User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 5:23:50 PM EDT
[#1]
How long do you think one of these cans would last on a .300wsm?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 5:35:47 PM EDT
[#2]
Very cool project. These would be great for someone who wants a cheap effective alternative to a brand name can for an HD rifle.
|
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 7:02:13 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By d16man:
Wonder if it would be better to drill the vent holes prior to the forming of the cone? I did it this way but I undersized them, they expand in the forming process, my 1.8mm holes became oblong, 1.8x2.4mm and can be finished to 2.4mm |
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 7:07:12 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JoeCoastie:
From what I have read those vent/dater holes are for drainage and was spec'd by the .mil for aquatic use. Of course, this is all speculation AFAIK. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JoeCoastie:
Originally Posted By c5hardtop:
Originally Posted By Conqueror:
Cone baffles do not need the dater hole for sound performance, only K baffles. If you want to improve their efficiency you could half-cut the tip of the cone, but that can negatively affect your POI shift if not done well. Straight cones are highly effective even without the steps. I would recommend more baffles and fewer spacers in each can. A lot of people overdo the space between the cones. Find a cutaway pic of the Saker or M4-2000, you will see that after the blast baffle, the cones get progressively closer together and are quite tightly packed. The M4-2000 is one of the best performing cans, 60deg cones, from the cut away it appears to have 3 2-3mm vent holes per cone. That is why I did mine that way. The Surefire can has similar number and size also with a tight stack. That is AAC's stance but it could very be a way to hide a design feature, but the M4-2000 and the Surefire both appear to have 2-4 2-3mm holes and they are among the best forming 5.56 cans. AAC's SDN-6 30cal can is basically a expanded version. Things like clipping the cones are pretty common. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 9:11:19 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By esstac-:
I was just thinking about doing this  but good call nonetheless!
Took a few more pics of the baffle process since I was lacking some. Centering tool + 1/8" drill bit, drilling the pilot http://www.esstac.com/pictures/form1/center%20drill%20pree.JPG Squishing the 45deg cone into the freeze plug http://www.esstac.com/pictures/form1/45deg%20squishing.JPG Squishing the 60deg cone into the already 45degred freeze plug, this step needs to be checked so you do not go past the size you want the hole http://www.esstac.com/pictures/form1/60deg%20squishing.JPG Drilling a Dater/vent/drain hole. I am using a 1/8" centering bit, its stubby and has almost no deflection so drilling on a angle is easy. This one I am unsure what the best setup is, drill or no? one hole in blast? 3 holes in the blast? one hole in every baffle? so you will have to decide. I did one in every baffle and a couple in the blast chamber, figured more turbulence inside couldn't hurt to much right? http://www.esstac.com/pictures/form1/dater.JPG http://www.esstac.com/pictures/form1/dater2.JPG Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By esstac-:
Originally Posted By hihobrian:
I drilled and tapped a 3/16x3/8"long stainless set screw Into my tube and adapter. Indexed and fully threaded to allow me to unthread the suppressor when recessed under the handgaurd. Pm me for pictures if you want but its not complicated to figure out. Just dont drill too deep. I was just thinking about doing this but good call nonetheless!
Took a few more pics of the baffle process since I was lacking some. Centering tool + 1/8" drill bit, drilling the pilot http://www.esstac.com/pictures/form1/center%20drill%20pree.JPG Squishing the 45deg cone into the freeze plug http://www.esstac.com/pictures/form1/45deg%20squishing.JPG Squishing the 60deg cone into the already 45degred freeze plug, this step needs to be checked so you do not go past the size you want the hole http://www.esstac.com/pictures/form1/60deg%20squishing.JPG Drilling a Dater/vent/drain hole. I am using a 1/8" centering bit, its stubby and has almost no deflection so drilling on a angle is easy. This one I am unsure what the best setup is, drill or no? one hole in blast? 3 holes in the blast? one hole in every baffle? so you will have to decide. I did one in every baffle and a couple in the blast chamber, figured more turbulence inside couldn't hurt to much right? http://www.esstac.com/pictures/form1/dater.JPG http://www.esstac.com/pictures/form1/dater2.JPG |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 9:26:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: InfiniteGrim]
[#6]
In a perfect world you want to be finishing the hole.
Using the cone forming process to expand the hole is bad for two reasons. First it wont be consistent. Second you dont get a sharp/clean hole. Not sure how to describe this but you want the hole's edges to be sharp. The one of the left in the following picture, which was finished with a drill bit that is .370" (View the full size in a new tab) 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 10:32:55 PM EDT
[#7]
I'm ready to give the atf my money...
