Quantcast

Point of impact changes with various suppressors (shooting .22LR)

Discussion in 'NFA Firearms and Accessories' started by Odd Job, Apr 27, 2019.

  1. Odd Job

    Odd Job Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    8,078
    Location:
    London (ex SA)
    Those of you who don't have suppressors may not realise it, but there are point of impact changes which can be experienced when:

    1) Shooting suppressed vs unsuppressed
    2) Shooting with one suppressor vs another
    3) Shooting with a thread adapter vs no adapter

    I recently conducted a very rough-and-ready experiment using some of my suppressors. This was on a 25 yard range using one of my R55 Benchmark rifles and one batch of RWS Target Rifle ammunition. The barrel is threaded 1/2" x 28tpi (UNEF) and I have mainly UNEF cans, but some UNF ones too (for 1/2" x 20tpi threads):

    _P1070327.jpg

    I also have some barrel thread adapters (more on that later).

    Firstly let me admit that this sort of test, if conducted formally, should be done with a chronograph and the rifle should be in some kind of rest.
    Also the rifle should be cleaned, fouled and zeroed between tests so that a set number of unsuppressed rounds are fired on a clean gun and then the tested can is attached.

    Also, it needs a better shooter than me (or me on a better day, because I shot badly on the day). But I think the test still has value, even with bad group sizes. It's the position of the groups I am interested in.

    Anyway, here's what I did:

    1) Using the Ontarget TDS software I printed 10 of the "style 31" targets. You can learn what that software does here: https://ontargetshooting.com/ontarget-tds/
    2) Each target has 25 "bulls" or spots and I fired 1 round at each spot.
    3) I then scanned the targets at home and imported them into the software to check the group positions.

    Here's an example target (I have cropped the extra 5 sighter spots off, and the barcode).
    Also not shown is the ruler I scanned with the target, in order to have a 1" reference to calibrate the image in the software:

    upload_2019-4-27_21-36-35.png

    Yes, I know, that is not great shooting. But it won't nullify the value of this post. Also, the suppressors that were tested all had low round counts. The lowest was 50 and the highest was 150. No chemicals had been sprayed into the suppressors beforehand.

    Here are the combinations I tested:

    1) No suppressor, no adapter or thread protector
    2) Wildcat Predator 12 reflex suppressor with a 150cm reflex tube. That's the big one in the photo
    3) ASE Utra Dual Rimfire suppressor (I have 3 of these, this is number 3)
    4) ASE Utra Dual Rimfire suppressor as above, but with a UNEF to UNEF thread adapter (yes, same to same, to check for the influence of an adapter on the same rifle and suppressor)
    5) Hausken SK156 suppressor
    6) Hausken SK156 suppressor as above, but with a UNEF to UNEF thread adapter (yes, same to same, to check for the influence of an adapter on the same rifle and suppressor)
    7) Finland Fine Machining SAK suppressor
    8) Finland Fine Machining SAK suppressor as above, but with a UNEF to UNEF thread adapter (yes, same to same, to check for the influence of an adapter on the same rifle and suppressor)
    9) A-TEC CMM4(6) suppressor (I have 2 of these, this is number 2)
    10) A-TEC CMM4(6) suppressor as above, but with a UNEF to UNEF thread adapter (yes, same to same, to check for the influence of an adapter on the same rifle and suppressor)

    For reference these are the suppressors, labelled (except for the Wildcat Predator which is not shown). I did not use all of them, but I plan to do more of these tests in the future:

    [​IMG]
     
    Jinx0760 and Gordon like this.
  2. Odd Job

    Odd Job Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    8,078
    Location:
    London (ex SA)
    Now for the results. Here are the Ontarget TDS calculations for the various combinations:

    1) No suppressor:
    upload_2019-4-27_22-10-17.png

    2) Wildcat Predator 12 reflex suppressor with a 150cm reflex tube:
    upload_2019-4-27_22-11-28.png

    3) ASE Utra Dual Rimfire suppressor:
    upload_2019-4-27_22-12-39.png

    4) ASE Utra Dual Rimfire suppressor as above, but with a UNEF to UNEF thread adapter:
    upload_2019-4-27_22-13-49.png

