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.
I have been thinking of a few ideas for my glock17. I want to be able to keep the sight picture without a tube in front of it, so I thought of a box type suppressor. What do you think?
Should I add a little curve to the angled part of the baffle? Do you think that those three holes at the bottom would be enough? They are .2" Dia. The main bore is .4" is that about right for a 9mm?
I heard that suppressors don't work so well with browning actions and that you need something special for them, could anyone please explain this to me?
I think an eccentric round can gives greater volume relative to weight of materials.
I guess that I don't understand the drawing. Why do you think the gas will flow back thru the 3 holes at the bottom of the flat baffle? It looks to me like the ramps will mostly funnel the pressure stream right through the bore hole. The slant starts at the farthest point from the gas, and there is really nowhere for it to go except thru the bore hole. The area beneath the slant looks like dead space to me.
Did you consider reversing the slants, so the gas pushes at the top of the can and goes to the bottom?
Ah-hah, that makes sense, thanks for clarifying.. Wouldn't you want a hole in the ramp to help with gas flow, since you won't get any spiral movement the way you might with a full mouseholed K-baffle?
It sure seems to me that an eccentric can needs to work to get the gas moving to and around the bottom of the can, away from the bore hole. How about raising the ramp so it goes from top to bottom and boring it also for the bullet but otherwise leaving intact, so that the gas hits the flat baffle, then the slant baffle where you might get a turbulence chamber from down-directed gas hitting gas from the 3 bleed holes. Might require fewer bleed holes in that case.
Looks good. I agree that the angle baffle should at least extend to the top of can. Also you may need to include a bosster of some sort unless you are planning on making it very light.
Another thing to consider is if fired wet the fluids will have no way to drain except thru the rear... So if somebody dips the can in water then will have ot remove it to drian it out the rear. Otherwise as designed it will hold LOTS of water. Could be a bad thing.
CH
OK, so maybe some holes in the front? Can anyone give me some more information on the booster you were talking about. That will help with the glock functioning, right?
Tanasoo wrote:OK, so maybe some holes in the front? Can anyone give me some more information on the booster you were talking about. That will help with the glock functioning, right?
Thank you.
Here is a good picture of a booster out of the back of a TROS can(THX PCARMS)
As far as your design this is what I pictured from the suggestion made...
Thanks, From what I gather from the picture of the booster, it just allows the barrel to recoil without the whole suppressor? So the suppressor is essentially free floating and the spring holds it in place normally and dampens it when recoiling? Like bike suspension. Should be simple enough to incorporate...
And yes, the design that you posted was what I thought too, but I was wondering. Should the baffles have holes to connect all of the chambers (excluding the bore hole) or should they be "sealed" from each other?
Thanks for all the help so far guys, I know this has saved my allot of money in R&D!
Nice ongoing project you have there Tanasoo, I'm getting excited about how this turns out myself.
One question though, if you plan on threading the barrel and suppressor as a means of attachment, how do you ensure that the suppressor locks with the barrel perpendicularly with respect to the upright pistol?
I am actually planning on a QD mechanism that will most likely rotate 90* with a few lugs, but I might think up of a levered action, depends on what space I have. I'm planning on threading a glock barrel like in the post above for an adapter to facilitate this, as long as I can remove the barrel with it on, or I may just machine the barrel itself. I haven't really gotten that far, right now I'm working on the booster mechanism, and the other things I posted above.
As I understand it, boosters are considerably trickier in application than they are in concept. Finding the right amount of spring tension to let the barrel pull back enough while not beating up the can/slide/frame is supposed to be a narrow window. I don't know what the other hurdles are, but I imagine the big suppressor mfg guys spend a lot of time getting it right. And they still can be a PITA.
Can you wind your own springs?
This was what I was thinking, I just copied C_H's diagram and used Paint to make the "holes". It seems like if you try this design, it'd be easier to add holes than to fill them up, and maybe pressure will have dropped by the last one or two baffles so that no holes are needed. But if you ever plan to use water, they probably all need holes.
My concern would be that all those 45* angles are wastes of space unless there is a port there to promote flow. I still think it would be better to do an eccentric round can. Could still use this design, just round instead of square.
I'd also point out that I've never made a complex can.
Humbly,
Ben
[/URL]
Last edited by Ben B. on Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The problem with an offset round can is manufacturing. Machining the baffles would be a nightmare! With this design I can simply wire EDM out the baffles and then drill the holes. I think I need to sit down and really think about the baffle shape. Are there any rules of thumb when it comes to baffle design, or is it just trial and error?
Tanasoo wrote:The problem with an offset round can is manufacturing. Machining the baffles would be a nightmare! With this design I can simply wire EDM out the baffles and then drill the holes. I think I need to sit down and really think about the baffle shape. Are there any rules of thumb when it comes to baffle design, or is it just trial and error?
