Silentium Tactical 45

[Clandestine Ops]

[img][IMG]http://i1026.photobucket.com/albums/y323/kcpstudio/D6918E11-371F-49C7-B0A7-6BBFA6198B04_zpsnv4tvznw.jpeg[/img][/img]

[img][IMG]http://i1026.photobucket.com/albums/y323/kcpstudio/027CB51C-F5A3-4694-9070-D0089CF57B22_zpspln1numa.jpeg[/img][/img]



Greetings ladies and gents. I wanted to hop on, introduce myself and give you a sneak peak at what’s to come. My name is Ken Palkow and I’m the owner of Clandestine Ops. It is a new branch of my company Kenney’s Custom Props, LLC. I work in Hollywood creating special effects, weapons, and prop fabrication. My specialty is designing and fabricating custom scratch built live fire weapons.

What I want to share with you is my new Silentium series weapons. These weapons contain my GhostLok system which interlocks the frame and slide for single shot mode. This is designed for you guys that love to shoot suppressive. The thing that makes my system valuable is that it does not take away from the weapons profile. It’s primarily an all internal system. This way it does not interfere with the weapons rails so you can still add your favorite add-ones. It also doesn’t interfere with your holsters.

I have developed this system to cover a wide variety of weapons. This includes your 1911 variations, Glocks, Berettas, and Taurus firearms to name a few. The pics are of the proof of concept prototype. It is a 1911 5” gov base system. It contains a split thumb safety. Left side is a standard thumb safety and the right switch is your indipendent GhostLok which has an embedded locking block which interlocks the frame, slide, and right slide rail.

This system eliminates the majority of the pistols mechanical report as well as force the gassed to exit the suppressor. I’m currently tooling up for production so availability and costs are still being worked out. I just wanted to give you guys a peak. All the needed promotional stuff and website are currently being built. So, please be patient.

Cheers,
Ken

[cdakers]

Very interesting. Done properly, I think your idea will be very popular with the quiet crowd, myself included.

[ECCO Machine]

You're asking a lot of those parts to bear 3,500+ pounds of thrust.

[Clandestine Ops]

Your post makes absolutely no sense.

First, your 3,500+ pounds of thrust is absolutely ridiculous to say the least.

Second, the recoil energy of a typical 45 ACP round (185 to 230 BW with a MV of 850 to 1050) is anywhere between 6 and 8 foot pounds and a velocity of about 13 to 14 FPS.

[Clandestine Ops]

And that velocity of 13 to 14 FPS is the recoil velocity.

[fishman]

Your post makes absolutely no sense.

First, your 3,500+ pounds of thrust is absolutely ridiculous to say the least.

Second, the recoil energy of a typical 45 ACP round (185 to 230 BW with a MV of 850 to 1050) is anywhere between 6 and 8 foot pounds and a velocity of about 13 to 14 FPS.

45acp pressure * the area of the inside of a 45ACP shell parallel to direction of slide travel= peak force the shell puts rearward on the slide.

21000 * pi * (.452 /2)^2 =3370 pounds.

Low overall energy but high peak forces can break s--t. I'm not sure why you mentioned slide velocity and recoil energy

[0101silent]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8WU1auVZGw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnfkCFnaUZg

[Clandestine Ops]

Aw... you both are just adorable. Trying to teach physics to a weapons designer and manufacture who holds two degrees in engineering.

[fishman]

Aw... you both are just adorable. Trying to teach physics to a weapons designer and manufacture who holds two degrees in engineering.

Care to offer a counter-explaination, or just your resume?

[Clandestine Ops]

Nope, not really. Don’t have to counter anything. You both seem to think you’re 100% sure of yourselves. My resume in engineering going back to 92 is more than enough. If prominent weapons manufacturers trust my consultations, i dont see why i’m obligated to sway “opinions” here. I came here to give you guys a sneak peak at some new pistols.... not engage a couple guys thinking they know better. If you dont like what you see, dont buy it. If you question engineers, actually bring a discussion to the table before you start dictating laws you clearing went shopping on the net for.

[fishman]

Idk why you're upset. You're the one who replied with ridicule. Never once did I doubt your engineering background. Guess what, I have an Engineering degree too. WOW! No one cares. So do a bunch of people here. ECCO is also in the firearms industry.

No one said you owed anyone an explanation. No one called you out for being incompetent.

I simple explaination was requested and your answer basically boiled down to "F--k you, youre nonsensical idiots."

Dont expect a warm reception here if that's your attitude toward customers with questions about your products.

Putting sone thought toward it I realized the error in my thought process. The 3000 pound force of the case on the slide is countered by the breech being locked until pressure has dropped. The peak force exerted on the unlocked slide is more in the range of a few hundred pounds. But what do I know? I'm just 'dictating laws I found on the net.'

If you'd have explaind that, instead of slinging insults around, I'm sure I would've yielded to your logic.

This is a place of technical discussion. Dont be so offended if youre asked technical questions.

[Clandestine Ops]

Im not upset. The comments you both made were wrong. If you do have an engineering degree (and i seriously doubt it by your statement. I say this because you are leaving out so much pertinant info), you would have known better before making a statement that was just wrong. Im not looking for a warm reception here. But i also dont want to be thrown incorrect statements at me. I posted to show you all a product. Im not obligated to proof read every wrong statement with some explanation with physics charts, formulas, etc. etc. The initial statement was unnecessary and your supporting comment was even more unnecessary. He was wrong and you followed up to back him up. Dont expect a “warm reception” from me with that. FYI, your comment about a “few hundred pounds” is still incorrect.

So, lets just end the debate.

[Clandestine Ops]

And fyi, i did give you a technical answer but you guys brought the initial ridicule. And ECCO’s first comment to me was not a technical question. It was a cocky statement basically implying or questioning if i knew what i was doing. His starement was incorrect and unnecessary. Hence, that set the tone for the rest of the conversation. You chiming in with incorrect info added to this tone.

Your last post, you admitted you were wrong after reevaluating your statement. Instead of leaving it at that, you then follow up with a contradicting comment of “but what do i know? Im just dictating laws i found off the net”. I wouldn’t follow up with a mocking comment. You were wrong and still wrong. Period.

[ECCO Machine]

i dont see why i’m obligated to sway “opinions” here.

You're the one trying to sell us on a questionable product. I'd say answering questions, even pointed or surly ones, would be prudent.

I don't sugar coat or beat around the bush. Most people who aren't snowflakes can handle that. If you can't cope with other industry professionals questioning the integrity of your design when you offer nothing more than a vague explanation and a couple of equally nebulous photos, you shouldn't be in the industry trying to design, build and sell.

Your post makes absolutely no sense.

First, your 3,500+ pounds of thrust is absolutely ridiculous to say the least.

Second, the recoil energy of a typical 45 ACP round (185 to 230 BW with a MV of 850 to 1050) is anywhere between 6 and 8 foot pounds and a velocity of about 13 to 14 FPS.

You hold two engineering degrees and don't understand the difference between free recoil energy and bolt thrust? Do those degrees say ACME university?

Why don't you clamp that pistol in a vise, put the palm of your hand up against the rear of the slide with a very heavy object behind your hand to make the collision as inelastic as possible and tell me if you still think it's just 6 to 8 ft.lbs. You can first tell the gun about your engineering degrees, as you seem to think your credentials change physics.

Meanwhile, in the real world where mass, velocity, force, inertia, momentum, kinetic energy and all the other parameters involved here are fixed, your slide lock is engaged by the cut in the slide before the action has even unlocked; we'd need to know what the tolerance is to calculate it accurately, but whatever thrust is lost in beginning to accelerate the slide is made up for by the kinetic energy developed with slide velocity. That basically creates the same conditions as excessive headspace in a locked breech weapon, which can and does shear lugs.

