Link to review at Silencer Research

I've been screwing around with cans for a long, long time.  

This is my second attempt at a marketable product.  It's taken years and thousands of hours, and more than $50,000 to get here, and I don't really expect to make that back, but I thought it was cool to turn a professional-competitive product finally- if nothing else- to feel some sense of accomplishment of a goal.

Material on these is 6061 T6, with a stainless washer for a blast baffle- the spring is nickle plated spring steel- all components except for the spring and washer are CNC machined.  Engraving is lasered- but that was outsourced and I'm not too happy with the centering (front to back) of some of the initial examples I have in hand.  Oh well- I think this is the cheapest QD can of it's diameter on than the market, so I'm not worried about it, but more accurately annoyed that they didn't pay attention.

Retail on these is going to be $350 dealer pricing is available on orders of three or more.

This first video has the best sound, the rest were taken with a crappy camera with lesser quality sound.  They are as quiet as anything I've used so I feel it's safe to say they are competitive cans.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-yM8sTgn0

NEW VIDEOS
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdedObahOqs
Comparison against a HUGE 1.38x8.2" .22lr M baffle can
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBeJZs-RFB0
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdedObahOqs
www.]youtube.com/watch?v=dzDEkoTaCZA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=au6rNy1J_OA













Dissassembled after 250 + rounds fired.   The stack came out with finger pressure, and fouling was surface fouling only.  

Anti-sieze was omitted, and the rear cap is not turning, so anti-sieze is probably a good idea for the threads.

The can sounds slightly better after a couple hundred rounds because lead fills tolerance gaps left for easy disassembly.  

Quoted: Quoted: Man, seeing the first pics, I though you had managed a clear tubed suppressor. Now that would be bad-ass! Very nice work on the can, I am always envious of the machinists here that get to play with this kind of tech on a daily basis. I'm sure an acrylic or lexan tube would work for rimfire, but it would not be clear after after a few shots.

Kudos-  The fouling would sort of screw with the whole point.

It would be neat though to do high speed shutter studies of gas moving through suppressors.  (Neat and INSANELY EXPENSIVE).

I had it on a cheap POS AMT .45 hardballer lower I keep for dedicated .22lr use.  

The upper wasn't as highspeed.  It's a Marvel early model.  Nice .22lr upper though.  Real reliable.  Very accurate.  

I'm hoping to order a Tac Sol packlite upper for my crazy-custom ruger MKII.  Then that will be my new favorite if it functions reliably.  

The dimensions of the QD unit are 1" by 6.4" OAL.  The thread mount is 1"x6.2" OAL.

The QD mounts are .625 OD.  so they keep a pretty low profile on host guns when the can isn't in use.

Registration paperwork just went out.  

From what I hear it takes a couple weeks.

They are available now, but not transferable until the paperwork clears.

neat

Quoted: Very cool with the QD.  The baffle stack looks just like the Sparrow from Liberty Cans.  Cool looking design.   www.libertycans.net/images/baffler.jpg

I never saw the sparrow from liberty cans, and they are not the same.  I designed the stack in August of last year.  

I'm not implying that I am any sort of expert, but  I'm not like that, I don't buy books of silencer patents.  I haven't even seen Al Paulsons books.  I just think it's cheap to be searching out ideas from other people.

From looking at the sparrow, it appears to have been related to the cans from ETS, which were inspired by the Prodigy, and now you see how silencers work.  Maxim is the inventor.  We are just product designers.  

These have a monolithic stack- inspired obviously by the prodigies marketing campaign, the desire of end users (which I don't really agree with) to have maintainable cans, and my desire not to have to do a hundred manual tool changes and 21 seperate settup operations for a stack of 7 K baffles.  The three lug mount which I once read [years ago in a magazine article] was "Tim Bixlers" creation, is kind of household like a wall outlet at this point.  (Gemtech uses 2 lugs, SWR uses 5?) but they are all related in my opinion.  I never saw (other than in pictures) a three lug mount, or handled one, so it's obviously simple enough or mine wouldn't work.



The dimensions are listed above, 6.4" x1"OD the weight of the can and mount is 3.4ounces.  the thread mount cans are 2.9ounces.

