Form 1 Integral Can... What Would You Do?

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
Cypher214
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:32 am

Form 1 Integral Can... What Would You Do?

Post by Cypher214 »

I'm building a 10/22 SBR and I want to build an integrally suppressed barrel that will be around 10.5".

I have plenty of machining experience and access to a full shop, but I'm curious as to which method would be best.

Here is what I'm thinking:

Option A:
-Purchase an 18" stainless heavy barrel.
-Cut barrel down to 10-10.5"
-Back bore the barrel app. 5.5", leaving a wall thickness of ~.125",thread the interior of the muzzle end and crown the actual muzzle.
-Take the portion of the barrel that was cut off, turn down the OD except for a small portion on the muzzle end, thread to fit into the back-bored barrel, ream it out to ~.250"
-Move over to the mill and create a monolithic baffle out of the cut-off portion of barrel that will screw right back into the bored-out barrel.

Option B:
-Same as Option A except I will machine aluminum K-Baffles and a threaded end cap to slip into the back-bored barrel.


Obviously, the monolithic design would be easier and less time consuming, but which design is likely to be quieter? Which monolithic design is better?
User avatar
#93
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 859
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 10:54 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Post by #93 »

I would choose option A. I have heard some very good sounding cans with very simple monolithic baffle systems. The biggest advantage, to me, would be the ease of removing the baffle stack for cleaning. It is mighty hard to pull a K baffle out the back of a tube and the crud from a 22 glues them in place. The mono stack would also scrape the interior walls clean as it was unscrewed making removal even easier.

.125 wall thickness is way more than you need. If your skills are up to the task .050 will do you nicely.
This message has been approved by #93
Cypher214
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:32 am

Post by Cypher214 »

#93 wrote:

.125 wall thickness is way more than you need. If your skills are up to the task .050 will do you nicely.
Good point.

With the wall being stainless, it definitely doesn't need to be so thick. This is my first self-built can so I'm still unsure about some of the measurements.
User avatar
Mtdew
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 1:06 am

Post by Mtdew »

I'm not a fan of a SBR length integral. Is there a reason you dont want to make a 5" barrel and a 5" thread on can?

Your 10" integral will sound the same as a 5" thread on since your baffle stack and effective barrel length are the same. Either way it's two stamps and with the thread on option you can swap cans between hosts.

If you still want to go with the 10" integral use M baffles if you want ease of dissasembly. Any stack w/ "open" (k's, omegas, mono) sides will eventally lead up and stick (unless you run a huge clearence.) Also with it being a integral you can't press out the stack from the chamber end, so you are stuck trying devise a reliable way to pull it out.
Cypher214
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:32 am

Post by Cypher214 »

The main reason I want an integral can is because I'll have to cut down the stock.

If I use a 5.5" barrel with detachable can, I'll have to cut the stock VERY short in order to access the can. With an integral can, I can leave the foreend longer.
jandbj
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 1:55 pm
Location: Southwestern NH

Post by jandbj »

http://e-gunparts.com/DisplayAd.asp?chr ... erSKU=&MC=

Image

One of these stocks allows for a very short barrel and decent length fore end on a 10/22. They are also exceptionally comfortable and ergonomic in use.

Image
Post Reply