    5) Hausken SK156 suppressor:
    upload_2019-4-27_22-16-56.png

    6) Hausken SK156 suppressor as above, but with a UNEF to UNEF thread adapter:
    upload_2019-4-27_22-17-48.png

    7) Finland Fine Machining SAK suppressor:
    upload_2019-4-27_22-18-36.png

    8) Finland Fine Machining SAK suppressor as above, but with a UNEF to UNEF thread adapter:
    upload_2019-4-27_22-19-19.png

    9) A-TEC CMM4(6) suppressor:
    upload_2019-4-27_22-20-23.png

    10) A-TEC CMM4(6) suppressor as above, but with a UNEF to UNEF thread adapter:
    upload_2019-4-27_22-21-33.png
     
  3. greyling22

    greyling22 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    5,121
    Location:
    East Texas
    it's really interesting to see how A) it looks like all the groups tightened up and B) how much it shifted all over the place with carious cans. I would have just expected a lower grouping. Shows what I know.
     
    Jinx0760 and Gordon like this.
  4. Odd Job

    Odd Job Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    8,078
    Location:
    London (ex SA)
    I didn't expect that either, before I bought the cans.
    I plan to run more tests this weekend, after I have cleaned the rifle.
     
    Jinx0760 and Gordon like this.
  5. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    16,303
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    Lower meaning below POA, correct? That tends to happen with recoil operated handguns, the weight of the suppressor applying leverage to a barrel that has some "wiggle room".

    With fixed barrel guns, you never know what you're gonna get. Every weapon is affected differently. Generally speaking the shorter & more rigid the barrel, the less POI shift you'll see, but they all move some. It is a combination of aerodynamics within the suppressor, and a change to barrel harmonics with the added mass. My .220 Swift with my Furtivus .30 can on it only shifted 3/4 MOA down & left, while my .375 RUM with a skinnier barrel and heavier suppressor had a 3 MOA change. Neither had a change in group size, though.

    The key to precision is a consistent, repeatable POI shift, and that's why a lot of rifle cans use a taper mount so that the can will install exactly the same every single time.
     
    Jinx0760 and Gordon like this.
  6. Odd Job

    Odd Job Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    8,078
    Location:
    London (ex SA)
    Our club just bought six brand new A-TEC CMM4(6) suppressors, each one threaded UNF (1/2" x 20tpi) to match the threads on the Ruger 10/22s we will be using them on, and also two Toz bolt action .22LRs.

    These are the six suppressors:

    _P1070334.jpg

    _P1070339.jpg

    That was an ideal opportunity for me to check point of impact differences, since I had to test them anyway.

    My rifle of choice is the R55 Benchmark featured at the beginning of this thread. That rifle is threaded UNEF and these suppressors are UNF, so I had to use an adapter. I therefore zeroed the rifle with the adapter only, and used that configuration as my "unsupressed" setup.

    Again, using Ontarget TDS, I shot seven of the "style 31" targets, to see how much point of impact change there would be when comparing the six cans.

    Once again, I don't think this is good shooting on my part. There was a bit of wind but I can do better, there is no doubt about that. These are the groups:

    Unsuppressed, but using a UNEF to UNF adapter:
    0.JPG

    Can 1 using a UNEF to UNF adapter:
    1.JPG

    Can 2 using a UNEF to UNF adapter:
    2.JPG

    Can 3 using a UNEF to UNF adapter:
    3.JPG

    Can 4 using a UNEF to UNF adapter:
    4.JPG

    Can 5 using a UNEF to UNF adapter:
    5.JPG

    Can 6 using a UNEF to UNF adapter:
    6.JPG

    I think, even with the bad group sizes, there is enough evidence here to suggest that there are point of impact changes even when comparing brand new suppressors of the same make and model.
     
    Jinx0760, Gordon, alsaqr and 2 others like this.
  7. Double Naught Spy

    Double Naught Spy Sus Venator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,236
    Location:
    Forestburg, Texas
    EXCELLENT EXCELLENT EXCELLENT!!

    I have seen various examples on YouTube where folks demonstrate POI shift when using different cans on the same centerfire rifles. I had not seen it demo'd with rimfire. I really like the variety of suppressors used here and the detail of the results. Nice job!
     
