22 rimfire- Omega vs Cones vs K's

[mr fixit]

Assuming the same length can, same length barrel and same ammo, is there any definitive leader as to the best baffle choice for 22 rimfire? Assuming Form 1 build, with lathe and milling machine available, is there a clear 'better choice"? Pros and cons to the various styles?

[Historian]

Sir, add my standing ovation for your Herculean effort to
revive this once great market place of ideas and flush out
the spam-debris.

For baffle design one vote for K-s.
Perfect implemation by luminary PTK the still is a God Standard IMHO:

<< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyBNJ_31uQc >>

Estimate with baffles around 8+ cubic inches.

For innovative please peruse Don Walsh's patent: << https://patents.google.com/patent/EP0107273A1/en >>
It eliminates problem with baffle alignment permanently.

For example an implementation for .22 would have 4 parts:
the steel central tube that has ½"x 28 tpi, its first ⅓ milled out
so that what is left are two thin supports for
rest of tube and opening for gas to freely expand.

No mesh necessary.
Two end caps and outer tube: Looks
similar to 1963's small run Parker Hale MM1Snorkel design which has been
discussed here long ago.

The gas expands immediately into the
whole can reducing temperature and pressure.

Pick say for a .22 can the gold standard for many of us is the Dead Air HD.

Specs: 5.1" long, 1.07" diameter. Back of envelope volume with baffles installed
is say ~3cubic inches. Works around 113 db if published data accurate.

The 'mini-me' .22 Walsh can in a 1 ⅜" diameter tube and say 8.5 inches long gives a
an approximate 11 cubic inches.

On say a 10/22 one can imagine a pleasantly surprising degree of quiet.
"It's not a BB gun".

Mark White once made a can for Ruger 10/22 20" long to get same
volume.

Please keep us up to date on your development.

Again, kudos to you for reviving this 'agora'.

[mr fixit]

Thank you sir for the thank you sir.

My project is going to be an 'integral' Ruger Mk2. I am looking at about 3.5" barrel, of which about 2.25 will be forward of the receiver. A 1" tube approx 8.5" long extending back over the exposed barrel to the receiver. A combo muzzle brake and spacer to help align the outer tube and then some concoction of baffles forward of that.

Something along the lines of the Amphibian or the TBA Sicario.

[Historian]

A novel idea to mull over would be to emulate Don Walsh construction as it would be self-aligning
and no baffle strikes to worry about.

Caveat: any final product should be checked with a Giessele Alignment rod.
Even best designs have machining errors which can lead to baffle strikes or
even worse seeing can down range.

<< https://geissele.com/parts-tools/suppre ... -gage.html >>
Like a parachute check list Giessele rod used each time can put on.

Hypothetical sketch pulled out of air:

Your Requirements Document ( residual from long ago Source Selection steps ):
"..about 3.5" barrel, of which about 2.25 will be forward of the receiver.

A 1" diameter tube long of proper length extending back over the exposed pipe threaded to the receiver"

Observation: to avoid double Stamp as your 3.5 + 8.5 = 12" < 16.1" ==>> SBR + Suppressor $$

From studies optimum barrel for .22 is 5.5" ; more than adequate velocity ( e.g., S&W 41 + 5.5"
barrel 'supported' tight group at 50 yards like a small carbine ) and no need for Hush ammo as CCI SV out of box
at 5.5" is under 1000 fps.

Proposed design:

1. ⅝" OD x ½" ID x 12" pipe on 5.5" threaded 10/22 'chopped' barrel
Milled out first ⅓ to allow gas escape.

2.Outer tube ~ 1" ID x say .065 wall x 16.1"

3 Two end caps 1.09" OD, lips to fit inside of tube
like end caps of mailing tubes ... which will be pulled in
when tightening around central 'pipe'

4. Referring to Don's patent this becomes clear.

5. Only machining is the thread inside of pipe 1.2" x 20 TPI to thread
onto the barrel and milling or drilling out wide slots ⅓ first length.

Assembled outer tube is bound between 2 end caps by compression
as some of 10/22 integrally suppressed barrels are made.

Plagerizing from flow through patent small escape holes drilled into
from end cap.

Or buy a Dead Air can.


Please keep us updated.

Best.

[mr fixit]

.....

Your Requirements Document ( residual from long ago Source Selection steps ):
"..about 3.5" barrel, of which about 2.25 will be forward of the receiver.

A 1" diameter tube long of proper length extending back over the exposed pipe threaded to the receiver"

Observation: to avoid double Stamp as your 3.5 + 8.5 = 12" < 16.1" ==>> SBR + Suppressor $$

Best.

