Newbie/machinist/silencer design

[Beatenplowindustries]

My name is Ryan flowers I am new to this site. I live in beautiful california, also known as the land of STRICT gun laws. I don't currently own a suppresor yet but looking to fill out a form 1. I am a machinist by trade and I have access to some great equipment.

I am looking at making a .223 can using 17-4, (300 series and titanium cost too much for first silencer). Overall length is 6 inches, 1.5 inch diameter. I plan to eventually use titanium. I have plans to make a baffleless design, By utilizing machined springs. The design will incorporate two springs one right hand pitch and the other left. My theory is that it will cause the turbulence from the round to be greatly slowed down and constantly force it to change direction. I will post pics of the design I was i have to redesign a section of it as I noticed a design flaw in the original rendering.

One question though, I plan on using this for a dedicated .223 can. If I make the bore .240 will it be sufficient not to pose a risk of damage to the silencer?

Thanks
Ryan flowers

[dave22]

How is it you plan to form 1 a can in CA?

You can't own class III in CA except for AOW from what I understand.

[Hatchetjoe]

I'll stay out of the Form 1 question, That is his research to conduct, I'm in NH and all is allowed.

Moving on to the question about the bore size. 0.24" is mighty tight and unless you have no pitch or yaw you may end up with spring hits. All this assuming you have perfect concentricity with the host bore.

[Beatenplowindustries]

As far as the form 1, it is potentially possible in California, highly unlikely to succeed but I am hoping. If i can get it accepted it may become a business geared for military/LE use. That will then require class III licensing and such. I am just trying to do the first prototype which since it is not like any can I have seen plans for it might be a first. I therefore have no data as far as potential db level reduction.

What dimensions for the ID for a .223? .250,.260, bigger? I had put .240 knowing that it would be relatively tight. I can indicate parts in to ~.0005" easily on the equipment i have access to. I don't know if it will matter that much but I do plan on stepping the bore I figured it would be ~.280-.290 bore on the far end starting from my initial .240. I am open to suggestions especially because I am new to silencers. Nothing is set in stone till metal is turned after paperwork of course.

[Hatchetjoe]

Spirals, helixes, and springs have been tried in the past, read some of the books and you will see what I'm talking about. If you can build this and won't haves any level of flexture to the inside internal elements, maybe .257" as a start working to .310" at the end cap.

i looked and as muddy as my research was it seems that if you are a manufacturer in CA you may be able have Silencers. It seems like there are several state conditions that were not clear, again you live there, maybe a call to your local BATF guy will illuminate the state laws, but more likely a letter is a better plan.

I'm sure someone more knowledgeble will come along with additional input.

[Capt. Link.]

Leaving out CA law the springs won't work its not worth pursuing.You can't work gases like that at 6" it best be 60deg cones or a asymmetric baffle of some sort.Look up Wicked's thread on completed builds then look up Wicked's 5.56 build. Awesome performance.I have no reason to steer you wrong and would love to see more successful cans built.

[delta9mda]

dont make it harder than it has to be, the springy things wont work as you are planning.

[Beatenplowindustries]

Just for reference here is where I work
http://www.heli-cal.com/cm/Home.html


I was hoping the coils would work. I will take a look at the other examples of effective cans.
Would it be possible to do a trial by making a small muffler for a lawn mower just to see air flow characteristics? I know that I can legally make a muffler just not a can without proper paperwork. I know that there is a big difference between a can and a muffler but would this work for trial and error?

[M40A1308M]

I am always looking at the products your company makes that you work for and wondered "Would that make a good baffle" They work really well on Si-place equipment and on our conveyors. We have cabinet's full of them.

[dave22]

As far as the form 1, it is potentially possible in California, highly unlikely to succeed but I am hoping. If i can get it accepted it may become a business geared for military/LE use. That will then require class III licensing and such. I am just trying to do the first prototype which since it is not like any can I have seen plans for it might be a first. I therefore have no data as far as potential db level reduction.

