What if I told you....

Status
Not open for further replies.

MachIVshooter

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
17,927
Location
Elbert County, CO
that well inside hearing safe was possible with a can only 4.3" long and weighing just 3.2 ounces on a 9mm?

I only had one 9mm pistol model, Phoenix IX, which is a great performer and pretty light at 9 ounces with booster piston. It's also slender at 1.25" OD. But it's 8" long. K cans are all the rage these days, and they certainly do have a place, so I set out to do one better than the other minis like the Thompson Poseidon, a monocore design (I hate monocores, they suck.....even the ones I did)

This new prototype exceeded my most optimistic projection for SPL reduction, really surprised me. It's 100% 7075-T651, anodized black. Just 5 baffles. It can accept a front wipe and is meant to be run wet (no, it's not sub-140 dB dry). I haven't had a chance to meter it yet, but my ears tell me with white lithium grease, it's gonna be between 130-135 dBA with grease and no wipe, possibly a touch lower with wipe.

Meet the Canine:

IMG_3363.JPG
IMG_3362.JPG
IMG_3364.JPG

IMG_3372.JPG

IMG_3371.JPG

And one to show just how small it is compared to my full size Phoenix models, and even Phoenix K on the far left:

IMG_3374.JPG
 
Damn it. How much?
Because I have three .22 cans and my next one I was planning on getting was a 9mm for my bretta 92fs.
 
Probably $350-$400. They're easier to make than the boostered full size cans, and less material is consumed. But I have a bunch of torture testing to do before the design is ready for sale. As light as it came in, I'll probably thicken up the tube walls from .040" to .045" or .050" to increase durability. The tube and mount are homogenous, machined from 1-3/8" 7075 round bar, so that's an easy change. I may also go to 6/4 titanium for the blast baffle. Gotta keep it under 4 oz to be a usable boosterless design, though.

It really is a special purpose can just like the other mini cans. It'll take the edge off dry, but once it runs out of ablative (only about 10 rounds with such a small can), it'd be a good idea to use ear pro. Like I said, I haven't metered yet, but I expect low 130s with ablative and low-mid 140s dry. Definitely better than unsuppressed, but anything over about 135 offends my ears, even outdoors.
 
Took a few minutes to do some informal metering today. Turns out my ear calibration is pretty close!


IMG_3375.JPG

Temp was 84°F, 36% humidity. My control is Ocelot, which was metering a little higher than normal today. I typically see about 119 on pistols with CCI SV ammo, today the average was 120.7 dBA. Not an uncommon day-to-day swing with all the variables, though.

Anyway, first test was on the 9mm

Host: Remington RP9 with custom extension
Ammunition: American Eagle 147 gr.

Muzzle
1-134.4
2-136.5
3-134.5
4-134.6
5-135.7 (Slide Lock)

Avg: 135.1


Ear
1-134.3
2-133.6
3-131.2
4-133.7
5-136.3 (slide lock)

Avg: 133.8

American Eagle is, unfortunately, all I have on hand at the moment for subs. I had it because I try not to use it; it's barely subsonic and about as loud as subs get. So needless to say, I'm pretty happy that I was able to get those number with this ammo. I'll revisit it when I have some Speer Lawman or something else that's a better sub ammo which will still cycle the gun.

Now for .380! Most .380 hosts are blowback, so obnoxiously loud, but the little Kel Tec P3AT being a locked breech is pretty pleasant. And much to my surprise, it was able to cycle with the boosterless suppressor. I did not expect it to. Anyway, I was running Remington white & green box 95 gr FMJ


Muzzle
1-134.2
2-134.4
3-134.1
4-132.6
5-134.4

Avg: 133.9


Ear
1-127.8
2-124.1
3-125.6
4-128.1
5-124.2

Avg: 126.0


I did muzzle numbers first, and was surprised to find the .380 so close to the 9mm. But the at-ear results revealed why the .380 sounded so much quieter, averaging almost 9 dB lower.

So that's it for now! I'm gonna run this thing through the wringer and vet the design in the coming weeks, will keep this thread updated!
 
Curses. If only you had come up with this sooner! This is exactly what I had in mind but the closest I could get was a TiRant.
 
You mentioned that this can is machined from 1 3/8 stock. Is that the actual diameter or is it closer to 1 1/4 final dimension? I ask because your comparison picture makes the Canine appear slightly larger than the Phoenix.
 
You mentioned that this can is machined from 1 3/8 stock. Is that the actual diameter or is it closer to 1 1/4 final dimension? I ask because your comparison picture makes the Canine appear slightly larger than the Phoenix.

It's 1-3/8" at the knurling, 1.335" for the rest of the tube, so yeah, a little fatter than Phoenix IX.

Finally got around to doing a video with it:

 
For comparison, your Canine is 1.5 ounces lighter than a TiRant 9M in short configuration and 1.5" shorter, all while maintaining the same diameter. That's pretty awesome! Now I have to see if I can get appropriate height sights (and barrels) for the guns I would put this on.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top