M14 Forum banner
201 - 220 of 262 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,789 Posts
Discussion Starter · #201 ·
Manufacturer’s Thoughts

For this application 7075 is superior in several ways. One example to show this is, is the difference between a 6061 AR 15 receiver and 7075 receiver. 7075 receivers are stronger and more rigid than the 6061. Have a higher wear resistance and overall much better machinability than softer (stringy) 6061. I run 7075 at twice the cutting speeds over 6061. 6061 is affected more and distortion is greater with temperature differences than 7075. It is why it’s called a aerospace material. 7075 is easily welded by TIG. Not so much by MIG. 6061 is easily welded by MIG. 6061 must be held or clamped rigidly when any welding process is used. 7075 maintains better rigidity under TIG welding. 7075 is more corrosion resistant than 6061. I worked for a while for Atlantic Nuclear services company after getting out of the navy. (Late 1980’s) Welded tons of 7075 and stainless for nuclear power plants for nuclear cooling and sub cooling systems. As far as cost, yes it runs about 35% more. A stick of 1.75” 6061 bar run’s about $120.00/12ft stick. 7075 runs about 185.00/12ft stick. Also the zinc and cu are only about 2%. I contacted several companies that offer 7075 tubing but are out of stock or withholding stock for regular government contractor customers. I’m awaiting a response from two that might get some available. Another option I was looking at is Titanium. I machine and weld Titanium for several customers. I have a good source overseas and delivery averages 2-3 weeks. Waiting on their response. Several Silencer manufacturers use either 7075 aluminum or titanium for their tubes. Also Titanium with the high positive sharp carbide tooling (which I have) for machining titanium is as easy to machine as 7075. Cost is only about 10-15% higher than 7075. I should have some answers on Monday or Tuesday. The cost difference between 6061 and 7075 tubing would be approximately $25-$45 difference. Titanium would average an increase of approximately 65-75. Hope that clears things up.

REN
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Thanks for that clarification. There is no doubt which one is stronger and why. I was just concerned that we were being directed in an unnecessary direction for the wrong reasons. Better is great to a certain point and then it just becomes bragging rights at unnecessary expense. I like overdoing to a certain point.

On my production, I have to offer a product that is better than my competitors and more than is needed for the job but at a cost that is still competitive. So I have to watch every expense which often means limiting to the task at hand: meaning making the product to 150% and not completely over the top. I was offering billet and forged components for many years while my competitors were still producing cast products. They then switched to imported forgings while I continued with domestic materials.

Overkill can be good but can also be bad for a business.

Thanks for working on this and sorting everything out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
@XM25Ren

Please don't make them out of titanium. At least 7075 is still aluminum, titanium would be a major step in the wrong direction. Titanium would change the weight, look and feel of the silencer. That's not something any of us want, since we're striving for historical accuracy.

If 6061 is the most clone correct material, then I think that's what most of us want. The higher strength and wear resistance of the 7075 doesn't appeal to me at all, I'm not going to be putting tens of thousands of rounds through it or smashing it against anything. If the original silencers made out of 6061 survived the horrors of combat in Vietnam, then reproductions made from the same material will perform perfectly at the shooting range or in the field stateside. We get pretty detailed with our M14 clone builds and this is no different. This is a historical project, not a redesign or "upgrade."

You've done an amazing job with this project, thanks again for the hard work and discussing these details with us!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,069 Posts
I would prefer titanium for the tube. I'm still undecided on the type aluminum I would vote for. If dropped, for example, which type aluminum would take the impact best? Is one type more prone to cracking than the other? Lots of questions... I probably should just listen to the professional that is making them
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,789 Posts
Discussion Starter · #206 · (Edited)
@XM25Ren

Please don't make them out of titanium. At least 7075 is still aluminum, titanium would be a major step in the wrong direction. Titanium would change the weight, look and feel of the silencer. That's not something any of us want, since we're striving for historical accuracy.

If 6061 is the most clone correct material, then I think that's what most of us want. The higher strength and wear resistance of the 7075 doesn't appeal to me at all, I'm not going to be putting tens of thousands of rounds through it or smashing it against anything. If the original silencers made out of 6061 survived the horrors of combat in Vietnam, then reproductions made from the same material will perform perfectly at the shooting range or in the field stateside. We get pretty detailed with our M14 clone builds and this is no different. This is a historical project, not a redesign or "upgrade."

You've done an amazing job with this project, thanks again for the hard work and discussing these details with us!
Sir, you are not alone, many others have expressed that same concern. I was never interested in titanium because it’s just too far a stretch from the original.
I do like the idea of using 7075 aluminum because its a stronger material and less prone to corrosion .

The manufacturer makes suggestions, but we make the decisión, so titanium is a non starter and it looks like 7075 is as well.

I think we will stay with what was originally planned, though I believe 7075 aluminum offers advantages over 6061.

Thanks to everyone for their input.

REN
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,432 Posts
I don't have a horse in this race so it's really none of my business.

I think the original idea and sacrifice was to recreate a historical accurate suppressor to go along with historically correct recreations of period sniper rifles. In that thought I would think you would want to stay true to form as physically and technologically possible. In that thought these suppressors would be used either for display or limited use and demonstrations just to see what it was in the day.

If someone would want a suppressor to use for hunting, plinking, and just day in day out use I would suggest buying a modern titanium tube with inconel baffles capable of tens of thousands of rounds without fail.

Just my two cents.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
I respect what your machinist has to say about the materials but I do disagree with the corrosion aspect. I have heard info both ways but have found more documented to the contrary. Heat treat and surface treatment can have a big influence on that. But with the zinc and larger amounts of copper in the 7075 I tend to agree with what I see written from reliable sources. Then you have to consider what would be causing the corrosion. We will probably be more concerned with what goes through and in the barrel than environmental influences.

Anyway look at this:


The anodizing process creates an oxidized later that will further the corrosion resistance and make either material very similar for resistance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
With all that I said previously: I am fine with either type of aluminum. And both are “aircraft grade” materials. Not that that really means anything and some sources will say one is and others sources will say opposite. Maybe it has just changed over the years as things have advanced. Just make sure it is from a reliable source. I had issues several years back with materials that came from east Europe and Asia when we were seeing a shortage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,789 Posts
Discussion Starter · #213 ·
I spoke to the manufacturer; he is telling me these will be finished and ready to ship no later than January the 20th.
Keeping my fingers crossed.

Please once again email me your Class III dealers info, along with your name, and address.
Thanks!

MORE THAN A HOBBY, A PASSION!

REN
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,789 Posts
Discussion Starter · #214 ·
Good afternoon,

I sent out emails today to all, if you didn't receive an email give me a call.

Ren
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,789 Posts
Discussion Starter · #217 ·
im interested in helping if i can are you needing blueprints or an original sionics ss1 suppresor
Thank you for the offer, but we are well beyond that point now. I had my original Sionics suppressor reverse engineered and these will be ready to ship very soon.

MORE THAN A HOBBY, A PASSION!

REN
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,113 Posts
What would be totally cool would be copies of the blueprints to go with the suppressors that we have spoken for - I am on board for paying for a copy if that could be wrenched into life as well - it would be a great back drop for a suppressor equipped early Springfield M1A Super Match mounted on the wall of my man cave. Let's do it !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,789 Posts
Discussion Starter · #219 ·
Update:

“All internal parts are done. Manufacturing relief valve tomorrow. Tubes are at anodizing.”

I received the above message from the manufacturer today. I was sent pictures of the parts produced, I will post the pictures.

MORE THAN A HOBBY, A PASSION!

REN
 
201 - 220 of 262 Posts
Top