So, no, I don't think your design is sound. I think it's a worthwhile concept that needs more development, but I don't think it would hold up long as-is. I also think your proclivity to being indignant and your extremely arrogant attitude necessitates the hiring of other people for marketing if you expect to be successful.

[ECCO Machine]

Double tap

[Clandestine Ops]

Listen, why are you petsostent with trying to save face? I posted in “General discussion” not open up for technical debate. I gave you a explanation in the beginning. ECCO made a cocky statement and was wrong. You then backed him up. You were wrong. You were the one throwing formulas around... AND... you were wrong. Both of you were. Its just so funny all of a sudden you both “remember” how a 1911 functions yet both of you were critically incorrect from the start. Then you have an ah ha moment when “you realized the error in your thought process”. You should have left it at that. How in the world did you forget something as simple as the locking lugs in the beginning of your “thought process”? Probably because you were too interested in looking like you knew better. Yet now you throw that suddenly obtained knowledge at me? Leave it alone sir. You both were wrong and still are.

[Clandestine Ops]

Funny ECCO with the “Double Tap” comment. Yet it was your Epic Fail answer in the beginning that started this.

[ECCO Machine]

Funny ECCO with the “Double Tap” comment. Yet it was your Epic Fail answer in the beginning that started this.

It means I double posted by mistake, genius. It would seem that you're so busy being hostile and petulant that you couldn't be bothered to look at who posted what, though. The Comment above it was also mine, not fishmans.

Neither of us forgot how a 1911 works. You haven't provided the requisite technical details for an accurate calculation of the forces that will be borne by the parts. In the absence of those specs, I chose to operate under the assumption that you're able to machine parts to respectable tolerances, meaning that the engagement of your lock with the slide when the weapon is in battery is tight. Ergo, it would be taking the full thrust with no kinetic energy built up. If your fit is sloppy, the numbers change a bit, but the pounds of thrust and ft.lbs. of energy are still orders of magnitude greater than free recoil energy of a 2.5 lb gun.

It's clear that you're not interested in actually hashing out the details, though, just want to keep going with your insults, your ad hom attacks. Have fun with that, mister double engineer.

[1rflman]

My day job is in accounting, and I don't have any engineering degrees. I built a few Form 1 suppressors, including recently a 9mm can. I ran some 147gr ammo through it with my Sig P229, it functioned perfectly and sounded good. For further testing, I held the slide with my left hand, on top, and shot it to compare the sound with no port noise. All went well, the slide didn't move, and it was in fact more quiet. But, it wasn't a 1911 and not a .45ACP. Next time to the range, I'll test the slide-hold attempt... but without the can.

[Clandestine Ops]

ECCO, there was no double post here that i saw. So, if that was the case... im sorry.

Lets start this from the beginning since this involved you and I. Agreed?

First, i was only posting a sneak peak in the “General Discussion”. I stated that the website, promo stuff, etc was still being built. Thats all. Your initial comment was incorrect and i wasn’t willing to deal with the typical “Trolls” you often find on forums. If i stereotyped you, im sorry. But in all fairness, youre comment was incorrect with respect to my product and the way you presented it had a bit of a cocky twist. Without actually knowing my design in its entirety, you made that statement instead of asking a question. My guard went up because i imediately saw “troll” as stated before. I was not going to entertain that. Can we agree on that?

Now, you say i dont know the difference between free energy and bolt thrust? You mean “recoil energy” and not free energy. Wasn’t it you that assumed that we were dealing with bolt thrust when that is not the case? Did i not state in the beginning the recoil energy of the weapon. Free recoil is recoil energy.

To straight out answer what my setup is and all the math behind it is not as easy as a simple one sentence answer. Youre asking alot if you want the full on answer.

So, let me try and simplify this. In youre initial comment, you say “You’re asking a lot of those parts to bear 3,500 + pounds of thrust”. I will assume you are referring to bolt thrust. You assumed that we we’re only dealing with bolt thrust. That is not the case. Yes, it is a part of the equation but I did state that there are many other part relationships. Chamber pressures which relate to bolt thrust, although a part of this, actually isn’t the numbers i’m dealing with. There are many other things having an effect on that. Can we agree on that?

Next you say that my slide lock is engaged by a notch cut out in the slide. Again, you assume that is what im relying on. That is not the case. There is a locking block which is built into a milled pocket in the frame and slide. This milled pocket also intersects through the rail. The notch in the slide is only a part of this system. When the switch is moved up to engage, the locking block slides upward on an arc path, in this machined pocket, which interlocks the frame, slide rail, and slide. The parts are hardened 416r stainless steel. At the momment, im keeping all the locking mechanism parts at 40 to 45 rockwell which is more than enough. Im using 416r for the frame, slide, and parts.

I think, for now, that answer is more than enough to satisfy what exactly the system is and how it functions. To add further to this post, we did conduct destructive testing on this mechanism. My primary career in the aviation industry was destructive/non-destructive inspection. So this was valuable in the developement stage of this system. Everything was over engineered to ensure a safe and reliable weapon.

I hope this gives you enough insight on the product.

[ECCO Machine]

Now, you say i dont know the difference between free energy and bolt thrust? You mean “recoil energy” and not free energy. Wasn’t it you that assumed that we were dealing with bolt thrust when that is not the case? Did i not state in the beginning the recoil energy of the weapon. Free recoil is recoil energy.

Which is why I said free recoil energy. Look up, and look at post and edit times; I haven't changed a thing. You need to slow down, stop skimming. That way we avoid you accusing the wrong people of posting things, or trying to insinuate that I used the wrong terms when, in fact, I used a more precise term than you did. Free recoil energy is not the same as the more ambiguous recoil energy, which could be describing only the energy of moving parts, the whole gun, the gun being held in a fixture, etc..

So, let me try and simplify this. In youre initial comment, you say “You’re asking a lot of those parts to bear 3,500 + pounds of thrust”. I will assume you are referring to bolt thrust. You assumed that we we’re only dealing with bolt thrust. That is not the case. Yes, it is a part of the equation but I did state that there are many other part relationships. Chamber pressures which relate to bolt thrust, although a part of this, actually isn’t the numbers i’m dealing with. There are many other things having an effect on that. Can we agree on that?

Chamber pressures don't just relate to bolt thrust; they are one of only two factors in calculating it. It's a very simple PSI/surface area equation. And when you're trying to keep a breech locked, it is the only number to consider. FRE doesn't even factor in. The .45 ACP will develop around 3,500 pounds of thrust, and a rigid mechanical lock preventing the slide from moving at all is taking 100% of that force, so the materials and dimensions of the parts need to be up to the task.

I, too, build complete weapons from raw stock. My own proprietary designs, taken from concept to functional prototype, often in less than a month. I'm also obsessed with light weight, so I've pushed the limits on bolt weights in blowback designs, as well as all dimensions in semi-auto and manually operated actions. Some of them have safety margins <30%. And when people questioned the durability or safety of my designs looking at tiny bolt lugs or smallish pins, instead of jumping down their throats, I explained in detail what the calculated forces were, the part dimensions, and the alloy types & temper/heat treat used.

Next you say that my slide lock is engaged by a notch cut out in the slide. Again, you assume that is what im relying on. That is not the case. There is a locking block which is built into a milled pocket in the frame and slide. This milled pocket also intersects through the rail. The notch in the slide is only a part of this system. When the switch is moved up to engage, the locking block slides upward on an arc path, in this machined pocket, which interlocks the frame, slide rail, and slide. The parts are hardened 416r stainless steel. At the momment, im keeping all the locking mechanism parts at 40 to 45 rockwell which is more than enough. Im using 416r for the frame, slide, and parts.

