It's interesting.  The blast baffle looks like Van Gogh painted it in the post-impressionistic style.

I don't see a problem with MIM, but we machine our baffles.  Mim gets a bad wrap, but it's a great technology for economical small parts.  I have seen very strong mim parts.  Baffles are towards the upper end of the part size envelope for MIM, so that isn't going to save much cost. The SRD22 baffles I saw were horribly low quality stampings.  Maxim did high quality stampings in the early 1900's.  I stamped a short run .22lr baffle similar to the SRD 22 once.  I took one look at the initial sample and knew that wasn't functional and it didn't go forward.  The stamping provider was explaining how the excessive tolerances were required due to the draw conditions of creating a tubular spacer from a flat part.  It unfortunately wasn't a good fit. The sig tubular spacer in the cone baffle is identical almost to what I was looking at in 2006 with regard to the big radius and the excessive tolerance. The can looks like they put trash in the tube. It looks like a Star Wars level on a video game where you are challenged to try to fly some spaceship through the ominous looking staggered apertures of the frightening jagged hole.    

It's nothing like a Griffin can or a Dead air Mask even.  Both of those cans have a clean, straight bore and well machined, high quality components. No trash in the tube. Everything in there is finely made.

We have had baffles quoted in castings and they were relatively inexpensive in my opinion, in exotic alloys- which makes total sense as the casting guys don't care what they pour in the cast and within reason can even change materials on an already produced mold some of the time.  On a one ounce baffle, inconel vs carbon steel might be $0.75 of a $5 baffle.  The process isn't like machining where you turn 90% of the material into chips that recycle at 8% of original cost.  The cast materials don't get purchased with much if any waste stock, because there is only sprue removal to account for and that is usually remelted.  The machined parts allow us to control quality and also to move R&D at a high speed.  

If we had castings, we would have a vendor to piss off if we made a change, and a tool to give us monetary reasons not to change, as well as quality and process issues that come with castings- warped parts, porosity and other issues.  

Its tough to make perpendicular faces on parts.  That's in a machine where the qualified part is getting transferred. Our baffle components are held to ~.0002 TIR for face perpendicularity.  

I think cost for material is about 2-5 times that of 17-4, because it is more exotic.  (I haven’t quoted it in massive quantities so I can only look at small qty price comparisons). The marraging steel’s advantage declines at higher temperatures such that it is obviously superior at low temperature 70-1000f, and only a little better at elevated temperatures where the silencer is most threatened, and that is the best argument that it isn’t worth the cost.

The machining cost of c300 would be at least double (possibly triple), because the nickle and cobalt content would require substantial sfm reductions.  That doubles (or triples) Cnc machining cost before factoring material cost, and were talking adding $280-$430 to suppressor manufacturing cost- unsustainable before margin added cost in the current market.

If you’re going to exotic materials, stamping or casting is the best way to do that and the c300 isn’t going to be the material of choice.

Both stamping and casting stagnate product development because expensive dies have to be replaced to change a process.  

It’s important for suppressors to be economically sound, as well as high performance.  

In suppressors marketing statements haven’t always been true across all companies.  There are companies that have said “all inconel” on good designs that are clearly 40% inconel.  The economics of 100% cnc machined C-300 suppressors at ~$800, are just not likely to be feasible.  It’s certainly not apples to apples, so if a US company can do that, something can’t be happening whether thats product support, or an effective comprehensive sales model, properly paying the staff, covering machine amortization, or whatever it is.

Companies are compromised of people and people make mistakes, and financial mistakes can ruin companies.

C300 is probably a good material for making stronger rifle bolts ala .277 fury- however I believe that industry is using c250.  Im not convinced it makes a good case for replacing common use suppressor materials.

Not throwing shade. @kedminster and Energetic have been able to machine 100% C300 silencers at ~$800 for several years now at no loss of the things you mention. Product support is fantastic, cans are still selling (actually increased their distributor footprint with Silencer Shop), have hired more staff, bought new equipment and knowing Karl probably not late on his bills.

They state some of the parts in the cans are not C300.  So they are not 100% C300 as far as I can tell.  My response however was not about any company, it was my honest assessment of C300 as a suppressor material for use in this industry today, in response to a question about that.  

I'm just talking about realities. If for example a multi-tasking turning machine runs at $180 an hour, and the work takes two extra hours, those should get billed at $360.  If the material was $40 and now is $160, that should be billed as an additional $120.

I've had silencers that cost $520 (back in 2010/2011), and that I paid people $10 to buy, because their $510 didn't cover cost.  That however isn't how successful business gets conducted.  You can keep that alive as long as you have $10 to give every customer.

You could also make a can out of solid 24K Gold, and if it doesn't have better performance, it shouldn't be worth more money to a person who isn't going to melt it for scrap prices. Material is just one characteristic, and strength is achieved by a combination of many factors.   We live in a world where that is pretty obvious with things like powdered metal components on cars we drive.  Take the Allen AEM 5 for example.  From what I understand it's low numbered 300 series stainless.  It works awesome.  It does what you need it to do.  There is nothing wrong with that.

Was just expanding on the C300 comment.  Since Energetic is the only company using C300 in silencer manufacturing, that was the best counter to your argument regarding C300.    As for the Vox, the front cap and ring are stainless, rear cap is Ti; the baffles and tube are C300.

I get that.  Time will tell if the new ownership is successful with Energetic.

The sig internals are visible in one of the Kras sig patents.

Drawings up to 7e with the hexagonal holes in the blast chamber pretty well show the sig exactly as it is.

After 7e the patent has a lot of drawings that have no relevance to the sig slx qd can I have.

The longer, larger, very complex 556qd Kras can sounds similar to our Dual lok 5 and the Kras can is louder in front, and its first round flash is brighter. I don’t know what Kras’s background is, but if he doesn’t have a lot of time in suppressor design, he did a pretty good job with the Sig can (and I hadn’t heard of him until pretty recently, so he probably has short time in suppressors).

This is a recent patent of mine. The parts look simple but the features are all tuned (the result of a lot of work and testing), and they perform really well. When the parts don’t have really crazy extraneous geometry, lighter strong cans are possible.

My recent patent on some eco flow stuff.

I try to avoid coaxial elements and elements that increase internal surface area as they tend to foul badly, increase heating, add weight, and insulate internal components from cooling.

The Explorr looking can in the patent has a different baffle in the patent drawings.  The Bushwhacker.46 is pictured as it is manufactured. It has some relationship to the Explorr baffle system, but those baffles are a bit different and the blast and second baffles are heavier wall thickness than the rest. There are 4 individual baffle part numbers among the 5 baffles in an Explorr .224 can.

That's how a can should look!

Yes. However, making a silencer part requires a form 1 and $200 if you aren't a manufacturer with SOT.  Definitely much cheaper to have the manufacturer handle it.