• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Suppressors Best Integral MkII, Quiet and Ability to Take Apart and Clean a Must.

Strykervet

ain'T goT no how whaTchamacalliT
Full Member
Minuteman
  • Jun 5, 2011
    6,054
    4,935
    48
    Pierce County, WA
    So I know things have changed over the years, but I shot an S&H integrally suppressed MkII at a Class 3 dealer whose alarm I was working on. He let me shoot cans with it, and I swear to this day, the only sound was the action and the bullet hitting the can, which was the loudest sound. It was spooky quiet! I immediately bought it, but had to move and couldn't finish the wait. That was in '97 or '98.

    Now my wife, she wants one too. Told me today to start looking. I've called SRT before, but the fellow I spoke with years ago was very cocky and assured me THEIRS was the best.

    But AWC said the same thing, you can't take it apart and it comes loud out of the box. AWC also told me they could sell me a .50BMG suppressor that would make my HTI sound like and unsuppressed .22. Yeah, right.

    We want the MkII for sure, it's better for suppressing this way than the MkIII is. No Government styles.

    So who DOES make the quietest MkII you can take apart and clean? This is a must for me as I intend on using this a LOT, it'll likely get 2000 rounds the first weekend. Who here has shot multiple pistols or heard them first hand and can say? My experience is limited to that S&H and I can say that it suits me now as much as then, and I suspect they're even better today (and Curtis isn't getting any younger over there). I could go with them an be perfectly happy.

    But if anyone knows of a better integral MkII take apart/clean that is quieter and uses full power ammo and functions, by all means, tell me what you know! Thanks!
     
    Last edited:
    I am going with the SRT integral suppressor. If you look down the forum here there is a great video of the SRT..
     
    Yeah, I saw that video last week. If I had to pick on that, I'd say the S&H was quieter. Also, I'm not sure you can fully take apart the SRT is what I'm reading right now. I haven't gone to their site yet, will soon.

    I heard John's Guns makes a really good internal, and I heard S&H gave him the designs for it. So perhaps S&H has a newer, better design now. I'm really leaning toward them unless someone can say "I shot that and another side by side and it wasn't close". Or something along those lines. S&H is a small shop, but they've been doing it for a loooong time.
     
    Lane-Products.Com
    Lightest, Smallest, Quiet, And Takes Apart. Also Cheaper.
    The OP is looking for a pistol where the barrel has a built in supressor. He is not looking for a separate add on supressor. I to am interested in the results of this thread of an integral suppressor for a Ruger .22lr pistol.
     
    How quiet are 50bmg Suppressors? Most 308 and 223 cans seem to sound quieter than a supersonic 2r.
     
    i think the BMG can is about losing the concussion. i imagine volume would be in the 140db range. never seen one in the wild before.
     
    AWC's 50 is quieter than an unsuppressed .22.

    On your request for .22 suppressor, you better ask to see targets as well. Most of the take apart integrals with open cores suck for accuracy as the barrels are not held in tension.
    I always liked a super accurate and quiet .22, never needed them to crack open but all that aside, ask to see targets. Impact and action noises being the loudest is nothing new, superb accuracy is.

    Good luck.



    P.S. The Mark III are poor suppressing with any can. It has to do with a number of important changes, not the least of which is the new chamber.
    Your experience is with '98 S&H, but you already know what is loud out of the box 15 years later. Impressive!
    How would you feel if somebody said "I use Macon Bacon brand and it is GREAT!" and they forgot to tell you that its an aluminum monocore?
    I have seen sealed cans out of Nicaragua with 45,000 rounds through them still working great. In part because of this tool.


    What ever you end up with, you should really enjoy your integral .22.

     
    Last edited:
    I've read enough about the Amphibian to know enough folks said it was indeed much louder than others. That and it can't be taken apart. That may be great for the Navy Seals who can send it in whenever but not for me. And yeah, when an AWC rep tells me that their .50BMG can will suppress my HTI to the level of an unsuppressed .22lr, I just don't believe it. Sorry. I've got an AAC SDN-6 and it'll do about that with 125gr. .300BLK and M855 and just about that with 6.5 Grendel. But I don't buy it with a .50. So I found a good guy at Elite Iron to make my .50 can and he indexes the can TDC for accuracy and told me it would reduce the blast concussion and signature some, but it will still be "loud" despite his best efforts. I like the effort this guy puts into his work, it certainly takes longer for him per customer, building them all custom fit for each rifle and all.

    As for S&H, I talked to Curtis and it seems his designs haven't changed since then and all the good stuff people say about John's Guns integral Mk2/3 is interesting, since it turns out Curtis gave him that design when he got swamped a while back and stopped making them. So even when that design goes under a pseudonym, it impresses. That got my attention. And yeah, he admits he doesn't use K baffles, he likes the conical baffles with aluminum spacers, says they just work and it makes take down and cleaning easier. They are a bit longer. Regardless, I can say from experience it works and works well and because it takes down, it does what I need. Turns out they're pretty accurate too, though I haven't seen a target. One fellow claims ten shots in a one inch hole at 15 yards after getting it serviced for a bad ring that caused it to open up significantly.

