22 stubby can design question

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
lewis1914
New Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:46 pm

22 stubby can design question

Post by lewis1914 »

I am making a .22 rf can that has 3" of internal length after mount and endcap. The ID is 1.485. This is a large volume, but short length. I considered making K style baffles, but I need to make them with a 70 to 80 degree cone in order to fit 3 in the given length. Three baffles isn't much. Normal cone baffles are easier to stack closely together. What is the best baffle style & arrangement given the fairly limited length I'm playing with?
User avatar
Capt. Link.
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2829
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:05 pm
Location: USA.

Re: 22 stubby can design question

Post by Capt. Link. »

lewis1914 wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:56 pm I am making a .22 rf can that has 3" of internal length after mount and endcap. The ID is 1.485. This is a large volume, but short length. I considered making K style baffles, but I need to make them with a 70 to 80 degree cone in order to fit 3 in the given length. Three baffles isn't much. Normal cone baffles are easier to stack closely together. What is the best baffle style & arrangement given the fairly limited length I'm playing with?
Most baffles perform better in smaller volume tubes because of the higher pressure. You are wasting energy that could be used to aid suppression with the large diameter.
I can think of several designs including eccentric ,a mini hush puppy or a coaxial. The use of ablatives is highly recommend to help offset the short length.
A coaxial using a 1.00" diameter inner tube with three or four K baffles and the use of a ablative should prove effective.
The only reason after 243 years the government now wants to disarm you is they intend to do something you would shoot them for!
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
lewis1914
New Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:46 pm

Re: 22 stubby can design question

Post by lewis1914 »

I was assuming the larger volume of the 1" 5/8 tube would be more effective than a skinny tube. It didn't occur to me that higher pressure could mean less sound.

When you say ablatives are a good idea, does that mean wipes or water/grease or something else?
User avatar
Capt. Link.
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2829
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:05 pm
Location: USA.

Re: 22 stubby can design question

Post by Capt. Link. »

lewis1914 wrote: Tue Feb 01, 2022 4:56 pm I was assuming the larger volume of the 1" 5/8 tube would be more effective than a skinny tube. It didn't occur to me that higher pressure could mean less sound.

When you say ablatives are a good idea, does that mean wipes or water/grease or something else?
I have seen far to many builds that have large volumes but don't use it to their advantage. Often ports will help but you must understand why and where to place them. Modern baffles don't need the volume as they are designed to work the gas not just contain it. The short length is another problem. Even a 3.00 x 3.00 tube is too short without the use of a coolant.
Ablatives are coolants : water and grease are examples.
You are starting with a tough dog suppressor why ?
The only reason after 243 years the government now wants to disarm you is they intend to do something you would shoot them for!
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
lewis1914
New Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:46 pm

Re: 22 stubby can design question

Post by lewis1914 »

This isn't my first one.

I've made 9 other cans that work great. The smallest is 6" on a .22RF and it is super quiet. The longest is 12" on a .308 and it also does a nice job. My rimfire cans are as quiet or better than my AWC and Tibbets cans.

I have a very old can with screens and a wipe on a .22 short and i'm not all that happy with the performance. I wanted to see if I could make a better can in the same size envelope.

4" seemed like a nice challenge. Any ideas are appreciated.
User avatar
Capt. Link.
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2829
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:05 pm
Location: USA.

Re: 22 stubby can design question

Post by Capt. Link. »

lewis1914 wrote: Tue Feb 01, 2022 6:39 pm This isn't my first one.

I've made a made 9 other cans that work great. The smallest is 6" on a .22RF and it is super quiet. The longest is 12" on a .308 and it also does a nice job. My rimfire cans are as quiet or better than my AWC and Tibbets cans.

I have a very old can with screens and a wipe on a .22 short and i'm not all that happy with the performance. I wanted to see if I could make a better can in the same size envelope.

4" seemed like a nice challenge. Any ideas are appreciated.
I have great respect for AWC and have experience with several of their products. They still influence my work today being a Finn kind of guy.
I build custom toys to order. Wet suppressors and wiped cans offer high performance at the cost of frequent maintenance. If you are willing to go down that path a whole world of options open up. A 3.00"x 1.00" wet suppressor or wipe type is totally workable. At 4.00" folding the suppressor as in coaxial type enters the realm of dry performance possibility.
What path
The only reason after 243 years the government now wants to disarm you is they intend to do something you would shoot them for!
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
lewis1914
New Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:46 pm

Re: 22 stubby can design question

Post by lewis1914 »

I have a .45 wet can from AWC. I'm not a fan. It is a mess to shoot and load. Grease goes everywhere!

I'd rather do a dry can. What is a folding coaxial design?
User avatar
Capt. Link.
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2829
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:05 pm
Location: USA.

Re: 22 stubby can design question

Post by Capt. Link. »

lewis1914 wrote: Wed Feb 02, 2022 4:51 pm I have a .45 wet can from AWC. I'm not a fan. It is a mess to shoot and load. Grease goes everywhere!

I'd rather do a dry can. What is a folding coaxial design?
This is a old design that was built for buzz guns and found to be a excellent design for any firearm.Many company's are now using this.https://images.app.goo.gl/r2rqWAT7vexfWwFf9
The only reason after 243 years the government now wants to disarm you is they intend to do something you would shoot them for!
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
lewis1914
New Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:46 pm

Re: 22 stubby can design question

Post by lewis1914 »

I don't fully understand that picture. it looks like a normal cone baffle & spacer assembly, and there are two tubes.
User avatar
Capt. Link.
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2829
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:05 pm
Location: USA.

