If there were ever a 22 can made like the Osprey or the legendary Blackbox would it be a hot seller or do folks typically prefer cylinder 22 cans? I was wondering what the shortest length could be for a box shape 22 can to be on par in DB reduction with the top tier cylinder cans? Could a 22 Osprey/Blackbox be just 4" long to be as effective as a 5 or 6" Element, Sparrow or Spectre etc?
Proportionally is the 8" 45 Osprey equal volume to the near 9" 45 Tirant or is one greater in internal volume?

Both are old tech and just copies of maxims high bore in square form. If square worked good in 22lr you would think there would be a few already. ( some people still like playing with blocks )

I am not an industry professional by any stretch of the imagination -- so take my post for what it's worth.

The point of a black-box was to allow for increased volume, but without outsizing the silencer in a way that would make it more cumbersome. Square silencers let you have the best of all worlds in that you get to keep your sights, but you still don't have to deal with an inefficiently "pencil-slim" model.

For a 22, volume isn't nearly as important as baffle design and baffle count. Making a 'black box 22' wouldn't bring enough benefit to the suppression table to overcome the increased costs associated with such manufacture. Of course a very simple monolithic core or setup could be used in the 'black box', but then the suppression would be hurt, and there'd be no reason to go with the square suppressor over a standard k-baffle stack round suppressor.

Bottom line: a black box brings volume to the table, but it isn't as helpful a guest as it seems it would be in general, or for this cartridger in particular.

The main problem with any rectangular can is how do you take it apart?

Everyone wants take-apart pistol cans and everyone also wants the silencer to weigh nothing so the box design in and of itself just isn't practical with today's market.

Emilio wrote:Both are old tech and just copies of maxims high bore in square form. If square worked good in 22lr you would think there would be a few already. ( some people still like playing with blocks )

Are you saying that Maxims were poor performers because as I recall Al Paulson tetsed one and they were shockingly good when compared to most modern cans, Element and some of the latest greatest aside.

I have to dig up his books and check

CThomas wrote:

Emilio wrote:Both are old tech and just copies of maxims high bore in square form. If square worked good in 22lr you would think there would be a few already. ( some people still like playing with blocks )

Are you saying that Maxims were poor performers because as I recall Al Paulson tetsed one and they were shockingly good when compared to most modern cans, Element and some of the latest greatest aside.

I have to dig up his books and check

Didn't say that at all, the maxim isn't square.