I don't have any comparison.  I don't own an industry .22lr can.  Maybe someone in the area would like to visit with one and we could compare them.

Without the industry can to test, I can say the 2.9 ounces of the thread mount cans is lighter than most, and the size is slightly larger than most.

The thread mount cans have 17/64 bores.  The QD models have 9/32 bores.  you could actually probably put a .25ACP through the QD model without issues or modifications other than removing the stainless washer from the assembly as it is the sole 17/64ths aperature in the product.

mounts are $35 separately.  Sold (at least initially) only to owners of the suppressors just to keep supply from being an issue in the event someone thinks they will make a cool thread protector.


I'm in the Waukesha area- my shop is in Dousman.

Yeah the design was in Solidworks.  I do CAD/drafting in my regular full time job- I'm a machinist and own my little CNC shop FFL/C2 business as side job.   I'd rather the situation be reversed- I like suppressors and cool weapons more than light fixtures.

Quoted: Quoted: Yeah the design was in Solidworks.  I do CAD/drafting in my regular full time job- I'm a machinist and own my little CNC shop FFL/C2 business as side job.   I'd rather the situation be reversed- I like suppressors and cool weapons more than light fixtures. Well, consider me jealous. I'm a decent CAD user (Inventor, Pro/E, & SolidWorks are the three I'm somewhat familiar with), I just wish I had access to a CNC to turn any idea I had into a real hunk of metal. ETA: How do you input a SolidWorks part file into a CNC machine? Is there an intermediate software package that dictates how the CNC does its job? Sadly we don't learn a lot about this in school.

I'll aggree school is backward.  I was in a local tool and die program until I learned that CAM software wasn't part of the program.  They used conversational 2-axis bridgeport EZ-tracks instead.

A lot of programs that generate NC code allow direct import of Solidworks files.  Once you get the part into the environment, (Assuming it's oriented properly in the world coordinate system) you can just pick lines and fill in information (depth of cut, depth per pass, inch per minute feed, rpm of the tool, etc).

If you have a program and someone who knows it, odds are your understanding needs can be met in 12-24 hours of instruction.  The difficulty is finiding someone who doesn't want to charge $150 an hour for those 24 hours.  

The manufacturing industry is glutted with money-whores, and most of the people you talk to have dollar signs where their pupils used to be.

WOW, that looks a LOT like an STW can, from the one peice insert to the three lug coupler (which they have patents on).  



I am not posting a pic of their one-peice insert; I'll let them do it if they wish.

I wasn't referring to the "three lug" itself.  Their three lug coupler does not activate with a spring, so maybe that is enough of a difference not to matter.  Not sure on that one. Other than the spring, they look a lot alike.

The one peice is a different story.  They did patent a one peice insert.  ETA:  Only applies to insert in a rifle bbl.

Ppl often stumble on to the same idea.  I see where the OP says he did not research patents  so if there is a patent problem, he obviously did not manufacture the stuff with knowledge of other patents.

Quoted: I wasn't referring to the "three lug" itself.  Their three lug coupler does not activate with a spring, so maybe that is enough of a difference not to matter.  Not sure on that one. Other than the spring, they look a lot alike. The one peice is a different story.  They did patent a one peice insert. Ppl often stumble on to the same idea.  I see where the OP says he did not research patents  so if there is a patent problem, he obviously did not manufacture the stuff with knowledge of other patents.

I didn't search patents, but obviously, everyone in the firearms world has seen a three lug barrel.  

I figured Gemtech and SWR had patents for 2 and 5? lug configurations, while the presence of STW, AAC, SWR Gemtech and other lesser known manufacturers making three lug systems led me to believe it was generic technology.  Now I've been told, apparently at least Gemtech and SWR, are license built under another companies patent, or physically built by the company.  

I had a system I could have used that would have been proprietary but it involved a fourth axis CNC operation and a multiple tool operation for the mating part and this was just simple and affordable.  A $500 .22lr can would not have met criteria for this product.  I designed the system without looking at drawings of some-elses product, but I knew of the existance of three lug barrels.  

Looking at that companies patent, I can see how my design differs significantly, in that it doesn't have three parts of the mechanism they are using- their system has a front collar for alignment [clearly described] that mine gets from spring pressure, and uses two O-rings for sealing the device.  Mine uses tolerance of fits and length of bearing surfaces for the same function.

Their spring is not exposed in patent drawings.  Mine is.  That can be good and bad- fouling is less an issue [not that it's really much of an issue] with a contained spring, but in the exposed design, the spring's geometry is in the blast chamber and that's helpful.  This isn't a 5.56 can so heat isn't much of an issue.

Their's is spring attachment system, mine is a "spring attachment and alignment system for the attenuation of sound".    

Whether that's different enough for me to produce without incurred royalties is something for a patent lawyer.  Not me.

I just built a product, I specifically attempted not to infringe patents I expected to encounter.

I am not posting a pic of their one-peice insert; I'll let them do it if they wish.

I saw a pic of one When Al Paulson reviewed the STW 5.56 QD? titanium three lug can in guns and weapons for law enforcement magazine if I'm not mistaken-

It looked nothing like mine at the time, and is threaded like a YHM MITE core, of course maybe over the last eight years or so, it has been "improved" and now coincidenally looks similar?  That I have no knowledge of, but you should post a picture if you are going to make an inference or implied accusation.  If the company made the product (as mine) to come apart; then they evidently understand people will be looking at it- as I do.

I've taken pictures of mine- that people will see it if it sells is a guarantee- it comes apart.

Some pics of my Thread mount can and it's K-baffle derivative that- as far as I know- is my idea, but who am I to make that statement?  Millions of pages of patent history and me with one lifetime to try not to waste.  

They have two utility patents on the one peice insert inside of a barrell (not multiple peices like AAC and Gemtech).  

BUT NOT IN A CAN- so I'm sorry, I was wrong on that.

They have three design patents on the actual design of their inserts for either a rifle or a can.  Have no idea if you are close to those designs.

So far as the three lug coupler (I never said just the three lug design itself) system, like I said, maybe the spring (and lack of one in an STW can) makes a difference.

Quoted: How does it meter?

I don't have a meter.  

Thread mount cans retail at $300.  QD models at $350.

I only have ten thread mounts in stock.  The baffles are labor intensive to manufacture.  


Dealer pricing is available on orders of three or more suppressors.

Thanks guys.  I also appreciate 1928 helping me out with a review.  

I wanted to say that I did a little more work with the wipes, and I learned a few things.

1. the wipes like to be shot in locked breach weapons.  If I hold the slide closed, a lot of what would have been gas blowback coming through the action, becomes a slow release from the muzzle of the can.  It seems to make a Ruger MKII sound like a suppressed 17" bolt gun. It sounds like a 3-6DB gain in performance to my ear <which I know is subjective, but I'm pretty sure that's the ballpark. My Paclite seemed to gain some small amount of performance from the wipes even in semi-auto, and I attribute that to the tighter match chamber of the PacLite and the heavy mass of the Ruger MKII's bolt compared to other weapons like the P22/Browning Buckmark/Beretta 21.

A bolt gun with a wipe and rifle length barrel is almost quieted to firing pin noise with Remington Subsonic.  <indoors, which is less forgiving than outdoors. (what you do with a wipe packed rifle ? I have no idea, but it's an observation.)

2. Wipes don't like high pressure, tiny barrels, or hollowpoint ammunition.  My Beretta 21 destroys a wipe in 6 rounds (instead of the 4.5" barrel's ~10-15), and it doesn't help the 21 much because the chamber is loose and the slide is very difficult to hold closed. [not mentioning the obvious need to flip the stupid barrel and pick the empty case out by hand which is slow and ridiculous.]

3. The can doesn't like tiny barrels, like the one on my Beretta 21.  The bore is probably just too large for the over-pressure and expanding burning powder induced by the tiny barrels.  I shot everything, and realized the only way to make the beretta quiet is to add coolant, or shoot it with Aguila SSS.  <which is not something I would recommend with anything without testing stability and checking carefully the suppressor alignment first.  For some reason the Beretta loves the Aguila SSS, and I know the bullet's only going 640 or so FPS out of the 21, but the gain in reliability due to bullet weight, and shorter cases, in addition to the SSS's increased sound reduction to me are worth it, and I'm pretty sure the stopping power is still comparable to Remington target- maybe even federal classic high velocity. [did some penetration tests on an especially boring, and egregiously long Tom Clancy Novel].

4. My accuracy with the wipe packed Ruger/paclite was decent.  I was shooting 3" groups at 7 yards offhand.  That's decent in my opinion for neoprene contacting the bullet.  I do think that bullet yaw in air will reduce penetration on large game, but will probably enhance lethality on small game (if any small game is close enough to hit.)

I wouldn't use a wipe with Aguila SSS.  I think that's a good recipe for a endcap strike- the 60grain round likes to de-stabilize and yaw 90-120 degrees, and it's about 3/4" long, needing to pass through the .281" ID bore of the endcap.

The 3-lug couplers used by SWR and us at Gemtech are covered under a patent issued to Gregory S. Latka. Both companies purchase the couplers from Latka's company, GSL Technology, Inc. The patent does not specify the number of lugs, and Gemtech products use both 2 and 3 lugged couplers. SWR has used 2, 3, and 5 lug devices. These couplers are characterized by a spring-loaded push-and-twist mechanism similar to a child-proof pill bottle. The coupler differs from the older Mafione design in that there is a positive stop in the mount to limit rotation.

The STP coupler is the Bixler patent (currently owned by STW) from the mid 1980s. It does not have a spring mechanism and locks with a simple 2 turn twist of the suppressor on the barrel. A number of the AWC 3-lug devices useed this same coupler with the coupling device originally purchased from Bixler.

These patents are valid in the US only. Brugger+Thomet in Switzerland uses a clever combination of the two concepts in the European market.

Link to review at Silencer Research

Quoted: The 3-lug couplers used by SWR and us at Gemtech are covered under a patent issued to Gregory S. Latka. Both companies purchase the couplers from Latka's company, GSL Technology, Inc. The patent does not specify the number of lugs, and Gemtech products use both 2 and 3 lugged couplers. SWR has used 2, 3, and 5 lug devices. These couplers are characterized by a spring-loaded push-and-twist mechanism similar to a child-proof pill bottle. The coupler differs from the older Mafione design in that there is a positive stop in the mount to limit rotation. The STP coupler is the Bixler patent (currently owned by STW) from the mid 1980s. It does not have a spring mechanism and locks with a simple 2 turn twist of the suppressor on the barrel. A number of the AWC 3-lug devices useed this same coupler with the coupling device originally purchased from Bixler. These patents are valid in the US only. Brugger+Thomet in Switzerland uses a clever combination of the two concepts in the European market.

I looked at Latka's patent drawings after this was brought to my attention.  My device is different in numerous ways including, among other things, the number and orientation of parts.  

(Lack of two o-rings, and a forward bushing, and two threaded mating parts.  The Latka design, According to the wording of the patent, achieves alignment by means of a concentric mate between the barrel mount and a forward bushing; mine uses a mate of the square rear surface of the barrel mount's lugs parallel to mating surfaces which are oriented perpendicular to the bore. The latka design uses O-rings to achieve an air-tight seal, while mine uses length of bearing surfaces and tolerance of fits.  The latka design conceals a spring from interaction with combustion gases, while mine leaves it in the blast chamber for attenuation of sound and forward loading of the baffle stack, which the Latka design appears to achieve through the threaded mate of the square shoulder of the threaded encapsulated mechanism to the sound suppressor.  It appears Latka invented a device that he then screwed onto a suppressor, I designed a suppressor around a device integral to the suppressor itself.

They are two different products.

I already went over this, and I've heard nothing from Latka, the only guy who's really involved in the process of protecting that patent, should my device be found to breach of his, which I don't see possible due to the wording of his patent and its differences in relation to my mount.

That's nice that Gemtech and SWR purchase mounts from GSL.  My company makes it's own mounts, and has no affiliation to GSL.

