Lindenwood
Inactive
I would like to start with a pistol-caliber carbine (probably the Kel-Tec Sub2000 for me). Starting at about 5" from the breach, drill holes completely through the barrel at various intervals all the way to the muzzle. Details (hole size, number, and spacing) could vary quite a bit, with the primary concern being letting enough of the pressure waves enter the suppressor chamber, without letting them simply rush back out other holes, but that isn't the main point for now.
Then, using a drill bit of perhaps ~.4" (13/32 is .406" diameter, for example), I could drill into the bore from the muzzle end, to the last port hole, again roughly 5" from the breach. This effectively gives it a 5" barrel, though for all legal purposes it is still a 16", rifle-length barrel. The ideas behind removing so much of the effective barrel length are both to get more usable suppressor volume without increasing OAL, and to ensure that factory ammunition originally loaded to be subsonic will stay subsonic.
Now for the suppression:
The simplest way to complete the suppressor part of it would be to use a closed-ended steel tube of 1/16-1/8" thickness, whether round or square (square for easier optics / rail / foreend mounting), perhaps of 2" diameter / width. Even rectangular tubing that is like 1.5" x 3" or something could be used to flow a little better with the Sub2000s orignal lines, but it would be largely personal preference and have relatively little effect on its performance. While this obviously wouldn't make for the most efficient design, the actual materials cost and time would be very low (like $10 and a couple hours) heh. Still, though, its sheer mass and volume would still likely make it reasonably effective.
Most likely I would go a few steps further to add some simple internal baffles (probably a series of discs inside the suppressor), make it at least partially servicable, and not weld directly to the barrel to avoid any warping or annealing. Basically since I already will have to pay like $230 or so (tax stamp plus fingerprint fees, etc), the small increase in time and money to give the suppressor significantly more quality would surely be worth it.
So, what do you guys think of that? One concern I had was that due to the significantly shorter barrel length, cycling might be a problem? I know this can happen with the Ruger 10/22 action if the barrel is cut significantly shorter than stock, so I thought I'd see if it was still a concern with the 9mm. If you guys think that would be a problem, would there be a way to fix that (shorter / softer recoil spring, perhaps)?
Also, as far as the Form 1 goes, I have some questions:
1) Would this design it would be the same as building a stand-alone suppressor, in that I could not legally start the project until the tax stamp is received?
2) Would there be any differences since the suppressor would be integral to the firearm?
3) I would have to submit a design, correct? And after that design is submitted and accepted, I could not legally make any internal modifications or alternations to the design, correct?
4) Is my assumption that the barrel modifications themselves would not require SBR registration correct? It would not be legally any different than adding recoil-reducing barrel porting, right?
5) Would the ports in the barrel be considered part of the suppressor, if the suppressor itself is made to be removable (except its mounting system)? If the ports in the barrel are not considered part of the suppressor, and the answer to question (3) is "no," then I could start with a small number of ports and slowly increase that number during testing until the amount of suppression stabilizes.
BTW, I am in Oklahoma for those that wonder.
Lastly, I know it seems suspicious to start asking questions like this in my first post on the forum. It's just that nearly everytime I Google something firearm-related, I end up reading (typically useful) threads on TFL, so it seemed like a good place to come .
Thanks!
Then, using a drill bit of perhaps ~.4" (13/32 is .406" diameter, for example), I could drill into the bore from the muzzle end, to the last port hole, again roughly 5" from the breach. This effectively gives it a 5" barrel, though for all legal purposes it is still a 16", rifle-length barrel. The ideas behind removing so much of the effective barrel length are both to get more usable suppressor volume without increasing OAL, and to ensure that factory ammunition originally loaded to be subsonic will stay subsonic.
Now for the suppression:
The simplest way to complete the suppressor part of it would be to use a closed-ended steel tube of 1/16-1/8" thickness, whether round or square (square for easier optics / rail / foreend mounting), perhaps of 2" diameter / width. Even rectangular tubing that is like 1.5" x 3" or something could be used to flow a little better with the Sub2000s orignal lines, but it would be largely personal preference and have relatively little effect on its performance. While this obviously wouldn't make for the most efficient design, the actual materials cost and time would be very low (like $10 and a couple hours) heh. Still, though, its sheer mass and volume would still likely make it reasonably effective.
Most likely I would go a few steps further to add some simple internal baffles (probably a series of discs inside the suppressor), make it at least partially servicable, and not weld directly to the barrel to avoid any warping or annealing. Basically since I already will have to pay like $230 or so (tax stamp plus fingerprint fees, etc), the small increase in time and money to give the suppressor significantly more quality would surely be worth it.
So, what do you guys think of that? One concern I had was that due to the significantly shorter barrel length, cycling might be a problem? I know this can happen with the Ruger 10/22 action if the barrel is cut significantly shorter than stock, so I thought I'd see if it was still a concern with the 9mm. If you guys think that would be a problem, would there be a way to fix that (shorter / softer recoil spring, perhaps)?
Also, as far as the Form 1 goes, I have some questions:
1) Would this design it would be the same as building a stand-alone suppressor, in that I could not legally start the project until the tax stamp is received?
2) Would there be any differences since the suppressor would be integral to the firearm?
3) I would have to submit a design, correct? And after that design is submitted and accepted, I could not legally make any internal modifications or alternations to the design, correct?
4) Is my assumption that the barrel modifications themselves would not require SBR registration correct? It would not be legally any different than adding recoil-reducing barrel porting, right?
5) Would the ports in the barrel be considered part of the suppressor, if the suppressor itself is made to be removable (except its mounting system)? If the ports in the barrel are not considered part of the suppressor, and the answer to question (3) is "no," then I could start with a small number of ports and slowly increase that number during testing until the amount of suppression stabilizes.
BTW, I am in Oklahoma for those that wonder.
Lastly, I know it seems suspicious to start asking questions like this in my first post on the forum. It's just that nearly everytime I Google something firearm-related, I end up reading (typically useful) threads on TFL, so it seemed like a good place to come .
Thanks!
Last edited: