"Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

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

User avatar
PaulNoiseLess
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:02 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

"Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

Post by PaulNoiseLess »

Hi,

Still working on details but almost done so time to share:

A Threadless Tube Suppressor using Baffles. Based on modified K-Baffles to fit the architecture: 6.5 inches long x 1 inch OD x 6.5 ounces.

Tube is Titanium (1 inch x 0.065 inches wall), Rear Cap and first Baffle are Stainless Steel and all other parts are Aluminum. Baffles are designed to use standard Drills, Taps and Dies.

Next step is to extend the Architecture to an Integral Barrel for Ruger 10/22. Finally, grow up to host up to 6.5x57.

Enjoy.

Paul

Image
The future is not waiting for us, it is waiting within us ...
User avatar
PaulNoiseLess
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:02 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: "Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

Post by PaulNoiseLess »

The future is not waiting for us, it is waiting within us ...
User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11357
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: "Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

Post by Bendersquint »

Thats some heavy tube for a 22lr! When you miss your shot you can beat whatever you were hoping to hit to death.

What is the advantage in this design? Normal silencer has 3 sets of threads this has at least 10? Isn't it supposed to be about making it easier than more difficult?
User avatar
wolf
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:32 am

Re: "Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

Post by wolf »

He want to use baffles , because the best performing can uses baffles
he wants to use a non threaded tube

but trying to have his cake , he just did eat it :wink:

he lost the volume

and no way its going to be easy to take apart
s--t will find its way into those many threads
User avatar
robpiat
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 5:34 pm
Location: Roswell,GA

Re: "Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

Post by robpiat »

What do you guys mean by threadless tube? Looks like there is all kinds of threads in there?
User avatar
wolf
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:32 am

Re: "Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

Post by wolf »

the tube is NOT threaded = threadless tube :wink:

no threads that can go fubar and easy to make
User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11357
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: "Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

Post by Bendersquint »

wolf wrote:the tube is NOT threaded = threadless tube :wink:

no threads that can go fubar and easy to make
As long as you don't count the numerous threads on every single baffles, thats alot more opportunities for the home suppressor builder to screw up than 4 threads of a conventional.......mount, tube(x2), and endcap.

Kinda like fixing a problem that doesn't exist.
User avatar
PaulNoiseLess
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:02 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: "Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

Post by PaulNoiseLess »

Hi,

Titanium tube is a requirement.

What I have shown in the Pic is the standalone version to be built for testing the Baffles. The final goal is to build an Integral Barrel, initially for 10/22. For that, they just want one point of trust - in the Barrel by means of muzzle threads – and 2 additional points of mount. The way to attach the Tube to the receiver is also very creative.

I’ll rather go with a MonoCore but they asked for Baffles. They have built several Tubeless Cans before and they do very well with the CNC’s. Don’t really know the reason for Baffles.

With regards to the Baffles, I still don’t know how they’ll perform. Empty volume is OK - in theory - and for 6.5 inches is similar (+- 2%) to most commercial Cans. Take apart is not an issue.

I have to build a prototype as soon as the Taps, Dies and Ti Tubes arrive.

So, that’s it. I agree it’s something more complex than it really should be but, you know … Just something new and different.

Paul
The future is not waiting for us, it is waiting within us ...
User avatar
wolf
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:32 am

Re: "Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

Post by wolf »

Bendersquint wrote:
wolf wrote:the tube is NOT threaded = threadless tube :wink:

no threads that can go fubar and easy to make
As long as you don't count the numerous threads on every single baffles, thats alot more opportunities for the home suppressor builder to screw up than 4 threads of a conventional.......mount, tube(x2), and endcap.

