Form 1 suppressor build, lots of pictures - Page 4

Armory » Silencers

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Form 1 suppressor build, lots of pictures (Page 4 of 6)

Posted: 2/23/2015 11:23:51 AM EDT

[#1]

Quote History

Quoted:

Pics don't seem to be working.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I finished the 6" Ti tube with Ti ends and Ti spacer material with the new profile ends. 11oz total

Any pics?

My 6" Ti kit arrives tomorrow.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm198/WeberSteve/F38C2B4A-FC67-4F44-A5D8-21AC487AAF09_zpsy2e9ur1h.jpg

Pics don't seem to be working.

Due to the amount of views on my threads my pictures have exceeded the bandwidth. The will be back up tomorrow or weds. You can click the link to view.

Posted: 2/23/2015 11:26:51 AM EDT

[#2]

I really like the look of that compact can. Can't wait.

Posted: 2/23/2015 11:43:59 AM EDT

[#3]

Quote History

Quoted:
I really like the look of that compact can. Can't wait.

View Quote

So do I, can't wait to shoot it and see how it performs.

Posted: 2/23/2015 2:09:07 PM EDT

[#4]

Quote History

Quoted:

So do I, can't wait to shoot it and see how it performs.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I really like the look of that compact can. Can't wait.

So do I, can't wait to shoot it and see how it performs.

Ok pics finally loaded up for me. Build looks great! I am submitting a few more stamps to try and get ahead of the potential 41P problems. A build like this was high on my want list. Looking forward to your range report. As always thanks for a great initial write up, and continuing to post your builds.

ETA Also curious on your opinion now of building from titanium vs carbon steel. Feel free to wait to answer this until you shoot it, or now either one. My questions is that I originally had 2 shorter cans planned. One 5.6" titanium tube and one 6" carbon steel. Both will see time on 308's but I planned on using the titanium tube for my 10.5" 5.56 SBR and the carbon steel tube for my 12.5" 308 SBR. Do you think its beneficial to build the 308 SBR can from carbon steel or would I be fine with a titanium tube for both builds. Thanks in advance.

Posted: 2/23/2015 2:45:29 PM EDT

[#5]

Quote History

Quoted:

Ok pics finally loaded up for me. Build looks great! I am submitting a few more stamps to try and get ahead of the potential 41P problems. A build like this was high on my want list. Looking forward to your range report. As always thanks for a great initial write up, and continuing to post your builds.

ETA Also curious on your opinion now of building from titanium vs carbon steel. Feel free to wait to answer this until you shoot it, or now either one. My questions is that I originally had 2 shorter cans planned. One 5.6" titanium tube and one 6" carbon steel. Both will see time on 308's but I planned on using the titanium tube for my 10.5" 5.56 SBR and the carbon steel tube for my 12.5" 308 SBR. Do you think its beneficial to build the 308 SBR can from carbon steel or would I be fine with a titanium tube for both builds. Thanks in advance.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I really like the look of that compact can. Can't wait.

So do I, can't wait to shoot it and see how it performs.

Ok pics finally loaded up for me. Build looks great! I am submitting a few more stamps to try and get ahead of the potential 41P problems. A build like this was high on my want list. Looking forward to your range report. As always thanks for a great initial write up, and continuing to post your builds.

ETA Also curious on your opinion now of building from titanium vs carbon steel. Feel free to wait to answer this until you shoot it, or now either one. My questions is that I originally had 2 shorter cans planned. One 5.6" titanium tube and one 6" carbon steel. Both will see time on 308's but I planned on using the titanium tube for my 10.5" 5.56 SBR and the carbon steel tube for my 12.5" 308 SBR. Do you think its beneficial to build the 308 SBR can from carbon steel or would I be fine with a titanium tube for both builds. Thanks in advance.

Thanks, and no problem!

Posted: 2/23/2015 3:02:27 PM EDT

[#6]

I dunno what I did right to make the NFA gods happy but I just got approval on 3 stamps that I submitted last week. A 7 day turnaround, off to Napa I go today.

Posted: 2/23/2015 3:06:10 PM EDT

[#7]

Quote History

Quoted:
I dunno what I did right to make the NFA gods happy but I just got approval on 3 stamps that I submitted last week. A 7 day turnaround, off to Napa I go today.

View Quote

So awesome!

Posted: 2/23/2015 4:40:32 PM EDT

[#8]

Quote History

Quoted:
I dunno what I did right to make the NFA gods happy but I just got approval on 3 stamps that I submitted last week. A 7 day turnaround, off to Napa I go today.

