I'll bet it'd work great.
I added mouse holes along just one of the two possible sides of the stack. The diameter of the holes is 3/16"; where they merge in the bore is such that the mouse holes just touch the bore holes, forming a sort of "figure 8." This improved the can significantly. The original 5-shot string which averaged about 73 dB on my Radio Shack meter dropped to ~68. It is noticeably quieter too first round. The Radio Shack meter measurements are purely relative, meaning I use it to compare within my own system.
It is at a point now where I don't want to jerk around anymore except for finishing, which is going to be a manganese park. I still have not tested for accuracy yet. Unless the accuracy is absolutely gross, I am going to leave it alone because it is doing so well. It is a part of a bullet-hose system, not a varmint gun.
When it's done completely, I'll post some additional pics showing the mouse holes, and the whole can put together.
Conqueror - I LIKE that "coach's whistle" cut. The way you have them placed is perfect, I believe. The gas does a 180-degree bend and jetc out the cuts. Very nice, and I'll bet it'd work great.
Then explain to me why mine works better than any comemrcial design that it has shot against. Since its worse than a flat washer design, why is quieter? Please elaborate and explain to me why I need to chunk it.IMHO this design is actually worse that a flat washer since there is less turbulence and flow disruption.
Hmm , it would be interessting to try it both ways ,,just to see in what order it wound work bestConqueror wrote:Here's my design for a mono stack. Similar to Baffled's, but with larger coaxial chambers for increased volume. I also cut the "mouse holes" straight with a larger endmill, which leaves a sharp ledge in the round chamber which should "cut into" the swirling gas like the ledge on a coach's whistle, helping it flow quickly into the coaxial chambers.
I wish I still had access to a machine shop, I would gladly Form 1 this stack to try it.
Theory is one thing ,to have done a test is a other thing
Wish a lathe for cristmas to make one
Further update: I had a chance to compare this can to another F1 can. This can was slightly larger, and had a very elaborate and complex Omega-style baffle stack which was executed very well. This new staggered monostack was distictly quieter. It wasn't even close. I don't say that to blow my own horn, because the concept is not mine. I have nothing to prove and no agenda. Guys, this stack works. I don't know how sensitive it is to variations in the mouse holes or to dimensions... hopefully, not much.
FWIW, this stack is 1.250" dia X 7.2" long. The holes are 3/4", spaced 0.750" along the X-axis, and offset from the centerline 0.156". The annular cuts were made with the same 3/4" end mill, plunging into the stock for a distance of 0.220" from first contact; OR +/- 0.781" right and left of the centerline.
I'd love to see another one executed to see if this is not a fluke.
FWIW, this stack is 1.250" dia X 7.2" long. The holes are 3/4", spaced 0.750" along the X-axis, and offset from the centerline 0.156". The annular cuts were made with the same 3/4" end mill, plunging into the stock for a distance of 0.220" from first contact; OR +/- 0.781" right and left of the centerline.
I'd love to see another one executed to see if this is not a fluke.
- mpallett
- Elite Industry Professional
- Posts: 2876
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:28 am
- Location: MA
- Contact:
I'd like to see how it would work in a 1" x 5" tube.Baffled wrote:Further update: I had a chance to compare this can to another F1 can. This can was slightly larger, and had a very elaborate and complex Omega-style baffle stack which was executed very well. This new staggered monostack was distictly quieter. It wasn't even close. I don't say that to blow my own horn, because the concept is not mine. I have nothing to prove and no agenda. Guys, this stack works. I don't know how sensitive it is to variations in the mouse holes or to dimensions... hopefully, not much.
FWIW, this stack is 1.250" dia X 7.2" long. The holes are 3/4", spaced 0.750" along the X-axis, and offset from the centerline 0.156". The annular cuts were made with the same 3/4" end mill, plunging into the stock for a distance of 0.220" from first contact; OR +/- 0.781" right and left of the centerline.
I'd love to see another one executed to see if this is not a fluke.
Over weight Telco guy with a FFL/07 for hire
- 3101
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 5379
- Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:55 pm
- Location: Northeast Georgia...near UGA
mmmm, Matthew, that seems like a question you already know the answer too..
Mr. Burns: This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you.
Smithers: You are noble and poetic in defeat, sir.
Smithers: You are noble and poetic in defeat, sir.