Three .45 baffles compared SxS today.

Richard/SIA · **Posted:** Thu Aug 25, 2011 8:50 pm

Took three identical Enfield .45 SC Carbines out to test fire today.

The only real difference was the baffle design.
Each had six baffles.
The guns were mixed around in transport and no effort was made to record which gun had which baffle design in it.
So this was a blind test, I had to pull out a baffle afterward to know which was what design.

One set used the 45º "M" baffles I have used for years.
Another had a set of 60º stepped cone baffles with three steps.
The last set were 60º stepped cone with three equal square steps.

I enlisted the aid of three young guys to fire the guns while I listened, they also acted as an independent jury to confirm the results.
All were happy to shoot my guns and ammo. :lol:

I am unsure if I should be pleased or disappointed with the unanimously agreed result.

Best suppression, my original 45º "M" baffle!

Second, the 60º angled stepped cone.

The 60º square stepped cone was a close third.

So now I want to try some modifications to the 60º stepped cone baffles. ( I have several on hand to modify)

Any suggestions to improve the 60º stepped cone?

Goal is to make my product quieter if possible, without having to get too exotic on the baffles.

I may try making the steps a little deeper on the 60º cones.

ghostdog662 · **Posted:** Fri Aug 26, 2011 9:27 am

Nice testing, do you see any difference in accuracy between the three?

jreinke · **Posted:** Fri Aug 26, 2011 9:37 am

Pictures?

Mageever · **Joined:** Sun Jan 08, 2006 11:03 pm **Posts:** 442

Richard/SIA wrote:

Took three identical Enfield .45 SC Carbines out to test fire today.

...

Best suppression, my original 45º "M" baffle!

...

Any suggestions to improve the 60º stepped cone?

Sure. Make them 45º!

OK, joking aside. Before you make a change, make for darn sure you didn't have any confounding factors. The typical things I would look for in your case would be baffle/bore ID fitup. Slight variations can have a big effect. That leads to the second: your M-baffles may just be well sealed up with lead and carbon.

If they were all well cleaned and had the same precise fit in the tube then I'd begin by changing the angle of your step or getting some cross-jet features after the blast baffle. Also, I imagine a stepped 60º baffle could take up more internal volume which will have a big impact on performance. Look to reduce how much internal volume your baffles take up--especially if you are not relying on crossjet features.

Richard/SIA · **Posted:** Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:33 pm

Perhaps I should have mentioned, all baffles are new, fit and hole size are the same.

I would like to experiment with some cross-holes, the stepped baffles are thick enough.
Not sure where and how large to cut them.

I will try to post a pic later.

LavaRed · **Posted:** Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:10 am

Try parabolic baffles. They'll be awesome. I promise.

Richard/SIA · **Posted:** Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:00 am

I would LIKE something a little easier to make than the "M" baffles.

The step cone type can be done in one operation, the M's take two.

Found your thread on parabolic baffles.
Looks like two operations to make on CNC.
Might use a two-flute ball end mill on one side, have to program the curved cuts for the other.
I will want something of a rim to prevent their tipping on insertion.

I'm also going to try some 60º cones without steps.
Took pics of what I tested but I'm haveing trouble uploading them as my new computer is not fully set up yet.

BELT_FED · **Joined:** Sun Jan 02, 2011 7:19 pm **Posts:** 71

Id really like to see you stack 2 more Ms down the tube to see if it made a difference(personal project). Or maybe even try some mouse holes in the Ms.

As far as the stepped cones go, I bet puting them in a co-axis tube would help but would be more work. Or maybe try making them deeper so that the gas has to come back further to vent threw the bore. If that makes since?

Shift1 · **Posted:** Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:23 am

I have been under the impression that 60 degree cones work better with pressure. It has been suggested that a HEMS style baffle is more efficient for larger bores. As the Delisle Carbine is one of the quietest integrally suppressed weapons of the the last 60 years, it does not to my knowledge use a cone type system. The HEMS is based on a rather steep cone and has porting on the side of the cone area. Have you seen the pics of the HEMS system in the Baffle Pic thread? It may be a good fit for your project.

LavaRed · **Posted:** Mon Aug 29, 2011 12:02 am

Richard/SIA wrote:

I would LIKE something a little easier to make than the "M" baffles.

The step cone type can be done in one operation, the M's take two.

Found your thread on parabolic baffles.
Looks like two operations to make on CNC.
Might use a two-flute ball end mill on one side, have to program the curved cuts for the other.
I will want something of a rim to prevent their tipping on insertion.

I'm also going to try some 60º cones without steps.
Took pics of what I tested but I'm haveing trouble uploading them as my new computer is not fully set up yet.

Mine were stamped out of 1/16" steel sheet, bored, and then welded onto the rods. Stamping is a very efficient manufacturing method once you have made your die with the proper parabolic curve.

Richard/SIA · **Posted:** Fri Sep 02, 2011 11:27 pm

OK, more experiments today.

Cut the steps deeper on 60º cones, which meant one less step.
After firing it was clear the deeper cut is more effective.
But they still were not as quiet as my 45º "M" baffles!

So I took a set of baffles to 45º, no steps, making them nearly the same as the "M" baffles except for the arrangement of the flange.
These are identical for sound with my 45º "M" baffles, hoorah!

This actually makes them almost identical to the 45º M's, which were 45º on both sides, the new units are 45º upstream and 60º downstream.
This lets me use a forming tool I had made on the downstream side, and hopefully a LH cutter on the upstream.
I'm hoping they can now be made in a single operation instead of two, significantly reducing machine time.

So far 45º upstream side appears to work best for .45 in a 1.50" ID tube.
Next up, maybe a cut at the cone tip, or a Dater Hole at the cone base?

Bandit · **Joined:** Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:26 pm **Posts:** 244

Richard/SIA wrote:

OK, more experiments today.
So I took a set of baffles to 45º, no steps, making them nearly the same as the "M" baffles except for the arrangement of the flange.
These are identical for sound with my 45º "M" baffles, hoorah!

This actually makes them almost identical to the 45º M's, which were 45º on both sides, the new units are 45º upstream and 60º downstream.

So confusing.
You saying a plain 45º baffle works the same as the 45º dome shaped baffle ?
What is upstream and downstream ? Please explain in normal baffle lingo.
Maybe 45º inside and 60º outside ?
Is the flange the same as a spacer ?
How long on the spacer ?

.

Richard/SIA · **Posted:** Sat Sep 03, 2011 12:28 am

Bandit wrote:

Richard/SIA wrote:

OK, more experiments today.
So I took a set of baffles to 45º, no steps, making them nearly the same as the "M" baffles except for the arrangement of the flange.
These are identical for sound with my 45º "M" baffles, hoorah!

This actually makes them almost identical to the 45º M's, which were 45º on both sides, the new units are 45º upstream and 60º downstream.

So confusing.
You saying a plain 45º baffle works the same as the 45º dome shaped baffle ?
What is upstream and downstream ? Please explain in normal baffle lingo.
Maybe 45º inside and 60º outside ?
Is the flange the same as a spacer ?
How long on the spacer ?
.

OK.
Chamber side = upstream.
Muzzle end = downstream.

So the 45º chamber side is the same as my old "M" baffles, the 60º muzzle side is new, a default due to my new form tool.
The flange acts as a partial spacer, it also prevents the baffles tipping when being inserted.
Spacer sleeves are around .800" long, six baffles used.

I have not yet tried to fab any dome shaped baffles.

Bandit · **Joined:** Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:26 pm **Posts:** 244

Richard/SIA wrote:

I have not yet tried to fab any dome shaped baffles.

The middle dark baffles looked dome shaped to me some reason. Nice to know they are 45 as they are easier to make.
Let us know what works best and some some vids please.

.

Richard/SIA · **Posted:** Mon Nov 14, 2011 1:36 am

Regards more baffles, it may be counterintuitive, but fewer are quieter!

Tried several variations when I first started, from 4-10 baffles.
Six appears to be the magic number for my 1.50" inside diameter and 16.00" tube length.

A significant portion of the 16.00" tube sits over a ported barrel and some details in the expansion chamber area.
The barrel is only ported to bleed off pressure, it is not intended to reduce velocity.
16.00" tube to keep it all a single stamp.

LavaRed · **Posted:** Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:30 am

Richard/SIA wrote:

Regards more baffles, it may be counterintuitive, but fewer are quieter!

Tried several variations when I first started, from 4-10 baffles.
Six appears to be the magic number for my 10.50" inside diameter and 16.00" tube length.

A significant portion of the 16.00" tube sits over a ported barrel and some details in the expansion chamber area.
The barrel is only ported to bleed off pressure, it is not intended to reduce velocity.
16.00" tube to keep it all a single stamp.

When I did my first .45 pistol suppressor, 3 was the magic number and quieter than 5. So I'm not surprised.

.

Capt. Link. · **Posted:** Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:50 am

You made some stepped cone baffles for a 9mm build are you going to try them in .45

Richard/SIA · **Posted:** Mon Nov 14, 2011 1:08 pm

Maybe, due to the larger thru-hole the steps have to be either shallower or fewer.

I have a couple of other ideas which take advantage of the extra thickness of the 45º/60º baffle body.

SilencerTalk

Three .45 baffles compared SxS today.

Who is online