View Quote

Dang. I just checked. Submitted 2/14 still not approved

Posted: 2/24/2015 7:40:05 AM EDT

[#9]

Pictures are back up.

Posted: 2/24/2015 8:18:59 AM EDT

[#10]

After my first 9" steel build and realizing how heavy it is, I'm filing to make a 6" titanium one. The steel one will be a bench only can, and the titanium one will live on my SBR. Hopefully pictures in about a month.

Posted: 2/24/2015 8:25:16 AM EDT

[#11]

Quote History

Quoted:
After my first 9" steel build and realizing how heavy it is, I'm filing to make a 6" titanium one. The steel one will be a bench only can, and the titanium one will live on my SBR. Hopefully pictures in about a month.

View Quote

Big difference, my 9" can came in at 22.5 oz, 6" can comes in at 11oz. Huge difference on a carry gun.

Posted: 2/24/2015 9:43:22 AM EDT

[#12]

Quote History

Quoted:
Big difference, my 9" can came in at 22.5 oz, 6" can comes in at 11oz. Huge difference on a carry gun.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm198/WeberSteve/2A00971E-26D3-4B5C-A968-C3AD62C48035_zpsiw3bw4jz.jpg

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm198/WeberSteve/BE143CEB-9EC7-473B-84DA-4B1AB365B28C_zpsq51k1b6n.jpg

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

After my first 9" steel build and realizing how heavy it is, I'm filing to make a 6" titanium one. The steel one will be a bench only can, and the titanium one will live on my SBR. Hopefully pictures in about a month.

Big difference, my 9" can came in at 22.5 oz, 6" can comes in at 11oz. Huge difference on a carry gun.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm198/WeberSteve/2A00971E-26D3-4B5C-A968-C3AD62C48035_zpsiw3bw4jz.jpg

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm198/WeberSteve/BE143CEB-9EC7-473B-84DA-4B1AB365B28C_zpsq51k1b6n.jpg

Yeah, I think my 9" one is probably about 2 pounds. Having no prior suppressor experience, I didn't think that it would have been that big of a deal, but that much weight on the muzzle makes a huge handling difference.

Posted: 2/27/2015 6:45:18 PM EDT

[#13]

I was playing around with grim's picture of his layout to show some of my designs.

7.6 Ti tube with cap,style ends.

5.6 Ti tube with low profile ends.

Posted: 2/27/2015 7:18:46 PM EDT

[#14]

Quote History

Quoted:
I was playing around with grim's picture of his layout to show some of my designs.

View Quote

I think I'm going to do three like the top one...as many FPs as will fit between blast chamber and end cap.

Then, the other three will be similar to the last two. VR blast baffle, maybe a .75" spacer, FP, then a .5", FP, then a .25"...followed by FP baffles to the end cap.

Each "trio" will have a 9", 8" and 7" version. All blast chambers will be 2.75" from the outside of the end cap.

Posted: 2/27/2015 7:22:53 PM EDT

[#15]

The top one works awesome, but is heavy weighing in at 22.5 oz. I have 15 baffles in that one, with roughly 1-1/2" blast chamber. Both high power 308 and 556 sound great.

Posted: 2/27/2015 7:24:26 PM EDT

[#16]

Any benefit to that many baffles in the 7" can? A spacer the size of a fp would help keep the weight down if there is no benefit to the extra baffle..

Posted: 2/27/2015 7:26:34 PM EDT

[#17]

Quote History

Quoted:
Any benefit to that many baffles in the 7" can? A spacer the size of a fp would help keep the weight down if there is no benefit to the extra baffle..

View Quote

Better suppression, db reduction.

Posted: 2/27/2015 10:08:14 PM EDT

[#18]

More FP baffle will do well. The only thing is blow back and weight. Mine weights 36oz carbon steek tube. I've said this long ago but people dont seem to agree. The FP spacing isnt short enough for diminished returns yet. My calculator also agrees. Fir blowback, simply drilling holes as needed in the first few will relief that problem.

Also people are forgeting that the whole equaltion is pv=nrt. T being temperature. Which meas more freeze plugs also translate to higher heat capacity, lower gas temperature.

Now if you try to apply this with VRs, you will be highly disappointed.

Posted: 2/27/2015 10:18:38 PM EDT

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:
The top one works awesome, but is heavy weighing in at 22.5 oz. I have 15 baffles in that one, with roughly 1-1/2" blast chamber. Both high power 308 and 556 sound great.

View Quote

How do the shorter ones sound? Do you use those with 5.56 as well?

Posted: 2/27/2015 10:31:34 PM EDT

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:

How do the shorter ones sound? Do you use those with 5.56 as well?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
The top one works awesome, but is heavy weighing in at 22.5 oz. I have 15 baffles in that one, with roughly 1-1/2" blast chamber. Both high power 308 and 556 sound great.

How do the shorter ones sound? Do you use those with 5.56 as well?

I have only tested the short ones for function due to all the snow and crappy weather we have been having, so 556 testing will be later.

Posted: 2/27/2015 10:31:55 PM EDT

[#21]

Quote History

Quoted:
More FP baffle will do well. The only thing is blow back and weight. Mine weights 36oz carbon steek tube. I've said this long ago but people dont seem to agree. The FP spacing isnt short enough for diminished returns yet. My calculator also agrees. Fir blowback, simply drilling holes as needed in the first few will relief that problem.

Also people are forgeting that the whole equaltion is pv=nrt. T being temperature. Which meas more freeze plugs also translate to higher heat capacity, lower gas temperature.

Now if you try to apply this with VRs, you will be highly disappointed.

View Quote

Great post!

Posted: 2/28/2015 2:06:18 PM EDT

[#22]

Quote History

Quoted:

Great post!

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
More FP baffle will do well. The only thing is blow back and weight. Mine weights 36oz carbon steek tube. I've said this long ago but people dont seem to agree. The FP spacing isnt short enough for diminished returns yet. My calculator also agrees. Fir blowback, simply drilling holes as needed in the first few will relief that problem.

Also people are forgeting that the whole equaltion is pv=nrt. T being temperature. Which meas more freeze plugs also translate to higher heat capacity, lower gas temperature.

Now if you try to apply this with VRs, you will be highly disappointed.

Great post!

That's interesting. I wonder how that'll affect frp? I don't sense much in my current build, however another person at the range claims to have.

Posted: 2/28/2015 5:32:57 PM EDT

[#23]

hmm..i had 12 FPs come in the bag, should I use all 12 in a 8" can for 5.56?

Posted: 2/28/2015 5:48:31 PM EDT

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:
hmm..i had 12 FPs come in the bag, should I use all 12 in a 8" can for 5.56?

View Quote

Sounds excessive when considering a 1.75" blast baffle

Posted: 2/28/2015 7:15:34 PM EDT

[#25]

Quote History

Quoted:

Sounds excessive when considering a 1.75" blast baffle

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
hmm..i had 12 FPs come in the bag, should I use all 12 in a 8" can for 5.56?

Sounds excessive when considering a 1.75" blast baffle

Not really. I think mine measure ~.4", so you can fit 12 of them in ~5". Add the 1.75" blast chamber, and another 1" you lose with the caps, and you almost have room for a 13th FP.

Posted: 2/28/2015 7:27:51 PM EDT

[#26]

Quote History

Quoted:

Not really. I think mine measure ~.4", so you can fit 12 of them in ~5". Add the 1.75" blast chamber, and another 1" you lose with the caps, and you almost have room for a 13th FP.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
hmm..i had 12 FPs come in the bag, should I use all 12 in a 8" can for 5.56?

Sounds excessive when considering a 1.75" blast baffle

Not really. I think mine measure ~.4", so you can fit 12 of them in ~5". Add the 1.75" blast chamber, and another 1" you lose with the caps, and you almost have room for a 13th FP.

That's intriguing.

Posted: 2/28/2015 8:05:36 PM EDT

[#27]

Quote History

Quoted:

Not really. I think mine measure ~.4", so you can fit 12 of them in ~5". Add the 1.75" blast chamber, and another 1" you lose with the caps, and you almost have room for a 13th FP.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
hmm..i had 12 FPs come in the bag, should I use all 12 in a 8" can for 5.56?

Sounds excessive when considering a 1.75" blast baffle

Not really. I think mine measure ~.4", so you can fit 12 of them in ~5". Add the 1.75" blast chamber, and another 1" you lose with the caps, and you almost have room for a 13th FP.

There has got to be a point where the gains from cramming FP's in there are outweighed by the...weight.

Posted: 2/28/2015 9:17:53 PM EDT

[#28]

Quote History

Quoted:

There has got to be a point where the gains from cramming FP's in there are outweighed by the...weight.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
hmm..i had 12 FPs come in the bag, should I use all 12 in a 8" can for 5.56?

Sounds excessive when considering a 1.75" blast baffle

Not really. I think mine measure ~.4", so you can fit 12 of them in ~5". Add the 1.75" blast chamber, and another 1" you lose with the caps, and you almost have room for a 13th FP.

There has got to be a point where the gains from cramming FP's in there are outweighed by the...weight.

+1

Posted: 2/28/2015 10:03:48 PM EDT

[#29]

Quote History

Quoted:

There has got to be a point where the gains from cramming FP's in there are outweighed by the...weight.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
hmm..i had 12 FPs come in the bag, should I use all 12 in a 8" can for 5.56?

Sounds excessive when considering a 1.75" blast baffle

Not really. I think mine measure ~.4", so you can fit 12 of them in ~5". Add the 1.75" blast chamber, and another 1" you lose with the caps, and you almost have room for a 13th FP.

There has got to be a point where the gains from cramming FP's in there are outweighed by the...weight.

loss of volume moreso than weight. it really is a science. On my 22 cans I've found the baffles need to be about .65" apart for best performance. I bet the large calibers need a bit more than that.

Posted: 2/28/2015 10:44:37 PM EDT

[#30]

^^

IIRC, I thought I read the formula was like .65 apart after the blast baffle then like .80" apart near the muzzle

Posted: 3/1/2015 2:59:28 PM EDT

[#31]

The loss of volume is definitely not a concern with stacking FP all the way. The real concern is higher pressure for the first few baffles and wether the tube/end cap/baffle can handle it.. The overall volume lost isn't that much. The overall volume matters more than volume within a single baffles. Everyone tends to focus on the volume of the individual baffles, but doesn't realize the overall volume isn't that much less and its what really matters in the end.

Think this over people. The wall of a FP is 0.060" thick. Each freeze plug takes up ~0.18305415 cubic inches. So for a 8.35" tube, it only adds 1.53% of the overall volume per baffle. That's not counting the fact that if you don't put a FP, a spacer of the same width takes up ~0.110056725 cubic inches (or 0.92%). So you only save 0.61% per baffle using a spacer instead of FP. So adding 5 extra baffle takes up only 3% of the volume!!!!!!

And that's not even counting there is a big HOLE in the baffle. My above math did not remove the hole that you drill. So it is MUCH less than 3%. That easily brings it down to ~1.5% of added volume for 5 extra baffles, depending on the caliber.

So at the end, the real question is going from 10 to 15 baffles, is 1.5% more internal volume is worth more than 50% more baffle for deflection and ~40-50% more surface area for heat sinking?

This IS science. What is not science is how you build your own. Some people may care about the extra weight/length/size/cost/durability/safety. Some choose to leave out certain parameters and put more emphasis on others. So it is an ART afterall.

Posted: 3/1/2015 4:10:26 PM EDT

[#32]

I think ill try out as many that can fit w/ about a 2" blast baffle and the first baffle being a titanium VSR.

Posted: 3/17/2015 1:19:25 AM EDT

[#33]

@>Sudoshi

So your saying a FP suppressor doesn't suffer from diminishing returns because the baffles are physically unable to fit too tight together?

Posted: 3/17/2015 4:05:31 AM EDT

[#34]

A relatively pointed question:

Has anyone tried various lengths with subsonic 300 BLK? My 8" gun is asking for the shortest, lightest available can, however I don't want to sacrifice performance over an inch or two of can length.

Posted: 3/17/2015 7:14:43 AM EDT

[#35]

I could build one, the forming of the baffles is my only concern. Would it be legal and possible to sell pre formed baffles to those that are too busy to tinker, or those that are not mechanically inclined.

You could probably make a killing on the equipment exchange here. The buyer still has to assemble, buy and build the other parts.

Edit.. I found the other thread discussing it.

Posted: 3/17/2015 7:20:54 AM EDT

[#36]

Quote History

Quoted:

I could build one, the forming of the baffles is my only concern. Would it be legal and possible to sell pre formed baffles to those that are too busy to tinker, or those that are not mechanically inclined.

You could probably make a killing on the equipment exchange here. The buyer still has to assemble, buy and build the other parts.

View Quote

Linky...

Posted: 3/17/2015 8:06:51 AM EDT

[#37]

Quote History

Quoted:
A relatively pointed question:

Has anyone tried various lengths with subsonic 300 BLK? My 8" gun is asking for the shortest, lightest available can, however I don't want to sacrifice performance over an inch or two of can length.

View Quote

Yes, longer is better but shorter one works great as well.

On my 8.5" barrel I have the 5.6 tube.

