Maxim pattern silencers

[Billy Shears]

I notice that Yankee Hill is making Maxim pattern (eccentric bore) silencers again. (Yes, yes, I know they're more correctly referred to as "suppressors" since they don't make a gun completely silent. I don't care. Maxim himself called them silencers, and they were referred to as such for decades, so I'll call them silencers since I'm referring to the Maxim pattern.)

I'm curious as to why this pattern of silencer ever fell out of general use in the first place. Yankee Hill lists the decibel reduction for their .45 ACP Maxim silencer as the same as their more conventional, concentric suppressor, so the concentric design doesn't seem especially more efficient. And since the concentric designs often make it impossible to use the pistol's sights, the Maxim pattern would seem to have a very big advantage going for it. Does anyone know why the Maxim pattern disappeared from use? Ease of production? Of maintenance? Cost? I'm curious, and I'd love to hear if anyone has any reliable information about this.

 

[The Highlander]

I think it's actually making a comeback. I know Silencerco is using an eccentric design for their Osprey line. Although I haven't handled one personally, I hear they're pretty good.

 

[springwalk]

The Osprey is pretty impressive silencer as I just love mine. I found it interesting the old Maxim designs are as silent in db reduction as most cans made by Gemtech, YH, AAC etc. I think Maxim was ahead of his time and most companies today dont come up with anything new as they seem to try and reinvent the wheel and copy one another all preceeding back to Maxims designs, just repackaging it in a different twist. The only company as of late designing anything really new has been SilencerCo.

 

[SDC]

Probably a combination of all of the above, combined with the fact that the Maxim design was essentially non-user-serviceable; the only option you have for cleaning it at all is to slosh it around in a can of solvent, and this is still almost certain to leave a lot of crud inside the baffles.

 

[Billy Shears]

Probably a combination of all of the above, combined with the fact that the Maxim design was essentially non-user-serviceable; the only option you have for cleaning it at all is to slosh it around in a can of solvent, and this is still almost certain to leave a lot of crud inside the baffles.

But that would seem to be a consequence of the way Maxim's early silencers were constructed, not a necessary outcome of the eccentric design. I see no reason why an eccentric silencer couldn't be made so that the innards could be removed and serviced (if I remember correctly, the DeLisle carbine could have the baffles removed, though that was a very large silencer).

I thought it was likeliest to be the difficulty of indexing the silencer, so that when you finished screwing it onto a threaded barrel, the can ended up in the right position, with the bore at the 12 o'clock position. But I can think of two or three methods of attaching the silencer that would solve that problem, and I'm not even an engineer, and these silencers were in use for a long time, so the manufacturers obviously solved it as well, so that doesn't seem like it should account for it.

 

[Jim K]

AFAIK, the only reason for an eccentric silencer was so that the normal sights could be used; a concentric silencer large enough for a Springfield rifle would block the sight picture. FWIW, I have heard a M1903 rifle fired with a Maxim silencer, indoors. The loudest noise was the click of the firing pin. Those things worked.

They weren't made to come apart because there was nothing to service or replace. The main reason they aren't made anymore is because the cost would be prohibitive.

Jim

 

[bigfatdave]

Couldn't you attach it with a Storz or Chicago style fitting to keep it indexed? For that matter the baffles could be indexed together for re-assembly with a similar setup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_fitting

 

[The Highlander]

Just found this pic, figured it to be relevant.
http://i.imgur.com/GBnBU.jpg?6955

 

[Billy Shears]

It's interesting that that tax has never been adjusted for inflation. It's always been $200. It was $200 in 1934, and it's $200 today. That makes it pretty affordable for us, but $200 in 1934 represented a sum equivalent to $3171.13 in 2009 dollars.