Bendersquint wrote:

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.

\

give me guidance obi-won. I'm willing to spend tuition money to fast track my education.

wacki wrote:

Bendersquint wrote:

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.

\

give me guidance obi-won. I'm willing to spend tuition money to fast track my education.

US Patent office, its free and around 500 silencer related patents, start reading. When you are done with that we can go from there.

NR Parkers book only highlights what he felt the most influential patents were, there are tons that weren't even acknowledged and even more that have been patented since the authoring of that book.

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.

Get your hands on Al Paulson's two volumes (Silencer: History & Performance, Volumes 1 & 2).. Even the "modern" info in them is outdated, but the historical review and photos are informative. Seeing what has been tried and how each developmental leap led to further refinement (many times, straight copying) is cool.

http://www.amazon.com/Silencer-Performa ... 0873649095

http://www.amazon.com/Assault-Rifle-Sni ... gy_b_img_y

What ever happen to Al Paulson? I thought he was in the process of writing Volume 3, and that was years ago.

Mongo wrote:

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?

My simple 'Southern* Boy' mind is not sure what you mean.

Its seems all Greek to me.

Mongo rocks, as usual. Well done, Sir.



* South Boston, that is.

jreinke wrote:What ever happen to Al Paulson? I thought he was in the process of writing Volume 3, and that was years ago.

He was, and maybe still is? I doubt we'll ever see volume 3, which is a shame.

Am I the only person here who has zero desire to become a silencer mfg?

F--k form1s, F--k trying to reinvent the wheel, F--k thinking I can surely do it better or cheaper. I just want to use the damn things.

este wrote:Am I the only person here how has zero desire to become a silencer mfg?

F--k form1s, F--k trying to reinvent the wheel, F--k thinking I can surely do it better or cheaper. I just want to use the damn things.

x1000

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

I chalked it up to "whatever" and chose not to respond.

Not that I think Jesse James is a genius, but the engineer in me says wait until you have an actual example of the suppressor in your hands and test it before you slam it.

Not only is it good manners, but every now and then it keeps egg off your face.

Especially if someone has posted misinformation to throw off competitors.

Nuclear wrote:Not that I think Jesse James is a genius, but the engineer in me says wait until you have an actual example of the suppressor in your hands and test it before you slam it.

Not only is it good manners, but every now and then it keeps egg off your face.

Especially if someone has posted misinformation to throw off competitors.

That might be ok if am engineer made something new. When an author claims to engineered cold fusion my bullshit meter breaks.

I know that's a drastic example but you hopefully get my drift.

Nuclear wrote:Not that I think Jesse James is a genius, but the engineer in me says wait until you have an actual example of the suppressor in your hands and test it before you slam it.

Not only is it good manners, but every now and then it keeps egg off your face.

Especially if someone has posted misinformation to throw off competitors.

There have been cans of similar baffle designs in the past and they all were terrible. Engineer or not its a bad design, the point of a silencer is to contain and slowly release the gases once cooled. Jesse is putting car muffler and manifold technologies into a firearm silencer. It doesn't work.

His shop should be called "Pimp my Gat".

Bendersquint wrote:
His shop should be called "Pimp my Gat".

Haha, yes, perfect.

Performance aside it's fugly. Don't need an engineering degree for that one.

wacki wrote: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

What about the hoplon baffle?

The fact that the saker doesn't meter as well as the other cans in silencerco's OWN video should tell you the hoplon design (and honestly just as much to do with material selection) is built around addressing an erosion issue with the standard cone as a blast baffle and really only with a flash hider that directs the blast into concentrated streams on short barrels.

este wrote:Am I the only person here who has zero desire to become a silencer mfg?

F--k form1s, F--k trying to reinvent the wheel, F--k thinking I can surely do it better or cheaper. I just want to use the damn things.

For some of us Form 1ers it's not about trying to make "better" silencers. It's more about the "ride" and how you get there, than the destination. As I've said before: When I was a child I built snap together models, then glue together, then model rockets. As a teenager I got into hot rods. Now, I build silencers. It's not about making a better mousetrap, it's just a hobby. For my latest silencer endeavors, I'm jumping into the titanium game. Why? Because I haven't done it yet.

mpallett wrote:

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

I chalked it up to "whatever" and chose not to respond.

