monolithic or k baffle??
monolithic or k baffle??
i was thinking of eather going with a monolithic of a k baffle what do you guys think would be the most quiet?
and whats the best monolithic baffle stack
and whats the best monolithic baffle stack
good question
I have been thinking about this as well, I was hoping someone with more knowledge than I would respond. Here is what I think.... best sound suppression will be the k-baffle lighter as well, Mono-block more durable when taking (pounding the parts out that are crusted up with lead and powder. I have a 9mm can that I have been shooting .22 through and I have seen the build up that the 22 creates, even when I clean it every 1000 rounds or so. I do not have a k-baffle but I doubt that it would last long if it had to be pounded or tapped out often.
I have a form 1 and would also like to see what the regulars think would be best.
I have a form 1 and would also like to see what the regulars think would be best.
-
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 2:23 pm
From the research I've been doing (for hi power rifle) the cone style and K-baffel are the most effecient by way of sound reduction per weight used in suppressors like the Cyclone , Shadow , and Omega 30.
Although it sounds like the AAC Titan uses a mono style baffle stack.
The mono style baffels seem to be gaing popularity with the 22LR and other pistol cal suppressors or at least thats what I'm finding in my searches.
Although it sounds like the AAC Titan uses a mono style baffle stack.
The mono style baffels seem to be gaing popularity with the 22LR and other pistol cal suppressors or at least thats what I'm finding in my searches.
I just did a suppressor from stainless steel similar to the first picture you have but with the side chambers and mouse holes designed by Conqueror. I'm very happy with the outcome. Below is a picture of Conqueror's design.
One thing I did that was different from the above design was to incorporate an end cap on one end of the core and thread the other end. So the entire can only has 3 pieces: the core, tube and end cap/nut. The tube is not threaded. The core is threaded to the attach to the gun. I'm VERY glad I chose to do this. That allows me to loosen the nut while the can is on the gun and twist the tube to loosen the carbon and lead build-up. I do this about every 50+ rounds.
One thing I did that was different from the above design was to incorporate an end cap on one end of the core and thread the other end. So the entire can only has 3 pieces: the core, tube and end cap/nut. The tube is not threaded. The core is threaded to the attach to the gun. I'm VERY glad I chose to do this. That allows me to loosen the nut while the can is on the gun and twist the tube to loosen the carbon and lead build-up. I do this about every 50+ rounds.
[url=http://militarysignatures.com][img]http://militarysignatures.com/signatures/member1236.png[/img][/url]
-
- Silent Operator
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 8:19 pm
>
Congratulations are in order. I'm happy that somebody tried Conquerors idea. I thought very highly of the design since I first saw it. I'm glad you are pleased with it. I hope you'll post pics and also a video with its host weapon would be great. I'm thinking about building one myself in the future. Good job.
As soon as things calm down from the holiday weekend, I'm going to take it apart and clean it. Then I'll take some pictures and post them. Right now I'm shooting it on three guns, a T/C Contender with a barrel I cut down to 7", a Walther P22 and a Marlin Papoose. I need to thread a bolt gun, so I'll probably cut the barrel on my Marlin 25N down to 16" when school starts in August.
Last edited by jreinke on Mon May 26, 2008 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
[url=http://militarysignatures.com][img]http://militarysignatures.com/signatures/member1236.png[/img][/url]
Please post a video of it if you have a way of doing so! I no longer have access to a machine shop, so I haven't been able to Form 1 my own design. I would love to see some pics of the core and to hear how it sounds!
If possible, please also take some pics of the core before you clean it! That will let us see how well the design is working (ie, if the coaxial chambers are full of crud, we know the "whistle shelf" mouseholes are working as designed).
If possible, please also take some pics of the core before you clean it! That will let us see how well the design is working (ie, if the coaxial chambers are full of crud, we know the "whistle shelf" mouseholes are working as designed).
Cool. I'm doing a similar one too with just the three peices so I can spin it. "Great minds think alike"!jreinke wrote:I just did a suppressor from stainless steel similar to the first picture you have but with the side chambers and mouse holes designed by Conqueror. I'm very happy with the outcome. Below is a picture of Conqueror's design.
I've only done a fixturing prototype to test out some soft jaws on the mill to see how it holds it as I remove material for the secondary chambers. I hope to finish the core that I've already bored out in the next couple of weeks.
I'd love to see pics as well before you clean it to see how stuff is deposited.
- Machine Gun Matt
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 329
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:42 pm
- Location: USA
Take and cut up an aluminum Pop/soda can and wrap it around the end that sits in the chuck jaws. It will prevent your core from being cosmetically damages. If you want a picture I can provide a few for you.Tmag wrote:Cool. I'm doing a similar one too with just the three peices so I can spin it. "Great minds think alike"!jreinke wrote:I just did a suppressor from stainless steel similar to the first picture you have but with the side chambers and mouse holes designed by Conqueror. I'm very happy with the outcome. Below is a picture of Conqueror's design.
I've only done a fixturing prototype to test out some soft jaws on the mill to see how it holds it as I remove material for the secondary chambers. I hope to finish the core that I've already bored out in the next couple of weeks.
I'd love to see pics as well before you clean it to see how stuff is deposited.
