Armory Sponsor
The $100 effective Form1 suppressors, and one not so $100 56k beware, or even 2mb like me...... (Page 5 of 120)
|
Originally Posted By cpy911:
How about http://www.harborfreight.com/36-piece-18-in-steel-letternumber-stamping-set-60670.html? Originally Posted By cpy911:
How about http://www.harborfreight.com/36-piece-18-in-steel-letternumber-stamping-set-60670.html? I would pick that one up in person unless you order 2 sets for the missing and duplicate letters.Look through the box in the store to make sure your set is good. |
| I had mine done in nice little small letters by a laser engraver for $9 each. Turned out great. Maybe somewhat concerning he had no issues getting depth on both the steel tubes and the anodized aluminum ones, but when I had him try to engrave my anodized ar-15 lower sbr a couple years ago it could not get through the anodizing at all. I was going to do the salt water eching methold and ordered stencils for it but no need. If you want try salt water etching you can get someone on etsy to make you a vinyl stencil for about $5ea. |
|
I have done salt water etching on steel (AK build)... But never on aluminum.
so anybody know how many baffles for a 4 D-cell maglight? yeah, it's gonna be long, bit paired with a short barrel it might work....lol ETA.. I already destroyed the switch mechanism so I might as well run with it. more baffles = quiet?... 
|
Originally Posted By rangermonroe:
and Obama might turn out to be a good President, and skittles might fly out of my ass and turn into unicorn seeds. All are equally likely.
and Obama might turn out to be a good President, and skittles might fly out of my ass and turn into unicorn seeds. All are equally likely.
|
Originally Posted By Wayward_Texan: I have done salt water etching on steel (AK build)... But never on aluminum. so anybody know how many baffles for a 4 D-cell maglight? yeah, it's gonna be long, bit paired with a short barrel it might work....lol ETA.. I already destroyed the switch mechanism so I might as well run with it. more baffles = quiet?... There's actually test data that shows there are diminishing returns and even negative results beyond a certain # of baffles per given interior volume. On a 7" ~1.625" ID can, (5) 60* cones was found to be BETTER than (7) cones for that particular designer. |
Originally Posted By HogJaws:
"You know things are bad in CA when chicks who do ATM for a living are giving up on the place."
"You know things are bad in CA when chicks who do ATM for a living are giving up on the place."
|
I think this is true for supersonic and M-baffles (freeze plugs at 60 degrees). The spacing at .625" seems to work best in a 8"-9" can.
However, if you are going for subsonic, M-baffles are fairly inefficient at stripping away gasses at low pressure. My guess is that more freeze plugs would be needed for a subsonic scenario. I am working on a D size subsonic only version and am tempted to find a buddy with a lathe to help me make some K-baffles, which work very well for subsonics. Although, the subsonics that esstac- was running in his D size can with about 10 freeze plugs didn't sound too bad other than first round pop. Originally Posted By blwngazkit:
There's actually test data that shows there are diminishing returns and even negative results beyond a certain # of baffles per given interior volume. On a 7" ~1.625" ID can, (5) 60* cones was found to be BETTER than (7) cones for that particular designer. Originally Posted By blwngazkit:
Originally Posted By Wayward_Texan:
I have done salt water etching on steel (AK build)... But never on aluminum. so anybody know how many baffles for a 4 D-cell maglight? yeah, it's gonna be long, bit paired with a short barrel it might work....lol ETA.. I already destroyed the switch mechanism so I might as well run with it. more baffles = quiet?... There's actually test data that shows there are diminishing returns and even negative results beyond a certain # of baffles per given interior volume. On a 7" ~1.625" ID can, (5) 60* cones was found to be BETTER than (7) cones for that particular designer. |
|
I had a buddy that runs a parts store try and find me the SS 1.350" and he said they were not showing up in the system by that SKU anymore. Anyone have a link to where we can buy them in bulk, say 100 or more at a time? They regular steel ones were only .36ea, so I ordered 100 of them to play with and get my method down. (No, I have no concerns with having lots of baffles laying around, I am an 02/07 SOT).
Thanks guys, and GREAT thread! I would be really curious what they do when you put them with an SPL meter and what the primary frequencies are. |
You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything, he's no longer in your power, he's free again.-Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
| Also, I spoke with Wayne Harris from Term Lab about their SPL meters and RTA's. They focus primarily in the car audio field for the DB drag races, but he is also a gun guy. He has had a few calls about software for sound measurements for firearms companies, and is working on a program for their new Magnum that will capture the report of the weapon, plot the frequency response, and allow the user to review it millisecond by millisecond to gather data from. Given that the current world record for an SPL vehicle is over 180db, their system will accurately measure the full sound impulse from the gun shot, and attenuation of suppressed vs unsuppressed and see how the different materials used in the different cans affects the frequency of the report. A side topic to the discussion, but since we are testing different materials I find this part of the process fascinating. And the entire package is forecast to be under a grand retail so all the MFG and die hard enthusiasts can afford it. |
You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything, he's no longer in your power, he's free again.-Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
| As soon as they release it, we will be buying one! That is a good idea for a service to offer people.... Not only can they get a reading with a specific measuring parameter, they can also get a spread sheet of the frequency response so they can see where it is loudest and how it compares to factory cans and other home builds. |
You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything, he's no longer in your power, he's free again.-Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
|
Originally Posted By blwngazkit:
There's actually test data that shows there are diminishing returns and even negative results beyond a certain # of baffles per given interior volume. On a 7" ~1.625" ID can, (5) 60* cones was found to be BETTER than (7) cones for that particular designer. Originally Posted By blwngazkit:
Originally Posted By Wayward_Texan:
I have done salt water etching on steel (AK build)... But never on aluminum. so anybody know how many baffles for a 4 D-cell maglight? yeah, it's gonna be long, bit paired with a short barrel it might work....lol ETA.. I already destroyed the switch mechanism so I might as well run with it. more baffles = quiet?... There's actually test data that shows there are diminishing returns and even negative results beyond a certain # of baffles per given interior volume. On a 7" ~1.625" ID can, (5) 60* cones was found to be BETTER than (7) cones for that particular designer. might have to rethink this then.. I want to use supers for hunting with my .300BLK and just general plinking... looks like a purpose specific tube may be in my future, but I'm not gonna order anything until my app is granted.. I just need to figure the best overall length to list on my Form-1 |
Originally Posted By rangermonroe:
and Obama might turn out to be a good President, and skittles might fly out of my ass and turn into unicorn seeds. All are equally likely.
and Obama might turn out to be a good President, and skittles might fly out of my ass and turn into unicorn seeds. All are equally likely.
.JPG)
|
Nice what did you use |
|
Originally Posted By vanquished:
Nice what did you use Originally Posted By vanquished:
Nice what did you use Esstac did the same thing, but opposite side. I think it made a much larger cone and would look pretty close to a "real deal" baffle once clipped. |
|
Originally Posted By InfiniteGrim:
Esstac did the same thing, but opposite side. I think it made a much larger cone and would look pretty close to a "real deal" baffle once clipped. Originally Posted By InfiniteGrim:
Originally Posted By vanquished:
Nice what did you use Esstac did the same thing, but opposite side. I think it made a much larger cone and would look pretty close to a "real deal" baffle once clipped. Very nice so you just plan on stacking them cone towards muzzle? I'd be curious to see how they perform. Did you just put a socket on the opposite side or did you use a hose clamp to hold them together or something? |
|
Originally Posted By vanquished:
Very nice so you just plan on stacking them cone towards muzzle? I'd be curious to see how they perform Originally Posted By vanquished:
Originally Posted By InfiniteGrim:
Originally Posted By vanquished:
Nice what did you use Esstac did the same thing, but opposite side. I think it made a much larger cone and would look pretty close to a "real deal" baffle once clipped. Very nice so you just plan on stacking them cone towards muzzle? I'd be curious to see how they perform There is one main concern with them. The gasses are directed to where to two freeze plug meet so I doubt we are going to use them like that. Just made one to see what it looks like. |
|
Originally Posted By InfiniteGrim: There is one main concern with them. The gasses are directed to where to two freeze plug meet so I doubt we are going to use them like that. Just made one to see what it looks like. Originally Posted By InfiniteGrim: Originally Posted By vanquished: Originally Posted By InfiniteGrim: Originally Posted By vanquished: Nice what did you use Esstac did the same thing, but opposite side. I think it made a much larger cone and would look pretty close to a "real deal" baffle once clipped. Very nice so you just plan on stacking them cone towards muzzle? I'd be curious to see how they perform There is one main concern with them. The gasses are directed to where to two freeze plug meet so I doubt we are going to use them like that. Just made one to see what it looks like. Grim, I'm not really following your concern... Can you elaborate please? Also, do you really think the full 1.550" OD is needed at the end cap areas?
