Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 9/28/2016 12:07:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/28/2016 12:09:41 PM EDT by m1garand__man]
I'm trying to save weight on an SD tactical d cell size to build to get as close to a pound as possible. I'll be using zmachine baffles and can either build a 9.6" seven baffle 4" blast chamber can or a 7.6" 5 baffle 3.3" can. I will be doing this for my 9.3x62 Mauser and other smaller rifles. I just don't want to be disappointed if I build a five baffle can and it's fairly loud. I know a lot of cans have three to four baffles and work just fine which leads me to back to my title question. Which is more critical number of baffles or length of blast chamber?

Is a 3 Oz weight savings worth losing two baffles and .66" of blast chamber?
Link Posted: 9/29/2016 7:57:46 AM EDT
I'd rather have more baffles and a shorter distance from my brake to first cone.
Link Posted: 9/29/2016 2:03:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2016 2:08:05 PM EDT by Indrid-Cold]
You could split the difference with an Apogee Products 1.5" dia. X 8-3/8" 7oz. titanium tube.
Same thread pitch and the SDT titanium endcaps will fit.

Some quick math based on the cones you want to use:

7 baffles (5 titanium + 2 17-4 SS), 2.82" blast chamber sleeve.
6 baffles (4 titanium + 2 17-4 SS), 3.49" blast chamber sleeve.

Link Posted: 9/29/2016 6:41:11 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Indrid-Cold:
You could split the difference with an Apogee Products 1.5" dia. X 8-3/8" 7oz. titanium tube.
Same thread pitch and the SDT titanium endcaps will fit.

Some quick math based on the cones you want to use:

7 baffles (5 titanium + 2 17-4 SS), 2.82" blast chamber sleeve.
6 baffles (4 titanium + 2 17-4 SS), 3.49" blast chamber sleeve.

View Quote

the apogee tube is 8" long according to their site so you'll have to subtract 0.375".
Link Posted: 9/30/2016 12:57:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By m1garand__man:
I'm trying to save weight on an SD tactical d cell size to build to get as close to a pound as possible. I'll be using zmachine baffles cones and can either build a 9.6" seven baffle 4" blast chamber can or a 7.6" 5 baffle 3.3" can. I will be doing this for my 9.3x62 Mauser and other smaller rifles. I just don't want to be disappointed if I build a five baffle can and it's fairly loud. I know a lot of cans have three to four baffles and work just fine which leads me to back to my title question. Which is more critical number of baffles or length of blast chamber?

Is a 3 Oz weight savings worth losing two baffles and .66" of blast chamber?
View Quote

FIFY.
Link Posted: 9/30/2016 3:39:40 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ar15eric:

FIFY.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ar15eric:
Originally Posted By m1garand__man:
I'm trying to save weight on an SD tactical d cell size to build to get as close to a pound as possible. I'll be using zmachine baffles cones and can either build a 9.6" seven baffle 4" blast chamber can or a 7.6" 5 baffle 3.3" can. I will be doing this for my 9.3x62 Mauser and other smaller rifles. I just don't want to be disappointed if I build a five baffle can and it's fairly loud. I know a lot of cans have three to four baffles and work just fine which leads me to back to my title question. Which is more critical number of baffles or length of blast chamber?

Is a 3 Oz weight savings worth losing two baffles and .66" of blast chamber?

FIFY.

Link Posted: 10/17/2016 11:03:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/17/2016 11:09:25 PM EDT by acon308]
Originally Posted By m1garand__man:
Is a 3 Oz weight savings worth losing two baffles and .66" of blast chamber?
View Quote
I am going to vote "no"

My general findings and experience tells me....and anyone correct me....that supersonic (high pressure rounds) tend to benefit from more volume (which requires longer or fatter tube and/or fewer baffles) whereas subsonic rounds (low pressure) tend to benefit more from more baffles rather than more volume.....but idk what length bbl you're using on the 9.3Mauser, if you're using anything around a 20" bbl then I really don't think you need a 3" or 4" blast chamber...you should need only a 1.5". otoh, if it has a 10" bbl on a 9.3Mauser, then maybe you'd need a 4" blast chamber so the can doesn't burst. iow, I would keep the same total amount of spacer-length without making the blast chamber spacer super long if that is possible....spread out the spacer down the tube in between subsequent baffles.

A really big blast chamber creates increased first round pop which is a big deal to me if I'm using it on a PDW...which you probably are not doing with a 9.3Mauser (this has to be a bolt gun w a long bbl). But if you're using it for hunting, then having a big first round pop totally defeats the purpose of the suppressor because how many times are you gonna have followup shots, really?

If weight is a big concern, my 2 cents is to include more or longer spacers between baffles after the blast chamber...regardless of the number of spacers you have, the blast chamber should probably not be more than 1.5" or 2" at the absolute very max.

I think that with a 9.3Mauser you want to keep the extra 3oz and have the longer tube with more volume, but spread out the spacer more down the tube rather than having one big spacer for the blast chamber....my question is why would such lightweight be a big concern on a 9.3Mauser? is it just rucking it in the field?

anyway just my 2 cents
Link Posted: 10/25/2016 3:11:21 AM EDT
Acon308

Thanks for the input. The nice thing about a form 1 can is I can reconfigure it if need be. I will be using it on a 308 bolt gun with a Griffen break so I will need to allow at least enough blast chamber for that. But I could cut up the spacer later and spread it out between the baffles if need be.
Top Top