User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/11/2021 8:09:31 AM EDT
[#1]
Too thick adds weight and decreases volume.
Too thin and they can crush from the pressure. An exact thickness would depend on your specific variables (can design, caliber, etc). However, a thickness of ~.035in (Steel and Ti) is usually adequate. You can skeletonize them if they're too heavy/thk. Like this, but not as dramatic  This helps weight and volume, but will allow carbon to get at the tube wall. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2021 10:53:04 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Too thick adds weight and decreases volume. Too thin and they can crush from the pressure. An exact thickness would depend on your specific variables (can design, caliber, etc). However, a thickness of ~.035in (Steel and Ti) is usually adequate. You can skeletonize them if they're too heavy/thk. Like this, but not as dramatic https://www.capitolarmory.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/f3be9fb739065570a00bc26b396de944/s/c/sco_fbs_new_alt.jpg This helps weight and volume, but will allow carbon to get at the tube wall. Interesting, thanks. So could you use an under sized spacer? 1.355 baffles and 1.20 spacers( or whatever)? Don't think I have the skills to make that, but under sizing and drilling a few holes or a slit I could probably handle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2021 9:38:32 AM EDT
[#3]
Under sizing could work if the baffles have alignment/registration features to keep the spacer aligned. A rigid column structure is strongest so any staggering or cocking or poor fitment at ends is to be avoided. A lot of the newer skirted cones are thinned out nicely and make stack insertion smoother than skirtless baffles and spacers. It looks like there could be “cups” designed for porting into annular spacers. I haven’t checked out all the variations and shifting suppliers lately.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2021 1:51:36 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Under sizing could work if the baffles have alignment/registration features to keep the spacer aligned. A rigid column structure is strongest so any staggering or cocking or poor fitment at ends is to be avoided. A lot of the newer skirted cones are thinned out nicely and make stack insertion smoother than skirtless baffles and spacers. It looks like there could be “cups” designed for porting into annular spacers. I haven’t checked out all the variations and shifting suppliers lately. Would a 3/8 rod work before you tightened everything down? Was thinking the tube would keep everything inline, but I guess it wouldn't take much of a shift blow a suppressor up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2021 3:21:06 PM EDT
[#5]
I wouldn’t rely on friction alone to keep everything in place where there is space for a significant shift if friction fails. For concentric spacers a few thou under tube diameter the shift is constrained to where it is unnoticeable. For a normal spacer and skirtless baffle build the significant aspect is how square the spacers are cut. That is still important with sub-diameter spacers but any error there and you could get sub-spacers shifting all over the place until things get carboned up or or the forces balance. If any shift pushes parts into a loose state that’s playing with dominos.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2021 6:09:37 PM EDT
[#6]
I'm in agreement, especially with regard to the smaller dia parts. Alignment is paramount.
Your alignment rod isn't a bad idea, but machining needs to be scrutinized. A 1.355 baffle only has .005 of difference to a 1.360 tube ID. You'll have to ensure bores are drilled to w/in .0025 of center or else stack insertion and rod extraction will be difficult. Quote History It looks like there could be “cups” designed for porting into annular spacers. I haven’t checked out all the variations and shifting suppliers lately. @KalmanPhilter I believe we did a thread, maybe a couple weeks back, w/ pseudo Omega baffles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2021 7:27:36 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm in agreement, especially with regard to the smaller dia parts. Alignment is paramount. Your alignment rod isn't a bad idea, but machining needs to be scrutinized. A 1.355 baffle only has .005 of difference to a 1.360 tube ID. You'll have to ensure bores are drilled to w/in .0025 of center or else stack insertion and rod extraction will be difficult. @KalmanPhilter I believe we did a thread, maybe a couple weeks back, w/ pseudo Omega baffles. That's what got me thinking of the undersized spacers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2021 7:27:40 AM EDT
[#8]
Omega baffles can be quite effective. However, they can take quite a bit of tuning. This is something an SOT can do all day long, but a form 1'er is very limited.
Until you get pretty deep into the form 1 silencer game, I recommend going w/ straight-forward, easy to replicate, designs. Only when you have a better understanding of how features work, why they're put where they are, or how things all work together, is when you should start doing your own experimenting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 9:50:39 AM EDT
[#9]
 Is this a good baffle stack? It's an Omega 300. I've read a lot of people say to go from bigger to smaller as the bullet travels, but it's like they did the opposite. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 10:24:20 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://preview.redd.it/61xn2p72ay151.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=6afc8fe210fbfcfd6a8efdc8b6435d1797d9351f Is this a good baffle stack? It's an Omega 300. I've read a lot of people say to go from bigger to smaller as the bullet travels, but it's like they did the opposite. The Omega 300 is a solid silencer. However, those aren't "Omega" baffles (just to be clear). IIRC, their spacing from 1 to 2 is close to 3/16" The next 4 are ~7/16 apart The final 4 are ~3/8" apart |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 1:09:43 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Omega 300 is a solid silencer. However, those aren't "Omega" baffles (just to be clear). IIRC, their spacing from 1 to 2 is close to 3/16" The next 4 are ~7/16 apart The final 4 are ~3/8" apart Ya I know. Didn't wanting to take a chance on messing anything up. Maybe on my next one. I'm doing a 8" can, 1.96" blast chamber, 9 baffles, 1 0.250, 4 0.500, 4 0.375. And going to use the 300 design. Might have to shorten the blast chamber down some. Thanks for the help. Was thinking they were all the same size, but the one. |
|
|
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.
