Best .223 baffle design

cal50 · Post by **cal50** » Sun Mar 01, 2009 6:10 pm

What is the best baffle to use for a .223 can ? I am flexible on tube diameter and length. I was trying to stay around 8" in length and a 1 1/2 to 1 5/8 diameter tube.

I was going to take advantage of the AAC free can for a tattoo but they pulled the plug early so it's back to the original plan of the form 1 build.

RavenArmament · Post by **RavenArmament** » Sun Mar 01, 2009 6:26 pm

Different designs have different trade offs. I prefer monolithic baffle stacks, but that's just me.

cal50 · Post by **cal50** » Sun Mar 01, 2009 6:41 pm

I am liking the appearance of the monolithic stack. I was curious how it compares to a "K" baffle in the same given volume / tube length.

Conqueror · Post by **Conqueror** » Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:23 pm

Ks are heavy. Use cones for a centerfire rifle.

sub-sonic · Post by **sub-sonic** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:55 am

I always use M baffles. k baffles are 2x more efficent than M baffles but you can get 3 M's in the same space as a K.
so you can have 4 K's but you can get 12 M baffles in the same space for the same weight so (value of a M is 0.5 compared to a K) 4x1 is 4 and 12x.5 is 6 so for the same space the M's are equal to 6 k baffels

pneumagger · Post by **pneumagger** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:15 am

sub-sonic wrote:I always use M baffles. k baffles are 2x more efficent than M baffles but you can get 3 M's in the same space as a K.
so you can have 4 K's but you can get 12 M baffles in the same space for the same weight so (value of a M is 0.5 compared to a K) 4x1 is 4 and 12x.5 is 6 so for the same space the M's are equal to 6 k baffels

Nicely summed up!

RavenArmament · Post by **RavenArmament** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:52 am

cal50 wrote:I am liking the appearance of the monolithic stack. I was curious how it compares to a "K" baffle in the same given volume / tube length.

The weight depends on how much material your are removing from the round rod. The mono stack is easier to machine than a K baffle. If you are using K baffles or M baffles they need spacers or welds or both. I'm not a fan of welds. I don't trust them. A lot of companies use welds with great results. I just don't like them and don't use them.

Fudmottin · Post by **Fudmottin** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:30 pm

Freak, do you have a drawing you can post of your favorite monobaffle design so far? One for 5.56 or 7.62 NATO if you got it.

So far, I've found the offset cylinder monos most interesting. They look like they would create a lot of air rotation in the primary chambers. Any time the gas has to reverse direction has to boost efficiency.

At least I think it does.

sub-sonic, where did you get the numbers on the relative efficiencies of K vs M? I found that very interesting. If the numbers are indeed true, your argument for the M over the K is quite compelling. M is certainly a heck of a lot simpler than a K.

But what about cones? Can't you have the same number of cones as Ms? How would that change the formula?

RavenArmament · Post by **RavenArmament** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:04 pm

I'm more of a pencil and paper guy. My R&D machinist is the CAD expert.

Most of my designs are simple shapes utilizing circles in a row, figure 8s in a row, or ovals in a row. I'm trying squares and different angles of ovals (bigger front to back, side to side, and angled at degrees).

Fudmottin · Post by **Fudmottin** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:04 am

Well you could always have your CAD guy print out a rendering or scan in a drawing.

Do you have the appropriate test equipment to see which designs are more effective? Or do you rely on the M1 Ear?

In case you want to get really fancy, are you familiar with the Menger sponge? I've been wondering for some time if a fractal design would be effective. The Menger sponge is based on a cube. It would have to be adapted to work for a cylinder.

Conqueror · Post by **Conqueror** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:52 am

freakshow10mm wrote:I'm not a fan of welds. I don't trust them. A lot of companies use welds with great results. I just don't like them and don't use them.

Uh... what? That's like saying "A lot of car companies are using fuel injectors now, but I don't like them and don't trust them, so I'm going to use carburetors on all my cans." Yeah, it will get by, but your solution is heavier and clunkier.

sub-sonic · Post by **sub-sonic** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:27 am

freakshow10mm wrote:
I'm not a fan of welds. I don't trust them. A lot of companies use welds with great results. I just don't like them and don't use them.

Uh... what? That's like saying "A lot of car companies are using fuel injectors now, but I don't like them and don't trust them, so I'm going to use carburetors on all my cans." Yeah, it will get by, but your solution is heavier and clunkier.

when I read that originaly I traslated it to "I cant weld for s--t so I dont like welds because I am afraid of my own work"

I realy think this is a case of dont open your mouth and look stupid its not good for business

Fudmottin · Post by **Fudmottin** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:12 am

I didn't rally want to say anything RE welding.

If I had a nice lathe and TIG, I would press the stack of spacers and baffles together, along with the caps, and chuck them up and run the lathe at an appropriate speed to fusion weld the hole mess together. This would also create the outer tube unless I cared to put a sleeve over the assembly afterwards.

I might even rig the welder nozzle to a tool head so that I could do the whole job hands off.

The final result would be a monolithic can.

This of course would be after practicing with the equipment I don't currently own or have access to.

RavenArmament · Post by **RavenArmament** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:51 am

sub-sonic wrote: when I read that originaly I traslated it to "I cant weld for s--t so I dont like welds because I am afraid of my own work"

I realy think this is a case of dont open your mouth and look stupid its not good for business

I can MIG fairly well. Never had the money for TIG so I have no experience there.

Welds create a point of failure. Even if done properly and with perfect penetration there still exits a point of failure. I don't trust welds for critical applications where the liability falls on my company. Welding up some lead ingot molds, fixing a hitch on a tractor, reattaching a door latch on a vehicle, sure. Those are non critical. Do other companies use welds in suppressors? Yes. Do other companies in other industries use welds in areas that carry far greater risk to the end user? Yes. Good for them.