Posted: 3/17/2015 9:04:35 AM EDT

[#38]

OST. Weber, thanks for the great build pics.

If this isn't made a sticky, at least how about a mod setting the "don't archive" flag?

Posted: 3/17/2015 10:12:30 AM EDT

[#39]

Quote History

Quoted:
@>Sudoshi

So your saying a FP suppressor doesn't suffer from diminishing returns because the baffles are physically unable to fit too tight together?

View Quote

With people forming deep cones, that may not be true, since the spacing of the FP gets shorter. But for people with unaffected walls of ~.4" width, yes the diminishing return for sound reduction has not reach the steep part of the curve. It is close and affected, but there is still noticeable gains. You can try and see. Wether it is worth the extra weight is up to you. Most people choose against the tight stack do it only for weight reduction. For me that extra 2-4 oz is worth it. Some people are more sensitive to noisevthan others. I choose to go with the heavyweight cans. Unless you are using lightweight spacer, you may not even save much weight st all.

Just think of it this way, 2 x 75% effective FP is better sound reduction than 1 x 100% FP. But it doubles the FP weight. Not neccessarly doubleing the overall weight, just the FP weight
.

Posted: 3/17/2015 12:26:02 PM EDT

[#40]

What about notching the walls of the freeze plugs to remove material and reduce weight?

Leaving say 1/3rd of the original bearing surface?

Posted: 3/17/2015 12:56:08 PM EDT

[#41]

Quote History

Quoted:
What about notching the walls of the freeze plugs to remove material and reduce weight?

Leaving say 1/3rd of the original bearing surface?

View Quote

Lots of people have done that, cutting "legs" in the FP. Not mine, but something similar to this:

Posted: 3/17/2015 1:02:59 PM EDT

[#42]

Quote History

Quoted:

Lots of people have done that, cutting "legs" in the FP. Not mine, but something similar to this:

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa166/redtazdog/Freezeplugbaffle2.jpg

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
What about notching the walls of the freeze plugs to remove material and reduce weight?

Leaving say 1/3rd of the original bearing surface?

Lots of people have done that, cutting "legs" in the FP. Not mine, but something similar to this:

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa166/redtazdog/Freezeplugbaffle2.jpg

Pretty sure that the consensus was that it doesn't remove enough weight for all the time and effort involved.

Posted: 3/17/2015 1:25:51 PM EDT

[#43]

That's exactly what I was picturing in my mind, looks like someone beat me to it!

Posted: 3/17/2015 7:29:25 PM EDT

[#44]

Quote History

Quoted:

Pretty sure that the consensus was that it doesn't remove enough weight for all the time and effort involved.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
What about notching the walls of the freeze plugs to remove material and reduce weight?

Leaving say 1/3rd of the original bearing surface?

Lots of people have done that, cutting "legs" in the FP. Not mine, but something similar to this:

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa166/redtazdog/Freezeplugbaffle2.jpg

Pretty sure that the consensus was that it doesn't remove enough weight for all the time and effort involved.

If you have 15 x FP, thats easily 3-4 oz savings. Same weight saved for that people avoid back to back FP. So if you do back to back FP, doing that mod will essentially offset the weight. But you get alot more noise reduction. Instead of cutting, I think drilling the wall is much easier. Also, the way Weber uses the jig to form the plug allows the drill hole to remove alot more material than those using a dead center to expand the bore.

Posted: 3/18/2015 1:30:44 AM EDT

[#45]

Quote History

Quoted:
Linky...

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I could build one, the forming of the baffles is my only concern. Would it be legal and possible to sell pre formed baffles to those that are too busy to tinker, or those that are not mechanically inclined.

You could probably make a killing on the equipment exchange here. The buyer still has to assemble, buy and build the other parts.

Linky...

I may buy some of those just for the boobs.

Posted: 3/18/2015 8:29:10 PM EDT

[#46]

Anyone have pics of these cans on a pistol? Curious to see how much of the sight it covers or if it looks oddly large on a pistol.

Posted: 3/18/2015 9:11:38 PM EDT

[#47]

Quote History

Quoted:
Anyone have pics of these cans on a pistol? Curious to see how much of the sight it covers or if it looks oddly large on a pistol.

View Quote

D cell consumes the sights, c cell will allow it them to be view depending on the pistol.

Posted: 3/18/2015 10:00:22 PM EDT

[#48]

I guess more FP's mean more sound reduction. I am seriously considering going all FP's in my first build after the blast baffle spacer instead of spacing the first few out.