For those not familiar, the CGS MOD9 has an anodized steel base containing the piston (or non-piston adapter) and to this screws an aluminum tube with the baffle stack in it. It's a substantial chunk of steel, and I am curious what it would take to screw a steel tube with baffles onto there and have a rifle-caliber suppressor.

Has anyone here done that? Thoughts?

I am looking to find out the threading on the end of the MOD9 base, and then will probably order some parts from the BYO suppliers to go in there.

@Sixtysixdeuce?

You want to use the Mod9 booster housing for the mount end of a 556?

@paco_ramirez

yep, pretty much.

But why?

Here's a great idea: Don't.

$200 tax and (optimistically at this point) 18 month wait?



You're going to need to qualify that statement. The anodized steel end part of the MOD9/Kraken units should have no problem taking more than 40,000 psi. Obviously the tube and baffles won't. But given new, higher rated, tube and baffles that would, why "don't"?

You're essentially going to destroy the 9mm can and rebuild it as a 5.56.  My understanding of the legal compliance issue is you will need to keep the .355+ bore to fit 9mm projectiles. You will have to affix the rear thread on mount and drop the piston. So now you have a slim 5.56 can with huge overbore that provides poor suppression and doesn't work on 9mm pistols.


All to avoid a 6 month wait and an extra $200.


Buy a $350 Turbo or Turbo-K and you'll have a better performing can for about the same cost without destroying your 9mm can.

Lol. Do you know who @paco_ramirez is?

As someone who spends all day, every day making custom parts to build, rebuild and adapt silencers of all shapes and sizes, both production and F1, I'd tell you the same thing.

You'd be much better off doing a new F1 build if the wait is your issue.

Also, steel doesn't anodize.  

People have shot the all 17-4 steel, welded, 9mm bored Omega 9k on 5.56.  It doesn’t suppress that fast sub-caliber all that well, and in one case (probably a shorter barrel) the blast chamber ruptured.  In cases where smaller diameter cans get minimal rifle rating the blast chamber is usually lengthened via a blast shroud acting as a mount.  Even then workable is usually less than optimal.  If the can designer (Paco) says it’s a bad idea it probably is.

Yes, but in my line of work I don't get a pass on statements without qualifying them no matter who I am.

But this was precisely the info I needed, and I assume everyone knows that I just wanted to screw on a 556 can body onto the serialized steel base of the can, since it unscrews. I'd appreciate an explanation why that would destroy the can, but I am taking it from the tone of the responses that I'm not worthy. If blast chamber erosion is the issue, fine.

And thousand pardons for mixing up nitriding and anodizing, because nobody who knows anything ever types too fast.