jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

General silencer discussion. If you want to talk about a specific silenced rifle or pistol, it is best to do that in the rifle or pistol section for that brand.

All NFA laws apply.

Moderators: mpallett, bakerjw, renegade

User avatar
JasonM
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1483
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 3:51 pm
Location: NoVA
Contact:

Re: jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

Post by JasonM » Mon Nov 18, 2013 5:22 pm

wacki wrote:
Do you not think, for example, HK would have built the MP5SD barrel/can your way if it worked better than the actual design?
About once a week I see a scientific paper of a miraculous discovery found by accident. Many of these revolutions look obvious in retrospect. So yes, I fully expect oversights to be common.

E.g.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/ ... -accident/


I still don't understand why a bullet squeezing heavily ported barrel (50%+ steel removed) won't be more effective than baffles at trapping noise causing expanding air. Especially given Rob Silvers statement. Its tight, slows bullet down a bit allowing more time for the faster moving air to expand and could have just enough steel to guide the bullet between baffles. But ill save that debate for another time.

Fill out a form one and go to town. We welcome your experimenting.

But, having been inside and having worked with a few big can makers, i can tell you that the R&D benches are full of cool experiments and there are good reasons why you see what you do (and why you don't see the ones that aren't made).
Kick Ass Design
ten:pm media
www.facebook.com/VisualGravy

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

Post by Bendersquint » Mon Nov 18, 2013 5:29 pm

JasonM wrote: But, having been inside and having worked with a few big can makers, i can tell you that the R&D benches are full of cool experiments and there are good reasons why you see what you do (and why you don't see the ones that aren't made).
Totally agree!

User avatar
JasonM
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1483
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 3:51 pm
Location: NoVA
Contact:

Re: jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

Post by JasonM » Mon Nov 18, 2013 5:37 pm

wacki wrote:About once a week I see a scientific paper of a miraculous discovery found by accident. Many of these revolutions look obvious in retrospect. (E.g . Hoplon funnel) So yes, I fully expect oversights to be common.
E.g.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/ ... -accident/
That's awesome and true in many cases.. That situation does not apply to your ported barrel idea.
Kick Ass Design
ten:pm media
www.facebook.com/VisualGravy

wacki
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 913
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:00 pm

Re: jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

Post by wacki » Mon Nov 18, 2013 5:43 pm

JasonM wrote:
wacki wrote:About once a week I see a scientific paper of a miraculous discovery found by accident. Many of these revolutions look obvious in retrospect. (E.g . Hoplon funnel) So yes, I fully expect oversights to be common.
E.g.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/ ... -accident/
That's awesome and true in many cases.. That situation does not apply to your ported barrel idea.
And the hoplon idea? Angles of deflection have been used since the civil war (iron clads) and WWI (Schneider CA1) and became universal in WW2. Yet didn't get applied to suppressors till recently

a_canadian
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1176
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:09 pm

Re: jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

Post by a_canadian » Mon Nov 18, 2013 5:47 pm

Indeed, were it not for the lucky guesses, stokes of genius, and pure accidents (sometimes resulting in severe injuries or fatalities) of amateur experimenters of all sorts, science would not be anywhere nearly so far along the curve as it is today. History is littered with those who, rich or poor, were driven by obsession and curiosity towards discovering new ways of perceiving and manipulating our world. Big business has a terrible track record in terms of discovery. So many of the patents held by big businesses were simply scooped up for a song from talented or lucky amateurs. The Velcro example is but one of many thousands which fill the coffers of the mega-rich - a discovery gleaned from a simple observation regarding burrs sticking in a dog's fur.

That said, there are certain things in suppressor design which have been tried, and have been demonstrated as failures or at least as less successful than might be ideal. Extending a barrel and porting it is one such underwhelming success. It's been tried, and has shown less than stellar success. Move along, nothing to see with the FU'd JJ can. Or so one can easily surmise based on comparison to existing designs.

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

Post by Bendersquint » Mon Nov 18, 2013 5:48 pm

wacki wrote:
JasonM wrote:
wacki wrote:About once a week I see a scientific paper of a miraculous discovery found by accident. Many of these revolutions look obvious in retrospect. (E.g . Hoplon funnel) So yes, I fully expect oversights to be common.
E.g.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/ ... -accident/
That's awesome and true in many cases.. That situation does not apply to your ported barrel idea.
And the hoplon idea? Angles of deflection have been used since the civil war (iron clads) and WWI (Schneider CA1) and became universal in WW2. Yet didn't get applied to suppressors till recently
The Hoplon wasn't an accident.

wacki
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 913
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:00 pm

Re: jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

Post by wacki » Mon Nov 18, 2013 5:54 pm

a_canadian wrote: That said, there are certain things in suppressor design which have been tried, and have been demonstrated as failures or at least as less successful than might be ideal. Extending a barrel and porting it is one such underwhelming success. It's been tried, and has shown less than stellar success. Move along, nothing to see with the FU'd JJ can. Or so one can easily surmise based on comparison to existing designs.
That's all I need to know, that its been tried. What works on the white board doesn't guarantee real world performance. I'd love to know why but that will have to wait another day.