Kinda like fixing a problem that doesn't exist.
the Q was ``What do you guys mean by threadless tube? ``

The tube ,, the tube is easy to make =NO threads to screw up

the rest however is horror
User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11357
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: "Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

Post by Bendersquint »

wolf wrote:
the Q was ``What do you guys mean by threadless tube? ``

The tube ,, the tube is easy to make =NO threads to screw up

the rest however is horror
I know what the question was. :wink: And I totally agree with your last statement.
TinCanMan
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 9:58 am

Re: "Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

Post by TinCanMan »

Uhm, from looking at your baffles.... they look like they are self contained anyway, so why on earth would you put an additional tube around them?!
User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11357
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: "Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

Post by Bendersquint »

TinCanMan wrote:Uhm, from looking at your baffles.... they look like they are self contained anyway, so why on earth would you put an additional tube around them?!
In the US is would be a requirement.
Hatchetjoe
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 6:12 pm

Re: "Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

Post by Hatchetjoe »

This Idea was posted on here before, sans the exterior tube. Not sure what the title was so I could not find it for reference.
User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11357
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: "Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

Post by Bendersquint »

Hatchetjoe wrote:This Idea was posted on here before, sans the exterior tube. Not sure what the title was so I could not find it for reference.
I believe this is the result of the thread you are referencing, the need for a exterior tube made this can.

More I look at it the more i see that it over it would be ridiculously heavy, way over complicated and a ton of wasted space.
User avatar
PaulNoiseLess
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:02 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: "Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

Post by PaulNoiseLess »

Hi,

This bundle, standalone, doesn’t probably make sense. It’s just too much (not long, not heavy since it’s a mix of Ti, SS and Alu).

I have to test the Baffles as close as possible to the final configuration so, I need a Ti Tube and I do not have to pay for it so, welcome !. I know it’s easier to build it up as a pure Tubeless Can but it’s not the goal this time.

Best,

Paul
The future is not waiting for us, it is waiting within us ...
User avatar
LavaRed
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1830
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:11 pm
Location: CA

Re: "Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

Post by LavaRed »

Bendersquint wrote:
Hatchetjoe wrote:This Idea was posted on here before, sans the exterior tube. Not sure what the title was so I could not find it for reference.
I believe this is the result of the thread you are referencing, the need for a exterior tube made this can.

More I look at it the more i see that it over it would be ridiculously heavy, way over complicated and a ton of wasted space.
The attempt previously referenced is most likely mine. I one made a tubeless .22LR suppressor 2 years ago. And I can agree with Bender that it wasted too much volume (ended up being 1.25" OD with barely 1"ID), while at the same time being very heavy (8oz. Aluminium).

But my can had a specific purpose, namely, to get interior pressure readings and to determine the optimal amount of baffles and chamber and baffle spacing for .22LR, and so needed to be modular.
"There are no stupid questions, only stupid people". -MAJ MALFUNCTION
User avatar
PaulNoiseLess
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:02 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: "Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

Post by PaulNoiseLess »

The attempt previously referenced is most likely mine. I one made a tubeless .22LR suppressor 2 years ago. And I can agree with Bender that it wasted too much volume (ended up being 1.25" OD with barely 1"ID), while at the same time being very heavy (8oz. Aluminium).

But my can had a specific purpose, namely, to get interior pressure readings and to determine the optimal amount of baffles and chamber and baffle spacing for .22LR, and so needed to be modular.
Hi,

That’s a pretty big Can for .22LR :wink: . You don’t have to go that big.

A Tubeless Can for .22LR should be in the range of 6 inches long x 1 inch OD x 8.5 Baffles @ 135 grams (4.725 ounces). All Aluminum. Same empty Volume than the AAC Element, just little bit longer.

Paul
The future is not waiting for us, it is waiting within us ...
User avatar
LavaRed
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1830
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:11 pm
Location: CA

Re: "Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

Post by LavaRed »

PaulNoiseLess wrote:
The attempt previously referenced is most likely mine. I one made a tubeless .22LR suppressor 2 years ago. And I can agree with Bender that it wasted too much volume (ended up being 1.25" OD with barely 1"ID), while at the same time being very heavy (8oz. Aluminium).

But my can had a specific purpose, namely, to get interior pressure readings and to determine the optimal amount of baffles and chamber and baffle spacing for .22LR, and so needed to be modular.
Hi,

That’s a pretty big Can for .22LR :wink: . You don’t have to go that big.

A Tubeless Can for .22LR should be in the range of 6 inches long x 1 inch OD x 8.5 Baffles @ 135 grams (4.725 ounces). All Aluminum. Same empty Volume than the AAC Element, just little bit longer.

