How light can we go?

MachIVshooter

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
17,934
Location
Elbert County, CO
These are still prototypes in testing phase, but so far so good!

They are both made entirely of grade 5 titanium, fusion TIG welded, with 7075-T651 aluminum direct thread mounts as the primary means of attachment. Those could be replaced with titanium or stainless mounts, or any other adapter in 1.125-28 Alpha pattern, but this was one of the few applications that I find aluminum parts useful for.

The first is called "TLX", it's 1.3" x 6.5", and at 4.1 ounces including mount, it's a .45 or 9mm pistol can that's lighter than a lot of rimfire suppressors. No booster assembly is needed with such low mass:

20230108_135043.jpg

20230108_173054.jpg


The second will replace my Canine model as a subcompact 9mm critter. This updated model uses many of the same parts as TLX, but a shorter blast chamber to keep OAL down at the expense of not being compatible with some muzzle devices. It's really meant to be a direct thread only can, though. It's a tad slimmer and nearly an ounce lighter than the aluminum tubed gen 1 Canine, has one more baffle, and is tolerable for naked ears without ablative. Still pretty poppy, of course, at only 4", but it can be run wet if it needs to be quieter for a few rounds.

20230108_135016.jpg

20230108_135134.jpg
20230108_113451.jpg
20230108_113321.jpg

Not sure I can get the weight down any lower without making something that won't stand up to the kind of abuse I expect them to! At least not until the discovery of a new element that makes for a weldable alloy lighter than Ti without sacrificing strength.

Next up is torture testing on the Suomi submachine gun. That's 3x 72 round drum mags back-to-back as fast as possible. After that, I'll probably put one on a 5.56 AR and see what happens. I know running suppressed SMGs sounds like fun, but don't be envious. Destructive testing is just an expensive chore in reality! Lol. I have a lot more fun hitting what I'm aiming at with every round through quiet lever and bolt rifles!
 
What does the inside look like or do I need to buy one to know that?

I actually didn't take any photos of the parts, but I'll try to remember to do that tomorrow when I'm back up at the shop.

The baffle profile is not a complex one, but what we've learned over the years is how important the finer details are. Width of shoulder, transition radius, the spacing, how much flat face surrounds the aperture, the shape and size of the clips, etc.
 
Ok my son wants to get a .45 suppressor that can be direct mounted on his .458 26" SOCOM 5/8x24 for both supersonics and subs.Also my 16 " .45-70 Contender barrel for subs with heavy bullets which we are also threading in the 5/8" x 24 and a Glock G 21 with the common to .45 acp .578 X28 . Which of your present or future products do you recommend ? Kicker is some cast bullets might be used . He does have a laboratory and can use any chemical in his ultrasonic cleaner . We both like the welded ti models , but lead bullet deposits can't be cleaned out with jacketed supers can they ?
 
Last edited:
Sorry, totally forgot to take those photos the other day. These ones are 17-4 stainless for the Phoenix TL, but they're identical to the titanium ones of the TLX. They're 9mm, .45 cal look the same with a bigger hole and slightly larger clips:

20230111_202632.jpg

Ok my son wants to get a .45 suppressor that can be direct mounted on his .458 26" SOCOM 5/8x24 for both supersonics and subs.Also my 16 " .45-70 Contender barrel for subs with heavy bullets which we are also threading in the 5/8" x 24 and a Glock G 21 with the common to .45 acp .578 X28 . Which of your present or future products do you recommend ? Kicker is some cast bullets might be used . He does have a laboratory and can use any chemical in his ultrasonic cleaner . We both like the welded ti models , but lead bullet deposits can't be cleaned out with jacketed supers can they ?

No, the only way to get lead out of a sealed can is "the dip", which produces highly toxic lead acetate. The 50/50 peroxide-vinegar mix will also eat aluminum, so it would wreck the standard direct thread mount that'll come with these. Mount would have to be removed.

The Phoenix XLV or Phoenix M would be the right choice for your application. I'm trying to get around to building Ms, but we STILL don't have our integrex up yet, so just limited capacity. We're getting there, the new $9,700 screw compressor it requires should be here before February, but we still have a couple minor repairs to do on it, and it needs lots of tooling. I wish I'd researched the cost of KM63 tool holders before buying this particular model; those things average about $800/each. It has an 80 tool magazine, only came with 7.....
 
Last question in decision process: which has bigger blast chamber ; XLV or M ? I am not interested in a smaller modular suppressor, I want to be able to run moderate .458 Socom loads in 16" barrels and same in .45-70 16" with lead heavy bullets, and with a piston , shoot ..45 acp. Pistol. I presume that any piston suppressor has a fairly large blast chamber.
 
Well, TLX in 9mm flavor survived three 72 round drum mag dumps on the ~900-1,000 RPM Suomi SMG as fast as I could do it, followed by a few rounds of 5.56mm out of a 16" rifle and 18" .308, which it's absolutely not rated for, but we test nonetheless. The .45 version will, of course, handle the same with even more ease due to the larger, less restrictive bore.

She got a little toasty, the moly resin discolored a bit, but everything is A-OK.

20230121_115616.jpg

Last question in decision process: which has bigger blast chamber ; XLV or M ? I am not interested in a smaller modular suppressor, I want to be able to run moderate .458 Socom loads in 16" barrels and same in .45-70 16" with lead heavy bullets, and with a piston , shoot ..45 acp. Pistol. I presume that any piston suppressor has a fairly large blast chamber.

XLV and M are the same basic can, M just has a 2" module with 4 extra baffles on the front.

No, they don't have large blast chambers, and the booster takes up a lot of what is there. We also "stuff" the blast baffle into the booster to mitigate first round pop. You gain some volume with a direct thread mount versus the piston & spring assembly, but it's not a lot.

We have tested XLV on a 13" barreled .308 AR machine gun, and it survived, but I do not officially rate them for rifle rounds that are not subsonic.
 
Last edited:
Thanks , looks like a .45 XLV with an extra 5/8" direct mount end cap would work on the 16" .458 Socom for hunting , and the booster end cap with the .578 threads for the Glock 21 would work for our needs.
 
If you send them over I’ll do the dirty work. No doubt it would be more fun to turn your money into noise than mine. ;)


What does the inside look like or do I need to buy one to know that?
But is he turning it into noise? Isn’t the point to not make noise. Either way, if he gives anybody free reign to do the destructive testing, I pack a mean cooler and it always starts with thick cut bologna, salami, pepperjack, and Colby jack on a fresh sub bun. Diet Dew for me… that leaves 2/3 of the cooler up for grabs.
 
I like the wiped Canine ! With gel and the first 15 rounds -30 rounds it is astonishingly quiet for what it is. However I must admit it does get used with worn out wipes and no ablatives for blasting a few 33 round mags, not rapid fire usually, on My Ruger Charger PCC 9mm. Also used it on .380 and .32 blow back guns and a Sig 239 9mm subsonics with wipes and gel. Five baffles really knock the decibels down to seeming ear safe range on the 9mm charger , even with a real worn (or no ) wipe since alot of the ammo is supersonic cheap 115 grain the five baffles take the edge off the blast and there still is supersonic crack anyway.
 
I like the wiped Canine ! With gel and the first 15 rounds -30 rounds it is astonishingly quiet for what it is. However I must admit it does get used with worn out wipes and no ablatives for blasting a few 33 round mags, not rapid fire usually, on My Ruger Charger PCC 9mm. Also used it on .380 and .32 blow back guns and a Sig 239 9mm subsonics with wipes and gel. Five baffles really knock the decibels down to seeming ear safe range on the 9mm charger , even with a real worn (or no ) wipe since alot of the ammo is supersonic cheap 115 grain the five baffles take the edge off the blast and there still is supersonic crack anyway.
I think he's trying to follow the model of the car industry - make a product, then change things so the consumer has to buy the next version!:rofl:
 
I think he's trying to follow the model of the car industry - make a product, then change things so the consumer has to buy the next version!:rofl:

Lol. Maybe......

No, just trying to both improve products and streamline manufacturing to increase efficiency and keep cost down.

The Gen 2 has only one part different from the TLX. It has six baffles instead of five, and more internal volume with a smaller OD (1.3 vs 1.375). It's Alpha mount compatible, so lots more mounting options. And all titanium, so harsh cleaning chemicals won't hurt it.

I haven't done metering with it yet, but my ears say it's 6-8 dB quieter dry. Still poppy, but does not hurt my ears, so probably around 135. Wet will probably be about the same, mid-high 120s.

While most everyone else seems to be decibel chasing with mongaloid 3d printed rifle cans, we're more focused on reducing weight and dimensions without sacrificing durability or performance. TLX isn't quieter than Phoenix IX, but it is 1.2" shorter and 57% lighter. Of course, TLX is not serviceable, so Phoenix IX is still the better choice for some, namely if cast bullets or others loads that leave more than carbon and copper dust behind are on the menu. The only way to get lead out of a sealed can is the dip, and the lead acetate it produces is highly toxic hazmat stuff.
 
Stupid question possibly, would a hole in the side of the baffle cone provide any benefit over the clip?
 
Stupid question possibly, would a hole in the side of the baffle cone provide any benefit over the clip?

Certainly not a dumb question!

There are and have been a number of cans with mouse holes or porting in the baffle cones. Sig SRDs are probably one of the most notable for ported designs, and Gemtech has made use of mouse holes in conjuction with clips/scoops.

Whether or not it can be beneficial is an overall design consideration. The point of the clip is to introduce a cross flow that disrupts laminar flow. Porting and mouse holes are generally more meant to equalize pressure between the chambers, which can also reduce laminar flow by forcing gasses back into previous chambers and "making room" for more gas in the chamber that's currently being filled. But it works the other way, too, since the gasses are moving faster than the bullet, at least initially. So it's a delicate balance.

I did a fair amount of experimentation with ports and mouse holes on our conical baffles, never did get them to outperform properly clipped ones, so all it did was add complexity to the manufacture.

As for why some of ours are double clipped and others single, that was also the result of much testing, and I found that a wider single clip worked best for high pressure rifle rounds, while the double clip was optimal for lower pressure stuff. That is largely because the baffles in our pistol and rimfire cans are much thinner, so the perpendicular face of the clip ends up narrower. Two worked better than one to disrupt flow, even though it would seem like the opposed clips would fight each other. On that note, I tried designs with 3 or more clips & scoops, including really tricky baffle profiles that made them wider and angled. Did not work out, which was disappointing in the capacity that the effort didn't pay off, but also a relief, because making those things sucked!

At the end of the day, these things are as much art as science, and getting them to work well is an iterative process of trial and error that has lots of let downs with eventual progress, and occasionally a quantum leap. Most of ours have been developed by making small changes to baffle profile, spacing, orientation, etc, then trying it out, rinse and repeat. But occasionally an intuitive design is a home run out of the gate. Five By Five turned out to be one of those, and the only change from the first prototype has been an increase in diameter from 1.56 to 1.6, thickening up the baffles a bit and adding a larger radius to transitions for durability, increasing the abutment face for the fusion welds, and going to 1.375-24 Bravo threads instead of our proprietary Gyrex pattern cut directly into the blast chamber.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top