Matt
07/02 FFL-SOT
When I turned down the core, I left the end that screws onto the gun about a 1" longer. That way I could get a hold of it with the 3-jaw chuck on the indexing head on the milling machine. However, you can't make it too long as you need to pre-drill the hole down the middle for the bullet. I drilled as far as I could go on one side (the last bit with the drill bit only about a 1/4" in the drill chuck!), then I turned it around in the chuck, re-dial indicated the core and drilled from the other side.Tmag wrote:I've only done a fixturing prototype to test out some soft jaws on the mill to see how it holds it as I remove material for the secondary chambers. I hope to finish the core that I've already bored out in the next couple of weeks.
[url=http://militarysignatures.com][img]http://militarysignatures.com/signatures/member1236.png[/img][/url]
-
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 4679
- Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:49 pm
- Location: Artesia, NM
-
- Silent Operator
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 8:19 pm
Nice
Nice work there. Thanks for sharing the pics with us. Good machining job. What size od is the stack? What size bore? Once again, good job.
The tube OD is 1.12", ID is 1". The core is 0.995". LOA is 6.75" and the bore diameter 0.261" (#G drill). The holes are 0.625" diameter and the side chambers have a 0.6875" radius. Because I made it out of 100% stainless (17-4PH) it's a little on the heavy side at 13.5 oz. The tube walls are 0.060" thick and are way to heavy for a .22 lr, though I could nock off 2 more onces if I turn the tube down to 0.040" walls. Decisions, decisions!
[url=http://militarysignatures.com][img]http://militarysignatures.com/signatures/member1236.png[/img][/url]
Am I looking at this backwards? I thought the stack threaded onto the barrel and the end cap held the tube on by threading onto the stack. If that's correct, the first set of chambers shows good flow with it decreasing in the sucessive chambers.paco ramirez wrote:Thats a really cool stack. The gas flow gets more turbulent towards the front which is causing more gas to go into the coaxial chambers. Now there needs to be a way to get more flow into the first set of coaxial chambers.
Don T. NN4S
-
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 4679
- Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:49 pm
- Location: Artesia, NM
Re: nice
Rock solid and a pain in the ass to make! I burned up three 5/8" end mills plunge cutting the holes in the core, and two of them were TiN coated. The walls between the 5/8" holes are only 0.050" thick so I had to put a small jack screw under the core when I was cutting the holes so I wouldn't bend it in half.soundless wrote:100% stainless. That thing is solid as a rock. In my opinion, if you plan on shooting it in FA you should leave the walls as they are or maybe down to 0.06" walls. As they say: If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
[url=http://militarysignatures.com][img]http://militarysignatures.com/signatures/member1236.png[/img][/url]
Yes, you did. The design looks like it's performing as I had hoped - the leftmost (ie, first) coax chambers are showing lots of crud which means they are getting good flow of gas. The decreased coax flow in later stages is natural as the pressure decreases in each stage.paco ramirez wrote:Oh, maybe I looked at it backwards then.
Very cool! Thanks for the pictures!
Can you see if there is a flow pattern to the inside of the chamber? While I'm not in the machine shop I'm trying to figure out the optimal place for the holes that lead to the secondary chambers. I tried out cosmos flowxpress in solidworks and came up with the following photos.
I had the flow start in the first chamber, so from the 2nd chamber on it is more indicative of the flow pattern it came up with. Also, I had a hard time getting it to flow into the secondary chambers, so I know I have a lot of work to do here with the settings. This was kind of a blind shot at it and I thought it would swirl differently than what this shows. I tried several parameter changes with mostly the same effect, though. I'm curious to see how the carbon deposits may look in a real can.
Can you see if there is a flow pattern to the inside of the chamber? While I'm not in the machine shop I'm trying to figure out the optimal place for the holes that lead to the secondary chambers. I tried out cosmos flowxpress in solidworks and came up with the following photos.
I had the flow start in the first chamber, so from the 2nd chamber on it is more indicative of the flow pattern it came up with. Also, I had a hard time getting it to flow into the secondary chambers, so I know I have a lot of work to do here with the settings. This was kind of a blind shot at it and I thought it would swirl differently than what this shows. I tried several parameter changes with mostly the same effect, though. I'm curious to see how the carbon deposits may look in a real can.
TMag, that flow stuff is awesome! And it verifies what I saw visually with the first few rounds of my mono design, as the gas flow dumped a bit of carbon in a swirl pattern:
This can has been everything I'd hoped for, and the maintenance is simple. No more glued components. I can dump the core in my bead blast cabinet and it'll be near new in a few minutes. I really think mono designs are going to become more popular, especially for .22LR.
JReinke, your stainless can looks great. I could not imagine cutting that thing out of stainless. It was bad enough doing one in aluminum. I'm thinking a boring head might be better for the big, circular inner cuts, even though it'd be slower.
This can has been everything I'd hoped for, and the maintenance is simple. No more glued components. I can dump the core in my bead blast cabinet and it'll be near new in a few minutes. I really think mono designs are going to become more popular, especially for .22LR.
JReinke, your stainless can looks great. I could not imagine cutting that thing out of stainless. It was bad enough doing one in aluminum. I'm thinking a boring head might be better for the big, circular inner cuts, even though it'd be slower.