,,would that be ok 
Monolithic baffle stack
I see what you are refering to pointed out in #1, #5 of the patent Claims. My bad for skimming over it.rsilvers wrote:Not true. STW 'owns' the manufacturing method of cross-drilling. I see that as a simple manufacturing method. The can in this thread could still be made, as long as you don't drill straight through. You would have to mill it out with a smaller bit that oscillated in circles and cut sideways.HotGuns wrote:on the other hand...if it isnt exactly like the patent it is not infringement.
The claim in 3,4 and in 7,8 are specific to the T shaped chamber & number of them.
Well, that is just crazy. You couldn't even use a plunge cut with a center cutting end-mill to start a milling pass. You would have to ramp the cutter into the material to start.
How is it STW could patent one of the oldest metal removal methods known to man? Even just in the context of making a silencer?
Would starting out with drilled holes and then milling the final profile violate the patent?
How is it STW could patent one of the oldest metal removal methods known to man? Even just in the context of making a silencer?
Would starting out with drilled holes and then milling the final profile violate the patent?
-
silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA
That was what I was referring to with ramping the cutter. Linear or circular interpolation while plunging the Z axis. It is more efficient than simply plunging straight down into the stock.
If STW had a new or novel manufacturing method, that would be one thing. But patenting a drilling operation to make your parts? I would think prior art would not allow it.
Someone, somewhere has cross drilled a solid bar to manufacture something. Maybe even a silencer. Hell, I bet Vaimco has.
If STW had a new or novel manufacturing method, that would be one thing. But patenting a drilling operation to make your parts? I would think prior art would not allow it.
Someone, somewhere has cross drilled a solid bar to manufacture something. Maybe even a silencer. Hell, I bet Vaimco has.
Besides, you need an endmill to drill off-center on bar stock anyway, since a drill bit will deflect on the curvature.
I am not a patent expert, as a matter of fact I know little about them. But as I read it the patent could be avoided by starting with square stock, as opposed to cylindrical stock since the patent is specific to cylindrical stock then turning the square stock round.
That said I simply can not comprehend how you can patent the use of a tool as it was designed, by someone else to be used. If O'Quinn and Andrews patented the idea of using a round tool with sharp flutes that spun to cut metal then Baffled's design may violate that manufacturing technique. I don't think O'Quinn & Andrews patent covers the use of a drill to make a hole.
Using rsilver's logic how many suppressors violate this portion of the patent. It is out of the same paragraph that allegedly gives them rights to drilling holes.
ETA does anyone know if the maintenance fees are paid up on that patent?
That said I simply can not comprehend how you can patent the use of a tool as it was designed, by someone else to be used. If O'Quinn and Andrews patented the idea of using a round tool with sharp flutes that spun to cut metal then Baffled's design may violate that manufacturing technique. I don't think O'Quinn & Andrews patent covers the use of a drill to make a hole.
Using rsilver's logic how many suppressors violate this portion of the patent. It is out of the same paragraph that allegedly gives them rights to drilling holes.
Am I missing something?A noise and recoil suppressor for firearms comprising a bullet entry end, a bullet exit end, and a cylindrical body having a plurality of chambers...
ETA does anyone know if the maintenance fees are paid up on that patent?
This message has been approved by #93
-
silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA
The first part of the claim-1 was just describing what nearly all silencers have in common. The cross-drilling was what they invented. It is a very broad claim-1 as it allows them to own making silencers of nearly any design that uses cross-drilling. That is the goal of an independent claim -- to be broad. That is good for the lawyer who was able to get the examiner to accept it.
Now compare it to this Gemtech patent http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat7308967.pdf
This is the worst possible way to write an independent claim (look how long and detailed their claim-1 is). Very specific. Change any one thing and you are not in violation. This makes the patent very easy to get because the examiner will not reject it.
Now compare it to this Gemtech patent http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat7308967.pdf
This is the worst possible way to write an independent claim (look how long and detailed their claim-1 is). Very specific. Change any one thing and you are not in violation. This makes the patent very easy to get because the examiner will not reject it.
-
silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA
-
m24armorer
- Silent Operator
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 10:32 am
- Location: Los Gatos, CA
Finally did a very basic accuracy check. The results are excellent. This group is WITH the suppressor on. Can't do a "can off" test for comparison, yet, but this pretty much says it all...
