I learned some pretty important stuff today.
We have a tendency to fixate on the baffles themselves, cause thats where all the technology is housed. Most people just assume you want to stuff as many baffles into a tube as possible for maximum performance. I know thats how I thought up until recently. My early designs had very tight spacing and suffered from bad first round pop amongst other things.
It turns out the baffle is only half the battle. The other half being how the baffles are spaced out in the tube.
Today we tried less baffles and wider spacing and the results were ..... impressive.
The test gun is a Ruger MK2 with a 5" bull barrel. The test can was 6.75" OAL and had only 4 baffles in it.
The result was that the action cycling was the dominant noise to the point where it was actually difficult to separate the muzzle signature from the "clackety clack" of the bolt. In order to compare it to a suppressed rifle of known sound reduction, we had to hold the action shut with our thumb. The pistol's muzzle signature is just a bit louder than the rifle, which had been previously metered at 110 dB.
As we didn't make a tube specially for this test, we were only using an existing tube so it wasn't optimised for spacing. I am certain we can cut 0.5" to 0.75" off the OAL without compromising sound reduction.
We also tried a 5.5" long tube with only 3 baffles in it. This combination was also impressively quiet with the action noise being easily distinguishable. However, the extra baffle in the longer unit puts it into the "spooky" noise bracket meaning it is the one we are going to pursue.
Spacing
I concur, I also spaced the baffles differently in combination with using different baffle types in the same stack, spectacular results (to my Mk1 Eardrum).
.... wish I proper metering equipment like you guys.
Suputin, do you have any laws prohibiting shipping silencers internationally? I emailed ASE Utra last year but didn't get a reply.
Thus far I limited to experimenting with .22 only.
.... wish I proper metering equipment like you guys.
Suputin, do you have any laws prohibiting shipping silencers internationally? I emailed ASE Utra last year but didn't get a reply.
Thus far I limited to experimenting with .22 only.
We can ship internationally as long as your country is on the approved list ... which I don't know if it is or not? Best thing would be to contact Rob Harrison at [email protected] and ask. [/url]Suputin, do you have any laws prohibiting shipping silencers internationally?
what about removing the first blast baffle say like in a tac65 and replacing it with another spacer like is between the first baffle and the threads, in effect making a bigger expansion chamber.........what kind of effect would this have?
have you tried that?
just food for discussion as i dont know if adding another spacer would be considered illegal or not.
hope im not violating roberts rules by linking a photo from the sight to this post, if i have please delete it.
have you tried that?
just food for discussion as i dont know if adding another spacer would be considered illegal or not.
hope im not violating roberts rules by linking a photo from the sight to this post, if i have please delete it.
Adding a spacer might be adding a silencer part, but having the extra baffle out would probably constitute a separate, untaxed silencer. It's all BS anyway, but I'm sure you want to obey the law or at least ATF's interpretations of them, and would never do such a thing.
Adding a spacer in front of the blast baffle should give you MORE first round pop. Undesirable.
Ben
Adding a spacer in front of the blast baffle should give you MORE first round pop. Undesirable.
Ben