User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/17/2005 10:41:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: fizassist]
[#1]
Interesting... those baffles remind me of an MP5SD stack. (a one-piece stamped square tube) How much does one baffle weigh?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/18/2005 4:55:24 PM EDT
[#2]
Goddamn good stuff!!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/18/2005 9:12:32 PM EDT
[#3]
This is VERY interesting! Thanks for going through the trouble to post it.
Bob |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 5/19/2005 7:12:11 AM EDT
[#4]
Thanks for the updates, I am going to have to get started on one myself
|
|
|
NH, USA
|
Posted: 5/21/2005 4:56:36 PM EDT
[#5]
will be interesting to see how that stack works both forward... and backward.
nice work Swede!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2005 6:05:39 PM EDT
[#6]
Tagged for outcome
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/21/2005 8:47:53 PM EDT
[#7]
jandbj, your comment on the backwards baffles was pretty interesting... I originally designed them to be used as you described - backwards! In other words, the bullet path was into the "cone", and it exited at the hemispherical cut. Looking hard at it, I thought it'd work better as I described it here in this thread.
Ultimately I tried it both ways. Here's what my unscientific observations revealed. First, my experience with good suppressors is pretty small. I have a Bower's CAC-22 on a Ruger MK2, threaded 1/2 X 28. Since this can has a different thread, I have to use two different guns for testing. #1 - Ruger MKII with CAC22 #2 - Bushmaster w/DIAS and Ciener, Kuehl 5.5" bbl - homemade can The CAC22 is a modern muzzle can. Comparing the CAC-22 to this giant can is apples to oranges... My can has a HUGE advantage due to the size. So with that said, here's what happened. The tube was loaded with the baffles BACKWARDs from the thread description. Suppression was satisfying, but not as good as I wanted. The sound was on par with the CAC22. Reversing the baffles (so they are oriented as described in the previous posts) was definitely quieter, and also reduced first round pop, which was noticeable with both orientations. The majority of the noise was action noise. The can sounded similar to a pneumatic nailer, same type of noise, but quieter. MPEG video generally sucks for trying to get the feel of a suppressor, but I'll produce a little clip anyhow and post it. Given the volume of this can, I think I can do better by going to a more typical baffle stack. Since I am not a manufacturer, I will need to destroy this set of baffles and start over...  Sad but ultimately no big deal, they were pretty experimental and fun to both conceptualize and produce. I really feel the stack has potential, as it creates annular chambers automatically, no spacers needed, and lends itself well to home production, as K-baffles are flat-out tortuous to make on a manual lathe.The tube was correctly marked with my bench CNC mill. Here is an example of the engraving on a scrap aluminum tube. These letters are 0.187" tall. Since they are pretty small, I can get away without a 4th axis... just clamp the tube in the vise and mill away with 3 axes. This tool has potential to engrave lowers!  The next step is to trash the square baffles and proceed on another stack. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/22/2005 10:28:50 AM EDT
[#8]
I would get written confirmation from ATF addressed specifically to you that as a F1 maker, you can destroy the old baffle and build a new set.
The original F1 is a tax paid to make one suppressor and you have already posted on a public forum that this suppressor has been made. Making another one without paying another tax can be viewed as tax evasion. Compare this to paying a toll to cross a bridge. You cross the bridge and got to the other side but then remember you left something at home so you turn around, go back home to get the forgotten item and then go back to the exact same toll collector. Can you ask the toll collector to let you cross without paying because you just paid 20 minutes ago? |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/22/2005 10:58:49 AM EDT
[#9]
Yah this has been bugging me for a while. I have ONE suppressor, with ONE baffle stack. Here's the rub... what if, while you are machining a baffle (which the ATF considers a suppressor all by it's lonesome), during the VERY LAST operation, you bugger it. Here you are with a mangled baffle which is still technically a baffle. Are you now forced to use it? Can you not destroy it and make a replacement? Or you get a baffle strike due to a tolerance or other problem... replacement out of the question? I know in this huge community someone has the answer. I sure can't find it. I think the spirit of the F1 is to allow the owner to make a suppressor, just one, with ultimately no extra parts when the smoke clears. It is inconcievable to me that a guy is expected to execute every machining operation flawlessly and have exactly ZERO rejects. With that said, the spirit of the law often means squat. I guess I have basically screwed myself with this serialization. If it comes down to it, I still have an excellent suppressor and have complied 100% with the narrowest interpretation possible. Can anyone out there speak with some authority on this? I've done research but have not written to the BATFE. If I can proceed, the square baffles will meet a gory fate in my hydraulic press!  Otherwise, the build is concluded, and it'll wrap up with finishing, some final pics, and maybe an MPEG.
