Larger dia tube over baffle stack?

Yes, it can be legal to make a silencer. For everything Form-1, from silencer designs that are easily made, to filing forms with the BATF, to 3D modeling. Remember, you must have an approved BATF Form-1 to make a silencer. All NFA laws apply.

Moderators: mpallett, bakerjw

Post Reply
User avatar
yondering
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:22 am
Location: NW Wa. state

Larger dia tube over baffle stack?

Post by yondering »

Have any of you tried a larger diameter tube over a normal sealed/welded baffle stack? I'm considering doing this, with a few small vent holes at the blast baffle, to use the space between the stack and outer tube as a secondary chamber. My hope is to pressurize that chamber, then bleed it back into the stack (through the same small holes) slowly.

This will be a 30 cal rifle can for 308, 6.5 Creed, etc, using clipped cones in a 1.375 OD stack; thinking about 1.625 or 1.750" Ti for the outer tube.
User avatar
RPM509
Senior Silent Operator
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 8:54 pm
Location: 66048

Re: Larger dia tube over baffle stack?

Post by RPM509 »

Like a reverse reflex design where the extra volume is over the baffles instead of the barrel.
Interesting idea.
"a butt tuba" - Palindrome
User avatar
fishman
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:15 pm

Re: Larger dia tube over baffle stack?

Post by fishman »

I believe that's what's referred to as a coaxial design. It's been done, and from what I've read it works well on high pressure cartridges
300 blackout form 1: http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=137293

5.56 form 1:
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=141800&p=955647#p955647
User avatar
mr fixit
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 481
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:09 am
Location: N.E. Texas

Re: Larger dia tube over baffle stack?

Post by mr fixit »

Similar to this?

ken226 wrote:I've done some testing over the last few weeks and i thought i'd post the results here.

I tested 4 suppressors, all on a LWRC 16 inch piston gun, caliber .223. The suppressors were all of my own manufacture, identical designs except as follows.

All were 1.625 od, 7 inches oal, .058 wall thickness.
#1 .275 bore, 7 baffles
#2 .275 bore, 5 baffles
#3 .365 bore, 7 baffles (designed for 300 blackout)
#4 .365 bore, 5 baffles (designed for 300 blackout)

The suppressors with 5 baffles had the same bafflestack length, the 1st baffle being the same distance from the rear endcap to accommodate the Yankee Hill flash hider. They just had more space inside between baffles.

No decibel meter, all by ear. The .275 bore cans were designed for .223 and the .365 bore cans were designed for 300 blackout. All were mounted via a Yankee Hill QD flash suppressor.

The best suppression was from #2. It was easily the quietest. Both the .275 bore suppressors were significantly quieter than the 2 .365 bore suppressors, but #2 also audibly quieter than #1 as well.

Bore diameter made a much bigger difference than i suspected, even moreso than the number of baffles.

After about 300 rounds, i put #3 on my bandsaw and cut it in half to make a cool paperweight.
Image

Found at this thread: viewtopic.php?t=129752#p904996
User avatar
yondering
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:22 am
Location: NW Wa. state

Re: Larger dia tube over baffle stack?

Post by yondering »

mr fixit wrote:Similar to this?



Found at this thread: viewtopic.php?t=129752#p904996
Similar, except the blast chamber will be same OD as the baffles, and the outer chamber will only be connected by a few small holes. I have not settled on how small or how many.
User avatar
curtistactical
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 469
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:22 am

Re: Larger dia tube over baffle stack?

Post by curtistactical »

Yes if done correctly they work excellent.
Joseph Jones
Curtis Tactical
07/02
User avatar
yondering
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:22 am
Location: NW Wa. state

Re: Larger dia tube over baffle stack?

Post by yondering »

Good to know, thanks.
Post Reply