But I'm still a tad confused as to what is needed to finish these. I understand to baffle material, a tube, and end caps. Not sure what freeze plugs are for, or if I need to invest in a drill press as well, or what/if punches are needed to form the baffle. I read the OP, where it's basically saying "I found xx tool here, get that" , but I don't know exactly what to do with it 
I need something to preoccupy my mind while I wait painfully for my AAC cans still in jail  . Also would like to perform some durability testing on the home made ones.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 10:38:42 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ARmory04:
I'm ready to give the atf my money... But I'm still a tad confused as to what is needed to finish these. I understand to baffle material, a tube, and end caps. Not sure what freeze plugs are for, or if I need to invest in a drill press as well, or what/if punches are needed to form the baffle. I read the OP, where it's basically saying "I found xx tool here, get that" , but I don't know exactly what to do with it
I need something to preoccupy my mind while I wait painfully for my AAC cans still in jail . Also would like to perform some durability testing on the home made ones.This thread goes hand in hand with the prepper's discount thread, and all other maglight flashlight suppressor builds. The freeze plugs are the baffles, |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 12:28:52 AM EDT
[#9]
I'm behind on my reading, can we make one of these in say .45 or 7.62 (for 300blk) cal but use a wipe to make it more effective with subcal like .22? or are wipes stil taboo? My Thompson can uses wipes as do a few others, not sure on the legality behind a F1 can. at ones time I thought individual baffels/wipes were ruled suppressors...
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 1:56:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: esstac-]
[#10]
Took the 6" out today, will post some videos in a bit. For now is some pics of before and after for this can.
Used on a 16" 556 and a 10.5" 300BLK. Fired through the 6" 300BLK 120 rnds 249g cast and powder coated subs 1000fps 120 rnds 147g fmj pulled, supers, 2000 fps or so 30 125g Nosler bthp, supers, not sure on fps 556 30 rnds 55g fmj 30 rnds 69g nosler 60 rnds 77g nosler bumpfired 4 mags worth just for giggles. One mag was subs, was a hoot! New baffle stack 
Fired with above round count, the blue is tape from the socket I used to smack them out. 
|
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 3:01:30 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By esstac-:
Took the 6" out today, will post some videos in a bit. For now is some pics of before and after for this can. Used on a 16" 556 and a 10.5" 300BLK. Fired through the 6" 300BLK 120 rnds 249g cast and powder coated subs 1000fps 120 rnds 147g fmj pulled, supers, 2000 fps or so 30 125g Nosler bthp, supers, not sure on fps 556 30 rnds 55g fmj 30 rnds 69g nosler 60 rnds 77g nosler bumpfired 4 mags worth just for giggles. One mag was subs, was a hoot! New baffle stack http://www.esstac.com/pictures/form1/blast%20baffle%20new.JPG http://www.esstac.com/pictures/form1/blast%20baffle%20new%202.JPG http://www.esstac.com/pictures/form1/first%20three%20baffles%20new.JPG http://www.esstac.com/pictures/form1/baffle%20set%20new%206%20inch.JPG Fired with above round count, the blue is tape from the socket I used to smack them out. http://www.esstac.com/pictures/form1/blast%20baffle%20fired.JPG http://www.esstac.com/pictures/form1/blast%20baffle%20fired%202.JPG http://www.esstac.com/pictures/form1/first%203%20baffles%20fired.JPG http://www.esstac.com/pictures/form1/baffle%20stack%20fired.JPG http://www.esstac.com/pictures/form1/blast%20chamber.JPG http://www.esstac.com/pictures/form1/end%20cap%20baffle.JPG So how does it sound?!?
|
|
|
LA, USA
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 3:05:09 AM EDT
[#12]
Do you notice any wear? How was the preformance? I ordered a 6in and 8in tube to build two 30 cal cans. The 6in will live on the blackout with a mix of subs and supers....
James |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 3:11:45 AM EDT
[#13]
4 crappy ipad vids, and in the dark. I will have 6" and the 8" side by side in a few days.
125g nosler 300BLK 147g FMJ 300BLK 249g Cast Subs 300BLK 249g Cast Subs Take 2 300BLK |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 3:20:45 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Iwantfullauto:
Do you notice any wear? How was the preformance? I ordered a 6in and 8in tube to build two 30 cal cans. The 6in will live on the blackout with a mix of subs and supers.... James For me, 8" on the blackout if you are going to run allot of subs, the suppression is better. The 2 6" tubes I did for 556 but form1ed them for 30cal so I could swap them around. If its just supers and 556 then the 6" seems to be perfect. I will have a video of the 6" and 8" being fired in a day or two, side by side with 2 shooters with 300 subs. I cannot detect any wear, granted I did not shoot a ton but I did do several mag dumps quickly to get it hot to see if it would degrade anything, I am extremely happy with it. I am also running them with Griffin comps/flash comps I am happy with the performance, I was a bit surprised however on how much flash I did get especially on the first round. It was not bright but noticeable and you can see it in the videos. 556 did have more fyi. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 3:26:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Assaultdog03516]
[#15]
Have you taken before and after measurements of the inner diameter? I'm curious if the pressure has deformed the baffles.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 3:26:29 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mizzarley:
So how does it sound?!?
Subs were great, my wife did not care for the added weight of the suppressor(its her SBR  ) but she loved the fact of no ear muffs with the subs. And when I bump fired a mag of the subs it was nice hearing the suppressed shot and then the loud thuds down range, they seamed louder to me.
I ran the 147s without muffs for a few rounds and I would call that hearing safe but probably not a good thing to do for long. Knocking the Blast off the supers and 556 was something my wife enjoyed to. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 3:33:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: esstac-]
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Assaultdog03516:
Have you taken before and after measurements of the inner diameter? I'm curious if the pressure has deformed the baffles. I did not check the Tube itself, I did check the Blast chamber insert. Before firing it was 1.345 and after tonight it is 1.345. I am assuming it is what will be taking the biggest pounding getting hit by the comps and it did not change. It slid out like it went in, the baffle stack I had to knock out lightly but that was do to the fouling inside the can, without cleaning they all slid back in like new. Blast chamber insert is .05" thick Blast chamber insert. I took this pic as the waffles pattern from the 556 flash comp was cool looking, 556 was shot after all the 300BLK and shot in a short timeframe. Now that I look at this pic more, it does look like some peening is happening(in the waffled area), I cannot see or feel it in hand, and TBH I do not know if it is a bad thing as it would be hardening the insert but repetitive? 
Griffin Comp adapter, at about the 6th thread from the bottom is where the threading ends on the comp and the first chamber starts. 
|
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 7:48:09 AM EDT
[#18]
Nice. I think the FPs will be fine I clipped the baffles of freeze plug cones and hardened steel valve retailers yesterday and they they took about the same effort (with a diamond rotary bit).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 8:23:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: pdm]
[#19]
Great thread!
The baffles really seem to be holding up well. This has me suprised, especially when you mentioned mag dumps. Heat and pressure are the enemy here and those baffles look great after firing. Have you measured the ID of the 1st baffle to see if there was any measurable erosion? Also, the O-rings. What're your thoughts on using them? I've been planning on a mix of Ti Valve stem guides and Freeze plugs. The one issue that had me hesitant with the FPs was that their OD was a bit bigger that the tube's ID. My reasoniong is that I shoot quite a bit of corrosive ammo and I want the ability to be able to easily disassemble the can and clean the baffles. With the Inconel baffles on the commercial cans it's not big of an issue but I do think it'll be a problem with the mild-steel FP baffles. I worked out a jig last night in my head to accurately reduce the OD of the freeze plugs. If it works and I can reduce their OD to a few .001"s under then I'll most likely replace some of the Ti baffles and SS spacers with the FP baffles. I can get a 2:1 baffle increase by using the FPs. Great work. |
|
|
|
OR, USA
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 4:26:16 PM EDT
[#20]
Nice! Do you have a 308 to try it on next, or are you stopping at 300 Blackout and 5.56 supers as your max with the aluminum end caps? Two weeks down, and no stamp as of yet on my end, but I am doing this! I think I will go with the 8" tube, and no spacers just FP's, and a blast chamber. I have a AR 308 with a 18" barrel that is nasty with 125's. I am curious if this would hold up to it as long as it is not rapid fire.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 4:30:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: InfiniteGrim]
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By esstac-:
4 crappy ipad vids, and in the dark. I will have 6" and the 8" side by side in a few days. 125g nosler 300BLK 147g FMJ 300BLK 249g Cast Subs 300BLK 249g Cast Subs Take 2 300BLK Shitty videos are shitty 
Add me to your trust, and send them over here 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 4:40:37 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xacex:
Nice! Do you have a 308 to try it on next, or are you stopping at 300 Blackout and 5.56 supers as your max with the aluminum end caps? Two weeks down, and no stamp as of yet on my end, but I am doing this! I think I will go with the 8" tube, and no spacers just FP's, and a blast chamber. I have a AR 308 with a 18" barrel that is nasty with 125's. I am curious if this would hold up to it as long as it is not rapid fire. I'm gonna do the same for my 300blk, just a massive stack of FP baffles and a blast chamber... |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 4:44:11 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By c5hardtop:
The M4-2000 is one of the best performing cans, 60deg cones, from the cut away it appears to have 3 2-3mm vent holes per cone. That is why I did mine that way. The Surefire can has similar number and size also with a tight stack. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By c5hardtop:
Originally Posted By Conqueror:
Cone baffles do not need the dater hole for sound performance, only K baffles. If you want to improve their efficiency you could half-cut the tip of the cone, but that can negatively affect your POI shift if not done well. Straight cones are highly effective even without the steps. I would recommend more baffles and fewer spacers in each can. A lot of people overdo the space between the cones. Find a cutaway pic of the Saker or M4-2000, you will see that after the blast baffle, the cones get progressively closer together and are quite tightly packed. The M4-2000 is one of the best performing cans, 60deg cones, from the cut away it appears to have 3 2-3mm vent holes per cone. That is why I did mine that way. The Surefire can has similar number and size also with a tight stack. Not sure which cutaway photo you're viewing, but most of the baffles do not have those holes to my knowledge. Additionally, on cans like the Cyclone, none of the baffles have the holes as far as I know. The 60deg cone is the key part. Surefire doesn't use cone baffles so they may have a reason for their holes besides drainage (ie, to reduce back pressure, which is why the new SOCOM blast baffle has the holes). |
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 5:03:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: c5hardtop]
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Conqueror:
Not sure which cutaway photo you're viewing, but most of the baffles do not have those holes to my knowledge. Additionally, on cans like the Cyclone, none of the baffles have the holes as far as I know. The 60deg cone is the key part. Surefire doesn't use cone baffles so they may have a reason for their holes besides drainage (ie, to reduce back pressure, which is why the new SOCOM blast baffle has the holes). Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Conqueror:
Originally Posted By c5hardtop:
Originally Posted By Conqueror:
Cone baffles do not need the dater hole for sound performance, only K baffles. If you want to improve their efficiency you could half-cut the tip of the cone, but that can negatively affect your POI shift if not done well. Straight cones are highly effective even without the steps. I would recommend more baffles and fewer spacers in each can. A lot of people overdo the space between the cones. Find a cutaway pic of the Saker or M4-2000, you will see that after the blast baffle, the cones get progressively closer together and are quite tightly packed. The M4-2000 is one of the best performing cans, 60deg cones, from the cut away it appears to have 3 2-3mm vent holes per cone. That is why I did mine that way. The Surefire can has similar number and size also with a tight stack. Not sure which cutaway photo you're viewing, but most of the baffles do not have those holes to my knowledge. Additionally, on cans like the Cyclone, none of the baffles have the holes as far as I know. The 60deg cone is the key part. Surefire doesn't use cone baffles so they may have a reason for their holes besides drainage (ie, to reduce back pressure, which is why the new SOCOM blast baffle has the holes). Here is a cutway of the M4-2000 and Surefire Can. Because of the tight 60deg cone stack on the M4-2000 it is harder to see the holes as the baffles block them on the cutaway, but you can see where the cut happend to hit the holes on one of the baffles, so there is a at least 2 holes per baffle, if you look at the last baffle it appears to be 2 holes on just that one half, so likely 4 holes per baffle, they appear to be in 2.4-3mm range. Surefire can looks like 3-4 per baffle also. AAC's SDN-6 is basically a 30cal M4-2000. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 5:21:20 PM EDT
[#25]
When I finally get my act and materials together, I am doing the m4 2000 baffle stack. No spacers except in the blast chamber.
|
|
|
|
OR, USA
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 6:01:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: xacex]
[#26]
If you smoke blow some down the bore till it comes out of your can. It will get rid of your first round pop. If you don't smoke a shot of canned air (Co2) from the breach will do the same thing. Get the oxygen out of the can and the first round pop and flash will go away with your subsonic rounds.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 6:07:25 PM EDT
[#27]
As far as the Dater holes I think for mine i'm going to only put two, directly across from eachother, and then alternate them in a criss cross pattern as I stack the baffles in...
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 6:34:38 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By c5hardtop:
Here is a cutway of the M4-2000 and Surefire Can. Because of the tight 60deg cone stack on the M4-2000 it is harder to see the holes as the baffles block them on the cutaway, but you can see where the cut happend to hit the holes on one of the baffles, so there is a at least 2 holes per baffle, if you look at the last baffle it appears to be 2 holes on just that one half, so likely 4 holes per baffle, they appear to be in 2.4-3mm range. Surefire can looks like 3-4 per baffle also. AAC's SDN-6 is basically a 30cal M4-2000. http://i62.tinypic.com/vifh50.jpg http://i61.tinypic.com/2d934zl.jpg Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By c5hardtop:
Originally Posted By Conqueror:
Originally Posted By c5hardtop:
Originally Posted By Conqueror:
Cone baffles do not need the dater hole for sound performance, only K baffles. If you want to improve their efficiency you could half-cut the tip of the cone, but that can negatively affect your POI shift if not done well. Straight cones are highly effective even without the steps. I would recommend more baffles and fewer spacers in each can. A lot of people overdo the space between the cones. Find a cutaway pic of the Saker or M4-2000, you will see that after the blast baffle, the cones get progressively closer together and are quite tightly packed. The M4-2000 is one of the best performing cans, 60deg cones, from the cut away it appears to have 3 2-3mm vent holes per cone. That is why I did mine that way. The Surefire can has similar number and size also with a tight stack. Not sure which cutaway photo you're viewing, but most of the baffles do not have those holes to my knowledge. Additionally, on cans like the Cyclone, none of the baffles have the holes as far as I know. The 60deg cone is the key part. Surefire doesn't use cone baffles so they may have a reason for their holes besides drainage (ie, to reduce back pressure, which is why the new SOCOM blast baffle has the holes). Here is a cutway of the M4-2000 and Surefire Can. Because of the tight 60deg cone stack on the M4-2000 it is harder to see the holes as the baffles block them on the cutaway, but you can see where the cut happend to hit the holes on one of the baffles, so there is a at least 2 holes per baffle, if you look at the last baffle it appears to be 2 holes on just that one half, so likely 4 holes per baffle, they appear to be in 2.4-3mm range. Surefire can looks like 3-4 per baffle also. AAC's SDN-6 is basically a 30cal M4-2000. http://i62.tinypic.com/vifh50.jpg http://i61.tinypic.com/2d934zl.jpg I wonder if all the baffles have them or just some. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 7:17:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: esstac-]
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pdm:
Great thread! The baffles really seem to be holding up well. This has me suprised, especially when you mentioned mag dumps. Heat and pressure are the enemy here and those baffles look great after firing. Have you measured the ID of the 1st baffle to see if there was any measurable erosion? Also, the O-rings. What're your thoughts on using them? I've been planning on a mix of Ti Valve stem guides and Freeze plugs. The one issue that had me hesitant with the FPs was that their OD was a bit bigger that the tube's ID. My reasoniong is that I shoot quite a bit of corrosive ammo and I want the ability to be able to easily disassemble the can and clean the baffles. With the Inconel baffles on the commercial cans it's not big of an issue but I do think it'll be a problem with the mild-steel FP baffles. I worked out a jig last night in my head to accurately reduce the OD of the freeze plugs. If it works and I can reduce their OD to a few .001"s under then I'll most likely replace some of the Ti baffles and SS spacers with the FP baffles. I can get a 2:1 baffle increase by using the FPs. Great work. For the o-rings, my reason for them is to add some resistance to the end caps incase they start to unscrew. It adds allot of resistance the the last 1.5-2 turns on the caps and is cheap insurance. 10 o-rings cost $1.20 with $5 shipping. I had a few baffles that I squished to much and they started drawing into the socket, not much but enough that it opened up the outside diameter just enough that they would not slide in. New the proper freeze plugs are a perfect fit to me, they slide in without needing to be forced in. For the ones that needed a bit of material removed: I wrapped tape on my .370 drill bit(about .25 thickness) and put it about .25" away from where the drill bit would sit inside my cordless drill, I then put the freeve plug on the drill bit and chucked it up(cone facing away from the drill motor) when I tightened the chuck I pushed the drill bit into the chuck tightly so it would hold the freeze plug tight. I then spun the motor and held a file on the outside of the freeze plug, it does not take much and I test fit it to the tube as I went without removing it from the cordless drill. Not sure if I explained this well, so I will snag a picture in a bit of what I mean. This Freeze plug has been turned down with the above method, I even beveled the end a touch 
Poor mans Lathe 
Spun it and took just a C-hair off 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 7:37:24 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xacex:
Nice! Do you have a 308 to try it on next, or are you stopping at 300 Blackout and 5.56 supers as your max with the aluminum end caps? Two weeks down, and no stamp as of yet on my end, but I am doing this! I think I will go with the 8" tube, and no spacers just FP's, and a blast chamber. I have a AR 308 with a 18" barrel that is nasty with 125's. I am curious if this would hold up to it as long as it is not rapid fire. Only two .308's I own are a FAL and a MAS(only dropped once) While I did not have plans to run this on my FAL I have been thinking of getting an end cap cut for it, I believe it has 9/16 LH threading so kinda oddball. If I can find someone local that has a .308 I will put it on and abuse it a bit if nothing else. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 8:34:22 PM EDT
[#31]
For those looking for the .370 drill bit....search instead for a 9.4mm. That is common size used by golfsmiths to drill the hozels on irons.
|
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 9:13:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: wcoats]
[#32]
Nice thread. I like that are are pictures and explination onf the build. Glad to see that the freeze plugs held up to 5.56 and 300blk supers. I have a From 1 aproved for a .22 can and thinking about using an aluminum C-cell tube. Anyone done this yet? What's the ID of the C-cell tube and what freze plugs work wel for it(buying th efreze plugs form SD tactical seem overpriced, and they are just listed as C-cell size). Also Is anyone selling a 6" aluminum C-cell tube?
Also very interested to see how well the monocore Harrison Gear comp performs as a spressor. Where are you planning on doing that build? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 9:34:52 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By d16man:
For those looking for the .370 drill bit....search instead for a 9.4mm. That is common size used by golfsmiths to drill the hozels on irons. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By d16man:
For those looking for the .370 drill bit....search instead for a 9.4mm. That is common size used by golfsmiths to drill the hozels on irons. Good addition. This is the one I purchased, although he raised the price(I paid $6.36 shipped) Originally Posted By wcoats:
Nice thread. I like that are are pictures and explination onf the build. Glad to see that the freeze plugs held up to 5.56 and 300blk supers. I have a From 1 aproved for a .22 can and thinking about using an aluminum C-cell tube. Anyone done this yet? What's the ID of the C-cell tube and what freze plugs work wel for it(buying th efreze plugs form SD tactical seem overpriced, and they are just listed as C-cell size). Also Is anyone selling a 6" aluminum C-cell tube? Also very interested to see how well the monocore Harrison Gear comp performs as a spressor. Where are you planning on doing that build? I will be doing it here also(Harrison) as well as a .22 and some pistol cans in the future. My plan is to have enough pictures and enough info of how I did it so others can see, there is allot of builds of this nature posted here and elsewhere just not as much info as I would have liked and since I have several friends doing this I wanted the info out for them also. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 9:43:14 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By c5hardtop:
Here is a cutway of the M4-2000 and Surefire Can. Because of the tight 60deg cone stack on the M4-2000 it is harder to see the holes as the baffles block them on the cutaway, but you can see where the cut happend to hit the holes on one of the baffles, so there is a at least 2 holes per baffle, if you look at the last baffle it appears to be 2 holes on just that one half, so likely 4 holes per baffle, they appear to be in 2.4-3mm range. Surefire can looks like 3-4 per baffle also. AAC's SDN-6 is basically a 30cal M4-2000. http://i62.tinypic.com/vifh50.jpg http://i61.tinypic.com/2d934zl.jpg Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By c5hardtop:
Originally Posted By Conqueror:
Originally Posted By c5hardtop:
Originally Posted By Conqueror:
Cone baffles do not need the dater hole for sound performance, only K baffles. If you want to improve their efficiency you could half-cut the tip of the cone, but that can negatively affect your POI shift if not done well. Straight cones are highly effective even without the steps. I would recommend more baffles and fewer spacers in each can. A lot of people overdo the space between the cones. Find a cutaway pic of the Saker or M4-2000, you will see that after the blast baffle, the cones get progressively closer together and are quite tightly packed. The M4-2000 is one of the best performing cans, 60deg cones, from the cut away it appears to have 3 2-3mm vent holes per cone. That is why I did mine that way. The Surefire can has similar number and size also with a tight stack. Not sure which cutaway photo you're viewing, but most of the baffles do not have those holes to my knowledge. Additionally, on cans like the Cyclone, none of the baffles have the holes as far as I know. The 60deg cone is the key part. Surefire doesn't use cone baffles so they may have a reason for their holes besides drainage (ie, to reduce back pressure, which is why the new SOCOM blast baffle has the holes). Here is a cutway of the M4-2000 and Surefire Can. Because of the tight 60deg cone stack on the M4-2000 it is harder to see the holes as the baffles block them on the cutaway, but you can see where the cut happend to hit the holes on one of the baffles, so there is a at least 2 holes per baffle, if you look at the last baffle it appears to be 2 holes on just that one half, so likely 4 holes per baffle, they appear to be in 2.4-3mm range. Surefire can looks like 3-4 per baffle also. AAC's SDN-6 is basically a 30cal M4-2000. http://i62.tinypic.com/vifh50.jpg http://i61.tinypic.com/2d934zl.jpg 1. Seeing holes in a single baffle does not mean they all have holes. Most advanced silencers have subtle changes in baffle geometry or design as they go farther down the can. 2. That silencer is cut right down the middle, you cannot assume that there are any more holes than the ones you see intersected by the cut. 3. Many other photos show baffles with no holes at all (like the one above, which is from Kevin Brittingham's collection) 4. Again, many cone baffle silencers do not have the holes (ie the Cyclone, which is class-leading performance-wise). I'm not trying to start a fight with you, just trying to save you the time and aggravation of adding a needless feature. Some baffle venting is actually harmful to performance. |
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 9:50:56 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By d16man:
For those looking for the .370 drill bit....search instead for a 9.4mm. That is common size used by golfsmiths to drill the hozels on irons. Every standard 29 piece set would have a 23/64 (.359) and 3/8 (.375) both of which would be suitable, really no reason to go out of your way to get specifically to .370". It's going be really difficult for most people to get a hole drilled directly center after forming, typically you would need a drill press, vice table, and more difficult, a way to get that perfected centered. I don't think it is a good idea, drilling out the cone will create a sharp edge on the cone. We are already dealing with non-ideal material (a low carbon steel), and further weakening it by streaching it out thinning it, then creating the edge at the area that will take the brunt of the blast. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 9:55:42 PM EDT
[#36]
For all the dater hols I did in the 6", This was done to test the theory of holes or no holes. When my next 6" form1 comes back I will be doing it identical minus the dater holes and doing a side by side comparison of them.
77g nosler through a 16" with 6" suppressor, nothing to compare it to in the video...... 77g |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 9:57:12 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By esstac-:
For the ones that needed a bit of material removed: I wrapped tape on my .370 drill bit(about .25 thickness) and put it about .25" away from where the drill bit would sit inside my cordless drill, I then put the freeve plug on the drill bit and chucked it up(cone facing away from the drill motor) when I tightened the chuck I pushed the drill bit into the chuck tightly so it would hold the freeze plug tight. I then spun the motor and held a file on the outside of the freeze plug, it does not take much and I test fit it to the tube as I went without removing it from the cordless drill. Not sure if I explained this well, so I will snag a picture in a bit of what I mean. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 10:07:49 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GHPorter:
Between your text and your pictures, you got the point across. Seeing your pictures, I wonder if a 1/4" drill with an adjustable stop like one from this set at Lowes would be more secure than the tape. Either way, that's quite a simple way to get the job done. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GHPorter:
Originally Posted By esstac-:
For the ones that needed a bit of material removed: I wrapped tape on my .370 drill bit(about .25 thickness) and put it about .25" away from where the drill bit would sit inside my cordless drill, I then put the freeve plug on the drill bit and chucked it up(cone facing away from the drill motor) when I tightened the chuck I pushed the drill bit into the chuck tightly so it would hold the freeze plug tight. I then spun the motor and held a file on the outside of the freeze plug, it does not take much and I test fit it to the tube as I went without removing it from the cordless drill. Not sure if I explained this well, so I will snag a picture in a bit of what I mean. That will get the job done as well, I did with what I had on hand. I do have some drill stops but nothing that was sized to fit the .370" bit/hole size |
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 10:20:37 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Conqueror:
1. Seeing holes in a single baffle does not mean they all have holes. Most advanced silencers have subtle changes in baffle geometry or design as they go farther down the can. 2. That silencer is cut right down the middle, you cannot assume that there are any more holes than the ones you see intersected by the cut. 3. Many other photos show baffles with no holes at all (like the one above, which is from Kevin Brittingham's collection) 4. Again, many cone baffle silencers do not have the holes (ie the Cyclone, which is class-leading performance-wise). I'm not trying to start a fight with you, just trying to save you the time and aggravation of adding a needless feature. Some baffle venting is actually harmful to performance. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Conqueror:
Originally Posted By c5hardtop:
Originally Posted By Conqueror:
Originally Posted By c5hardtop:
Originally Posted By Conqueror:
Cone baffles do not need the dater hole for sound performance, only K baffles. If you want to improve their efficiency you could half-cut the tip of the cone, but that can negatively affect your POI shift if not done well. Straight cones are highly effective even without the steps. I would recommend more baffles and fewer spacers in each can. A lot of people overdo the space between the cones. Find a cutaway pic of the Saker or M4-2000, you will see that after the blast baffle, the cones get progressively closer together and are quite tightly packed. The M4-2000 is one of the best performing cans, 60deg cones, from the cut away it appears to have 3 2-3mm vent holes per cone. That is why I did mine that way. The Surefire can has similar number and size also with a tight stack. Not sure which cutaway photo you're viewing, but most of the baffles do not have those holes to my knowledge. Additionally, on cans like the Cyclone, none of the baffles have the holes as far as I know. The 60deg cone is the key part. Surefire doesn't use cone baffles so they may have a reason for their holes besides drainage (ie, to reduce back pressure, which is why the new SOCOM blast baffle has the holes). Here is a cutway of the M4-2000 and Surefire Can. Because of the tight 60deg cone stack on the M4-2000 it is harder to see the holes as the baffles block them on the cutaway, but you can see where the cut happend to hit the holes on one of the baffles, so there is a at least 2 holes per baffle, if you look at the last baffle it appears to be 2 holes on just that one half, so likely 4 holes per baffle, they appear to be in 2.4-3mm range. Surefire can looks like 3-4 per baffle also. AAC's SDN-6 is basically a 30cal M4-2000. http://i62.tinypic.com/vifh50.jpg http://i61.tinypic.com/2d934zl.jpg 1. Seeing holes in a single baffle does not mean they all have holes. Most advanced silencers have subtle changes in baffle geometry or design as they go farther down the can. 2. That silencer is cut right down the middle, you cannot assume that there are any more holes than the ones you see intersected by the cut. 3. Many other photos show baffles with no holes at all (like the one above, which is from Kevin Brittingham's collection) 4. Again, many cone baffle silencers do not have the holes (ie the Cyclone, which is class-leading performance-wise). I'm not trying to start a fight with you, just trying to save you the time and aggravation of adding a needless feature. Some baffle venting is actually harmful to performance. #1 AAC says it has holes in each baffle it is not a matter of opinion, the Surefire obvious has a lot of hole because they are visible in the cut away. #2 Yeah it kind of does, unless they both only put holes in one side of the suppressor for some really crazy reason and the person that cut them in half just happened to get lucky and cut at exactly the right spot, and then after both of those happened the person doing it decided not to mention that the two halves were vastly different. Those are two of the best performing designs, they use tight stacks and venting. Most modern tight stack designs have ports, venting or clipped baffles to disrupt airflow and equalize pressures. Its pretty reasonable for someone building a form 1 can that basically has permission to build one can, and not to conduct R&D to just copy the top performing cans #3 that is the old design with the big chambers not the good modern one. Not sure what the point of that argument was, the tight vented stack performed much better which is why AAC updated it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 11:13:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: InfiniteGrim]
[#40]
For Turning down the tube...