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/22/2005 11:40:52 AM EDT
[#10]
Here is a copy of the letter I am going to send to the BATFE and see if I can't get some clarification of this issue. Hopefully, this will be helpful to future F1 builders. If you guys think this is a bad idea, let me know, I'll hold off on mailing it for a few days.
Bureau of ATF Firearms Technology Branch 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Room 6450 Washington, DC 20226 Sirs: I have a few questions pertaining to the construction of a firearm silencer, and would appreciate your reply. The following assumes an individual has an approved BATFE Form 1 for the construction of a single silencer, and is not an FFL/SOT, manufacturer, or licensed by the Federal Govt. in any way. All work is executed ONLY by the Form 1 entity. 1) During the initial machining of a baffle, endcap, tube, or other component for the silencer, a machining error is made which renders the item completely unuseable. Can the erroneous part be destroyed, and another part machined to replace it? 2) Once completed and correctly marked, the suppressor is tested, but the performance is poor. Can the existing baffles be completely destroyed and then replaced by baffles of a different design by the Form 1 holder? 3) During subsequent use, an internal component of the silencer is damaged such as a baffle or endcap strike. Following the complete destruction of the damaged component, can the original Form 1 holder repair the suppressor by creating suitable replacement parts? 4) During subsequent use, the marked and serialized silencer tube is destroyed by excess pressure, a dent, a squib load, etc. Can the original form 1 holder completely destroy the tube, and replace the tube with another, using the original internals, and mark the tube with the original serial number and other required markings? I thank you for your time. Sincerely, etc 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2005 3:45:25 AM EDT
[#11]
Better to ask forgivness than to ask permission.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2005 9:52:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: tony_k]
[#12]
Gorilla, as you say, by documenting your build here, you've left yourself no wiggle room.
I've been following and researching Tech Branch rulings for a decade and have never seen this subject of design changes during construction be addressed. That may well be because F1 can makers don't really want an answer (see David's post above). If you do get a negative response, you might think long and hard before posting it here: While a Tech Branch letter is technically only binding upon the person to whom it is addressed, any of us who read your posts would have a hard time defending any "good faith" action contrary to the ruling. If you do write Tech Branch, I would drop the third and fourth questions. The broader you make your letter, the more prone Tech Branch may be to simply issue a broad decree banning any modification, repair or replacement. Instead, I'd suggest you keep it tight and precise. Question #1 is fine, but reword Question #2 to reflect the reality of your situation: As you note in the posts above, you have not yet "wrapped up with finishing," and therefore it is an initially tested but not finished suppressor. So start it out with "During initial testing prior to finishing the project, the performance is poor..." Also note that Tech Branch rarely responds in less than a month or two; six months is the norm, and some questions go unanswered for a year or two. Given the subject matter of your letter, Tech may very well have to pass the letter through Legal Branch, which doubles the turnaround time. So don't expect to settle this anytime soon. 
|
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 5/23/2005 9:53:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: DrugRunR]
[#13]
Let me make a statement.