    I asked him about the Mk3 being inferior to the Mk2 for integrally suppressed pistols. I forget where I read that, and I tried searching for it and couldn't turn it up. So Curtis, he said there aren't any changes that affect how one of his sounds vs. the other. He said I could try it for myself, but I'm too far away. Still, if I supply a Mk2 he can do it, and I'm leaning that way just for peace of mind.

    Why, in your opinion, is the Mk3 inferior to the Mk2 for integrally suppressing? I recall some of the things like the LDI and the chamber, etc., but how does this make it louder? I'm curious.

    STILL, if anyone knows of another that's take down and quieter than the S&H, and of course accurate, I'm all ears.
     
    So I found a good guy at Elite Iron to make my .50 can and he indexes the can TDC for accuracy and told me it would reduce the blast concussion and signature some, but it will still be "loud" despite his best efforts. I like the effort this guy puts into his work, it certainly takes longer for him per customer, building them all custom fit for each rifle and all.

    my bet you talked to Dale... he built me my can for our M99, same thing, sent me an index nut which I indexed TDC for him to build the can around, made the POI shift minimal and "slightly up/down", not left/right.
     
    Sure, I'll give it my best. But, the he said, they said, stuff ends now. There have been too many important changes to baffles/materials for anybody to say that nothing has changed for 15 years and that's a good thing. It isn't.
    Titanium stacks have really helped the .22 integrals, as has better welding machinery and multi axis baffles cutting/face work.
    Now I already got that you don't believe that a properly suppressed .50's sound is perceived by the operator at less than an unsuppressed .22, but you are only sitting behind one to know you are indeed wrong.
    You should have said to the rep "Oh yea, show me", you would not have been the first. There is a great deal of crap out there about AWC as for the last decade Lynn thought defending himself against "I read allot" was immaterial.

    Here, now all videos suck at reproducing sound, I rarely use them as you can do anything with the sound as well.

    Turbodyne vs .22 - Yes, the lead in is goofy.
    awc turbodyne 50 - Bing Videos

    But we don't rely EVER on a video, why because you can do this...PRESENTED AS A JOKE please do not take anything away from this..but you will get the message as the sound has been altered.



    Also, There are a number of companies that take LONGER to build there cans than EI. And, you only need to index your can if it is QD. Threaded cans with proper shoulders are not indexed.
    Since you mentioned it, accuracy on the AWC's is un-surpassed, and only matched to my experience by one other company....and they take the long road to perfection as well.
    More than a few folks build superb cans, all of them give it the custom build that you speak of....accuracy and suppression is how we judge the results.

    Again experience is best, but if you are a reader, start here:

    http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/snipers-hide-suppressors/120428-feedback-awc-thor.html

    10 in 15 yards, ok. How about 5 at 64 METERS with four in the same hole. This is the same armature as the amphibian, but in their Ultra II. Cold clean bore. Longer barrel, same technology.



    Bad ring is usually from poorly or not even welded cans. Accuracy in an integral comes from four sources:

    1. The quality of the barrel and chamber.
    2. The quality of the baffle, from its facings and bore dimensionality.
    3. The manner by which the baffles are held in position and the resulting suppressor bore trueness as a result.
    4. The ammo

    Now, when we remember that the only purpose of an integral pistol/rifle is to take standard High Velocity ammo and uniformly drop the resulting projectile velocity to just transonic, a few facts come into play.
    No integral needs or should use subsonic ammo.
    A good integral is designed for a specific brand and velocity of ammo....and tuned for maximum subsonic velocity, terminal force and accuracy for that specific ammo.
    To get that HV round subsonic a designer can either use a short barrel or tap gas prior to the can.
    When a company chooses to cut the barrel back there are consequences in accuracy and the can designer has some very real choices between suppression values and accuracy.
    In other words just about any quality can maker can make a reasonably quiet can. For instance you can build a can that is so tight to bore that it is quiet but might impact flight path.
    Or one could add volume those would be your aluminum spacers (longer can = longer pistols).
    Or one could add baffles (longer can = longer pistol).
    But, in most instances, if you want the shortest OAL length, while still maximizing potential subsonic velocity and take down terminal energy with the quietest armature...your 360 degree circumferential welding the whole stack into one armature.
    And then you are threading the receiver and providing some torque to the whole barrel/can assembly to get the benefits of harmonic suppression.
    Again, shoot coated/plated .22s and you can go tens of thousands or rounds before using the tool I showed for a high pressure cleaning of the propellant debris.

    Now...the Mark III one man's opinion...opinion....personal opinion...

    1. Bad chamber, too sloppy for excellent suppression, creates prime conditions for back pop each and every time you pull the trigger.
    2. California chamber indicator allows more junk to enter the chamber area, especially sand and grit. Indicator spring can fail and lock the pistol up.
    3. No free fall magazine release anymore. Instead there is an internal lock-out so that clip removal dis-allows the trigger/bolt to be pulled.
    4. Panic reverse mag insertion = dead pistol as the magazine cannot be removed...period. Tool is needed as dis assembly will not help. Read here : Mag-Out the only tool designed to Get your Backwards Mark III Magazines out Safely!
    5. The overly complicated safety features listed above increase parts count, more complicated field stripping, increasing chance for lost parts, especially the safety bead and spring.
    6. Worst extractor quality in Ruger's history. Own it? Like the III? Just wait to see what happens with your extractor over a very short period of time. Terrible heat treating.
    7. Definitely a legendarily poor firing pin, worst in Ruger's history...


    and on and on and on.....

    Hope that helps.



    p.s. Few (<1%) send in their Amphibians for anything AWC. There are about 14 generations of Amphibians and some do send it in for newer gen upgrades, but mostly they shoot out the barrel long before the can goes.
    Yep, decades of .22 can use, I really like them allot. Nope have no affiliation with the company at all. But I do research the crap out of my cans.
     
    Last edited:
    And who gave you permission to re-use and edit my video?! I think I am owed some royalties here........
     
    RollingThunder, what upgrades do you reccomend for the MkIII and what manufacturers do you reccomend?

    I just bought one of the factory threaded MkIIis

    Thanks
     
    I had more to say, but I can wrap it up like this without a counterattack.

    In the future, a little hint I picked up at university, when you research shit, start with the title of the documents or even the query itself. In this particular one, you'll notice it requests info on take aparts. Again, AWC doesn't come apart. Ergo, the rest of your research regarding this company is non-sequitur to the query itself.

    The same info about S&H and John's and Norrell would be greatly appreciated, but thanks for the info on the Mk3 --that's what I was looking for. Still, I'm assuming you have all the return rates and have vetted these numbers on several manufacturers and not just AWC, which would indicate a shill. Or a very astute and dedicated customer.

    You could have kept the childish shit at home and I'd have taken your info much more seriously. Waiting eagerly on these numbers for the other makers.
     
    University? Research shit? Ok....a little hint I picked up as a Sloan Fellow at MIT, some folks are closed minded and you have to approach them gently. Make a suggestion to them "perhaps targets would be in order?" and leave them on a positive note "good luck" and be generous as in help them with them re-approach the topic in a broader more thoughtful way. Correct with data, not "I read", but experience in the areas you can help them (.50 cal suppression potential, actual implications for a cracked can vs sealed, armature alignment, sources and solution for ringing, construction of armatures, materials to be deployed and their potential consequences) with and move on. Talk about the host (markIII), post pictures. Correct the obvious flawed statements, Navy seals do not send there cans back in statistically important numbers, when others do the reason for that....and nobody asks for their cans returned cracked.
    Heck we never even got to wet/dry, taking the high pressure tapped gas and redirecting it to the can to suppress FRP, suppression of chamber spark, rendering the MARK series to single shot (eliminating action noise),and then there is the whole purging, "capture can" leading, etc., etc., etc. Never even got there.

    It was you, among others that asked me "Why, in your opinion, is the Mk3 inferior to the Mk2 for integrally suppressing?" and I addressed this as best as I could (and will answer the others questions as soon as I finish here) and was a thorough and complete as possible.

    As to childish shit and taking me seriously. There are a great number of people that have been contributing here for a very long time. We are, for the most part, friends and have seen folks come on, get animated, get pissed, so some of us add humor because I/we know what is coming.
    For instance we know KYS cannot be paid in Starbucks cards and Pizza, no one is allowed into that wing except Nurse Hines and Carlos, neither very happy after his last "hobby."



    Serious is something we get a full dose of, serious is serious, questions about what suppressor can be used to return fire when soaked in gasoline has a different ring to it than "a Class 3 dealer whose alarm I was working on."
    I can't help you with S&H numbers, but encourage you to ask them. I do not buy cans with aluminum in them and, if it is in the build have it made with other materials. I do not buy cans that crack anymore as I want the tightest most uniform armature that can be had, in everything.
    I have found that the vast majority of can companies are generous and quite open about their work. The only thing I shill for around here is here..the Hide as I have found a great deal of credible information here and have for the most part had fun doing so.
    I own a great number of cans and have over time replaced leather wipes, resin wipes, had cans updated, rebuilt, etc. I own cracked cans, lived with them, know them very well.

    Now, looking past all this, to deersniper:

    1. Replace the whole internal set with this:

    Speed Strip Kit

    That takes out ALL of the parts with the exception of the chamber indicator.
    Hammer now falls when mag out.
    Bolt now can be cocked when mag out.
    Mag now falls when released.
    Much better trigger.

    "The third and newest Speed Strip Kit is called the 3.2 Conversion Kit. This Kit will fit any of the Ruger .22 Auto Pistols and allows MK III owners to safely omit the magazine disconnect feature. This Kit is supplied with a new hammer pivot bushing which as an added benefit will reduce the pre-travel of the trigger by 65%.
    =======> The 3.2 Bushing is also available separately. <========= "

    2. Replace the firing pin.

    Majestic Arms MAQS Quick Strike Firing Pin Ruger Mark I Mark II Mark

    That will get you way down the road. Have not had a misfire since.

    and have some friggin fun as its a forum...

     
    Last edited:
    I didn't think you'd have the same set of data for other manufacturers. But that's okay, I didn't expect it.

    You've gone on and on about AWC and mentioned they only compared to ONE other manufacturer... But didn't bother to mention that manufacturer in a thread requesting just that information? Who is it? That's the information I'm looking for, even if it's coming from you.

    Found this on another forum:

    "I have both the John's Guns and SRT ARMS integral MKII's. The John's Guns seems to be a bit pickier on ammo (I always use high velocity). I found it to be a tad quieter than SRT.

    However, I found the SRT to be more reliable. From the recoil, it seems that the bullet velocity is higher than that of John's Guns. I haven't tested the SRT in depth yet, but if it were between the two manufacturers, I'd choose SRT."

    This would be relevant information for me. It's on topic and I'm familiar with John's design.

    Do I need to start another thread asking this information, or will you just spam that one too? Keep it on topic. Take apart cans only. Got all the info I need on AWC now, thanks.
     
    What about the Gemtech Oasis? It's been DC'd, but some units are still FS here and there... I dunno if it can be disassembled.
     
    I bought an Amphibian back in 2002 and had nothing but issues with it... From day one it was seemingly fraught with cycling issues no matter what ammo I shot; even when it was perfectly clean. Ultimately I ended up selling it becuase the reliability was so poor.

    A couple years ago I decided to give the integrally suppressed MKII another go around. At the time Doug Melton was building me a custom Shadow XL Ti for one of my GAP-10 SBR's and I got to talking to him about the subject. He guaranteed me that his version of the integrally suppressed MKII dubbed "The Professional" would reliably shoot any ammo without any cycling issues. Needless to say I was sold and bought one... It functions flawlessly; I've shot every full power load that I can get my hands on through it and haven't had a single issue. I've also put a brick of the Gemtech Orange Box Subsonic and at least 3 bricks of Remington Green Box Subsonic through it without any hiccups.

    It's an absolute blast to shoot and is very quiet; I have used it to teach my three young kids how to shoot with it. Not to mention I have killed literally hundreds of squirrels, birds, snakes, etc, with it. Currently it wears a Burris FastFire 3, which in my opinion has made it even funner and significantly more deadly to shoot!!!

    Click on the thumbnail for full size pic...


    EDIT: I recently bought a Volquartsen Target Frame for it but haven't had the time to install it yet... I prefer the 45 patterned grip but have never been a fan of the Ruger polymer 22/45 frame as it has a tendency to get quite slippery when wet!!!
     
    Last edited:
    Now we are getting somewhere. So my Mark III integral cycled terribly as well. Literally could not finish a clip without a misfire (light strike).
    Never had an issue with IIs.
    Back it went to the factory and they checked it all out and sent it back. Depending on ammo brand, same thing.
    I ended up rescuing the III by dumping the internals that were creating a drag on the hammer and voila, everything is now 100%.
    Regardless of brand, it is rarely the integral's can that causes the cycling problem as most should be low pressure units to begin with (tapped or shot barrel).
    Endless rounds and no issues now with any ammo. In short, regardless of make, look elsewhere than the can for this type of issue in a Mark pistol.
    Some makers will not warranty their stack when used with subsonics.

    The other manufacturer mentioned was for static blast cans, not integral so I spared you. The reference was for the approach to construction and baffle type and its final construction, that company, like others makes a great product. Thunder Beast is already well known here.

    P.S. No one can judge velocity from recoil alone as that can point to chamber, lock time, can's pressure. Best to use a chrono.
    Interesting to note that back in 2004 the quietest .22 Mark tested was an integral and a break down as well, and made out of 100% stainless.
    Never could get anyone to talk about accuracy so I set it aside until I could shoot it. I believe that was TBA.

    Regardless shoot plated/coated bullets and save yourself the headache of dealing with the lead.
     
    Last edited:
    Hey thanks, I think the Oasis is a thread on that's sealed though.

    So it'll cycle subs and supers? I'm guessing the barrel isn't bled? He still make this?

    I read Elite makes one, I may have to look into it. It looks nice, but then again they all do. He'll be making the .50 can already.
     
    Yeah, I've heard a lot of good about TBA but went with AAC instead for the QD can. I wish I'd just gotten the thread ons, though the SDN6 does work well, the mounts are just shit. It's why I was very apprehensive when looking for the .50 can and now for this. Buying an integral .22 is a lot like buying a new car online without looking at it --except you wait nearly a full percentage of your life for it.

    So who made the quietest one in 2004? TBA?
     
    Be careful here. If you shoot subs you are taking less velocity and dropping it even more. Dangerously low and unstable enough to trash a baffle or endcap. Also, without exception subs use the filthiest of all powders, are all unplated, and cost more. The fact that they cycle is immaterial as you already know your running sub with your HVs. Everybody should own a great .22 pistol and rifle in an integral. Simply put there are no equivalents in suppression, potential terminal energy and accuracy.

    Again on the .50 there are great cans, accurate and superb suppression. Forget QD and go direct thread.
     
    Last edited:
    Yeah, I REALLY wish I had gotten a couple of thread ons instead of the SDN6. I like the diversity and it is quiet, but AAC abandoned the design because their mounts are shit and to unfuck that they'd go out of business I guess. At first, their CS was top notch, they replaced one mount no questions asked because they sent the wrong one, told me to keep the other. When I called about one wobbling though, they didn't want anyhing to do with it. I ground the face down on a few to lock them up well but I shouldn't have to do that, and I won't even use it on an FAL because it wobbles so much and I just don't feel like unfucking something I rarely use. I personally won't be doing business with them again based on experience.

    The only shitty CS I generally suffer is from Satern Machining --I'm hooked like a crackhead on their barrels.

    The subs, I wasn't even thinking. Yeah, of course it probably is problematic to use 60gr. bullets with that twist and if it bleeds the gas I suppose it'll be about like flicking a penny you'd lose enough velocity. Thanks for the reminder.

    I've heard good about SRT though I wasn't impressed with the guy I spoke with there. So what's the advantage of being able to take apart HALF of the can? Would that be sufficient for gross overuse?

    Does anyone make these custom? I don't mind paying for a good one, but I've gotta be able to clean out the crap without sending it back and it has to be on par soundwise with that S&H at a minimum.

    I'm definitely going thread on with the .50BMG. I don't think there's a .50BMG anyway that'll fit the HTI that isn't (the Ops Core or whoever, their reflex suppressor uses up too much room and I know nothing about them). Elite Iron makes the detachables for DTA's smaller rifles if I'm not mistaken, and he's told me he won't make a detachable for the HTI unless they go along with his ideas regarding either the mount or the can itself. He said that's a minimum of two years or so out. DTA recommended Elite as well when asked for one, and I haven't looked, but I haven't heard a lot of bitching about his detachables for the .338 and below. Lots about the SDN6 though.

    BTW, since you have lots of experience with different cans, how do think the SDN6 stacks up soundwise against the other 7.62 cans? IME, it's pretty quiet, but that's all I can say for it.

    Thanks for all the info here too, I really appreciate everyone who has spent time answering this thread and read through it all.
     
    Strykervet, can I ask why it has to be an integral? I know why you would want one back in 98' but anymore a removable can is cheaper, just as quiet, and can be moved from host to host. I've shot pretty much every modern can out there, and can't say that I'd buy another integral. And stay away from johns guns. I recored an old norrell because it was loud as hell, had screen door screen and crappy baffles in it, and crazy frp, but I doubt that's how his more modern ones are. of all the integral MkII's I've shot, Liberty was the only one that Kind of makes your jaw drop, and is serviceable, accurate, and down right awesome.
     
    Yeah, sure. I figured that the integral would be the quietest and that's what I've heard from others. On the other hand, I have heard more recently folks say the newer thread ons are like you say. John's Guns isn't John Norrell I'm pretty sure. Think he's a smaller time guy that's gotten a lot of good reviews. I know the S&H doesn't use window screen (isn't that the field expedient method?). And according to Curtis, he gave that design to John's so supposedly they are the same thing. Curtis did say they use aluminum spacers.

    Liberty... I looked at them for a shorter .300BLK but just went ahead with a plain upper. I'll go look at their pistol again though, thanks.

    Elite Iron got back to me and they may be willing to do a custom one but it may take some time. The single one I've seen looked nice, but I suspect they all do.

    So you wouldn't get another integral, huh? Even if you could get it custom made? What thread on would you get that can be cleaned? Thanks again.
     
    Yea I didn't mean to type it in a way that sounded like John norrell and johns guns were associated, because they are not. Look hard at the liberty if you must have an integral, but I will plead with you to shoot some good thread ons first, and get a bolt action .22 as well, you'll kill more birds with the same cci or stone, whatever. I made a custom 7" can the same diameter as a mkII heavy barrel, then cut the barrel down to 3". It looked like an integral, and was just as quiet, but could be used on other hosts. This is something that I'm guessing Liberty or several other SOT's could do for the same price as an integral. You might check with innovative arms too, Phillip is one of the best people I have met, and is a true craftsman.


    Yeah, sure. I figured that the integral would be the quietest and that's what I've heard from others. On the other hand, I have heard more recently folks say the newer thread ons are like you say. John's Guns isn't John Norrell I'm pretty sure. Think he's a smaller time guy that's gotten a lot of good reviews. I know the S&H doesn't use window screen (isn't that the field expedient method?). And according to Curtis, he gave that design to John's so supposedly they are the same thing. Curtis did say they use aluminum spacers.

    Liberty... I looked at them for a shorter .300BLK but just went ahead with a plain upper. I'll go look at their pistol again though, thanks.

    Elite Iron got back to me and they may be willing to do a custom one but it may take some time. The single one I've seen looked nice, but I suspect they all do.

    So you wouldn't get another integral, huh? Even if you could get it custom made? What thread on would you get that can be cleaned? Thanks again.
     
    Thanks, I WOULD go shoot more cans if I COULD. They only got legalized here a year and a half or so ago, so there isn't that many yet and most folks have been going for bigger centerfire cans (at least that's what I see at the range).

    If you could only have ONE .22 can, integral or not, what would you get? The Liberty? Which one? I looked at their website and couldn't find an integral. I do like that they come apart.

    What's your favorite, since you've fired so many? Suppressors are just an area that I'm not that well versed in and I'm wary of being sold, because I know whoever I call will tell me theirs is the best hands down. I have to rely on guys like you.

    Rolling Thunder likes the AWC integral a lot. Others swear by the SRT. Is the difference now such that if you go with any good manufacturer you'll get good gear? What I mean is, has the industry approached (if not a temporary) technological singularity? Regarding both integrals and thread ons?

    I have noticed that lots of makers that used to make integrals don't anymore, or at least don't advertise them. Is this why?

    Again, if one .22 light pistol can, what would it be? The quietest one any of you've used.
     
    With .22 cans you really have to prioritize your intentions.
    If I could only have one I would make it myself, 7" which to me is where the point of diminishing gains is. But, 6" removable cans are quieter than any integral from 7-10 years ago, hence the reason a lot of makers switched over. I don't buy cans because I can form 1 them, make it just as quiet or quieter than a factory can, and have $20 in materials in it (for a .22 can anyways). If your thinking that doesn't apply to you, it does. You could do a form 1 and have a machinist make it for you as long as you are present. I can give you several designs if you like that option.

    However, if I was to buy just one as a do all, id probably take one of liberty's. They are pricey though, but it's a life long product. That said, I'm not a die hard liberty fan, and don't own one, but I've shot them with big Dave several times and was more than impressed.

    Other than quiet, what are your other pleasures? Low first round pop? Easiest to clean? Light weight? Ss or aluminum or Ti? Etc?
     
    Well, that's a good question. Easy to clean --as long as it comes apart, I can clean it. I'd prefer titanium over aluminum simply because of chemistry (and Rolling Thunder makes a good point about aluminum). Light, so no SS. If I threaded it on, it'll definitely be on a Paclite. Low frp would be ideal, obviously.

    I used to know the SF gunsmiths pretty well here at Ft. Lewis but they got old and that was years ago. I hear they got a couple new people now. I know one started a stock business, I may look him up if I can. I just don't know if he's from here or not and I don't wanna mention his name. He could do it though, and he has all the gear at home.

    There are quite a few Boeing machinists around here and one does all the work for Rainier Arms. I could see if he's game for it, or if he knows someone who is. I wouldn't wanna bother you for schematics unless I had a guy lined up that could do it.

    So if you had buy one, you'd go Liberty huh? Price isn't too big of a deal, I'm not rich but I don't like paying for junk either. .22 cans are also a helluva lot cheaper than .50 cans, so to me it's a steal by comparison. Besides, it'll get used more so it'll pay for itself faster.

    I've heard 6" is the point of diminishing returns, that's what Curtis told me at S&H a while back. But that anything shorter is louder by varying degrees. Thanks for corroborating that.

    If I got a thread on, is there anything I need to be concerned with about the action in regards to function? Ie, will the Paclite uppers work okay? Is there an optimum barrel length when it isn't integral? The round will still be supersonic, and I guess that's why I can't reason why a thread on could be quieter or as quiet as an integral.
     
    Anything barrel 4.5"+\- will be sub sonic with bulk HV ammo, making subsonic ammo less of a concern. I make mine quieter by tightening up the bore of the can, but I can get away with that because its not going on a million different factory guns of varying specs. I did mine with a 0.248" bore and it is far quieter than one exactly the same minus it's 0.272" bore. I like the precision of it. However, that tight of a bore will make bulk ammo go supersonic in a 3.2" bbl P22 where a looser one will not.

    If there are enough people interested, I'll just get blueprints done up and post them so anyone can use them.
     
    Good, I didn't wanna mess with subs only anyway. Or at all for that matter.

    Any good machinists in WA willing to do this you could recommend? Know of any that may be interested? Any other residents here wanna go in together, kinda like a group buy maybe (we could have a suppressor party)? I'd actually enjoy the process, and for the price, it'd be a good learning experience too as well as free up funds for other stuff, and if I still wasn't satisfied I could go buy another.

    I'll call around tomorrow and get back to you regarding blueprints. This is kind of exciting, as being able to do this would allow me to optimize a host of things, including balance and materials.

    Oh, Elite does make an integral, they claim it has a 38dB reduction and can be disassembled. All stainless. Do you know what these thread ons are capable of reduction-wise?
     
    Good, I didn't wanna mess with subs only anyway. Or at all for that matter.

    Oh, Elite does make an integral, they claim it has a 38dB reduction and can be disassembled. All stainless. Do you know what these thread ons are capable of reduction-wise?

    And you know what, I'll take you up on the blueprints after all. It'd probably be a lot easier to shop for a machinist if I had the work in hand, and easier to cajole folks into a suppressor party if they knew what they'd be getting. I'm pretty sure there's some guys at my club that would be game for this if I posted it at the range. I'd be happy to pay you whatever it'll cost to mail 'em, or I can just PM you my email address if that's better. I really do appreciate your assistance here.
     