5.5" Kuehl bbl, Federal target ammo, 10 yards:
The group measures about 0.320" Remember, this was shot at a very close range, but extrapolating this to longer distances reveals zero problems with accuracy overall.
Plenty good!
5.5" Kuehl bbl, Federal target ammo, 10 yards:
The group measures about 0.320" Remember, this was shot at a very close range, but extrapolating this to longer distances reveals zero problems with accuracy overall.
Plenty good!
Cross drilling is not something that they invented. It is a common manufacturing process that has been used while fabricating parts ever since we went from using flint hand drills to drill bone up to the 5 axis CNC machines.. The cross-drilling was what they invented
While they can patent a pattern or style of hole in their can, I doubt that they could legally do much of anything to impede a standard manufacturing process.
While it may allow them to use cross drilling as a method to come up with various patterns and configurations,they can't patent the operation itself.
I've been cross drilling various tools and parts for over 30 years. I doubt that some suppressor manufacturer is going to tell me that I can't cross drill something.
Well, if there's ever any grief over a monolothic stack, and the ridiculous notion that cross-drilling a piece of round bar is somehow patented, then simply cross-mill, or cross-bore, or cross-EDM the sucker.
Unless they claim patent to any process that makes a hole in a round bar, perpendicular to the long axis. That would affect, oh, only about 2,500,000 other products currently being manufactured.
Unless they claim patent to any process that makes a hole in a round bar, perpendicular to the long axis. That would affect, oh, only about 2,500,000 other products currently being manufactured.
Thanks Baffled. Good work!
Now for another... how about using some high velocity ammo? My theory is that if the bullet is going to be destabilized in the blast chamber by gasses taking the short route to the bullet, then it will more likely happen with a high (or even hyper) velocity bullet.
Whajathink?
Now for another... how about using some high velocity ammo? My theory is that if the bullet is going to be destabilized in the blast chamber by gasses taking the short route to the bullet, then it will more likely happen with a high (or even hyper) velocity bullet.
Whajathink?
SAK cans
SAK have been selling a mono stack baffle like the one discussed here that is cross drilled.
I can't see that they can claim the "right" to an engineering process especially not when many have done this before them?
The SAK can complete retails in Europe for about $50-00 USD.
Carry on cross drilling anything you want I cant see a small silencer company attempting to take this to court and getting a hiding over it. The patent examiner that allowed that inclusion is the one that should get sued!
I can't see that they can claim the "right" to an engineering process especially not when many have done this before them?
The SAK can complete retails in Europe for about $50-00 USD.
Carry on cross drilling anything you want I cant see a small silencer company attempting to take this to court and getting a hiding over it. The patent examiner that allowed that inclusion is the one that should get sued!
Patents are frequently defensive as much as offensive. In other industries at least.
a) guarantee the right to do what you do the way you do it
b) counter-attack if the person suing you for X happens to be doing your Y. One may be weaker but you'd still have to do battle
c) fodder for a better deal against patent predators "cross licensing" arrangements.
a) guarantee the right to do what you do the way you do it
b) counter-attack if the person suing you for X happens to be doing your Y. One may be weaker but you'd still have to do battle
c) fodder for a better deal against patent predators "cross licensing" arrangements.
-
tacticalmachining.com
- Member
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:27 pm
- Location: DeLand FL
Been reading this thread with great interest...one of the best threads on this site.. ever...so good infact that I actually want to add a possible improvement to this can.
Let me see if I can explain this. Why not drill some holes in the walls of the can and thread some AL screws into them..so the threaded screws poke into the main chambers.. this is certain to take up some volume but should cause cause more turbulance in the can and add minimal weight. Care would have to be taken to ensure the screw doesn't protrude into the bullet path, or the screw head past the OD of the can, but if inserted via the secondary chambers this wouldn't be too difficult. Just thinking outside the box (can). Thoughts?
Let me see if I can explain this. Why not drill some holes in the walls of the can and thread some AL screws into them..so the threaded screws poke into the main chambers.. this is certain to take up some volume but should cause cause more turbulance in the can and add minimal weight. Care would have to be taken to ensure the screw doesn't protrude into the bullet path, or the screw head past the OD of the can, but if inserted via the secondary chambers this wouldn't be too difficult. Just thinking outside the box (can). Thoughts?
Huh?