You are the manufacturer of the silencer You are also the form 1 holder The manufacturer can repair and even replace a silencer proved the serial # is the same and the original item destroyed |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2005 9:57:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: tony_k]
[#14]
ipso this:
www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter66.txt DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS WASHINGTON, DC 20226 AUG 23 1999 901040:GS 5320/99-0115 Dear Mr. Bardwell: This is in response to your letter of June 28, 1999, regarding the repair of a silencer by an individual owner. You ask "whether it is lawful for the owner of a lawfully possessed silencer ... to repair that silencer himself, by replacing unserialized internal components with new components of his own making." You cited the replacement of a worn out plastic "wipe" or damaged baffle as an example. As you are aware, the terms "firearm silencer" and "firearm muffler" mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication. Thus, certain internal components, intended only for use in a silencer, are silencers as defined. If an individual made one of these parts, even for use as a replacement part, the individual would be making a silencer. Under the provisions of the National Firearms Act, any person must apply for and receive permission to make a silencer and pay the making tax for each silencer made. This would require the individual owner to file an ATF Form 1 application for each silencer part to be made with the payment of $200.00 for each application prior to making any replacement part. In regard to the two parts in your cited example, we consider a baffle to be a silencer, but a wipe, which is usually nothing more than a rubber or plastic disc with a hole in it, is generally not considered to be a silencer. Thus an individual owner could replace a wipe. - 2 - Mr. Bardwell For the replacement of a part or parts that meet the definition of a silencer, the individual owner would need to arrange for the transfer of the silencer to a Federal firearms licensee who is qualified to manufacture silencers. If you have questions about the classification of other silencer components, please provide us with a description of them or should any additional information be needed, please contact Gary Schiable at (202) 927-8330. Sincerely yours, [signed] Kent M. Cousins Chief, National Firearms Act Branch and then this (color added by tony_k): www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter67.txt DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS WASHINGTON, DC 20226 30 AUG 1999 901040:GS 5320/990132 Dear Mr. Bardwell: This is in response to your letter of June 30, 1999, in which you ask an additional question concerning the repair of a silencer. You state that our letter of April 19, 1999, indicated that the original manufacturer of a defective silencer could replace the serial numbered component with a new component with the same serial number, on an exchange basis, with no additional transfer tax due (assuming the original manufacturer was still in business). You also stated that our letter indicated that anyone licensed as a manufacturer of NFA (National Firearms Act) firearms could replace internal, unmarked components of a silencer, whether they made it originally or not. You ask "what if the original manufacturer of a silencer is no longer in business; may a different manufacturer then replace the serial numbered component of the silencer with a replacement component bearing the same serial number as the defective one, and with no additional transfer tax due? Or are owners of silencer made by defunct companies unable to get this sort of repair done, except by getting a new silencer, with the attendant transfer taxes and other requirements?" Our letter state "A silencer which is unusable due to a manufacturer's defect, may be replaced without incurring transfer tax, only if the silencer is returned to the original manufacturer for repair and the original manufacturer is licensed as a manufacturer of firearms and has currently paid SOT as a manufacturer of firearms." Only the original manufacturer may replace a defective silencer with one bearing the same markings and without incurring transfer tax. If the original manufacturer of the silencer is no longer qualified to manufacture NFA firearms, such as by no longer being in business, they any replacement would involve the making of a new silencer with the appropriate registration and transfer tax. Should any additional information be needed, please contact Gary Schiable at (202) 927-8330. Sincerely yours, [signed] Kent M. Cousins Chief, National Firearms Act Branch |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2005 10:59:28 AM EDT
[#15]
In love, perhaps, but the ATF doesn't forgive... |
||
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/23/2005 9:54:07 PM EDT
[#16]
Thanks for the thoughtful replies. The really sad part is that I feel vaguely dirty like I've watched a porno movie in some greasy red-light theater, and I HAVEN'T DONE A DAMNED THING WRONG.
 The letter will NOT go out. The can is done, except for finish. I'll post a few more pics and an MPEG or two. The square baffles work fine. I really need to become a manufacturer so I can try a few more ideas. I hope you guys enjoyed it so far. If there are any requests for other details or photos, let me know and I'll get them up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2005 10:59:29 PM EDT
[#17]
Very inspiring work on the suppressor and the tutorial of making a "legal" can. Great job !
I do have a question though. Seeing how "You are the legal manufacturer" , it would seem to me that a part you made legally didnt work as you had "expected" it to work thus making it a manufacturers defective part. Shouldnt you also be able to destroy that part and make its replacement part ? I realize that may be splitting hairs but that seems like a function that you should be able to make legally. After all you are the legal manufacturer of this one suppressor and by it not functioning as expected , you should be able to "correct" that as a manufacturers defect. Just a thought. Again Great Work on the can and the tutorial. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/24/2005 9:33:40 AM EDT
[#18]
Well this really bums me out. I’ve been following this thread every step of the way. Gorilla you have done a very fine job on this project and I commend your efforts. Too bad the whole project got stifled in bureaucratic nonsense. I was hoping to follow your suggested alterations to the can and learn from your expertise on the subject. You will no doubt choose NOT to let the arf community follow your work when every bend in the road you make public costs you $200.
By the way, that’s not Keller, TX is it? If so I live very close. Would love to see your work and chew the “home machine shop” fat with you. Anyway, good luck on future projects. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/24/2005 10:10:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Gorilla]
[#19]
Thanks guys. It's pretty sad when we're afraid to ask the question. We're forced to behave like children and that's galling to law-abiding Americans.
I genuinely believe that if an individual manufactures his own can legally, then repairs for life are allowed. I'd be blown away if any jury convicted a F1 holder for repairing his can after destroying the old, damaged parts first, then machining a replacement. The BATFE views a single baffle as a silencer. Logic follows that a guy who makes 6 baffles for a F1 can has thus made 6 silencers. And yet we know that F1 cans are made legally with a single tax stamp, and without interference or prosecution. No one wants to be the guinea pig on trial. The whole thing is a wink wink deal... make your can, just one, and don't ask, don't tell with repairs or modifications.  I have a copy of Dan Shea's excellent Machine Gun Dealer's bible and I'm going to look hard at becoming a manufacturer. Creating a can is a lot of fun, a fusion of mechanical skills, science, and intuition. I'd like to continue but obviously cannot at $200/pop and 5 months waiting, unless I sent out a batch of F1's at once. If you can afford it, I think that's the way to go. Send in 3 to 5 Form 1's and the appropriate $$ all at once, as there's no requirement to immediately begin construction. When the approved F1's return, stick them in your safe and bring them out one by one at your leisure.  Now back to actual shop work... How would you guys finish off this tube? I'm down to moly-cote (grey; I like grey cans) or parkerized. Would moly-cote stand up to scuffs and bumps from typical use? I'm leaning towards park, not as flashy but totally utilitarian. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2005 11:09:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: tony_k]
[#20]
First, since I haven't said it yet, thank you for taking the time and effort to share all this with us. It's an invaluable report, and we've all learned a lot.
 Next...
I would do both. Whenever possible, I like to parkerize, then molycoat over it -- the park gives the moly a perfect texture for maximum adhesion, and when the finish inevitably wears or scratches through use, the metal underneath is still protected by the parkerized base. (Scratches and wear also are not nearly as noticable, with no bright metal underneath). Again, thanks! 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2005 12:12:35 PM EDT
[#21]
Stop talking sense, man! And thanks again for the pics. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2005 12:20:58 PM EDT
[#22]
tag to follow!
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/24/2005 3:47:43 PM EDT
[#23]
Newsflash: More than 1 person has emailed me saying, in essence, "You are the manufacturer/maker, despite the lack of FFL. You have the ability to repair and/or modify the can SO LONG AS THE NET SET OF PARTS NEVER EXCEEDS A SINGLE SUPPRESSOR AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT."
With that said, I am tempted to press on. Let me ponder this for a short while. perhaps all is not lost.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2005 4:41:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: fizassist]
[#24]
Did you see Tony's 2nd letter above?
No, it doesn't make sense. Yes, it's gay. But after having talked about it here and posted pics, I would be loath to go making more baffles. That's what the letter says. |
|||
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/24/2005 8:00:12 PM EDT
[#25]
The ATF has different definitions for 'maker' and 'manufacturer'. An approved F1 makes you a 'maker' (hence "Application to Make ... a Firearm"). A valid 07 FFL is a 'manufacturer' (with a current SOT is 'NFA manufacturer'). To the average John Q. Public, the terms seem interchangable but they're not when it comes to NFA.
As for the final outside finish, you have to consider something that can take repeated heating and cooling. I have seen quite a few refinished suppressors with the finish flaking or coming off after a few range sessions. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/24/2005 10:57:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Gorilla]
[#26]
Lets look at the letters:
Letter 1: You ask "whether it is lawful for the owner of a lawfully possessed silencer ... to repair that silencer himself, by replacing unserialized internal components with new components of his own making." You cited the replacement of a worn out plastic "wipe" or damaged baffle as an example. This letter seems to inquire into a person repairing or replacing baffles in a silencer which he himself did not construct, but rather one which he legally purchased and now owns via a Form 4 transfer. The second letter expands upon the first, again seeming to indicate the silencer in question was NOT made by the owner... For the replacement of a part or parts that meet the definition of a silencer, the individual owner would need to arrange for the transfer of the silencer to a Federal firearms licensee who is qualified to manufacture silencers. Our letter state "A silencer which is unusable due to a manufacturer's defect, may be replaced without incurring transfer tax, only if the silencer is returned to the original manufacturer for repair and the original manufacturer is licensed as a manufacturer of firearms and has currently paid SOT as a manufacturer of firearms." Only the original manufacturer may replace a defective silencer with one bearing the same markings and without incurring transfer tax. If the original manufacturer of the silencer is no longer qualified to manufacture NFA firearms, such as by no longer being in business, they any replacement would involve the making of a new silencer with the appropriate registration and transfer tax. I really see nothing in those letter which relate to form 1 construction. They seem to point towards RE-manufacture or repair of a silencer which was originally manufactured by an Federally licensed manufacturer, and subsequently transferred. I suspect the same thing would occur if I sold my suppressor to another individual, and it was transferred via F4. He would NOT be able to do anything with it other than replace wipes. Frankly, trying to figure it out is an exercise in futility.  I'm ready to throw in the towel. I suspect Hail Mary is right. But this approach strongly suggests that if you muff the construction of your can, screw up one baffle, then you are in violation, since you are allowed only one "make", as you are not an almighty manufacturer. (no offense to actual manufacturers). No second chances, no repairs. The first baffle off your lathe chuck is your "silencer" and if it is screwed up, then you are not allowed to replace it. What a freaking joke.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2005 1:01:37 AM EDT
[#27]
Certainly, us trying to hash it out using logic is a matter of futility, because logic matters little to legislators or BATFEandotherthingsthatmakeliberalspeethemselves. I would encourage you to send a letter to the tech branch regarding this matter. It will either cover your ass or give us all something else to be pissed about.
|
||
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/25/2005 9:40:02 AM EDT
[#28]
I know I keep waffling, and now I'm flogging this aspect of the build to death. Here's what I'm going to do.
I will follow Tony K's advice and reword the letter. It will go out. After 6 months to a year, if I get a reply, and it is highly favorable to Form 1 silencers, I'll post the text and share the good news. If the view is narrow and draconian, I'll abide by it but not go public with the response. If I find any other resources which tend to support the notion of a maintainable and repairable F1 silencer, I'll see if I can't get those interpretations up too, so long as they aren't pure opinion, and are actually based at least a bit on interpretation of the law and analysis of BATFE rulings. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/27/2005 9:12:38 AM EDT
[#29]
There's apparently I new West Virginia address for technology-related letters.. anyone got it?
The tube, root, and end caps were parkerized yesterday. I'm happy with it, it came out nice. Greater details:  Homebrew Park Thread |
|
|
NH, USA
|
Posted: 5/27/2005 2:13:50 PM EDT
[#30]
Swede,
Great build and documentation of the process!!!!!! re: the baffle stack, perhaps you could improve the performance of the current stack by adding structures to increase the turbulence in the gas pathways by... drilling and tapping on the angled surfaces and adding a few small hex headed bolts thus adding more surface area for the gas to travel around giving a greater dwell time for cooling thus further reducing sound signature. or, perhaps milling out more complex shapes in the baffles to do the same thing. The currently popular style of asymmetrical baffles is the thought behind these suggestions. And again trying it both forward and back. I hope this helps or at least provides food for thought.  Thanks again for taking the time to share this with us! |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/28/2005 8:12:02 PM EDT
[#31]
JandBJ, thanks for the support and suggestions. I am definitely going to mess around a bit with the baffles. As it is now, it works well. I was simply hoping at the start of the process that the F1 would allow me to try different baffles so long as the old ones were destroyed. I'll find out about the legality one of these days.
In the meantime, there's still room for plenty of experimentation. I am considering angle-drilling the entry holes in such a way that they present a kind of "K-baffle" entry image, if you know what I mean. I can take the holes all the way through to the sides. Staggering them from baffle to baffle would help create some assymetry. Another option is to not "key" the baffles, basically randomly stack them, but I'm afraid that this would really change the POI. One other option is to delete a couple of baffles and install a minor diameter tube with NACA style cuts, shaped to both bleed gas from the initial blast and to forcibly expand and cool it. Swaged holes might work too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2005 7:06:35 PM EDT
[#32]
Looks good. Ya did a hella good job. tagged for updates and reports.
|
|
|
|
NH, USA
|
Posted: 6/1/2005 4:41:00 PM EDT
[#33]
One other idea is kind of cheesy and very low tech to be sure...but worth trying, is to fold some short lengths of 1/8" or 1/4" galvanized hardware cloth to fill the 4 voids around the main stack.
This would allow you to see if there is a noticeable change to the sound level before making the more complicated changes through machining. I believe Mark White from Sound Tech found that a can with 1 baffle and a tight wrap of hardware cloth (can't recall size of cloth) was found to be fairly effective and low maintenance. Might be worth a try. Good luck! |
|
|
FIN
|
Posted: 6/7/2005 7:29:26 AM EDT
[#34]
Great thread!!! More pics and a range report, please!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2005 7:43:38 AM EDT
[#35]
Are you going to "color" it? I assume the ones you see that are blacl are powder coated.
Also, how about a pic with it on the weapon? One of the best DIY threads ever. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/8/2005 10:36:31 AM EDT
[#36]
Sorry I haven't posted in a while... "real" work intrudes as usual.
One think I've noticed, and this is obvious to everyone except me, is that not all subsonic/target/standard velocity ammo sounds the same. I figured that if I stayed subsonic, the reports would be very close. The early tests were done with Remington Target. That quickly ran out. Since I have been stockpiling huge amounts of Blazer .22, the recommended .22 for the Lakeside LM7  , I unleashed some Blazer. It was subsonic but distictly louder. As I played with baffle spacing and configuration, etc, I kept switching ammo, and it was a stupid thing to do because I had no consistency.I finally picked up a couple bricks of Remington Subsonic, and Federal Target. The Remington ammo is quieter, but only slightly. The Federal ammo is a solid nose, which I prefer, whereas the Remington is HP. More importantly, BOTH are much quieter than the Blazer. All of them are lead nose, not copper washed, so if you are seeking a quiet cartridge that is copper washed, it ain't any of these. But since I can disassemble the can (it's easy as I made a tool to help with the stack) I'm not too worried about leading. I don't think copper-washing does much to prevent it anyhow. The can is parkerized and it looks nice, but it sure isn't black, and I'm leaning in that direction. I'm thinking about black Moly-cote, as the parked surface will be ideal for Moly. I can't see this suppressor getting that hot, as it is pretty massive, so short of a 500 rd LM7 belt I'm gambling that moly will do fine. I promised some pics and MPEG... I'll try to get to work on those. I'm also working on a mod to the Ciener kit using a spring ball detent to reduce bolt bounce which is plaguing me a bit. I know this has been done before, just need to find the URL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2005 12:42:39 PM EDT
[#37]
Cool. Keep us posted, we've enjoyed the progress, commentary and pics.
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/8/2005 5:23:34 PM EDT
[#38]
Regarding the Ciener 22 conversion. The simplest is to use the Lakeside 22 recoil spring, it's something like 3/$10 delivered and they work.
Using a ball bearing detent was done by Sean at SPGTECH or (SPCTECH??). Can't find his email but basically it was a hole drilled in the left rear of the carrier and a corresponding ball cut in the Ciener rail. I was going to do this as I wanted the kit to be 100% with all ammo but the Lakeside spring did the job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2005 2:49:45 PM EDT
[#39]
Great thread. When do we get to see pics of it on the gun?
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/20/2005 9:56:10 AM EDT
[#40]
Just got back from a much needed vacation, a week of diving on Bonaire. I know I'm dragging my feet a bit, I keep thinking I want to apply the moly before final photos, but I think I'll go ahead and get some pics up. It's a Ciener .22 installed in a Bushmaster lower with a side-folder stock and a short (5") Kuehl bbl. On semi it's flawless, still needs tweaking for full reliability in auto. The low-impulse of the target ammo in a short bbl will call for some work. I've already installed some light-action springs in the lower which helps tremendously.
I'm going to get some Lakeside springs for the Ciener and mess with those a bit. I've got several floating guards. The one on the gun right now is a pistol guard. It would be a bit dangerous to shoot it (no can) without a hand stop (or whatever they call it) to keep from putting a round through your hand. I think it's going to look better with a carbine-length guard.  Stock unfolded; suppressor mounted 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2005 12:06:11 PM EDT
[#41]
Sweet! What's the folder, and where did you get it?
Thanks, fiz |
|
|
|
KS, USA
|
Posted: 6/20/2005 7:19:16 PM EDT
[#42]
looks like he has the ace folder |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/21/2005 9:55:06 AM EDT
[#43]
Yes it is the Ace folder with the AR adapter. A folder for an AR is pretty specialized and can only be used with a Ciener or a gas piston upper, but the quality is excellent; it locks up tightly and makes for a compact .22LR fun-gun.
Swapping barrels is really easy since there is no gas tube to mess with and no need to index the nut. I rarely torque it much beyond whatever is needed to keep the bbl firm, meaning pretty light compared to a correct 5.56 bbl. As much as I hate the appearance of the Eotech, I can't argue with the sight picture which I love. FA .22 w/ eotech is great fun due to 0 recoil and huge FOV! One thing I'm really happy with so far is the easy ability to open the can, remove the stack, and clean the internals. Both end caps are removeable, all is steel so the threads won't crap out with repeated cleaning, and I created a stack tool which is a 1/4" rod about 18" long. It is cross-drilled in the middle and a 1/8" dowel pin inserted through the hole. The rod is "injected" into the stack until the cross pin butts up against the first baffle. Some very light tapping gets the whole stack moving, and it comes out like a baffle shish-kebob. Reinstallation is a snap. The can is definitely TOO heavy. I should have made the walls of the tube thinner. Someday, when I get brave, I'm going to try 5.56 semi, first with a remote mount and a string and some hot ammo. I'm pretty confident it'll handle very modest 5.56 semi, it's a stout can. Just need to avoid too much heat.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2005 7:53:07 PM EDT
[#44]
That is one pretty lookin AR22 . I must say you did an excellent job on the tube build, thanks for sharing your information .
Regards Jerry |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2005 2:15:32 PM EDT
[#45]
Thats about just as sexy as a MP5 PDW
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/28/2005 1:56:33 PM EDT
[#46]
More update:
The suppressor works great! I messed a bit with some interesting cuts on a pair of baffles, an angled bullet entry cut which bleeds gasses onto the sloping flanks. When looking at the bullet entry hole for each baffle, it now has the very distinct (and somewhat odd) appearance of a typical K baffle like the CAC 22 and so many others.Ciener kit reliability - I was worried about the ability of low velocity rounds like the Remington SS to reliably cycle the action. MY JAC kit has had the standard basic polishing and edge rounding of the critical parts so as to make it as smooth as possible, reducing the amount of energy required to cycle. Since this lower will be dedicated to .22LR, I also replaced the hammer and trigger springs with a much lighter set. I don't know the manufacturer of the spring set... I had bought it off eBay, back when eBay actually tolerated gun parts a bit more than they do now. It has been sitting around just waiting for this project, and now I've finally put them to use. The cost was about $15, IIRC. In semi auto, the kit is 100%, and I think this is mainly due to the lighter hammer and trigger springs, as well as a replacement of the firing pin spring with one a bit less stout. Firing pin impression is still plenty deep with this much lighter hammer spring. The lower will probably also work well with 5.56, so long as the primers aren't really hard. Full auto - NOT 100%. Probably 1 FTF every 30 to 50 rounds. Each FTF ends with a chambered round and a light primer strike. The setup has no problems stripping rounds, feeding, and ejecting. I'm 97% sure the problem is bolt bounce. I have decided, then, to install a Norrell-style spring and ball plunger detent, interfaced between the bolt itself and the kit bolt rails. I'm out in the shop working on this modification right now. The design of the mod looks good, and it should be simple to replicate again, IF the modification is successful and actually does help! I'm taking a bunch of photos of the step by step process, and good or bad, I'll get them posted ASAP. Even if it isn't a complete cure, it may give guys some ideas. MPEG video - I'll get that up too, after first a quick little MPEG of my Ruger + CAC-22, to act as somewhat of an audiio baseline. Otherwise, the nature of viewing an MPEG s such that it is hard to tell just how well it suppresses.
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/28/2005 4:41:59 PM EDT
[#47]
Here's the basic step-by-step to install a ball detent anti-bounce device in a Ciener kit. This is about as easy as this type of setup can be. While I did it in a vertical mill, a drill press would work fine. All you need is a 5/32" drill and a 1/8" ball, cannibalized from a ball bearing or similar.
The concept is this: The JAC kit uses a sliding weight to help minimize bolt bounce, which is really applicable only when you have a happy switch and a FA capable Ciener kit. Bolt bounce is the phenomenon in which the bolt, upon chambering a round, bounces back slightly from the bbl face, causing light primer strikes and FTF. The sliding weight helps drive the bolt forward when it contacts the bbl. If you think it'll work in FA without the sliding weight, try removing the weight and watch what happens. It doesn't run! By having a spring loaded ball engage a hemispherical detent when the bolt is in battery, the bolt is much happier and will pretty much NOT bounce on you. Norrell uses a similar setup, I believe, in his 10/22 FA trigger packs. First, mount your bolt as shown in a vise. The spring and ball will ride inside the bolt, near the aft, right-hand side of the bolt when viewed from the rear.  After spotting for ~ 0.235" from the rear of the bolt (the actual measurement isn't critical, just remember the value), I drilled a 1/8" hole to a depth of 0.200" from the bottom of the rail channel. Don't break into the firing pin hole! The 1/8" hole was followed with a 0.156" end mill, plunged straight down.  You can use 1/8" OD springs, or 0.150" OD; just be sure the spring fits and is free to compress in the hole, and the 1/8" ball won't fall into the spring's ID. 
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/28/2005 4:54:43 PM EDT
[#48]
Here is the bolt after modification.
 The next step - we want to cut a detent into the rail for the ball. The detent will form a pocket for the ball when the bolt is fully forward and a cartridge is chambered. This is probably the trickiest part of the mod... you must position the bolt on the rail where it would be if the bolt is in battery. Locate the rear face of the bolt, and move forward on the rail the same distance as the hole in the bolt was drilled. Use a prick punch, DRO, what have you, so you can then remove the bolt and work only on the rail.  Use a 1/8" end mill, or a needle file (be careful; err on being too far FORWRD on the rail. If too far aft, the mod will be worthless.) Cut the detent to a depth of 0.040". Too much cutting will "stiffen" the action of the ball and detent. Too little and it will not be as effective. Start small, you can always open it up more. In my case, 0.040" seemed to work.  The parts layed out without the bolt. Hopefully the concept will be clear at this point.  Pictured with the bolt. The spring and ball are installed into the bolt. You can see the notch for the ball cut into the rail to the right in the picture. '  |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/28/2005 5:01:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Gorilla]
[#49]
I cut a number of springs of different lengths and diameter of wire. Here's a neat trick... hate the open end of the spring after it has been cut to length? Create a mild steel post like this one. Heat it to dull red with a propane torch, and without branding yourself, press the spring onto the red-hot rod. The heat anneals the last spring element, and the spring end closes right up, perfectly! Don't let it sit there, remove the spring the moment it has been cloed up. It takes about 3 seconds only.
 An assortment of springs, all closed-ended with the hot fixture.  All cutting is basically done now. Select a likely spring and install it with the ball into the bolt. Adding spring, ball, and bolt to the rail is not too tough. Note the notch in the rail as it all comes together. You can feel a distinct <chunk> as the ball drops into the rail cut.  |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/28/2005 5:55:14 PM EDT
[#50]
Now this was interesting... even WITH the recoil spring, the ball keeps the bolt in the correct position on the rail! Normally, you'd have to use the sear trip stamping to keep it in this configuration. I lubed the rails, notch, and ball, and moved the bolt back and forth on the rail several times, loosening the action of the detent a bit, and checking the forces required. My original guess of a 0.040" notch, along with the spring (you can always swap springs of different strength) felt pretty good.
 I finished the reassembly except I removed the anti-bounce weight, creating the ultimate acid test. Would the anti-bounce mechanism BY ITSELF work, even without the weight? The gun was reassembled with the silencer, and maybe 15 rds of Remington subsonic were loaded into the mag. Function in semi was flawless... and so was full auto, using only the ball/detent for antibounce, rather than the weight.!! The rate of fire may have gone up a bit. I am hoping that the reduced weight of the bolt, due to the lack of the original antibounce weight, will improve overall reliability even more. Less bolt mass = less energy required to cycle, and that is always the problem with this kit, having enough energy to eject, cock, and strip, even when the gun is a bit dirty. Finally, some vids! All these pics, and now the videos, has been a bit of a bandwidth drag. If you think you might want to watch a vid more than once, please help me out by right clicking on the vid, and selecting SAVE... to your own computer. I know crummy MPEG video is pretty meaningless due to attenuation and a bad microphone, but hopefully it'll give you an idea of the performance. The first vid is of my Ruger with a CAC-22 muzzle can. Two shots are fired into sand. The first demos the "first round pop" phenomenon, followed by a quieter second round. Remington subsonic ammo, 36 grain, HP. Ruger MKII (~400Kb) Keeping the approximate sound level in mind, the next vid is of the homemade can. No handguard mounted, it was easier this way for testing. NO antibounce weight. 2 shots semi, again to examine first-round pop. I then select AUTO, and you can clearly here the clicking of the selector. The remainder of the mag, maybe 12-15 shots, is dumped. Bushy + can (~900Kb) All that remains is an application of moly, probably black. I won't post any of that here to this thread, as it has already been done in detail elsewhere at AR15.COM. I hope you guys have enjoyed this project. It was a lot of fun to make the silencer, and I hope this encourages others to do likewise. CAUTION!! Making suppressors is like a crack hit, I'm hooked and want to do more! I'll probably wait for my SOT, though. And I must say it once more, DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT MAKING A SUPPRESSOR WITHOUT AN APPROVED FORM 1. It ain't worth it. I'll probably leave the pictures and videos up on my web site for a couple of months, but ultimately they will be taken down to save bandwidth. If there are any that you might want to save for reference, get them while you can. Finally, feel free to post with suggestions or any questions. 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