Look guys I'm a n00b. I never asserted otherwise.

I'm going to go back and edit all my previous posts as it's clear that no amount of me saying "I was just asking questions and trying to learn" will dig me out of this hole. You would think words like "I don't understand" would be a big impossible to miss hint but I guess not.

I've bought several books so hopefully my n00b-ness will never offend anyone again. (A sincere thank you to JasonM & Bender for the productive recommendations) I got the kindle versions so I can do quick searches too.

And for the record, I have no idea what experience JasonM has but I'm still listening to him.

I'm pretty sure I was supporting Rob Silvers concept of a tight baffle and running (a little too far) with it. So he doesn't/shouldn't count. So basically I have no clue who the 2 industry professionals I was challenging are.

I've beaten this dog to death and I'm bowing out.

wacki wrote:And for the record, I have no idea what experience JasonM has but I'm still listening to him.

He's been working with AAC on and off for a number of years.

I think we can all agree we need to get back to making fun of this suppressor, because this thing is clown shoes. It's what, like a 1/2 inch thick aluminum tube with some washers? On the plus side, walls that thick might cut down on some noise and maybe get it below 150 or so? Aerosonic technology MotherTrucker!

@wacki If it helps any the help desk here and the goon squad are on in the same entity. Sometimes it depends on what side of the coffee cup you catch them. And FWIW I really was trying to help clarify why comparing ported barrels to baffles doesn't make any sense.

jt526 wrote:I think we can all agree ...

Totally agree ... clown shoes.

But I do have a serious question.

Are the screws holding that cable clamp together considered silencer parts? Would really suck to drop one of those in the grass at the range, I hope they're at least magnetic.

doubloon wrote:
But I do have a serious question.

Are the screws holding that cable clamp together considered silencer parts? Would really suck to drop one of those in the grass at the range, I hope they're at least magnetic.

HA! You nailed it. And I think I found the 22lr version, just have to add the Aerosonic (TM) technology.



God I hope I don't get sued for defamation by JJFU. This thing just really rubs me the wrong way. Most likely they'll never be made as a viable commercial product, so at least most people won't have to suffer.

I found a photo of the whole line of suppressors:

Tony M. wrote:I found a photo of the whole line of suppressors:

How'd you get that!

JJFU is gonna be pissed!

doubloon wrote:@wacki If it helps any the help desk here and the goon squad are on in the same entity. Sometimes it depends on what side of the coffee cup you catch them. And FWIW I really was trying to help clarify why comparing ported barrels to baffles doesn't make any sense.

jt526 wrote:I think we can all agree ...

Totally agree ... clown shoes.

But I do have a serious question.

Are the screws holding that cable clamp together considered silencer parts? Would really suck to drop one of those in the grass at the range, I hope they're at least magnetic.

+1

Another way to get screwed by the folks who bring you Obama Care Web Site.
I hope that the Jesse can will not lead to a next regulation to have each part of a can etched with your SSN and listed.

Bendersquint wrote:

Tony M. wrote:I found a photo of the whole line of suppressors:

How'd you get that!

JJFU is gonna be pissed!

If you think that's something, I also have exclusive internal pics of the next gen can he's already working on.

I believe the next gen 'technology' is code named "Flowmaster-Sonic". It even comes with user serviceable 'never before seen' glass pack technology as an option to really deaden the sound. For the doubters/haters, there will also be available a sound meter that is guaranteed to show the sound signature at 85 decibels or below*.


Here's an info graphic that shows how the universal application will accept any caliber up to 105MM recoilless, and reduce the sound signature to never before thought of levels:




*The sound meter is calibrated by radio shack technicians specifically for the can, and shouldn't be used to measure anything else, including other suppressors, conversation, lighting farts, etc. Repeat, if you use the meter on anything else, you will break the delicate balance of the universe, and all warrantee's will be void, and you're also a dickhead.