I operated under that assumption because of the very limited info you gave us. It was a reasonable deduction from the photos and description. I wouldn't have been as quick to judge if you'd shown a picture or drawing of the more substantial mechanism you now describe.

416 isn't my preference for parts requiring high mechanical strength, but I understand the why for prototyping. I'm going to assume Rc, since 40-45 in A or B is below the annealed hardness. I don't know what your processes are, but getting 416 over 40 Rc is a tall order, and would almost certainly result in temper embrittlement.

[Clandestine Ops]

ECCO... enough already. I'm not going to continue this discussion with someone that keeps going back and pulling the "delete and change" BS on his posts.

When I said "chamber pressures which relate to bolt thrust", I am referring to it being a part of equation which does relate to the final number. My God I F@cking know it's one of two numbers in calculating the damn bolt thrust. And.... if you want to be critical, you have your choice of two options for the second number in the calculation.

We're done here. My last post I tried to take a civil approach with you but you just have to continue. The only thing productive here is racking up a no-productive post count.

[Clandestine Ops]

What I find funny ECCO? After reading my very beginning intro post with included pics, you said and assumed that my slide lock is engaged by a notch cut out in the slide. Your very first comment here was a tad cocky saying... "You're asking a lot of those parts to bear 3,500+ pounds of thrust". You never asked a question. You made a statement. Then all this BS of going back and forth happens.

So, in the end, I explain this..... "There is a locking block which is built into a milled pocket in the frame and slide. This milled pocket also intersects through the rail. The notch in the slide is only a part of this system. When the switch is moved up to engage, the locking block slides upward on an arc path, in this machined pocket, which interlocks the frame, slide rail, and slide".

Now you say..... "I operated under that assumption because of the very limited info you gave us. It was a reasonable deduction from the photos and description. I wouldn't have been as quick to judge if you'd shown a picture or drawing of the more substantial mechanism you now describe".

Here's my point. My initial intro was a "Sneak Peak", you never asked a question. But, had you read the post, you would have noticed that I did give a explanation of the system. I explained...."These weapons contain my GhostLok system which interlocks the frame and slide for single shot mode", "The thing that makes my system valuable is that it does not take away from the weapons profile. It’s primarily an all internal system", "It contains a split thumb safety. Left side is a standard thumb safety and the right switch is your indipendent GhostLok which has an embedded locking block which interlocks the frame, slide, and right slide rail".

You're not okay with the first explanation but okay with my last? Interesting how the two are pretty similar. You assumed my system was just "like" a typical 1911 thumb safety and that only the surface area of a typical thumb safety, which engages a typical slide notch, was all that I was relying on. That is the facts. But.... you forgot the terms.... "all internal" or "embedded locking block".

Now.... I end any further discussions with the troll

[John A.]

I was interested in learning about the product at first.

But didn't take me long to read and get over it.

Best of luck to you.

[ECCO Machine]

My last post I tried to take a civil approach with you but you just have to continue.

No you didn't. You feigned civility while actually attempting condescension.

ECCO... enough already. I'm not going to continue this discussion with someone that keeps going back and pulling the "delete and change" BS on his posts.

Check the edit times, as I suggested (along with improving your reading comprehension). I changed nothing today, and each one has had final edits for typos or additions before your next post. You try to accuse me of using incorrect technical terms whilst conflating bolt thrust and FRE yourself. You're vague and cryptic about what you're pushing, throw out figures like Rockwell hardness without citing the scale, and to a number not recognized by AISI as a property of the tempered alloy you claim to be using, dismiss critics as cretins, use more logical fallacies and insults than a high schooler, and expect us to take you seriously? Not happening.

I'm happy to be done with this, though. I can agree that it's going nowhere, just like your product. This ain't Hollywood, and serious use pistols aren't Star Trek phasers or live fire props that just have to be serviceable until filming is over.