EDIT: I'm not a seasoned expert in this industry. I'm just asking questions and trying to learn.
Last edited by wacki on Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

a_canadian
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1176
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:09 pm

Re: jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

Post by a_canadian » Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:02 pm

I suspect the major reason for an extended, ported bore (sorry, I said 'barrel' above but of course it's only a larger-than-the-projectile bore in the suppressor itself) not demonstrating great success is quite simple; it's reducing the venting of said bore as compared to a stacked washer, K, or most monocore designs. Reducing the opportunities for expanding gasses to escape the path of that projectile obviously reduces the potential for sound suppression, as getting the gasses away from the bore is the number one principal in suppressor design. The vented pseudo-barrel of the JJ can allows for considerably less than 50% ventilation away from the bullet path. How could this possible be anywhere nearly as efficient as stacks/monocores with much, much higher ratios of open space adjacent to the bore? Provided of course that they do something sensible with the gasses once moved away from that path! One could imagine a reversal of the conventional wisdom, cones diminishing towards the front, in which there was an amplifying effect rather than a sound reduction, or at least a decrease in efficiency as compared to cones opening towards the front, even though there might be 75% or more open space adjacent to the bore.

wacki
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 913
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:00 pm

Re: jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

Post by wacki » Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:05 pm

Bendersquint wrote:
wacki wrote:
wacki wrote:About once a week I see a scientific paper of a miraculous discovery found by accident. Many of these revolutions look obvious in retrospect. (E.g . Hoplon funnel) So yes, I fully expect oversights to be common.
E.g.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/ ... -accident/
And the hoplon idea? Angles of deflection have been used since the civil war (iron clads) and WWI (Schneider CA1) and became universal in WW2. Yet didn't get applied to suppressors till recently
The Hoplon wasn't an accident.
The sentence before hoplon uses the words "obvious in retrospect".

It's civil war tech being applied for the first time (in this industry) 147 years later. If that's not an oversight I dunno what is. Silencers were commercialized in 1902 and are still making big leaps in tech 100+ years later.

Big kudos to silencerco for spotting it.


EDIT: I'm not a seasoned expert in this industry. I'm just asking questions and trying to learn.
Last edited by wacki on Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JasonM
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1483
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 3:51 pm
Location: NoVA
Contact:

Re: jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

Post by JasonM » Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:12 pm

wacki wrote:
JasonM wrote:
wacki wrote:About once a week I see a scientific paper of a miraculous discovery found by accident. Many of these revolutions look obvious in retrospect. (E.g . Hoplon funnel) So yes, I fully expect oversights to be common.
E.g.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/ ... -accident/
That's awesome and true in many cases.. That situation does not apply to your ported barrel idea.
And the hoplon idea? Angles of deflection have been used since the civil war (iron clads) and WWI (Schneider CA1) and became universal in WW2. Yet didn't get applied to suppressors till recently
I have no idea what you are talking about in terms of how that applies to your ported barrel idea, which has been tried many ways, and is not as efficient as an open tube with baffles.
Kick Ass Design
ten:pm media
www.facebook.com/VisualGravy

DirtyHandsRob
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:35 am
Location: Lincoln, NE

Re: jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

Post by DirtyHandsRob » Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:15 pm

Bendersquint wrote:
Watch out RJF looks like you have some competition

you remember when he had RJF "customize" his BAR? total fucking disaster.

oct0gen
Silent Operator
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 11:26 pm

Re: jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

Post by oct0gen » Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:23 pm

grounded - fd? if so, ive been following since '08.

rockman96
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 5:49 am

Re: jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

Post by rockman96 » Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:34 pm

Maybe I'm flawed here, but the only practical use I see for a ported barrel (regarding suppression) is for bleeding off pressure / slowing the bullet down... eg- using high-velocity .22 ammo in a longer barrel (such as an integral) and keeping it subsonic. That's how my integral is designed anyway, and it works, although indirectly. I can't think of any other viable reason to do it.