I hear you, gotta go with what you have. I guess I was thinking to turn flat round baffles, and cookie-cut the oblong slant baffles from thick sheet aluminum, angle-cut sections of tube for spacers, then assemble everything and drill the eccentric bore holes through the whole can at once. I don't know what machining steps/hurdles that involves for the eccentric drilling/boring.
I hope you make it in whatever form, I'd love to hear where you end up taking it and how it works.
This morning I recalled the design of the MP5sd's suppressor, and I made a few little changes to my previous baffle design:
What do you think?
Also, What do you think of this one? Do you think that the extra little part would add anything worthwhile?
*edit* I just got a thought about the hole under the main bore. Would gas from the previous stage go through the holes in the bottom and out that hole? Would that be bad?
Looks good.
I would suggest making sure that the extra holse you added do not line up with the existing ones in the slant baffle. You will jsut create a pass thru for hte gas not really slowing it down until it gets to the end of the can.
The other thing to think about is that as the bullet passes past the vert baffle it will send gas into the chamber between the flat and slant baffles.. The port at the bottom was added to send the gas up the next flat baffle interferring with the gas in that chamber. If you ad to manny ports you get gas only moving forward which will result in a louder can.
If you have the ability, and means I would suggest building both. Cant have to many designs.
When you get to the attachment part, lmk. I have some ideas.
Tanasoo wrote:This morning I recalled the design of the MP5sd's
*edit* I just got a thought about the hole under the main bore. Would gas from the previous stage go through the holes in the bottom and out that hole? Would that be bad?
I like it. I dont think the extra oart will hurt anything other then adding more weight.
The ports are a tricky thing as mentioned. Getting the gas to cross its self will slow it down. If you just trap it, once the chamber if full it doesnt work as well. If you port too much, as I stated it results in a louder can. That said I think a couple small ports at hte base of hte slanted break woudl work best. That woudl be my guess. Maybe one of hte mfg would be willing to chime in.....or steal your idea!
I'm having fun with this "armchair baffle designer" thread, so here goes...
It seems to me the point of the slant baffle is to direct some gas down and away from the bore hole. For that reason, I'd try a top to bottom slant baffle, to have as much angle available to direct gas to the bottom. A hole near the bottom of the slant baffle that is vertically drilled through the slant (90* to the can) would redirect gas up so that it should cross the main gas jet. That would promote both movement through the bottom of the can, and some crossing effect, as well as the "down and up/down and up" movement that seems cool about this. This up/down might be accentuated with flat baffles that alternate in having the bottom ports.
It's all just BS until actually tried, tho. I wonder if such a design has been attempted before?
The 2 way slant looks like decreased volume, with increased material, and therefore more weight.
I swear, some day far from this one, I'm going to have to get the gear and the form 1 and try some of this out.
Ben B. wrote:I'm having fun with this "armchair baffle designer" thread, so here goes.........
...... I'd try a top to bottom slant baffle, to have as much angle available to direct gas to the bottom. A hole near the bottom of the slant baffle that is vertically drilled through the slant (90* to the can) would redirect gas up so that it should cross the main gas jet. That would promote both movement through the bottom of the can, and some crossing effect, as well as the "down and up/down and up" movement that seems cool about this. .......
Ben
Yea, kinda what I was getting at with the model I posted.
I aggree though, its all just ideas unilt one gets built. If I had access to the gear I would be all over this!
[cerberus] wrote:I need to figure out how to do flow works in solidworks. once you get that you could simulate the gass flow.
But can you simulate in a meaningful way for silencers? In other words, does the model provide information that is more predictive than looking at the design? I've heard about modeling from a few different folks, sometimes with pretty advanced computing resources, and have wondered if the end product from flow modelling actually saves R&D time, or adds to it.
The fun of doing it would be a separate issue, of course.
well from what little expiernce i have had with it, it will model entry and exit velocities, presure drops, temps, turbulence, and where gets the most flow.
it isn't a replacement for actualy building and testing, but it cuts down the number you need to build.
Tanasoo wrote:This morning I recalled the design of the MP5sd's suppressor, and I made a few little changes to my previous baffle design:
What do you think?
Also, What do you think of this one? Do you think that the extra little part would add anything worthwhile?
*edit* I just got a thought about the hole under the main bore. Would gas from the previous stage go through the holes in the bottom and out that hole? Would that be bad?
Your first design in this post is very good. It is a quasi-K baffle. I would eliminate the extra ports in the bottom of the baffle, and let the top port fill the chamber. This will allow gas to enter through the top port, and to deflect gas that enters the main chamber in front of the baffle. This deflection will cause turbulance and help with sound reduction. The other ports you have in the bottom of the baffle will only allow the chamber to pressurize too quickly. This will reduce the deflection available from the top port. Am I making any sense at all?
[/URL]