I also don't like sealed suppressors either. I don't see the point. All my suppressors disassemble for maintenance. Therefore I don't weld them shut. I guess I'm just an idiot/moron/douchebag. Carry on. Don't mind me.

SigOwner · Post by **SigOwner** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 10:40 am

freakshow10mm wrote:
sub-sonic wrote: when I read that originaly I traslated it to "I cant weld for s--t so I dont like welds because I am afraid of my own work"

I realy think this is a case of dont open your mouth and look stupid its not good for business
I can MIG fairly well. Never had the money for TIG so I have no experience there.

Welds create a point of failure. Even if done properly and with perfect penetration there still exits a point of failure. I don't trust welds for critical applications where the liability falls on my company. Welding up some lead ingot molds, fixing a hitch on a tractor, reattaching a door latch on a vehicle, sure. Those are non critical. Do other companies use welds in suppressors? Yes. Do other companies in other industries use welds in areas that carry far greater risk to the end user? Yes. Good for them.

I also don't like sealed suppressors either. I don't see the point. All my suppressors disassemble for maintenance. Therefore I don't weld them shut. I guess I'm just an idiot/moron/douchebag. Carry on. Don't mind me.

An appropriate weld will never fail. The material right next to the weld will fail because of slight additional stresses that are caused by the weld. You are right in saying that welds create a point for failure because they do create a point for stress concentrations, but the reduction in strength is very small. You can make a much lighter and much stronger can by welding, you just have to take into account the slight weakness that welding creates and use slightly heavier materials. The can will still be lighter.

Aren't you the guy that is doing prototyping of people's designs? If you're providing a service like this you should probably get a TIG welder and hire somebody that can operate it very well. Overlooking welded can designs is probably a big mistake.

RavenArmament · Post by **RavenArmament** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 10:53 am

When I can afford to buy and pay a welder I might be able to offer that service if people really want it. However, my production suppressors will be weld free.

pneumagger · Post by **pneumagger** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:31 pm

I don't think welding is remotely necessary on a monolithic core suppressor.
The core contains all forces/pressures along the bore axis. The outer tube contains all circumferential stresses.
The only thing a threaded portion should do on a montlithic silencer is keep the tube from sliding off.
Since the forces each componet is containing are orthogonal to one another welding or overly robust connection methods are not needed.

AAC might only weld around the tube on thier monolithic .338 suppressor, but added strength from that is most likely negligable.

RavenArmament · Post by **RavenArmament** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:31 pm

Thanks for that. However, it is quite apparent that unless a suppressor manufacturer has welds in their suppressors, they are doomed to fail.

Conqueror · Post by **Conqueror** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:35 pm

Not true at all, and I don't think anyone suggested that. There are many companies making non-welded rifle silencers. What we are suggesting - and what is borne out when you examine those companies' silencers - is that your non-welded cans will be a good deal heavier and probably a bit louder than the welded cans, since you have to take up volume with extra material on a non-welded can. We are also suggesting that it is totally ludicrous to suggest that welded silencers are somehow less trustworthy or more dangerous to the end user. If you believe that, Reed Knight would like a word with you.

Fudmottin · Post by **Fudmottin** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:50 pm

I wonder what kind of feedback I would get if I found a way to glue a suppressor together.

Ablation perhaps?

befu · Post by **befu** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:31 pm

Not glue but what about silver solder with stainless steel? I have done that on one of my cans. Works great.

Of course, have to watch the rating of your solder, I do not get them glowing redy hot either!

Hmm, not welded or free of "permanent" attachment. Must be the worse of both worlds. I have now managed to alienate everybody!

Brian

pneumagger · Post by **pneumagger** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:44 am

befu wrote:Not glue but what about silver solder with stainless steel? I have done that on one of my cans. Works great.

Of course, have to watch the rating of your solder, I do not get them glowing redy hot either!

Hmm, not welded or free of "permanent" attachment. Must be the worse of both worlds. I have now managed to alienate everybody!

Brian

maybe on a .22lr or other pistol can.

tylermtech · Post by **tylermtech** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:12 pm

Silver soldering is really brazing. Solder is what you do to copper pipes. A good braze can be as good as a weld. Some jet engine turbines are brazed, and this is a much more demanding service than most welds will ever see. You can make a good career out of high tech brazing if you are skilled and knowledgeable.

I think that you could make a good high temperature silencer that was brazed, but the engineering and equipment outlay would most likely be far more costly than it was worth.

cal50 · Post by **cal50** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 11:49 pm

tylermtech wrote:Silver soldering is really brazing. Solder is what you do to copper pipes. A good braze can be as good as a weld. Some jet engine turbines are brazed, and this is a much more demanding service than most welds will ever see. You can make a good career out of high tech brazing if you are skilled and knowledgeable.

Brazing works but your putting a lot of extra heat into your parts (IMHO). I have brazed and TIG welded a lot of high pressure connectors and tubing with no problems. The thin walled tubing I prefer to braze and the thicker stuff I always TIG weld it. Using both methods when a chamfer is cut into the tube and end cap,brazed or welded and faced off no ridge or pressure ring can be detected from use. Braze or solder needs surface area for good adhesion and flow. Welds penetrate.

Conqueror · Post by **Conqueror** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:05 am

Fudmottin wrote:I wonder what kind of feedback I would get if I found a way to glue a suppressor together.

Ablation perhaps?

Lots of suppressors are glued together. QSM, for example, uses adhesive on all their cans.

Best .223 baffle design

Best .223 baffle design

Not glue

Re: Not glue