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

Post by Bendersquint » Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:37 pm

JasonM wrote: I have no idea what you are talking about in terms of how that applies to your ported barrel idea, which has been tried many ways, and is not as efficient as an open tube with baffles.
He's challenging 2 industry professionals that have more experience with cans than about 95% on this board.......wacki must have lost it.

Sigh, oh well. Hope all is well for you up in NOVA.

-Matt

wacki
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 913
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:00 pm

Re: jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

Post by wacki » Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:46 pm

Bendersquint wrote:
He's challenging 2 industry professionals that have more experience with cans than about 95% on this board.......wacki must have lost it.

Sigh, oh well. Hope all is well for you up in NOVA.

-Matt
No, I was simply asking a question. I'm not versed in the entire suppressor R&D history.

The fact that its been tried is good enough for me to admit I'm barking up the wrong tree. I don't understand the physics but I will take your word on it.

The only thing I'm challenging is the notion that there are no obvious oversights. Hoplon is a major oversight as the tech is 147 years old. Its a funnel for crying out loud. I still salute silencerco for making the connection as its a cross discipline leap.

Everything in this post is a repeat of what I said before.

Is it standard op to piss on everyone's leg here?

User avatar
JasonM
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1483
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 3:51 pm
Location: NoVA
Contact:

Re: jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

Post by JasonM » Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:08 pm

Bendersquint wrote:
JasonM wrote: I have no idea what you are talking about in terms of how that applies to your ported barrel idea, which has been tried many ways, and is not as efficient as an open tube with baffles.
He's challenging 2 industry professionals that have more experience with cans than about 95% on this board.......wacki must have lost it.

Sigh, oh well. Hope all is well for you up in NOVA.

-Matt
Hey brother, yes, things are well and busy. Likewise, I hope!
Kick Ass Design
ten:pm media
www.facebook.com/VisualGravy

User avatar
JasonM
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1483
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 3:51 pm
Location: NoVA
Contact:

Re: jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

Post by JasonM » Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:29 pm

wacki wrote:
Bendersquint wrote:
He's challenging 2 industry professionals that have more experience with cans than about 95% on this board.......wacki must have lost it.

Sigh, oh well. Hope all is well for you up in NOVA.

-Matt
No, I was simply asking a question. I'm not versed in the entire suppressor R&D history.

The fact that its been tried is good enough for me to admit I'm barking up the wrong tree. I don't understand the physics but I will take your word on it.

The only thing I'm challenging is the notion that there are no obvious oversights. Hoplon is a major oversight as the tech is 147 years old. Its a funnel for crying out loud. I still salute silencerco for making the connection as its a cross discipline leap.

Everything in this post is a repeat of what I said before.

Is it standard op to piss on everyone's leg here?
There are three things going on here.. It's one thing to present all these ideas and say how groundbreaking they are (or you think they should be), but to keep insisting once you've heard that they've been tried and shown to not work is nuts.

The other thing is that you seem to constantly do is spout ideas, occasionally with links to terrible, old, or not applicable to the discussion or just false.

The third thing, from this thread, is your odd red herring-ish introduction of the hoplon baffle into this thread. No one has argued against it. And further, it was not an accidental discovery… and there have been reverse-cone cans before. None of that makes ported barrels the best plan for a can's internals.

I appreciate if you're here to learn and want to share in the community, just calm down- read a lot more and post a bit less.

I wonder why i am responding to this, but I want you to know that it's not to flame you. There are a ton of great people and resources on this board, and passionate people, but those same people know a good bit about the industry, its history, and its past, present, and future technology.
Kick Ass Design
ten:pm media
www.facebook.com/VisualGravy

User avatar
doubloon
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 11901
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 1:02 am
Location: Houston-ish

Re: jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

Post by doubloon » Tue Nov 19, 2013 12:32 am

wacki wrote:... Barrels squeeze bullets and trap air behind. ...
Um ... you do understand that barrel extensions don't actually touch the bullets right? ETA: with the exception of maybe airsoft

It's a barrel extension and not a bore extension.

Also ...

ported barrel != barrel extension
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDtd2jNIwAU MUSAFAR!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI This is Water DavidW
Complete Form 1s http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

Post by Bendersquint » Tue Nov 19, 2013 12:38 am

doubloon wrote:
wacki wrote:... Barrels squeeze bullets and trap air behind. ...
Um ... you do understand that barrel extensions don't actually touch the bullets right? ETA: with the exception of maybe airsoft

It's a barrel extension and not a bore extension.

Also ...

ported barrel != barrel extension
Ported barrel DO touch the bullet, there are holes drilled/milled directly into the bore of the barrel, the barrels are not backbored at all.

