TexasCHLforum.com

:thewave :anamatedbanan...

Got home for lunch and disassembled the can - if there are any baffle-strikes, I sure can't see any copper marks or deformation on any of the plugs or on the exit-cap. Oh well... perhaps it was my scope/rings after all, but there's now good peace-of-mind in having checked :...

I'm going to...

Unsure, I was having optics/mount issues - I'll redo another time, but it looked like the group was actually bigger. I might have to drill everything out a tiny bit more - don't know yet, too many moving parts...

Full-power 175gr HPs - suppressed, un-suppressed then suppressed again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I7WpwKjg00 Interestingly, the suppressor dropped the bullet-impact by over 4" at 100 yards :shock...

The abuse I put myself through... :mrgreen: and thank you - yes, it's a .308 On looking this thing over, I've decided it's kinda long - I really didn't pay attention and take into account the extra 2.5" the brake would add. I'll shoot it and see how it works, but at some point I'll likely take it back to Andrew to have it trimmed back a few inches. Dropped off my FAL at Andrew's this evening to get the barrel cut down to 17.5" - it'll look/feel more harmonious as a Para and perhaps cut down on some of the barrel-whip for which the FAL is famous. That might even help tighten the groups up some, too...

Got my Savage back from Andrew at Atwell Tactical in Richardson last night - he threaded the barrel and mounted the Griffin brake for me. Did a real nice job - inexpensive and quick, too: http://i64.tinypic.com/2v8pgdg.jpg I guess I'll have to force myself back to the range this weekend again .....

You make it however long you want; an 8" D-cell sized steel or titanium tube will handle the pressures of either caliber and seems to be the most commonly-recommended length. They also have smaller diameter tubes available - the C-cell sized tube apparently handles .223 just fine, but I doubt it would be recommended for any larger caliber due to lack of volume available unless it were very long. I'd suggest you join and ask your questions there where it'll have the widest knowledgeable audience...

I'm no expert and have only made one using this method, but those on that forum who have made many say that there *is* a definite difference: Flat freeze plugs will work just fine, but formed plugs have a much better suppression and tone. Formed plugs perform better than flat plugs, but either will work....

For those of you thinking about this (and I'm now one of them) Call me if you have questions - I have the plug-forming tool, too...

All that gas that was blowing back and into the magazine? I modified the first 2 baffles (closest to the rifle's muzzle) by drilling 4 weep holes into each to help reduce the back-pressure: http://i63.tinypic.com/2vn153n.jpg They definitely helped and worked just great using the AK, but the big test will be the higher pressure .308 on the FAL...

OK, I've embarked on my own attempt to recreate Andy's suppressor, but with a couple of upgrades..... The only steel parts in mine will be the baffles and the challenge coin. All the other parts are titanium. Slick! This is gonna be FUN :) Hurry up and order the freeze-plugs - I found that the best way was to order them through NAPA online to be shipped to your nearest NAPA store; most stores don't seem to have more than a few plugs physically in-stock. It was amusing when I went to pick them up, too - the guy said to me 'Building a silencer, huh" (it wasn't a question) :lol...

An interesting analysis by an attorney, posted on another forum: Here's a copy of what my Trust Lawyer sent out this morning after he got hit up all day yesterday about the changes. The newly published version of 27 CFR Part 479, the result of ATF 41P, is not a short read. In its 248 pages of double-spaced text, it describes existing regulations and the original agency proposal in August 2013. It includes reference to the many public comments and the agency’s rationale for various features of the final rule, and how they differed from the proposed one. The agency’s rationale for the rule change is full of bluster about the great danger presented by these firearms. In keeping with the current administration’s talking points, the agency touts expanded background checks as a vital means for preventing violence. Leaving aside the political rhetoric from the agency, here are the highlights from the new rule: (1) For trust and other non-individual applicants seeking to make or transfer NFA items, all “responsible persons” are going to have to submit fingerprint cards and photographs and undergo a background check with future applications. Each responsible person must also complete the new ATF Form 5320.23 providing various personal identifying information. There is however an exception for those that have completed a previous application to make or transfer a firearm and had it approved in the previous twenty-four months. They will instead be able to certify that their information has not changed since the previous application’s approval and avoid resubmitting their trust agreement (or other proof of existence), photographs, fingerprints, and Form 5320.23. (See. pp. 246-247). (2) CLEO certifications are officially a thing of the past once this rule becomes effective . They are replaced by a requirement that the applicant notify “an appropriate state or local official” when applying to make or transfer an NFA item. Appropriate local officials as defined in the rule would include the “local chief of police, county sheriff, head of the State police, or State or local district attorney or prosecutor of the locality in which the applicant, transferee, or responsible person is located.” (See p. 5). (3) There is more specific guidance for temporary estate matters involving NFA firearms, clarifying that temporary possession of NFA items by a personal representative or similar person during the settling of an estate will not be treated as a transfer. (See pp. 247-248). (4) Surprisingly, the future addition of new trustees/responsible persons to a trust after a transaction will not trigger any additional paperwork or reporting requirement. (See pp. 123-124). In its explanation of the rule, ATF acknowledges that there will be added costs for the regulated public associated with the more burdensome application process (estimated at more than $36 million dollars), but the claims that it is necessary to protect the public, and that elimination of the CLEO certification requirement partially offsets the financial costs. The agency notes that this will benefit individual applicants at the expense of trust and corporate applicants. (See pp. 5-6). UPDATE: In its response to public comments, the agency also confirms that applications that are postmarked before the effective date of the new regulations will be processed under the existing rules , and that “only those applications postmarked on or after the implementation of the final rule will be subject to the new regulations.” (See p. 179)....

Well Andy, I e-filed my DYI suppressor today, and also an SBR. Excellent - I'm thinking of filing for an SBR too :) I think I am about to follow suit on the DIY suppressor! Do it, do it :...

This might sound odd but I know from past experience that the trajectory on 308 subsonic is pretty much like a rainbow (like dead-on at 100 yds and then 12" low at 150 yds), so I really don't have too much interest in making any of those. It might be interesting to shoot one or two purely from a 'how quiet does this can get' perspective, but I doubt very much that I would use any of that ammo in the field. This can is more so I can shoot full-power ammo without earplugs :) As for comparison - well, TAM has his new AAC beauty and I think we're both keen to get together one day and compare toys; we shall definitely have to take video...