the 8.375" Tube will be 10oz, the 6" will be 6.7oz 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 11:21:49 PM EDT
[#41]
The apogee titanium tube is still a pretty beefy 13oz by my calculations. There's quite a bit of fat to trim, but that puts your tube cost at $200, which is more than I'd like to be in for a form 1.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 11:22:22 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ronnl001:
The apogee titanium tube is still a pretty beefy 13oz by my calculations. There's quite a bit of fat to trim, but that puts your tube cost at $200, which is more than I'd like to be in for a form 1. Not sure why they went so thick on the walls. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:46:55 AM EDT
[#43]
Can someone post a link to apogee? All I can find is electronics and hair care products.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:53:25 AM EDT
[#44]
Apogee products.com
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 7:59:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Miles_Urbanus]
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By coug91:
Can someone post a link to apogee? All I can find is electronics and hair care products. Thanks! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By coug91:
Can someone post a link to apogee? All I can find is electronics and hair care products. Thanks! http://apogeeproducts.com/ Originally Posted By ronnl001:
The apogee titanium tube is still a pretty beefy 13oz by my calculations. There's quite a bit of fat to trim, but that puts your tube cost at $200, which is more than I'd like to be in for a form 1. TITANIUM TUBE (MODEL TIT) $110.00 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 12:13:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: civic96hb]
[#46]
Are there any spacers you could buy already fitted as opposed to sanding and cutting like the OP?
Also OP, just making sure, this can is a .308 for your 5.56, correct? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 12:47:41 PM EDT
[#47]
What do you all think of using a brake hone to open the ID of the tube to 1.375"?
I'm talking about using the hone to open the ID up by 0.025" leaving a wall thickness of 0.0875" (1.550"-1.375"/2=0.0875"). Is this a bad idea? Should I be overly concerned about the hone getting off center or for that small of a removal, should things be OK? I'm trying to avoid taking this to my local machine shop as they have a $75 minimum charge. |
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 12:50:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: c5hardtop]
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By civic96hb:
Are there any spacers you could buy already fitted as opposed to sanding and cutting like the OP? Also OP, just making sure, this can is a .308 for your 5.56, correct? The spacers don't have to be structural to the blast chamber they are just used to hold the baffles in place. I played around with 1" Ti over the weekend, cut out a section lengthwise pressed it together it would reduce to .94" so you could do this to 1.375 Ti tubing, drilled holes in one little section in a piece and cut it lengthwise just one slit and it expanded to 1.07", so you could expand 1.25" Ti tube this way. Something like this 
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 12:59:43 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By blwngazkit:
What do you all think of using a brake hone to open the ID of the tube to 1.375"? I'm talking about using the hone to open the ID up by 0.025" leaving a wall thickness of 0.0875" (1.550"-1.375"/2=0.0875"). Is this a bad idea? Should I be overly concerned about the hone getting off center or for that small of a removal, should things be OK? I'm trying to avoid taking this to my local machine shop as they have a $75 minimum charge. I am doing a test run first but I have a machinist that is going to accept mail order work from us. You mail in your tube with MO or cash and a return shipping label. Turning down the Tube will be $15, Opening the ID will be $25. For the most Ideal setup you would turn down the center OD to 1.475 and Open the ID to 1.375, which would require both services. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 1:21:10 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By c5hardtop: I am doing a test run first but I have a machinist that is going to accept mail order work from us. You mail in your tube with MO or cash and a return shipping label. Turning down the Tube will be $15, Opening the ID will be $25. For the most Ideal setup you would turn down the center OD to 1.475 and Open the ID to 1.375, which would require both services. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By c5hardtop: Originally Posted By blwngazkit: What do you all think of using a brake hone to open the ID of the tube to 1.375"? I'm talking about using the hone to open the ID up by 0.025" leaving a wall thickness of 0.0875" (1.550"-1.375"/2=0.0875"). Is this a bad idea? Should I be overly concerned about the hone getting off center or for that small of a removal, should things be OK? I'm trying to avoid taking this to my local machine shop as they have a $75 minimum charge. I am doing a test run first but I have a machinist that is going to accept mail order work from us. You mail in your tube with MO or cash and a return shipping label. Turning down the Tube will be $15, Opening the ID will be $25. For the most Ideal setup you would turn down the center OD to 1.475 and Open the ID to 1.375, which would require both services. So I gather you don't think the honing is a good idea? |
|
|
|
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.