    Demi-human, Jinx0760 and Odd Job like this.
  8. Odd Job

    Odd Job Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    8,078
    Location:
    London (ex SA)
    Today I conducted a small experiment to see whether these point of impact changes are reproducible even after a rifle is stripped, cleaned and zeroed again. And this time I did not use the rifle's bipod, I fired using front sand bags.
    I tested four suppressors from the batch in post 1. Once again I got the group positions using Ontarget TDS. I then prepared these side-by-side comparisons of the TDS plots for each scenario.

    1) Control / unsuppressed / newly zeroed:
    Control Zero.jpg

    2) Ase Utra Dual Rimfire (I have three of these and this was number 3):
    Ase Utra Dual Rimfire (3).jpg

    3) Hausken SK156:
    Hausken SK156.jpg

    4) Finland Fine Machining SAK:
    Finland Fine Machining SAK.jpg

    5) A-TEC CMM4(6). I have two of these and this was number 2:
    A-TEC CMM6 (2).jpg

    6) Wildcat Predator 12, using a long reflex tube:
    Wildcat Predator 12 Long Tube.jpg

    The suppressors with the least change in POI seem to the the Hausken SK156 and the A-TEC CMM4(6).
    The Wildcat Predator had a marked change in POI.
    I'll be doing more of these, on bags and on the bipod to see what happens over time...
     
    Jinx0760 likes this.
  9. Odd Job

    Odd Job Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    8,078
    Location:
    London (ex SA)
    There is one other interesting comparison, which is the Wildcat Predator 12 with a long reflex tube vs the same suppressor using a short reflex tube, shot on bags under the same conditions in today's session.
    For those of you who haven't heard of a modular reflex suppressor, there's a thread about this suppressor here:

    https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...op-limited-wildcat-predator-12-for-22.825498/

    I scaled the TDS plots for the long tube result to match that of the short tube, since the POI change resulted in shots going out of perimeter for the test with the short tube.

    Here is the scaled Wildcat Predator 12 with the long reflex tube:
    07b.jpg

    And here is the same suppressor with the short reflex tube:
    08.JPG

    That's quite a difference!
    The muzzle attachment remains the same for both cases, since it attaches to the muzzle via the bridge module. The diffuser portion of the suppressor (with the baffles) should therefore index the same way on the gun.
    It may well be a case of the different weight having an effect on the barrel harmonics. There are other variables that may be relevant such as I could have messed something up when disassembling the can to change the reflex section.

    Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see the POI shift so far south!
     
    Demi-human and Jinx0760 like this.
  10. Elkins45

    Elkins45 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    Messages:
    4,805
    Location:
    Northern KY
    Interesting experiment. Thanks for making the effort and taking the time to post it.

    I’m really jealous of all your cans. I would have to sell an organ to afford those (and the transfer taxes) here.
     
    Demi-human, Jinx0760 and Odd Job like this.
  11. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    16,303
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    Are you able to report on the aperture size and clip style of each model? You still have excellent precision, regardless of POI.

    I just redesigned my Ocelot series baffles and was able to significantly reduce FRP on handguns, as well as overall dB reduction (no appreciable change on rifles). But trying to run the same aperture size with the new profile that generates more turbulence was causing bullet instability on some hosts; I had to open them up .020" to fix that.
     
    Jinx0760 likes this.
  12. Odd Job

    Odd Job Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    8,078
    Location:
    London (ex SA)
    I have radiographs of all of these suppressors except the 6 A-TECs that the club bought. I'll post those images here, they are quite interesting!
     
    Jinx0760 likes this.
  13. Odd Job

    Odd Job Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    8,078
    Location:
    London (ex SA)
  14. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    16,303
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    Those are some very curious innards!

    I can't tell what, if any, clip style is used on it (and that can make a HUGE difference), but based on my R&D, I'd put money on the Sirocco being the quietest, especially on a short barrel. It's cross section is similar to my design. .22 likes lots of baffles in my experience. My Ocelot has 12. Monocores sound OK on rifles, but lots of FRP and overall rather high SPL on handguns.

    I got Ocelot standard & M down to 119.3 dB average on a pistol with the change. The really astounding change came with the 3" Ocelot Micro, which was 133.5 dB at shooter's ear before on a handgun, and is now just over 126.