|
Originally Posted By HogJaws:
"You know things are bad in CA when chicks who do ATM for a living are giving up on the place."
"You know things are bad in CA when chicks who do ATM for a living are giving up on the place."
|
Look at the baffles esstac made before.. the cone directs the gasses to the corner of the freeze plug. Which is a continues piece of metal and contains the pressure.
The backwards formed one will direct the gases to where the top baffle meets the current baffle. No pressure will be really be contained by that and all the forces would be transferred right to the outer tube. Possibly even hot gases will hit the tube. |
|
Originally Posted By blwngazkit:
Grim, I'm not really following your concern... Can you elaborate please? Also, do you really think the full 1.550" OD is needed at the end cap areas? Originally Posted By blwngazkit: There is one main concern with them. The gasses are directed to where to two freeze plug meet so I doubt we are going to use them like that. Just made one to see what it looks like. Grim, I'm not really following your concern... Can you elaborate please? Also, do you really think the full 1.550" OD is needed at the end cap areas? No. You are limited to only taking a SMALL amount off because of how deep the threaded area goes into the wall. But if you do that, now your end cap is larger then the tube is stupid looking. If I could get the end cap made to my specs I would have the end of the tube turned to 1.50" |
|
Originally Posted By InfiniteGrim: Look at the baffles esstac made before.. the cone directs the gasses to the corner of the freeze plug. Which is a continues piece of metal and contains the pressure. The backwards formed one will direct the gases to where the top baffle meets the current baffle. No pressure will be really be contained by that and all the forces would be transferred right to the outer tube. Possibly even hot gases will hit the tube. Isn't that basically the function/design of the machined 60° cones?
|
Originally Posted By HogJaws:
"You know things are bad in CA when chicks who do ATM for a living are giving up on the place."
"You know things are bad in CA when chicks who do ATM for a living are giving up on the place."
|
Originally Posted By InfiniteGrim:
There is one main concern with them. The gasses are directed to where to two freeze plug meet so I doubt we are going to use them like that. Just made one to see what it looks like. If you made a jig and welded the stack together it'd be good to go. But that's a lot of work. You could also grind the interior edge of the FP to make it similar to the Silencerco CTA baffles. |
|
Originally Posted By InfiniteGrim: No. You are limited to only taking a SMALL amount off because of how deep the threaded area goes into the wall. But if you do that, now your end cap is larger then the tube is stupid looking. If I could get the end cap made to my specs I would have the end of the tube turned to 1.50" Originally Posted By InfiniteGrim: Originally Posted By blwngazkit: There is one main concern with them. The gasses are directed to where to two freeze plug meet so I doubt we are going to use them like that. Just made one to see what it looks like. Grim, I'm not really following your concern... Can you elaborate please? Also, do you really think the full 1.550" OD is needed at the end cap areas? No. You are limited to only taking a SMALL amount off because of how deep the threaded area goes into the wall. But if you do that, now your end cap is larger then the tube is stupid looking. If I could get the end cap made to my specs I would have the end of the tube turned to 1.50" Would you still be using the 20tpi of the maglite style with that OD?
|
Originally Posted By HogJaws:
"You know things are bad in CA when chicks who do ATM for a living are giving up on the place."