    But, 6" removable cans are quieter than any integral from 7-10 years ago, hence the reason a lot of makers switched over. ?

    Nobody? Nobody that owns an integral going to comment on this one? Let me try...

    But, the new Toyota gets better gas mileage than any Toyota from 7-10 years ago, hence the reason a lot of makers switched over.
    But, the new plastics are stronger than any plastics from 7-10 years ago, hence the reason a lot of makers switched over.
    But the new computers are faster than any computer from 7-10 years ago, hence the reason a lot of makers switched over.

    Look, I am ok with the idea that one can make their own can, got that. I am also ok with the idea (and mentioned it way way above) that the dance between reducing the bore for suppression and the resulting effect on accuracy is real.
    I am not ok with the idea that a blast can is "quieter" than a integral, not 7-10 years ago, not today. The reason is a complicated discussion on the effects of taping high pressure gas before the projectile tail jets even arrive at the primary diverter. I would also suggest that shortening your barrel to achieve subsonic has real world consequences. As an example strap any blast can on a 12" .223, then a 16" .223, very different effects, in part caused by propellants still burning in the can.

    Build your own? No problem, just now the regs, as in one extra baffle, spacer, end cap, etc. left over after the build is a felony.
    Bore of the can tighter? No problem but has consequences in accuracy, baffle life, velocity boost, etc. etc.
    No integral, properly made for a .22 pistol, has anything to worry about on the topic of being louder or less accurate that a blast can strapped on to a 3"-4" barrel.
    Again, sealed or crack can, if the receiver is threaded and the cans outer envelope can go back to that threading, it will place the barrel under compression, the resulting barrel harmonic dampening is a positive improvement.
    Anybody that wants to listen to the real result of 20 year old integrals can watch "Assassines" (Stallone/Banderas) from 1995, all the Mark I's in the film were recorded live as is with HV.

    Sky, whatever you do, in whatever variant you go with....see a target first. And remember, light oil sprayed prior to firing will make just about any can much quieter, with that in mind....unless all one cares about is throwing quiet lead..targets.

    Best.
     
    Last edited:
    That's the thing, a good modern can doesn't need to be shot wet.

    I've designed and prototyped a lot of cans for several big manufacturers, baffle design has more to do with the accuracy you are talking about than does barrel length.

    Short barrels do not hurt accuracy. Why does my 3" buck mark with a removable can that only has 0.006" clearance for the bullet drive tacks? What does my 10" .223 shoot 3/4 MOA? I've made a couple thousand barrels, many of which were short. They are typically more accurate because they are more rigid.

    Your previous statement about subsonic ammo is incorrect, they are not plated. They are not dirty if you pick the right brand. Cci standard velocity is subsonic, chew ish, one of the most accurate, burns clean, on and on. All match ammo is subsonic too.

    Tightening the bore only decreases accuracy if the machining is not good. For a mass produced can, it is irresponsible to have too tight of a bore.

    I'm not trying to get in a pissing contest with you, just relaying my personal experience, right or wrong.
     
    We are not pissing, but at the heart of it and your thoughts are both welcome and reflect deep and broad experience. I myself have never left my room.
    The vast majority of all pistol cans shot wet are quieter. Ablatives make up for the lack of volume and add (depending on the viscosity), remarkable turbulence and/or improved heat absorption and then transfer.
    For some, it has been interesting watching the germinal reason for going wet, essentially the quietest possible shot...or perhaps 2...turn into a day at the range. One might have consequences, the other does not.
    My point was that, in the end you can quiet down even a poor pistol can and, therefor, think beyond dBs....think accuracy amoung other things.
    Baffle design is part of solution, fully featured faces with purge and asymmetrical bore entry/exits all properly timed as well. Taking that high pressure tapped gas and precharging the later chambers to deny O2 was a breakthrough.
    I fall in the camp that rigid armatures allow for the best final pass. That and the fact that spacer designs double the outer envelope, adding weight, reducing heat transfer. Monocores all the worse for these reasons as well.
    My statement about subsonics "are all unplated" is that they do not come plated and, as such, are inferior when it comes to leading. I have yet to see a subsonic that uses the most modern powders that runs the cleanest.
    Those powders, by their very nature, burn fast and clean, while most subsonics (when I think of subsonics I think of rifle ammo) use slow burning powders for safety reasons (case fill and position.)
    cci standards are subsonic, but a poor choice as they are neither plated nor coated, leading. I prefer starting with something that is not transonic and tapping gas down.
    But I would remind the reader that the CCI's 1070 come much farther down the barrel, at 3" well, hardly going to deliver the terminal velocities that are potentially to be had.
    Short barrels in .22 can be accurate, but "short" in .22 pistol barrels is relative. Best to really stabilize things at maximum potential for distance, TF and purge values.



    And then there is the discussion surrounding sight picture. Threading a can on a 3" barrel Mark gives you a sight radius that hardly lends itself to best advantage.
    I have used both at length (pun intended) and would thread on a .22 rifle can, but have long since set aside the blast can for .22 pistols.
    Everybody sees it differently, that is what drives it all forward. Best.
     
    Last edited:
    Good post, thank you.
    My appologies for misreading the bit about the subsonic ammo.

    The sight radius on a short handgun is a legitimate concern, but I run a fastfire II. If you are running irons, it is an issue.

    Don't get me wrong at all, I do like integrals, it's just not my choice if I could only have one .22 can. My Remington 581 sportsman integral is one of my favorites.

    A lot of accuracy issues in monocores comes from symmetry too. I don't know why, but it has caused a couple manufacturers to redesign a couple of their cans.

    One of the best ablatives I have found to date is ultrasound gel.
     
    I suppose I can have both. I mean, I'm not limited to just one. I can get the integral Mk2 later and a really good thread on can now.

    I imagine it may behoove me to get the thread on can first, as that'll give me time to find just the exact host I want, hopefully for a good price, hopefully unused or excellent cond. The Liberty can looks good with respect to weight, material quality and ability to take apart.

    If I had a really good, really light take apart can for the .22, I could get the Paclite upper and find a good host for it as well, and thread my 10/22 also. Maybe even pickup a small bolt gun and thread that too. It would give me versatility, a lightweight package and it comes apart for cleaning, thus satisfying the "gross overuse" issue, and probably better for it, with regards to barrel wear. It'll be great for the backyard "can and target" shooting I have intended.

    Then perhaps a sealed integral would be fine, provided it were made well and they had excellent CS regarding cleaning and upgrades. Very low frp and high accuracy, not be too long or heavy within reason, be balanced, reliable and of course, extremely quiet. It gives me more latitude as far as looking for candidates goes, and I suppose I could register on that particular suppressors-only website and look at their reviews. As a sealed can goes, that Badlander always screamed badass to me, but I was set on take aparts for all the above reasons and discounted. I've also heard they're loud, the design is, but I've never heard one except for videos and they sounded okay then.

    Okay Rolling Thunder, how's that Badlander soundwise compared to SRT, others you've shot? Sealed, take apart, whatever? I know you like the Amphibian, that's the same thing but more accurate, right, the Badlander?

    And Delta, you say the quietest integral you've ever heard, period, not just take apart, was the Liberty, right? There wasn't a sealed integral that was quieter? I'm just trying to clarify.

    I think this way I get my cake and get to eat it too. Good, lightweight take apart thread on, and a good quality, accurate and dependable, yet quiet integral Mk2. Perhaps with a good micro reflex sight cut in as much as possible, I like that idea.

    Thanks again everyone.
     
    So in a short recap, are there sealed integrals that perform better than the take aparts? If I had a thread on take apart to satisfy that, would the Badlander be a good one to consider, is it quiet enough for instance, compared to others?

    Also, and because I'm looking at two right now, with a 4 ounce titanium take apart thread on, would you prefer a k baffle stack or a monolithic baffle stack (it's not a perforated core, nor are they k baffles)? They both claim around 41dB reduction, both weigh the same and both come apart. Just which would be better for what reasons? Obviously one has less parts, but any reasons other than that? Stability? I'm leaning toward the monolithic setup as it makes more sense to me, in part from what I've learned on here.
     
    So, after talking with Liberty, they won't make an integral unless there's a lull. Anyway, he says the reason many quit making integrals was as I expected --thread on technology became good enough to render integral technology expensive at best in order to keep up. He said the $635 4.1oz. Liberty Essence is about 1-1.5dB louder than their old $2000 integral they said nobody bought --even though it was supposed to be the best (aren't they all?). And I've heard most folks can't tell the difference in a dB or so in volume.

    So being functional and light and take apart as well as accurate and quiet were what I wanted. So in addition to the 4.1oz. Essence suppressor, the stripped frame is 4.1 oz. (an aluminum Volquartsen with CNC'd match trigger, hammer, ext. release, etc.) and an aluminum 4.5" Paclite upper. It isn't an integral, kinda looks like one, but with integral performance and lighter weight, plus the ability to both clean the suppressor and put it on various hosts like the 10/22 and may be even a 5.7mm pistol just sort of put it over the top. I'm thinking we'll try and mount a Trijicon RMR on the Paclite and remove the iron sights altogether. Likely Cerakote the entire thing a greenish brown, or a two tone of that. Would like thin linen micarta grips.

    Pretty much got my mind set on this, unless someone sees it as a grave mistake. Note the frame has no magazine safety, and I assume the Paclite upper is good for suppression? Anyone have experience otherwise? Also, Liberty told me for their suppressor, that the 4.5" Paclite is perfect, that the 6" would be too long --not bad, just the 4.5" would be better for most ammo.

    If this does to work out to be as good or better than most integrals, than we'll probably just stick with it considering it's take apart. Imagine, went from dead set on an integral, to now a thread on titanium and custom Mk2 that hasn't a Ruger part one on it. Thanks, my wife and I really appreciate the advice on this one.

    Does this sound like a good option, a good way to go? If I find I still want/like better/need an integral, I can always get one, but this one has too many fine points that satisfy to ignore unless folks say other wise about it.