User avatar
doubloon
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 11901
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 1:02 am
Location: Houston-ish

Re: jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

Post by doubloon » Tue Nov 19, 2013 1:04 am

Bendersquint wrote:...
Ported barrel DO touch the bullet, there are holes drilled/milled directly into the bore of the barrel, the barrels are not backbored at all.
Agreed and acknowledged.

I was merely pointing out that a ported barrel is not the same as a barrel extension ... ported barrel != barrel extension

In the original post I was referencing wacki made some comment about the JJFU can looking like a barrel extension in response to Silvers' comment about tight bores eluding to the idea that barrel extensions have tight bores then later made a comment about squeezing bullets and trapping air.
wacki wrote:
silencertalk wrote:I don't pay attention to dB claims because it comes down to people running tighter bores than are prudent. In other words, the M4-2000 could be 6dB quieter than an M4-2000 if we just made the bore smaller. So who cares if someone else decides to run the risk to claim they are quieter? Not that genuine break thoughts never happen - they do, but I only believe them when tested with the same bore size.
The jessie james can looks like it's a barrel extension. It don't get much tighter than that.

I'm not endorsing the JJ can. I'm just surprised heavily ported barrels aren't more common given the instant 6 dB improvement. Not even the integrals seem to go that route.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDtd2jNIwAU MUSAFAR!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI This is Water DavidW
Complete Form 1s http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895

wacki
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 913
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:00 pm

Re: jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

Post by wacki » Tue Nov 19, 2013 1:27 am

JasonM wrote: There are three things going on here.. It's one thing to present all these ideas and say how groundbreaking they are (or you think they should be), but to keep insisting once you've heard that they've been tried and shown to not work is nuts.
I don't think I did that. As soon as someone said it was done before I switched gears. Rereading this thread confirms that. So I wish you'd stop projecting that falsehood onto me. That was not my intent.
The other thing is that you seem to constantly do is spout ideas, occasionally with links to terrible, old, or not applicable to the discussion or just false.
Asking a lot of questions? guilty as charged. Some of them dumb? guilty again.
The third thing, from this thread, is your odd red herring-ish introduction of the hoplon baffle into this thread. No one has argued against it. And further, it was not an accidental discovery…


As I said before when bender misread my post, the sentence before was "obvious in retrospect". I never said hoplon was accidental and I don't believe it was accidental. However, it is a major improvement in wear resistance and nobody else seems to be marketing it that way. Hence the assumption it was an oversight for 100+ years.
I appreciate if you're here to learn and want to share in the community, just calm down- read a lot more and post a bit less.
I know this has been asked before by others and is not popular. But I really wish this forum had a wiki or blog where people could write articles. That would certainly steepin the learning curve.
I wonder why i am responding to this, but I want you to know that it's not to flame you.
Well I appreciate you explaining your point of view. I will try to be more precise in my writing in the future. I just bought

United States Patents (Firearm Suppressor Patents) Paperback by N. R. Parker

so hopefully that will dramatically increase my learning curve.

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

Post by Bendersquint » Tue Nov 19, 2013 1:45 am

doubloon wrote:......

My bad I didn't catch the references between all the posts.

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

Post by Bendersquint » Tue Nov 19, 2013 1:47 am

wacki wrote:
Well I appreciate you explaining your point of view. I will try to be more precise in my writing in the future. I just bought

United States Patents (Firearm Suppressor Patents) Paperback by N. R. Parker

so hopefully that will dramatically increase my learning curve.
That will certainly help open some doors to the past for sure. That would be the first of a dozen or so books to read on the subject.

Tons of information to be gleaned just gotta know where to look for it.

User avatar
Mongo
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 4167
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 1:27 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

Post by Mongo » Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:13 am

Grounded wrote: Outside is one thing, I thought you wanted internals. I think I have an earlier prototype I can give you a shot of.
Its not carbon fiber tube construction is it? :wink:
Firearms Engineer for hire on piece work basis.
No job is too expensive :)
http://weaponblueprints.com/

wacki
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 913
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:00 pm

Re: jesse james new can, 10db quieter than the best?

Post by wacki » Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:29 am

Bendersquint wrote:
doubloon wrote:......

My bad I didn't catch the references between all the posts.
Bender, your original thought process was correct. I was thinking ported barrels which is why i mentioned "integral" and "difficult to align barrel extension" which is why you'd have to have a "ported barrel". I had no idea people actually made back-bored barrel extensions.

Apparently that's still a bad idea, but that is the direction my mind was zig zagging.

Post Reply