Not a SBR, it's a pistol start to finish:

[Historian]

Excellent!

Like the Amphibian of old. Great integrally suppressed
pistol.

Vote for K's ... again alignment when maching a stack of Ks.
From experience ... use Permatex Anti-Seize on all threads.

Anchor Lube is a great for threading, tapping, and light coat
inside a can. Especially for dirty .22 the debris wipes off
effortlessly.

E.g. << https://anchorlube.com/product/anchorlube/ >>

Best

[Historian]

Remembered this added intel that might be useful:

<< https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/201 ... ntegrally/ >>

[Capt. Link.]

I'm going to throw you a curve ball with a little known design by John D Leasure US5164535A. Typical cans used three to four baffles with a half inch spacing. Performance was astonishing.

[mr fixit]

I'm going to throw you a curve ball with a little known design by John D Leasure US5164535A. Typical cans used three to four baffles with a half inch spacing. Performance was astonishing.

Artwork on the patent looks like flat baffles with a cross-flow feature. Very interesting.

I've also wondered about your 'straight 8' design. I was thinking instead one large hole cross drilled to make a chamber, what if you drilled with say a 3/8" and then drilled again at 90* to that. Basically drilling an 'X" so to speak. It would seem you could space more chambers in the same space.
Just thinking out loud.

Glad you stopped by again, I always appreciate your input and knowledge.

[Capt. Link.]

Don't trust the artwork of the Leasure patent I have some details not mentioned. The volume of his suppressors is tiny and dispels all thought about needed cubic inches for a caliber. The design is still used but has gone to the spook market.

I have two very similar designs ,the straight eight and the super simple. The straight eight uses "slanted sidewall" tech developed by Finn though the Leasure design I believe to be superior and is adaptable to the design.
The super simple is only for very limited machine setups. I do have a another design though never tested but based upon a working design built back in 1982. Its not a monocore but should do the deed. If you need help evicting spammers let me know I have the time.
CL

[mr fixit]

Don't trust the artwork of the Leasure patent I have some details not mentioned. The volume of his suppressors is tiny and dispels all thought about needed cubic inches for a caliber. The design is still used but has gone to the spook market.

I have two very similar designs ,the straight eight and the super simple. The straight eight uses "slanted sidewall" tech developed by Finn though the Leasure design I believe to be superior and is adaptable to the design.
The super simple is only for very limited machine setups. I do have a another design though never tested but based upon a working design built back in 1982. Its not a monocore but should do the deed. If you need help evicting spammers let me know I have the time.
CL

If for no other reason than just to further knowledge I would love to know more about the Leasure design.

And thank you for the offer of help. For the moment it's fairly easy to handle. I've been in communication with Robert and I think he plans to update the board software. If that happens, I hope to put in place a few extra things for new members to keep the spam down.

[Matt in TN]

Agreed on the K-baffles. They just work!

[hangman]

I thought I'd add my $0.04 (2 * 2 cents, as you'll see).

I currently have two very different 22 cans - a Gemtech MIST-22TD and a SiCo Switchback. Bought with the intent of comparing / contrasting (additionally - I also have used the Switchback on the original 10/22 16" SS barrel).

After hundreds of rounds in all 4 configurations of the switchback, as well as the MIST (which is just a 7.9" monocore design) I think that the number of baffles is more important for a 22 than type of baffles. As I think others have explained elsewhere - the Omegas shine with more gas / faster rounds, because they are "sort of folding" the can. In a length limited endeavor like yours, with progressive spacing you can get a much greater number of cones (radial or straight) with less time on the lathe and/or mill than with Ks. Though time in the shop is sometimes a very good thing.

And now that I've said (or typed) that, I'll be my own Devil's advocate... (though I know the 1gr of powder vs 9gr of powder alone makes this a bit of a red herring).

Take a look at this design from the 80's by Tula for a heavy (~240gr) and slow (900-1100 fps) 9mm projectile (from https://smallarmsreview.com/the-elusive ... per-rifle/). It measured ~39dB reduction in SPL... Less baffles and more volume.


Now I'm wondering if that was $0.06 worth...

[Enfield577]

Hi, I have tried a few different designs for 22 and find ks by far the best, I find around 23mm dia. and 7 baffles about the best with the first two baffles having 1/4" bore then the remainder 7mm bore. I have fitted a few of these to the Ruger pistols , and only port the barrels if you want to run high velocity ammo, but the ports soon get full of crap so best just using subs or standard ammo.

Cheers