    That has nothing to do with POI shift, of course, I just find it interesting that most of those stacks/cores look nothing like you find in most American rimfire suppressors. But then, with them being a much bigger investment here with the tax stamp & wait, and with handguns being more available and very popular hosts, I think people prefer to pay a bit more for more exotic "lifetime" materials and better pistol performance. There have been a few cheap rimfire cans produced, but they're not popular. Stamps & waits being what they are, I get work from lots of people who would rather send me a cheap, poor performing .22 can and pay a couple hundred to recore it than start over.
     
  15. Odd Job

    Odd Job Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    8,078
    Location:
    London (ex SA)
    What do you mean by clip style?

    We are stuck here in the UK, with rifles or really long-barrelled pistols.
    My testing on several .22 rifles has the cans rated for sound reduction as follows (top is best):

    1. A-TEC CMM4(6)
    2. ASE Utra Dual Rimfire
    3. Hausken Sk156, ASE Utra Eco
    4. Hogan Decimeater, Sirocco SM1116P, B&T Tiger, MAE LR22ST and Finland Fine Machining SAK
    5. Phantom Power RF22 (no surprise this one comes last)

    The Wildcat Predator 12 is somewhere between (3) and (4) above.

    When I bought the 10 research cans I was convinced the Hausken would be the best, since it has the greatest internal volume and a complex symmetrical monocore baffle set-up. It was the most expensive of the 10 research cans also.

    But the Sirocco does not impress.

    I think the A-TEC guys have managed to model the baffles in such a way as to disrupt the gases in an optimum manner. They are a weird design, I will post images of the internals later. I haven't taken my A-TECs apart, but I know what the structure is because I have CT scans of the can.
    I'll post pictures of the club's A-TEC internals next time I get a chance to photograph them.
     
  16. Odd Job

    Odd Job Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    8,078
    Location:
    London (ex SA)
    Here's a CT reconstruction I made, of the first A-TEC can I bought:

    _007.jpg
     
  17. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    16,303
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    A cut in the baffle face at the aperture, more or less perpendicular to the bore. This is to create a cross flow that disrupts laminar flow.

    In most centerfire cans, it's a radiused cut on one side of the cone tip, and they'll generally be aligned all the way through.

    These are a few different baffle profiles I've played with, using different clip styles:
    IMG_2912.JPG

    The difference between a properly clipped baffle and an unclipped one can be several dB, even 10 or more. A properly executed clip could be the difference between the Sirocco being the quietest and the loudest of the bunch.

    Logically, it follows, Boyle's law and all. But the volume and features have to work in harmony. Excessive volume can actually work against you, which I've struggled with in some of the recores I've done, especially way oversized rimfire critters. Sometimes I basically end up making a can within a can, use the excess volume forward of and coaxial to the core to reduce the uncorking pop.

    Over here, a lot of the big & heavy cans are the "cheap" ones, and the volume & mass are used to (try to) make up for lower quality materials and poor design. At best, they tend to be mediocre performers. For .22 LR, ~1" x 6" seems to be about optimal size, diminishing returns when they get any bigger.

    If that Sirocco is serviceable, let's have a look at the individual baffles. If you're legally allowed to make small changes to them, such as clipping an unclipped baffle, it might be possible to make the thing significantly quieter. Over here, that would be one of the very few changes an end user could legally make to a can they own.
     
  18. Odd Job

    Odd Job Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    8,078
    Location:
    London (ex SA)
    Ah, I understand now. The Sirocco doesn't have clipped baffles, they are plain cones. It is manufactured in India and imported to the UK by Edgar Brothers. Here are the baffles:

    upload_2019-5-25_17-16-32.png

    All the components:

    upload_2019-5-25_17-17-59.png

    The other suppressor that could have had keyed baffles is the MAE LR22ST. But as you can see, these are also plain baffles:

    upload_2019-5-25_17-20-56.png

    The Hogan Decimeater has a combination of simple washers and felt padding:

    _IMG_6630.jpg

    The ASE Utra Dual Rimfire is a heavy steel double-skinned suppressor with 18 angled baffles, made in Finland by ASE Utra. It works very well, almost as quiet as the A-TEC CMM4(6). When reassembling the can, you have to index the baffles on a guide rod like so:

    upload_2019-5-25_17-28-49.png

    That would happen one-by-one as you slide them back into the inner tube of the suppressor. I generated this composite image showing how the baffles are arranged, from CT data:

    upload_2019-5-25_17-30-16.png

    There are holes in the inner tube towards the base of the suppressor, allowing gases access to the recess between the inner and outer tube.
    It is a very solid suppressor, but is hard to disassemble and reassemble and there are serious manufacturing inconsistencies when comparing one ASE Utra Dual Rimfire to another. I found discrepancies in weight and dimensions when comparing the three units I have (and a fourth one for an air rifle).
     