Furthermore, if you are paying any royalties to the company, I doubt they are making any serious impact on the price of your products.  compare the prices of thread mount and QD products from your companies, ~$100.  The price of the barrel mounts themselves $50 or more, that leaves $50 to pay for the mount assembly, and to pay royalties.

So either the pricing for the QD products is low, or thread mounts are low, or royalties are non-existent and this is just crap designed to intimidate me needlessly and reflect poorly on me and my company.  

Seriously at this point, having designed these suppressors and used and compared them to my thread mounts, I don't know why the whole .22lr industry isn't built around QD products.  The thread mounts deliver no convenience to the end user and are simply easier and cheaper to manufacture than their more advanced QD counterparts.  

Quoted: I looked at Latka's patent drawings after this was brought to my attention.  My device is different in numerous ways including, among other things, the number and orientation of parts.   (Lack of two o-rings, and a forward bushing, and two threaded mating parts.  The Latka design, According to the wording of the patent, achieves alignment by means of a concentric mate between the barrel mount and a forward bushing; mine uses a mate of the square rear surface of the barrel mount's lugs parallel to mating surfaces which are oriented perpendicular to the bore. The latka design uses O-rings to achieve an air-tight seal, while mine uses length of bearing surfaces and tolerance of fits.  The latka design conceals a spring from interaction with combustion gases, while mine leaves it in the blast chamber for attenuation of sound and forward loading of the baffle stack, which the Latka design appears to achieve through the threaded mate of the square shoulder of the threaded encapsulated mechanism to the sound suppressor.  It appears Latka invented a device that he then screwed onto a suppressor, I designed a suppressor around a device integral to the suppressor itself. They are two different products.

Look at patent number: 5559302


The claims are:

1. A bayonet type coupling to removably coaxially attach accessories to a gun barrel wherein the gun barrel includes an end, an end region, an exterior surface and a radially extending lug defined on the end region axially spaced from the end having a forward edge facing the barrel end and a rear edge facing away from the barrel end, an accessory adapter having an axis, accessory mounting means, an axial bore, an inner barrel receiving end, a lug receiving opening defined in the adapter inner end, and a lug retaining recess defined in the adapter bore retaining the lug upon insertion of the lug within the opening and rotating the adapter and barrel relative to each other about the adapter axis, the improvement comprising, a sleeve within the adapter bore axially displaceable between first and second positions, a bore with said sleeve receiving the gun barrel end and end region upon being inserted into the adapter opening, an abutment defined upon said sleeve engaging the lug forward edge upon insertion of the barrel end region into the sleeve bore to displace said sleeve from said first position to said second position, and a spring biasing said sleeve toward said first position, said sleeve retaining the lug within the adapter lug retaining recess under the force of said spring.

2. In a bayonet type coupling as in claim 1 wherein three radially extending lugs are defined on the gun barrel end region circumferentially spaced from each other and three lug retaining recesses are defined within the adapter bore.

3. In a bayonet type coupling as in claim 1, said sleeve comprising a tubular element having a reduced diameter cylindrical stem and an enlarged diameter cylindrical head, said sleeve head defining said abutment, and said spring encircling said stem.

4. In a bayonet type coupling as in claim 3, a seal defined in said sleeve head sealingly engaging said adapter bore at all axial positions of said seal.

5. A bayonet type coupling to removably coaxially attach accessories to a gun barrel wherein the gun barrel includes an end, an end region, an exterior surface and a radially extending lug defined on the end region spaced from the end having a forward edge facing the barrel end and a rear edge facing away from the barrel end, an accessory adapter having an axis, accessory mounting means, an axial bore, an inner barrel receiving end, a lug receiving opening defined in the adapter inner end, and a lug retaining recess defined in the adapter bore retaining the lug upon insertion of the lug within the opening and rotating the adapter and barrel relative to each other about the adapter axis, the improvement comprising, a spring within the adapter imposing an axial biasing force substantially parallel to the adapter axis, the lug forward edge compressing said spring upon the lug entering the adapter opening, said spring biasing the lug into the lug retaining recess upon alignment thereof and maintaining the lug within the lug retaining recess.

6. In a bayonet type coupling as in claim 5, said spring comprising a coil compression spring concentrically related to the adapter bore.


How is your product different?