"You know things are bad in CA when chicks who do ATM for a living are giving up on the place."
|
Originally Posted By blwngazkit:
Would you still be using the 20tpi of the maglite style with that OD? The point of this thread is quick and easy maglight suppressors using easily and cheaply availible parts. Nothing is being custom made/ordered for these tubes cans. When you start ordering custom parts its not a maglight suppressor anymore, nor is it going to be a $100 suppressor. Everything in this thread can be ordered from SDTactical and easily put together into a suppressor, that is the point. Edit: Are you talking about how I said 1.500" OD? If so yes you can still take that much off without biting into the threads, and I'm assuming its a low pressure area so it wouldn't be risking the tube's integrity. |
|
Yeah sorry I wasn't clear on that; I was referring to you're 1.50" OD. IF I'm measuring things correctly, with a 20tpi and a 1.50" OD given a 1.38" ID at the threads; you'd only have a 0.0167" wall from max thread depth to the OD. Is that safe? |
Originally Posted By HogJaws:
"You know things are bad in CA when chicks who do ATM for a living are giving up on the place."
"You know things are bad in CA when chicks who do ATM for a living are giving up on the place."
|
Originally Posted By blwngazkit:
Yeah sorry I wasn't clear on that; I was referring to you're 1.50" OD. IF I'm measuring things correctly, with a 20tpi and a 1.50" OD given a 1.38" ID at the threads; you'd only have a 0.0167" wall from max thread depth to the OD. Is that safe? I was getting .035" wall. I dont have a tube in front of my to check that though. I'm not actually doing that. That was only if the place that let you design something in CAD and they make it would allow small orders, but they dont 
|
|
Emachineshop orders CAN be had cheap, my lowest was about $50 but it really depends on the software's estimation of machine time & material volume. I've drawn up tubes & end caps in there that would be ~$200 for a single order. By comparison, a 100 count dropped the same part combo to about $60. My numbers for the tube wall were based on a d-cell maglite tube I have. 1.380" ID at the threads; online math says a 20tpi has a max thread depth of 0.043" per side so the 20tpi would deduct 0.086" from your wall thickness. 1.50" OD - 1.38" ID = 0.12" - 0.086 = 0.034" combined wall thickness / 2 = 0.017" individual wall thickness. Right? Or did I mix something up?
|
Originally Posted By HogJaws:
"You know things are bad in CA when chicks who do ATM for a living are giving up on the place."
"You know things are bad in CA when chicks who do ATM for a living are giving up on the place."
|
Using their software this is what I came up with real quick...
There is a floating disc that came out of nowhere, ignore it. That is about the only "customized" thing I would be interested in, but when I went to their price estime if I bought one it would be $800, if I order 10 they are $85 each, 25 was only around 40 each. It seemed that the software was trying to keep a minimum order of $1000 (Threading doesn't appear on the rendering) 
|
|
Per machinery's handbook
20 TPI, the depth of Internal Threads is .02706" 24 TPI, the depth of Internal Threads is .02255" 28 TPI, the depth of Internal Threads is .01933" So, if you wanted at least.050" of thickness left after cutting into the tubes for threading, your tube would need to be: 20 TPI, .050" + .02706" = .07706" 24 TPI, .050" + .02255" = .07255" 28 TPI, .050" + .01933" = .06933" For a 20tpi and a 1.50" OD given a 1.38" ID you have a .060" wall and with the threads you have is .03294" which is too weak. You need more like 28 TPI or higher . Then you would have .06" - .01933 = .04067" which I think is on the weak side, but probably ok for Non magnum stuff. Most guys are running .065 -.070 tubes at 28 TPI who are threading their own. That would give .045"- .050" thickness at the threads. Originally Posted By InfiniteGrim:
I was getting .035" wall. I dont have a tube in front of my to check that though. I'm not actually doing that. That was only if the place that let you design something in CAD and they make it would allow small orders, but they dont Originally Posted By InfiniteGrim:
Originally Posted By blwngazkit:
Yeah sorry I wasn't clear on that; I was referring to you're 1.50" OD. IF I'm measuring things correctly, with a 20tpi and a 1.50" OD given a 1.38" ID at the threads; you'd only have a 0.0167" wall from max thread depth to the OD. Is that safe? I was getting .035" wall. I dont have a tube in front of my to check that though. I'm not actually doing that. That was only if the place that let you design something in CAD and they make it would allow small orders, but they dont |
|
Glad I can stop guessing at math formulas I find online for thread depth! I've really got to get a copy of that book... I may have my tube's OD turned to 1.51" for a ~0.04ish wall at the threads.