Paul
That one was just experimental. Yours is much more developed :)
"There are no stupid questions, only stupid people". -MAJ MALFUNCTION
User avatar
ghostdog662
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: TX

Re: "Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

Post by ghostdog662 »

So what exactly is gained by going with no tube? Besides weight?
LP
User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11357
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: "Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

Post by Bendersquint »

ghostdog662 wrote:So what exactly is gained by going with no tube? Besides weight?
Nothing but making it more difficult to built than needed.
User avatar
ghostdog662
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: TX

Re: "Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

Post by ghostdog662 »

Bendersquint wrote:
ghostdog662 wrote:So what exactly is gained by going with no tube? Besides weight?
Nothing but making it more difficult to built than needed.
So you are telling me lighter, quieter and easier to build isn't the way to go? :lol:
LP
User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11357
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: "Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

Post by Bendersquint »

ghostdog662 wrote:
Bendersquint wrote:
ghostdog662 wrote:So what exactly is gained by going with no tube? Besides weight?
Nothing but making it more difficult to built than needed.
So you are telling me lighter, quieter and easier to build isn't the way to go? :lol:
No the name of the game is reinventing the wheel, make things more difficult than needs be and harder to machine.

Gotta love the stacked tolerances. :roll:
User avatar
PaulNoiseLess
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:02 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: "Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

Post by PaulNoiseLess »

Hi,

I agree :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Paul
The future is not waiting for us, it is waiting within us ...
TinCanMan
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 9:58 am

Re: "Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

Post by TinCanMan »

ghostdog662 wrote:So what exactly is gained by going with no tube? Besides weight?
Variability. (where allowed = outside the US)

You can add and lose baffles back and forth depending on needs/wants.

For example: You´re a hunter. You´ve got a .308 can for your rifle.

Now, at one time, you hunt from a blind. It doesn´t bother you to use a long, or even, extra long silencer to get maximum suppression.(one has to keep in mind the point of diminishing return though, at one point it does no longer help to add more baffles) And another time, maybe in a different location, you want to stalk your game. For stalking, you´d want to loose some overall length, but still want to have some suppression to save your hearing. So you take off a baffle or three to make the whole shebang shorter.

Or even if you´re a tactical guy/military/police. For normal times, a baffle or two more might not hurt you. But go into close quarters like inside a building and loosing an inch or two from the OAL of your gun might come in very handy. And you still get some protection.

The Europeens have some nice cans like that. One i remember would be from a guy called Roedale. If you google Roedale Suppressor, you will find nice pics of these. (and i bet my ass there is also an old Thread on Silencertalk about these or three)

Image

Cans like that are not the be all end all can for everyone and every task. But a viable design for some.
User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11357
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: "Threadless Tube" Suppressor using Baffles ...

Post by Bendersquint »

TinCanMan wrote:
ghostdog662 wrote:So what exactly is gained by going with no tube? Besides weight?
Variability. (where allowed = outside the US)

You can add and lose baffles back and forth depending on needs/wants.

For example: You´re a hunter. You´ve got a .308 can for your rifle.

Now, at one time, you hunt from a blind. It doesn´t bother you to use a long, or even, extra long silencer to get maximum suppression.(one has to keep in mind the point of diminishing return though, at one point it does no longer help to add more baffles) And another time, maybe in a different location, you want to stalk your game. For stalking, you´d want to loose some overall length, but still want to have some suppression to save your hearing. So you take off a baffle or three to make the whole shebang shorter.

Or even if you´re a tactical guy/military/police. For normal times, a baffle or two more might not hurt you. But go into close quarters like inside a building and loosing an inch or two from the OAL of your gun might come in very handy. And you still get some protection.

The Europeens have some nice cans like that. One i remember would be from a guy called Roedale. If you google Roedale Suppressor, you will find nice pics of these. (and i bet my ass there is also an old Thread on Silencertalk about these or three)

Image

Cans like that are not the be all end all can for everyone and every task. But a viable design for some.
Yes, this can has been discussed in the past and the cons outweighed the pros.

I love your comment about the tactical guys deciding when to add or remove baffles depending on the situation. :roll:
Post Reply