  19. Odd Job

    Odd Job Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    8,078
    Location:
    London (ex SA)
    Then the next category is the monocore design.

    First is the Hausken SK156. This is a well made suppressor, manufactured in Norway:

    upload_2019-5-25_17-42-53.png

    The core has everything in it, even the thread receptacle (you specify the threads you want and they send you a steel thread adapter that sits flush in the unit).

    The Wildcat Predator is similar, but it is a reflex suppressor. There's plenty of info on that one in the thread I referenced in post #9 above.

    Next up is the Phantom RF22, made in New Zealand. It is a very cheap and small suppressor:

    upload_2019-5-25_17-49-19.png

    This next one is the Oulun Työstökeskus Oy SAK (Finland Fine Machining Ltd is a translation of the company name and the model of the suppressor is SAK). It has a monocore baffle arrangement secured inside the sleeve by a cap:

    upload_2019-5-25_17-55-9.png

    upload_2019-5-25_17-55-21.png

    Those are cheap and popular here in the UK.

    The ASE Utra Eco is interesting. The sleeve has the base thread and there is a retaining cap that screws onto the end, like the SAK. The monocore has a strange design:

    upload_2019-5-25_18-4-21.png

    upload_2019-5-25_18-4-32.png

    Those round recesses arise from the baffles and therefore accommodate gases. Here's a composite image with the chambers indicated on one of my radiographs:

    upload_2019-5-25_18-7-21.png
     
  20. Odd Job

    Odd Job Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    8,078
    Location:
    London (ex SA)
    The last two cans are the ones with the weird baffles.

    The Brugger and Thomet Tiger is made in Switzerland and is a non-serviceable can. They send the units out with the end caps Loctited and they do not support users opening the can. However, I found images of B&T baffles on SilencerTalk which match the structure of the baffles seen in my radiographs of the can. One image can be seen here:

    http://www.silencertalk.com/albums/BT/BTsternlamelle1.jpg

    They look like individual baffles stacked in the sleeve with the two end caps securing the stack from both sides.

    The A-TEC CMM4(6) can be taken apart but the company does not recommend it. This is a well-made suppressor manufactured in Norway.
    There is an old review of a 4 baffle version here, which shows the baffles:

    https://www.gunmart.net/shooting-accessories/equipment/moderators/a-tec-cmm-4-alu-moderator

    I have two of the better 6-baffle version and I also recommended that our club buy those suppressors because I know they can take a lot of abuse.
    One of mine has had 35,000 rounds through it without any cleaning, and it is still going strong (although it has put on weight). You can see the story of that suppressor in my LinkedIn article, in my signature.

    When I service the club cans tomorrow I will see if I can get some detailed photos of the baffles.
     
  21. Odd Job

    Odd Job Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    8,078
    Location:
    London (ex SA)
    I just thought of another test I could run:

    Point of impact changes with a suppressor where the baffles are asymmetrical and they can be aligned freely in the sleeve. I can do that with two of my ASE Utra Dual Rimfires.
    It just means changing the orientation of the stack of baffles for each test.
     
  22. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    16,303
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    That would explain it.

    There is an 8 dB difference in my Ocelot between clipped and plain cones of the same profile.

    If you're legally allowed to, make cuts like this and I'm sure you'll see a massive improvement in SPL reduction:

    IMG_3304.JPG

    Ignore the cuts on the proximal face of the cup, those are just for indexing.

    It would be interesting to see how the rest of those perform on short barrels. Generally speaking, monocore designs are pretty lackluster on handguns. But alas, only LE/govt can import suppressors, so a side-by-side with those and what we have here would be hard to coordinate. Having dB readings gives some idea, but differences in hosts, ammo, and procedure can account for pretty dramatic SPL disparities, and even the environmental factors from one location to another, even day to day in the same place affect readings.