|
Originally Posted By HogJaws:
"You know things are bad in CA when chicks who do ATM for a living are giving up on the place."
"You know things are bad in CA when chicks who do ATM for a living are giving up on the place."
|
iGrim, I drew up your endcap in eMachineShop. That floating dot you were questioning is how their software shows that hole as threaded. In 6061 aluminum, those endcaps are like $11ea in qty of 100; in 304 stainless they're ~$100 each for the same quantity. If you read the advisory notes, the cost is due to "custom" thread sizes being specified. |
Originally Posted By HogJaws:
"You know things are bad in CA when chicks who do ATM for a living are giving up on the place."
"You know things are bad in CA when chicks who do ATM for a living are giving up on the place."
|
Originally Posted By InfiniteGrim:
The point of this thread is quick and easy maglight suppressors using easily and cheaply availible parts. Nothing is being custom made/ordered for these tubes cans. When you start ordering custom parts its not a maglight suppressor anymore, nor is it going to be a $100 suppressor. . I'm assuming this is targeted to the tube in my thread, I'm not really sure why you are so against it. They are both made by single person in a small shop, they both custom parts made for the same specific purpose. One is just a lot better. I've been sitting on SD Tube and aluminum parts for over a month wanting to build something, but knowing I would not want to run the aluminum parts ever on a can that will sit on a AR-15, or feel safe doing so, and also knowing I would never be happy with a bloated overweight tube. SD Tactical Tube $31, Steel Adapter $35, Alumium End Caps $30, Shipping 12 = $108. $40 more gets a can that is safe to shoot, made out of better materials at each aspect, doesn't have aluminum, has a significant interior volume, will perform better because of that, better threads, more engagement, and is about half the weight. I'm going to be happy with my SD Tube and Apogee tube by the time they are finished, but to get there they had to go to a machinist and I had to talk a 3rd party into making end caps and adapters, and they are still inferior. If I hadn't already purchased them already and already sourced 1.350 retainers for them before the other tubes came about and just viewed them a personal challenge to fix, no way would have wasted my time with them. |
|
I'm not against you or your thread. I just question your thinking and logic behind your designs & thinking.
But to address you points. First off, who's idea was it to reduce the OD to reduce the weight and calculated it to be around 11 ounces? Second, "Safe to Shoot" Why are the suppressors not safe? Esstac has put 700+ rounds of 5.56 and .300 through his in the last week. There are steel endcaps too anyway if that is your worry. Third: increase volume.... Your 8" tube with a 1,375" ID will actually have a volume of 11.88 cubic inches compared to the 11.99 cubic inches of the sdtac tube. So not sure why it will perform better? The larger baffle holes will most likely deteriate performance. Plus the baffle's and arrangement will have a much larger effect on how well it works then a few percentage change in volume. Fourth: Having a third party make suppressor parts for you is technically illegal. |
| I don't buy that the mere use of aluminum as a suppressor body is inherently unsafe. It is all about what the materials are rated to. |
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." --Col. Jeff Cooper
|
Originally Posted By InfiniteGrim:
I'm not against you or your thread. I just question your thinking and logic behind your designs & thinking. But to address you points. First off, who's idea was it to reduce the OD to reduce the weight and calculated it to be around 11 ounces? Second, "Safe to Shoot" Why are the suppressors not safe? Esstac has put 700+ rounds of 5.56 and .300 through his in the last week. There are steel endcaps too anyway if that is your worry. Third: increase volume.... Your 8" tube with a 1,375" ID will actually have a volume of 11.88 cubic inches compared to the 11.99 cubic inches of the sdtac tube. So not sure why it will perform better? The larger baffle holes will most likely deteriate performance. Plus the baffle's and arrangement will have a much larger effect on how well it works then a few percentage change in volume. Fourth: Having a third party make suppressor parts for you is technically illegal. The Tube is build on 1.5" 1.375" Steel tubing there is no reduction. The SD and Apogee pretty much have to be reduced to be useable, which depending on the circumstances. Aluminum does not have a place on AR-15 suppressor that will fired fast in most people's opinions, which is why there is a not a unrestricted commercial can with aluminum parts (The Mystic and 308 Harvester have length and rate of fire requirements. Pretty irrelevant argument on volume, you can order the tube in any length. I was referring to extra volume of the hollow end caps and the extra volume allows for better performance. You can also just use off the shelf 1.375 ti tubbing for spacers which is ideal for volume. I have no idea what baffles with be in my can yet, I haven't got retainers or plugs for it yet. let alone chosen a layout or bore sizes. They are doing the same thing SD Tactical is doing, making solvent trap parts. You can buy the plugs and parts to specifically make them into baffles from SD, they even have videos showing you how, promoting their parts for silencers. Both legal but SD is closer to walking the line to me. |
|
For the custom tubes, I calculate at 24TPI that the machinist is cutting at with a .0625" tube wall thickness we have only .040" wall left after threading. Kind of on the slim side. Should go with 28 TPI. Originally Posted By c5hardtop:
The Tube is build on 1.5" 1.375" Steel tubing there is no reduction. The SD and Apogee pretty much have to be reduced to be useable, which depending on the circumstances. Aluminum does not have a place on AR-15 suppressor that will fired fast in most people's opinions, which is why there is a not a unrestricted commercial can with aluminum parts (The Mystic and 308 Harvester have length and rate of fire requirements. Pretty irrelevant argument on volume, you can order the tube in any length. I was referring to extra volume of the hollow end caps and the extra volume allows for better performance. You can also just use off the shelf 1.375 ti tubbing for spacers which is ideal for volume. I have no idea what baffles with be in my can yet, I haven't got retainers or plugs for it yet. let alone chosen a layout or bore sizes. They are doing the same thing SD Tactical is doing, making solvent trap parts. You can buy the plugs and parts to specifically make them into baffles from SD, they even have videos showing you how, promoting their parts for silencers. Both legal but SD is closer to walking the line to me. Originally Posted By c5hardtop:
Originally Posted By InfiniteGrim:
I'm not against you or your thread. I just question your thinking and logic behind your designs & thinking. But to address you points. First off, who's idea was it to reduce the OD to reduce the weight and calculated it to be around 11 ounces? Second, "Safe to Shoot" Why are the suppressors not safe? Esstac has put 700+ rounds of 5.56 and .300 through his in the last week. There are steel endcaps too anyway if that is your worry. Third: increase volume.... Your 8" tube with a 1,375" ID will actually have a volume of 11.88 cubic inches compared to the 11.99 cubic inches of the sdtac tube. So not sure why it will perform better? The larger baffle holes will most likely deteriate performance. Plus the baffle's and arrangement will have a much larger effect on how well it works then a few percentage change in volume. Fourth: Having a third party make suppressor parts for you is technically illegal. The Tube is build on 1.5" 1.375" Steel tubing there is no reduction. The SD and Apogee pretty much have to be reduced to be useable, which depending on the circumstances. Aluminum does not have a place on AR-15 suppressor that will fired fast in most people's opinions, which is why there is a not a unrestricted commercial can with aluminum parts (The Mystic and 308 Harvester have length and rate of fire requirements. Pretty irrelevant argument on volume, you can order the tube in any length. I was referring to extra volume of the hollow end caps and the extra volume allows for better performance. You can also just use off the shelf 1.375 ti tubbing for spacers which is ideal for volume. I have no idea what baffles with be in my can yet, I haven't got retainers or plugs for it yet. let alone chosen a layout or bore sizes. They are doing the same thing SD Tactical is doing, making solvent trap parts. You can buy the plugs and parts to specifically make them into baffles from SD, they even have videos showing you how, promoting their parts for silencers. Both legal but SD is closer to walking the line to me. |
|
A lot of you guys are going "WAY ABOVE and BEYOND" the $100 cans that this thread is for. There are lots of other threads where you can discuss custom thread counts, and machining tubes down and or custom made tube diameters. I for one am SOLD on the idea. I have submitted 2 form 1's already and am eagerly awaiting their approval. Its been about 3 weeks now, so it should be soon.
I want thank all the folks who have added great instructions to this thread. I am fine if my Form 1 cans are a few ounces heavier than my Quicksand or G5 that I already have. My original idea was to build a Form 1 suppressor for blasting LEAD CAST BOOLITS. I love the idea, but all the "CUSTOM" talk is really detracting from the real intent of this "$100 budget thread." JMHO. 
|
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
|
Originally Posted By Overton-AR:
A lot of you guys are going "WAY ABOVE and BEYOND" the $100 cans that this thread is for. There are lots of other threads where you can discuss custom thread counts, and machining tubes down and or custom made tube diameters. I for one am SOLD on the idea. I have submitted 2 form 1's already and am eagerly awaiting their approval. Its been about 3 weeks now, so it should be soon. I want thank all the folks who have added great instructions to this thread. I am fine if my Form 1 cans are a few ounces heavier than my Quicksand or G5 that I already have. My original idea was to build a Form 1 suppressor for blasting LEAD CAST BOOLITS. I love the idea, but all the "CUSTOM" talk is really detracting from the real intent of this "$100 budget thread." JMHO. Primary reason I decided to go this route too. Cheap, and I can shoot cast boolits out of it while being serviceable. Win, win in my book. I have to say that powder coating boolits is kind of cheating when we talk about shooting lead projectiles. I intend to build as light as I can, but be as robust as a full power can so I can still use it occasionally for supersonic if needed. |
|
Originally Posted By cpy911:
Per machinery's handbook 20 TPI, the depth of Internal Threads is .02706" 24 TPI, the depth of Internal Threads is .02255" 28 TPI, the depth of Internal Threads is .01933" So, if you wanted at least.050" of thickness left after cutting into the tubes for threading, your tube would need to be: 20 TPI, .050" + .02706" = .07706" 24 TPI, .050" + .02255" = .07255" 28 TPI, .050" + .01933" = .06933" For a 20tpi and a 1.50" OD given a 1.38" ID you have a .060" wall and with the threads you have is .03294" which is too weak. You need more like 28 TPI or higher . Then you would have .06" - .01933 = .04067" which I think is on the weak side, but probably ok for Non magnum stuff. Most guys are running .065 -.070 tubes at 28 TPI who are threading their own. That would give .045"- .050" thickness at the threads. Originally Posted By cpy911:
Per machinery's handbook 20 TPI, the depth of Internal Threads is .02706" 24 TPI, the depth of Internal Threads is .02255" 28 TPI, the depth of Internal Threads is .01933" So, if you wanted at least.050" of thickness left after cutting into the tubes for threading, your tube would need to be: 20 TPI, .050" + .02706" = .07706" 24 TPI, .050" + .02255" = .07255" 28 TPI, .050" + .01933" = .06933" For a 20tpi and a 1.50" OD given a 1.38" ID you have a .060" wall and with the threads you have is .03294" which is too weak. You need more like 28 TPI or higher . Then you would have .06" - .01933 = .04067" which I think is on the weak side, but probably ok for Non magnum stuff. Most guys are running .065 -.070 tubes at 28 TPI who are threading their own. That would give .045"- .050" thickness at the threads. Originally Posted By InfiniteGrim:
Originally Posted By blwngazkit:
Yeah sorry I wasn't clear on that; I was referring to you're 1.50" OD. IF I'm measuring things correctly, with a 20tpi and a 1.50" OD given a 1.38" ID at the threads; you'd only have a 0.0167" wall from max thread depth to the OD. Is that safe? I was getting .035" wall. I dont have a tube in front of my to check that though. I'm not actually doing that. That was only if the place that let you design something in CAD and they make it would allow small orders, but they dont Look at my picture real quick (tube just came in) The wall is .06" thick here, the threads stick out from that wall, not cut into it. So if you were to make it 1.500" you are taking .025 off of each side, making it .035" thick walls. 
|
|
Originally Posted By InfiniteGrim: Look at my picture real quick (tube just came in) The wall is .06" thick here, the threads stick out from that wall, not cut into it. So if you were to make it 1.500" you are taking .025 off of each side, making it .035" thick walls. https://content-na.drive.amazonaws.com/cdproxy/templink/iawPZs6fNZtm_9BMpwNe4nmwgf-pGqU6YiY0kfHbPqYLAYspN?viewBox=963 Is that a weld line in that tube???? Looks like one in the pic. |
Originally Posted By HogJaws:
"You know things are bad in CA when chicks who do ATM for a living are giving up on the place."
"You know things are bad in CA when chicks who do ATM for a living are giving up on the place."
|
Originally Posted By mygreenkaw:
Have a hard time convincing me otherwise, sure does look like weld seam. That's most likely folded, welded tubing that's been possibly final machined for concentricy. Even if machined the weld will show. Good paper If you have a buddy see if he can check run-out. Folded tubing will be .020 - .030 out. |
" I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes. If you fuck with me I will kill you all" Major General James Mattis, USMC speaking to Iraqi tribal leaders during the march to Baghdad, 2003
|
Originally Posted By pdm:
That's most likely folded, welded tubing that's been possibly final machined for concentricy. Even if machined the weld will show. Good paper If you have a buddy see if he can check run-out. Folded tubing will be .020 - .030 out. Originally Posted By pdm:
Originally Posted By mygreenkaw:
Have a hard time convincing me otherwise, sure does look like weld seam. That's most likely folded, welded tubing that's been possibly final machined for concentricy. Even if machined the weld will show. Good paper If you have a buddy see if he can check run-out. Folded tubing will be .020 - .030 out. Whoever got his turned down first said his machinist said it was slightly out of round or centered... |
|
Hrm, I thought someone asked SDTA if the tubes were seamless... Maybe I am thinking of Apogee, I know they've told me theirs are but I can't confirm as I don't have one in hand. I'd be concerned about supersonic use with welded tubing. |
Originally Posted By HogJaws:
"You know things are bad in CA when chicks who do ATM for a living are giving up on the place."
"You know things are bad in CA when chicks who do ATM for a living are giving up on the place."
|
Originally Posted By blwngazkit:
Hrm, I thought someone asked SDTA if the tubes were seamless... Maybe I am thinking of Apogee, I know they've told me theirs are but I can't confirm as I don't have one in hand. I'd be concerned about supersonic use with welded tubing. No someone clearly did tell us they were seamless.... (in the prepper's discount thread) |
The $100 effective Form1 suppressors, and one not so $100 56k beware, or even 2mb like me...... (Page 5 of 120)
Armory Sponsor