What dimensions for the ID for a .223? .250,.260, bigger? I had put .240 knowing that it would be relatively tight. I can indicate parts in to ~.0005" easily on the equipment i have access to. I don't know if it will matter that much but I do plan on stepping the bore I figured it would be ~.280-.290 bore on the far end starting from my initial .240. I am open to suggestions especially because I am new to silencers. Nothing is set in stone till metal is turned after paperwork of course.

Cart ahead of horse.

Your odds of getting a form one approved for a silencer build in CA is zero. They are forbidden by law...have you read it? Specifically article 2 in the link below.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12500.php

If you get an FFL and SOT type that allows suppressor / machine gun mfg then that is a whole different ball game.

The spring idea...and just about everything else you can imagine has been tried. You should flip through the "silencer patents" book.

[Bowen1911]

sigh

[Beatenplowindustries]

Thanks, I had not properly checked into all the laws. I was wanting to make the can in hopes of improving current silencers. I guess that answers my question. I love California but hate the gun laws. I knew it would be a long stretch especially in my county. Thanks for replying and helping me.

Where can I find the book on silencer patents? Is it on the site?

[dave22]

Amazon has it

[wolf]

When i did see this







i thought this

[Beatenplowindustries]

No that bottom pic is atrocious. No there are some extremely unique designs for springs that I was thinking of that have been done before at my work. Most of the really neat springs/couplings are never seen by the public. The applications of some of the springs is why I originally thought of a can design utilizing the technology.

[jlwilliams]

I think 6"x 1 1/2" is a bit small for 223 centerfire. Probably fine for 22lr, but I'd think more volume would help with the bigger gas blast.

[Bowen1911]

Most of the really neat springs/couplings are never seen by the public.

Go on

[delta9mda]

I think 6"x 1 1/2" is a bit small for 223 centerfire. Probably fine for 22lr, but I'd think more volume would help with the bigger gas blast.

not correct sir, ranger and ranger 2 were this size. a lot of 556 cans are very close to 6 x 1.5 (6.5 closer to the norm).

[Beatenplowindustries]

Sorry bowen1911 but if I told you it might just involve a desert and a spade shovel

I am actually under contract that I can't speak about almost all the work I do. What I have above is all the information I can give on what both I and helical do.
Thanks for the help guys I think I need to do much more research

[epicdoom]

I could for sure use some of the drive couplers flex type you guys have for my CNC set up. will have to look into your company when Im ready for them.

[57fairlane]

Would it be possible to do a trial by making a small muffler for a lawn mower just to see air flow characteristics?

Hmmm . . . I don't know about that.

Its so much less pressure I don't know how well that work. I can tell you that from .22 to .45 acts much differently as to what baffles work let alone moving to rifle cartridges.

[jlwilliams]

I think 6"x 1 1/2" is a bit small for 223 centerfire. Probably fine for 22lr, but I'd think more volume would help with the bigger gas blast.

not correct sir, ranger and ranger 2 were this size. a lot of 556 cans are very close to 6 x 1.5 (6.5 closer to the norm).

Really? That's cool. I had figured that rifle cal would require more than that, since that is about what I've seen in pistol caliber stuff. In fact I have seen much bigger in sub cal.

A rifle caliber can has been on my want list for years, but never close enough to the top to really dig into it.

[Beatenplowindustries]

The .223 was what I was looking into only because it is the only firearm I own that could readily accept a can without modification. My criteria for the can was to be light weight and enough to lower it to .22 cal db levels. There are some indoor ranges where I live that allow up to .223. If i could lower it to that level I could shoot more often. Currently they only allow ARs one night a week.

[57fairlane]

The .223 was what I was looking into only because it is the only firearm I own that could readily accept a can without modification. My criteria for the can was to be light weight and enough to lower it to .22 cal db levels. There are some indoor ranges where I live that allow up to .223. If i could lower it to that level I could shoot more often. Currently they only allow ARs one night a week.

Supersonic .223 vs subsonic .22 ?!?

Without an integral/ported barrel, I don't think its possible to get much closer than the 15db we are almost at with commercial cans . . .

I think the bullet noise alone is accounting for 95% of the 134db the best .223 cans are getting.