    It can make a pretty substantial difference, both in POI shift/accuracy, and in SPL reduction. Or it might not. Randomly oriented, the baffles in my Ocelot yield average SPL almost 3 dB higher than aligned, and while I haven't tested for POI shift, there is a decrease in accuracy.

    With my old crescent clip, orientation made no difference to SPL or accuracy & POI, but there was much less turbulence with that design. As I mentioned, no appreciable difference in SPL between the crescent clip and my new symmetric radiused clips on rifles, but a big change on barrels <10", where there is still combustion occurring after the bullet leaves the muzzle.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2019
    Odd Job likes this.
  23. Odd Job

    Odd Job Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    8,078
    Location:
    London (ex SA)
    Here's a photo of the A-TEC CMM series baffle (this is from one of the suppressors in post #6):

    upload_2019-5-26_19-43-11.png
     
  24. Odd Job

    Odd Job Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    8,078
    Location:
    London (ex SA)
    I agree with you 100%.
    I have a feeling if we had access to each others' suppressors and equipment, a bunch of interesting tests could be run! Not just that, but you would be my first choice to partner and manufacture a prototype I am working on.
     
  25. Odd Job

    Odd Job Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    8,078
    Location:
    London (ex SA)
    Yesterday I tested two other suppressors I own. They are both ASE Utra Dual Rimfire suppressors and I have had them for some time. I open them up and clean them from time to time.
    This suppressor has a double-tube design, and you can see pictures of the baffles and how they sit in the inner tube in post #18 above.

    For this test I had two objectives:

    1) To find out whether the orientation of the baffles within the tube could significantly affect POI.
    2) To find out whether the POI changes (if any) exhibited by one suppressor were matched by the other.

    First I stripped and cleaned my rifle, and I stripped both cans and cleaned the baffles carefully. I cleaned the part of the recess between the inner and outer tube as best I could, in both cases.

    Next, I attached each can to my rifle and marked the 12 o'clock position of the can and used that mark as a reference point.

    I then zeroed the rifle with no suppressor attached and no thread adapter. These ASE Utra Dual Rimfire suppressors were purchased with the same UNEF (1/2"x28 tpi) threads as my R55 Benchmark has. So there is no need for an adapter, but you will see later that an adapter did come into play for an added experiment.

    Here is the control group, as mapped by Ontarget TDS:

    01.JPG

    The next group was shot using ASE Utra Dual Rimfire number 2. Before I fired the 25 rounds, I photographed the orientation of the baffles. Here's the end of the suppressor with the end cap off:

    upload_2019-5-28_21-39-15.png

    I used the longer of the three standoffs as an indicator of how the baffles were aligned, relative to the can and the gun. In the image above, I call that between 6 and 7 o' clock. Here's the TDS group:

    02.JPG

    I then took all the baffles out and laid them out blast side up and photographed those too. This is how much residue collects on these baffles from 25 rounds of RWS Target Rifle. Baffles are numbered from the muzzle out towards the end cap, so number 18 was under the end cap:

    upload_2019-5-28_21-51-44.png

    I then wiped down each baffle and cleaned the inner tube of the suppressor with a dry toothbrush and reassembled the suppressor with the baffles in a different orientation. For the next test I had them aligned like this, almost at 12 o' clock:

    upload_2019-5-28_21-59-11.png

    Here's the TDS group:

    03.JPG

    The baffles came out looking the same as before (I won't waste space by posting that photo). I wiped them down, cleaned the inner tube again and reinstalled the baffles with a different orientation. I think one photo will do, since you probably understand the architecture of the can by now. This is how the baffles were for the next test, they were sitting right at 9 o' clock:

    upload_2019-5-28_22-6-17.png

    Here's the TDS group:

    04.JPG

    The last test with this suppressor was with the baffles at 3 o' clock:

    upload_2019-5-28_22-10-7.png

    And this TDS group was remarkable because I found the POI to be very far to the right. I had to manually mark bullet holes in TDS, because the auto hole finder failed (which is understandable):

    05.JPG

    So it seems to me that in the case of the ASE Utra Dual Rimfire, the position of the baffles when the can is reassembled, can have a marked effect on POI.

    In the next post I will show you how the tests went with the other suppressor...
     
    Demi-human likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice