Bore Diameters - Stepped or No

[SSDVC]

OK, I been looking at this site for awhile and have tried to read (a lot) before I asked any questions and have done some searches (with hundreds of post results), so I am sorry if I am asking a few questions that may have been asked/answered before.

First, I have read that stepping the bore diameter throughout all the baffles is a good thing, to prevent internal strikes. If that is true, could someone give the the bore size and step sizes for a .223, a .40 and a 9mm.........Please.

How much more noise is associated with the stepping of the bore vs a straight through, one size bore? Will it diminish turbulence, which would increase noise, yes?

Secondly, if I build a "can", would it be possible to have internals/caps for, say a .223 and a .40, for the same serialized "can"? Is it legal or do I have to build two separate ones. I do not want to screw around here, so whatever the law is is what I need to comply with.

Third, up to what caliber can I make the "can" a take a part, for cleaning purposes. I don't want anything to come apart, ever.

Finally, I see lots of pros and cons for aluminum vs S/S. What is the strongest aluminum "can" material I can get, and up to what caliber can I use aluminum both inside and out.

Thank you all.

[SSDVC]

Also, would it be possible to make a can out of carbon fiber for the main body and aluminum for the end caps and main body?

Just a newbie thought.

[mx201er]

the ATF sees any part of a suppressor as a suppressor, meaning there can me no parts that do not fit in it. No extra end caps or baffles or tube etc.. you can technically build a .40 can and use it on whatever guns you please, but shooting a .223 through a .45 hole would not offer much suppression.
I did not use stepped bore myself but it depends on the length and your machining skills. A very long suppressor is more likely to have baffle strikes so it may be a good idea, hopefully somebody with more personal experience on the topic has some answers for you

[SSDVC]

Ok, so no extra, differently bored baffles, got it. Separate cans and tax stamps.

Does caliber and subsequent DB reduction depend on length of the can and the number of baffles (say a standard "K" baffle)? For instance, would a 223 require more length and baffles then say a 9mm?

From what I have read, I believe that there is a break even point where length and baffle numbers will start to pose a diminishing return, more on bullet velocity than anything else. I am correct?

[mx201er]

to an extent the bigger the better. A .223 would need more internal volume than a 9mm pistol, because suppressors quiet a gunshot by slowing down the gas expansion and cooling the gas so it expands less. If you really wanted to be scientific about it I'm sure you could calculate the expansion of a certain amount of powder, subtract the volume of the barrel, and come up with an optimal can volume; but you can get good results just by looking around on here for a can the caliber you are looking for and doing one of similar length and diameter. keep in mind a monocore is typically going to have less volume inside than the same can with cone baffles, because there is more material inside and less space for air to expand.

I don't get peeved about people asking the same old questions on here because the search function does suck on here and I was in your shoes and know what it is like, but just reading the first few pages on each section can give you a lot of valuable information.

As for the main whole, If you are doing a 6" pistol or .22 can you really do not need stepped bore diameter, maybe if you wanted to do a 10" .223 can it would be a good option. You do not want a .35 hole for a .22 rifle because instead of slowing the gas down as the bullet goes through each baffle like it is supposed to, the gas will just go around the bullet. I drilled my .22 can to .25, most people would not go that close, about .05~.07 over is common i believe. It all depends how confident you are of your machining skills

[mx201er]

a way to make your machining more accurate is to ensure the can butts up against something when threaded on. if you are putting it on a thick barrel you would turn down the end and thread the barrel 1/2 28 (i believe is standard thread) and have a nice face where the threads end so the suppressor can securely tighten against the barrel, keeping it on straight.
For putting it on a pistol where the barrel is already .5" you would want to make it so the barrel butts up against the face on the inside of the female threads in the suppressor.

do you see what I mean? if it threads on and has nothing to tighten against your weakest point is going to be the threads, and if you bump it or even turn it a little farther one time it could change how straight it is and cause a baffle strike. We are talking a couple thousandths of an inch when you extend the suppressor out there ten inches. So make sure there is a flat face on the suppressor up against a flat face on the barrel to keep things straight and aligned

[jjgow]

Also, would it be possible to make a can out of carbon fiber for the main body and aluminum for the end caps and main body?

