Has this already been done?

[KGBSquirrel]

Had a notion regarding experimentation. Since in the U.S. you either need an FFL/SOT or a crapload of Form 1's to manage any real testing I had this thought.

Lets say you settle on a baffle stack design that uses spacers, like say a cone baffle arrangement. Is there any reason why instead of (arbitrary numbers for this example) 5 1" spaces, I couldn't have 50 0.1" spacers? I was thinking with this arrangement you could test different baffle spacings, in effect having the ability to "tune" the can to your particular rifle and cartridge loading, but doing so only using the original baffle stack pieces and thus only a single Form 1.

So...
Am I making any sense with this description?
Would this be allowed under the current law?
Would this actually be in any way beneficial?
After finding the best "tuning" is there any reason I wouldn't be allowed to weld the stack together?

[Dr.K]

As long as you shove it all in one can each time, you're good to go.....but that's a crap ton of machining.

I actually had the same thought, but thinking of a threaded tube all the way, and threaded baffles, that could be adjusted....then I realized what an awful idea that would have been

[doubloon]

The problem with 5 1" spaces vs 50 0.1" spaces is physics.

The baffles themselves will need to have some minimum thickness to be viable even if they're just flat washers. For ease of calculation say the washers are 0.1" thick. Then 5 washers spaced 1" apart is a 6.5" can, assuming 1" space between the washers and the end caps. Now, 50 0.1" washers spaced 0.1" apart is more like a 10.1" can so unless we can bend the laws of physics you're talking different tubes.

The legal problems with tunable cans based on what you're describing, as already mentioned by Dr. K, would be extra parts laying around, at least under U.S. law.

All the parts would have to be in the can every time it was assembled with no parts left over. So flipping between a 50 baffle can and a 5 baffle can would be tricky even ignoring the laws of physics. A bunch of washers squeezed together with no space between them is just dead space in a suppressor.

A completely threaded tube with a fixed number of baffles would give tunable chambers but it would probably be hell to maintain.

A fixed number of baffles with a bunch of thinly sliced spacers inside a sleeve that slides into a tube like a Sparrow seems workable ... just shuffle the number of spacers between baffles.

But I think, based on reading only, the truth of the matter is different baffle shapes actually make a bigger difference in the efficiency of the can than the space between the baffles. Complex baffles are preferred over simple cones for some applications but yield diminishing returns in other applications.

[DMY]

The legal problems with tunable cans based on what you're describing, as already mentioned by Dr. K, would be extra parts laying around, at least under U.S. law.

I've thought about this, too. Let's say I bought a GemTech suppressor with 6 K-baffles, and when I'm at the range, I take one baffle out and shoot with just 5 baffles in the tube. Is that illegal? Specifically what law does that violate? I haven't researched this yet, just thinking out loud...

[KGBSquirrel]

The problem with 5 1" spaces vs 50 0.1" spaces is physics.

The baffles themselves will need to have some minimum thickness to be viable even if they're just flat washers. For ease of calculation say the washers are 0.1" thick. Then 5 washers spaced 1" apart is a 6.5" can, assuming 1" space between the washers and the end caps. Now, 50 0.1" washers spaced 0.1" apart is more like a 10.1" can so unless we can bend the laws of physics you're talking different tubes.

The legal problems with tunable cans based on what you're describing, as already mentioned by Dr. K, would be extra parts laying around, at least under U.S. law.

All the parts would have to be in the can every time it was assembled with no parts left over. So flipping between a 50 baffle can and a 5 baffle can would be tricky even ignoring the laws of physics. A bunch of washers squeezed together with no space between them is just dead space in a suppressor.

A completely threaded tube with a fixed number of baffles would give tunable chambers but it would probably be hell to maintain.

A fixed number of baffles with a bunch of thinly sliced spacers inside a sleeve that slides into a tube like a Sparrow seems workable ... just shuffle the number of spacers between baffles.

But I think, based on reading only, the truth of the matter is different baffle shapes actually make a bigger difference in the efficiency of the can than the space between the baffles. Complex baffles are preferred over simple cones for some applications but yield diminishing returns in other applications.

Bolded part is what I was trying to describe.

[KGBSquirrel]

The legal problems with tunable cans based on what you're describing, as already mentioned by Dr. K, would be extra parts laying around, at least under U.S. law.

I've thought about this, too. Let's say I bought a GemTech suppressor with 6 K-baffles, and when I'm at the range, I take one baffle out and shoot with just 5 baffles in the tube. Is that illegal? Specifically what law does that violate? I haven't researched this yet, just thinking out loud...

This just gave me an idea.

So, lets say I built suppressor X with 15 baffles inside it. That i the number it was designed and built with. But is there anything illegal about leaving some of the baffles out of it when using it?

[doubloon]

About the only way I can imagine that being possible without clearly having "extra parts" is Dr. K's idea of a fully threaded tube. As soon as you use spacers between the baffles you're going to have parts left over at one point or another, either spacers or baffles and they're both suppressor parts.

Or ... maybe ... a clamshell like the Sparrow with grooves, detents, whatever to hold each baffle in place. It would be possible to more grooves than baffles allowing the position of the baffles to be shifted. This would mitigate some of the cleaning, wear and maintenance issues associated with a fully threaded tube.

So if you had a clamshell with 12 "grooves" at various spacing and only 5 baffles you could arrange the baffles in any "groove" combination you wanted, even reverse them.

So, with grooves for 12 baffles and only 5 available I don't know exactly what the ruling would be if you were to shoot the suppressor without all the baffles but it's hard to imagine it being any more ridiculous than shooting a suppressor with all the baffles left out.

Specifically on the Gemtech example I don't know how you'd secure 5 baffles in place without some kind of spacer and once you add a spacer you have "fabricated" a suppressor part.

[KGBSquirrel]

I'm whipping something together in cad to express the idea in my head. Gimme an hour or two.

[CMV]

Doubloon - I don't follow the difference in length. Assuming they're all cut square, 5 x 1" spacers or 50 x .1" spacers both equal 5" of total length when they're all butted together, no?

50 might be a bit excessive in the example though. A mix of .25" - .75" would be a lot easier to manage and would have the same end result because you're going to have multiples of .1" spacers stacked between everything. Whatever the absolute minimum distance between baffles could be would be the smallest spacer length, but no sense in making them all that short - just so you can then stack them to make a greater length anyway. Would be better to stack a .3" & .4" rather than seven .1" spacers for example.

As interesting as the idea seems - how would you know the ideal configuration? The differences are likely to be so minor/non-existent you're not going to tell by ear. And if you did find something that was perceptibly quieter, how would you know that the next configuration with a slight adjustment was better or worse? And then how do you define "better"? dB on a meter, the pitch, how it is perceived by you as the shooter, how it is perceived by someone next to you or downrange, etc? The reason I bring that up is something that I noticed the first time I shot something suppressed. It was a P-22 & my buddy was shooting it. He'd hold the slide with his thumb so the action wouldn't cycle and he perceived it to be MUCH quieter. I was maybe 10-15 meters to the right and to me it sounded exactly the same whether he let the action cycle or held the slide closed.

Last thought - would .1" be too thin? I can picture something like that wanting to roll down the tube instead of slide - like a how a quarter in the hard coin rolls will want to do. I think you'd have a hard time getting it together & a really hard time getting apart dirty because as soon as one gets a little cocked on the way out it would be stuck. Something a bit longer would be less likely to do that I'd think (but in reality might make no difference - I'm just imagining how it would work since I've never tried it).

[doubloon]

Doubloon - I don't follow the difference in length. Assuming they're all cut square, 5 x 1" spacers or 50 x .1" spacers both equal 5" of total length when they're all butted together, no?...

I may be off but in my mind it was 5 @ 0.1" (0.5") baffles + 6 @ 1" spacers (6.0") == 6.5" vs 50 @ 0.1" baffles (5") and 51 @ 0.1" spacers (5.1") == 10.1" ... maybe I'm crazy.

But you got the idea, you would either need spacers of varying size so they can be shuffled around like a puzzle or a bunch of very thinly sliced spacers where all you have to do if vary the number. The tolerances of machining that many parts accurately enough not to rattle makes my head spin.

On the too thin thing, I am not the right person to ask, I can only intermittently do simple math semi-reliably. It would probably depend a lot on where the baffle is in the stack, the design of the baffle, the baffle material and the application ... full auto vs centerfire pistol vs centerfire rifle ... etc ad nauseum.

[CMV]

Yeah - I think he's meaning take 5" of overall spacer length that could be made of 5 x 1" spacers or 50 x .1" spacers. With the 50 x .1 spacers, all the baffles and all the spacers still equal the same overall length when stacked. So every part would be used in every trial configuration, they'd just get stacked in a different order each time resulting in varying lengths between baffles but the same overall length.

Would be a lot of extra work but an interesting idea. I know if I tried it, spacer #50 would end up being ± a lot to cheat a tight fit because there's no way I'd hold 50 cuts at exactly .100. But I think a lot of us end up cheating something to make the fit perfect to make up for it being easier to draw precision vs machining it With mine, i had to cheat (err- "custom fit") the endcap a little

[KGBSquirrel]

Yeah - I think he's meaning take 5" of overall spacer length that could be made of 5 x 1" spacers or 50 x .1" spacers. With the 50 x .1 spacers, all the baffles and all the spacers still equal the same overall length when stacked. So every part would be used in every trial configuration, they'd just get stacked in a different order each time resulting in varying lengths between baffles but the same overall length.

Would be a lot of extra work but an interesting idea. I know if I tried it, spacer #50 would end up being ± a lot to cheat a tight fit because there's no way I'd hold 50 cuts at exactly .100. But I think a lot of us end up cheating something to make the fit perfect to make up for it being easier to draw precision vs machining it With mine, i had to cheat (err- "custom fit") the endcap a little

Make the outer tube slightly shorter with a lot of excess threading on the end. Have the last spacer fit into a slot on the endcap and just tighten down the end-cap to fit.

[DMY]

This just gave me an idea.

So, lets say I built suppressor X with 15 baffles inside it. That i the number it was designed and built with. But is there anything illegal about leaving some of the baffles out of it when using it?

That is precisely where I was going with this. I'm really glad you brought this up - I thought about a while ago but dismissed it as a stupid idea. I was thinking a stout stainless threaded tube with aluminum baffles. That way, if you did mess something up, it would be a baffle that could possibly do without. I figured that as long as all the baffles fit in the suppressor at one time, upon completion of construction, it might be okay. You could even mix and match baffle designs. Another concern I had was that the baffles might move around a little in the tube.

Regarding the GemTech example, it was just for illustrative purposes to isolate the legal issue. The K baffles would be sliding around in the tube, which is probably not a good thing, but work for the example.

[Shift1]

The legal problems with tunable cans based on what you're describing, as already mentioned by Dr. K, would be extra parts laying around, at least under U.S. law.

I've thought about this, too. Let's say I bought a GemTech suppressor with 6 K-baffles, and when I'm at the range, I take one baffle out and shoot with just 5 baffles in the tube. Is that illegal? Specifically what law does that violate? I haven't researched this yet, just thinking out loud...

This just gave me an idea.

So, lets say I built suppressor X with 15 baffles inside it. That i the number it was designed and built with. But is there anything illegal about leaving some of the baffles out of it when using it?

It is my belief that if the parts are not in the tube they are extra and therefor become "spare parts". I would suppose you would need to put some type spacer in to firm up the rest of the stack. Anything used to do this would become a suppressor part and therefor extra when removed to replace the original baffle. I think you are pretty much barking up the wrong tree with this one.

[DMY]

It is my belief that if the parts are not in the tube they are extra and therefor become "spare parts". I would suppose you would need to put some type spacer in to firm up the rest of the stack. Anything used to do this would become a suppressor part and therefor extra when removed to replace the original baffle. I think you are pretty much barking up the wrong tree with this one.

I think the OP is talking about a tube that is threaded on the inside. The baffles would screw in, therefore, there would be no need for spacers and no extra parts. All of the parts could be put into the suppressor at one time if desired.

I want to see a drawing!!

[KGBSquirrel]

Still working on a drawing but I had a chat with a friend on the phone. He seems to think that if the suppressor is safe to function with a few baffles left out then those baffles would count as extra suppressors under the idiotic ATF govthink. In any case, I'll probably give the tech branch a call and see what The Man thinks about this. I'm wondering if marking all the baffles with the same SN as the tube would get it a pass.

[mollinst]

Nope, no pass. serialized or not, if the suppressor is functional at any level with parts removed, any parts left outside of the can are "spare parts" and each is considered a silencer, in and of itself.

Bill

[DMY]

Still working on a drawing but I had a chat with a friend on the phone. He seems to think that if the suppressor is safe to function with a few baffles left out then those baffles would count as extra suppressors under the idiotic ATF govthink. In any case, I'll probably give the tech branch a call and see what The Man thinks about this. I'm wondering if marking all the baffles with the same SN as the tube would get it a pass.

IMO, the way that you frame the question is very important. If I were you, I'd start with my GemTech scenario (take one baffle out of a commercially-available suppressor) and make sure that's okay. Then, describe a second scenario where the only thing different is that you make the suppressor yourself. You could then stop there, or roll into more detail... but I'd probably stop there.

Also, if they say no to anything, get specific citations of the law that they say it would violate.


Bill- where did you get that info? I don't think I've seen that written anywhere...

[Dr.K]

I think we are reading too deep into the original idea.

cones and spacers.... spacers are multiple pieces

this would allow for rearranging them to find the optimal configuration.

Like
(spacer, spacer, baffle, spacer, spacer, baffle, spacer, spacer, baffle)

hmmm, now lets try
(spacer, spacer, spacer, baffle, spacer, baffle, spacer, baffle, spacer)

OH, that sounds quieter!

Am I on the right page here? Everything goes in the can every time. It would be legal.

[KGBSquirrel]

I think we are reading too deep into the original idea.

cones and spacers.... spacers are multiple pieces

this would allow for rearranging them to find the optimal configuration.

Like
(spacer, spacer, baffle, spacer, spacer, baffle, spacer, spacer, baffle)

hmmm, now lets try
(spacer, spacer, spacer, baffle, spacer, baffle, spacer, baffle, spacer)

OH, that sounds quieter!

Am I on the right page here? Everything goes in the can every time. It would be legal.

Yes, that is one of the ideas. Right now I'm sketching out another idea, but it would be dependent on being allowed to leave some baffles sitting in the carry case during use.

[KGBSquirrel]

Alright, working on the 3d model, but here's the 2d of what it would look like with all the optional baffles nested together inside the can.

[Bendersquint]

The legal problems with tunable cans based on what you're describing, as already mentioned by Dr. K, would be extra parts laying around, at least under U.S. law.

I've thought about this, too. Let's say I bought a GemTech suppressor with 6 K-baffles, and when I'm at the range, I take one baffle out and shoot with just 5 baffles in the tube. Is that illegal? Specifically what law does that violate? I haven't researched this yet, just thinking out loud...

Technically, yes, it is illegal, as that is now an unregistered silencer its an extra part.

And its a bad idea as well since firing it will jackhammer the endcap off in record time.

[KGBSquirrel]

Sorry, took more than a couple hours.

[doubloon]

I've thought about this, too. Let's say I bought a GemTech suppressor with 6 K-baffles, and when I'm at the range, I take one baffle out and shoot with just 5 baffles in the tube. Is that illegal? Specifically what law does that violate? I haven't researched this yet, just thinking out loud...

Technically, yes, it is illegal, as that is now an unregistered silencer its an extra part.
...

So are you saying if I choose to leave all the baffles that originally came with my Spectre in my pocket and shoot through the empty tube with just the end caps in place I'm breaking the law?

[MCKNBRD]

Sorry, took more than a couple hours.

It would be hell to keep clean, but I like that idea. I like it a LOT.