Re: 22 stubby can design question

Post by Capt. Link. »

lewis1914 wrote: Thu Feb 03, 2022 7:30 pm I don't fully understand that picture. it looks like a normal cone baffle & spacer assembly, and there are two tubes.
The baffle stack fits into the smaller tube, this tube fits into the larger tube and end caps encapsulates both tubes.The slots align with the baffle stack that allow high pressure gases to vent into the space between the tubes.(Coaxial space) This in effect folds the suppressor.
The only reason after 243 years the government now wants to disarm you is they intend to do something you would shoot them for!
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
Historian
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3503
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:37 pm

Re: 22 stubby can design question

Post by Historian »

Capt. Link. wrote: Tue Feb 01, 2022 12:36 pm
lewis1914 wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:56 pm I am making a .22 rf can that has 3" of internal length after mount and endcap. The ID is 1.485. This is a large volume, but short length. I considered making K style baffles, but I need to make them with a 70 to 80 degree cone in order to fit 3 in the given length. Three baffles isn't much. Normal cone baffles are easier to stack closely together. What is the best baffle style & arrangement given the fairly limited length I'm playing with?
Most baffles perform better in smaller volume tubes because of the higher pressure. You are wasting energy that could be used to aid suppression with the large diameter.
I can think of several designs including eccentric ,a mini hush puppy or a coaxial. The use of ablatives is highly recommend to help offset the short length.
A coaxial using a 1.00" diameter inner tube with three or four K baffles and the use of a ablative should prove effective.
Another idea to consider was humorously inspired today by looking at a can of Tinactin Spray and the recent 'Catch 22"
that ATF has put up to frustrate home-build applications by requiring. detailed design info when in turn
then rejecting the application assuming the supplicant had already assembled the parts.

E.g., << https://www.target.com/p/tinactin-tolna ... lsrc=aw.ds >>

Dimensions around 1.75" x 5". Material strong aluminum. Around 13 cubic inches ... around
3 times that of standard .22 cans.

The esteemed Don Walsh patent number is EP0107273A1 for his unique silencer.
requires no baffles. Just a central steel tube that is an extension of the barrel, larger
I.D. of course, and is self aligning. Tube has a large slot milled the first ⅓ of the tube in the
can to allow all gasses to expand completely inside the can.

Two nuts at each end of Tinactin can to anchor the tube. The back trunnion part is large enough
to allow cleaning.

As any part of a suppressor is confusingly and arbitrarily considered a suppressor will a bureaucrat now dictate
that all Tinactin cans be registered along with the two nuts and metal tube?

As agents descended on a hapless car mechanic who ordered a case of diesel oil filters will all gyms be raided
and jock itch flair up? :) :) :)

Midway/Mid-Term elections coming soon to start the swamp draining. Vote.

Oh for the sane times of the 60s.
Historian
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3503
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:37 pm

Re: 22 stubby can design question

Post by Historian »

Following on to the above humorous Tinactin Foot Spray cans being next
in line to be considered suppressor parts as Fram Oil filters, a fellow
ocotogenarian who actually used real cans in that past SEA unpleasantness
with 'civilian advisers', roared that he had one better. After we all stopped
laughing it became clear that as any item can be arbitrarily and captiously
( law school jargon :) ) declared a 'silencer'.

To funny not to share:

" ALL OXI Laundry Soap large container*.
Dimensions roughly say 6 x 5 x 8 inches ==>> 240 cubic inches.
Talk about a super quiet .22 rimfire can. The son-of-a- $&#%$
would really be self cleaning, wet, self-sealing, and easily replaced.
Now imagine submitting an application for an adapter ½" x 28 tpi to the cap thread
of the ALL bottle coupler. Would you have to send the bottle back to ALL
for replacement!
!"

Reductio ad absurdum. [ 6 years of Latin not wasted ]

Please, pass HPA to unburden our stalwart agents so that they can address real
crime
such as Southern Border killer Fentanyl influx.


And you thought that retired comedians were the only ones
to have wacky fun.




<< https://www.instacart.com/landing?produ ... gIBlvD_BwE >>
Historian
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3503
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:37 pm

Re: 22 stubby can design question

Post by Historian »

Historian wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 11:51 am Following on to the above humorous Tinactin Foot Spray cans being next
in line to be considered suppressor parts as Fram Oil filters, a fellow
octogenarian who actually used real cans in that past SEA unpleasantness
with 'civilian advisers', roared that he had one better. After we all stopped
laughing it became clear that as any item can be arbitrarily and captiously
( law school jargon :) ) declared a 'silencer'.

To funny not to share:

" ALL OXI Laundry Soap large container*.
Dimensions roughly say 6 x 5 x 8 inches ==>> 240 cubic inches.
Talk about a super quiet .22 rimfire can. The son-of-a- $&#%$
would really be self cleaning, wet, self-sealing, and easily replaced.
Now imagine submitting an application for an adapter ½" x 28 tpi to the cap thread
of the ALL bottle coupler. Would you have to send the bottle back to ALL
for replacement!
!"

Reductio ad absurdum. [ 6 years of Latin not wasted ]

Please, pass HPA to unburden our stalwart agents so that they can address real
crime
such as Southern Border killer Fentanyl influx.


And you thought that retired comedians were the only ones
to have wacky fun.




<< https://www.instacart.com/landing?produ ... gIBlvD_BwE >>
Post Reply