Just a newbie thought.

You could

BUT

A company called CCI made a licensed copy of a Brugger & Thomet suppressor, and it was as you said; carbon fiber tube with metal endcaps. They had some issues with the tube and caps separating. Maybe you could do a better job, but engraving might pose a problem and it's probably easier to get metal stock in the size you need than it is to get appropriate carbon fiber. Best to leave the experimentation to manufacturers, because they have as many second tries as they'd like if they screw up, whereas you may just be left with a disappointing end result.

[SSDVC]

Thanks for the replies. I did read a bit before asking questions and tried several searches, but it is not easy on here (when is it ever easy anyway?).

So, for a .223, 9mm or .40, what would be an ideal step in bore sizes. AND, should I do just one step up in bore size after the first baffle or keep stepping the hole size a bit at a time for each baffle (and should I do it for each caliber)?

I am correct to assume that too many holes between baffles would mitigate some of the noise reduction?

Looks like the carbon fiber can is out. It would look great and I think there could be a decent weight savings. Bummer.

Legal question. If I want to experiment with a few different types of baffles (and just one can), such as different pressure hole sizes and shapes, could I make a few sets of baffles for one can, destroying each set as I go (after recording my data) or am I stuck with the registered baffle set made with the can #??

Thanks.

[SSDVC]

OK, after reading some more, I got my answer to the legal question, which is a flat out no. No extra baffles or swapping out sets per can. Man, this stuff is a little ridiculous.

[Twinsen]

OK, after reading some more, I got my answer to the legal question, which is a flat out no. No extra baffles or swapping out sets per can. Man, this stuff is a little ridiculous.

Yes. A little. The idea that you can go to jail for owning a washer is a little ridiculous. The wonders of unchecked government power.

[mx201er]

well i guess it depends on what kind of suppressor, The ATF says you cannot replace the main part, which would be the stamped tube for most suppressors, its kind of a debate on monocores. Other than that it is, in my understanding, perfectly legal to replace baffles in a suppressor, but the ones taken out have to be cut into four pieces before any more baffles can be manufactured, and at no time may you have more baffles than can fit in the can.

correct me if I am wrong but as far as I know there is nothing wrong with replacing parts in a suppressor as long as the old ones are destroyed first, and the suppressor is not made longer

[SSDVC]

I'll err on the side of caution. I have a slight aversion to prison for some reason.

[Bowen1911]

or you could go through the steps for the 07 FFL and the 02 SOT, and try whatever you want as much as you want

[SSDVC]

Yeah, like a form 1 isn't enough paperwork as it is? I'd rather go to get my teeth pulled !

[RavenArmament]

I'm a home based FFL/SOT manufacturer and it was easy as can be. The easy part is my state and village have no zoning and no business regulations regarding this industry, so I'm good to go. Nice being able to get an FFL/SOT at home to keep overhead low while R&D takes place, then when production begins, move the FFL to a commercial shop space and go from there.

The FFL/SOT was probably the easiest government process to go through and I've been through several.

[Tanasoo]

I'm a home based FFL/SOT manufacturer and it was easy as can be. The easy part is my state and village have no zoning and no business regulations regarding this industry, so I'm good to go. Nice being able to get an FFL/SOT at home to keep overhead low while R&D takes place, then when production begins, move the FFL to a commercial shop space and go from there.

The FFL/SOT was probably the easiest government process to go through and I've been through several.

I agree completely. There is also so much time saved rather than waisting it on waiting for the forms to clear for each prototype. And even if you need to pay the $1000 SOT, you still pay for it in only 5 prototypes.