Thermal Defense Solutions Bantam II Suppressor

[Matt in TN]

It would be incredibly easy to make that with normal machining methods.

I respect your experience, sir - but this statement is useless. How exactly would you make this suppressor using traditional machining methods?

[georgeib]

It would be incredibly easy to make that with normal machining methods.

I respect your experience, sir - but this statement is useless. How exactly would you make this suppressor using traditional machining methods?

Echoing what Matt in TN said, I would like to defer to your expertise, but I'm just not seeing it. And frankly, saying "it would be incredibly easy," makes me question whether you're being serious. Could you elaborate, please?

[paco ramirez]

I respect your experience, sir - but this statement is useless. How exactly would you make this suppressor using traditional machining methods?

Echoing what Matt in TN said, I would like to defer to your expertise, but I'm just not seeing it. And frankly, saying "it would be incredibly easy," makes me question whether you're being serious. Could you elaborate, please?

Using common mill turn CNC machines that nearly all silencer manufacturers have you can do it very easily. I'm not sure why it's difficult for you guys to understand how to make it with subtractive manufacturing, it's just simplistic, shallow, ported cone baffles with a few spirals on the outside with some holes in the front cap, there's no complexity to it at all unless you consider a few spirals complex. I'm not going to take a bunch of time to make the model of it up and take pictures for you just so you can see what it'd look like. Just use your imagination and break it up into segments. Or maybe you're not looking at what one actually looks like on the inside?

Why is that?

I've watched national labs show off their latest and greatest CFD when applied to silencers and it amounts to nothing and sure doesn't help with making a quieter silencer. Currently it's just a buzzword used for marketing for people that don't know any better. The quietest silencers you can buy were never touched with CFD, and I expect that to continue for at least another decade.

[Fatorangecat]

I don't know about that. I have the Bantam and it is really small and quiet. Could you shrink the Helios DT down to 5x1.2" and be at 140db? I'm not saying that to be rude it's an honest question.

[georgeib]

Using common mill turn CNC machines that nearly all silencer manufacturers have you can do it very easily. I'm not sure why it's difficult for you guys to understand how to make it with subtractive manufacturing, it's just simplistic, shallow, ported cone baffles with a few spirals on the outside with some holes in the front cap, there's no complexity to it at all unless you consider a few spirals complex. I'm not going to take a bunch of time to make the model of it up and take pictures for you just so you can see what it'd look like. Just use your imagination and break it up into segments. Or maybe you're not looking at what one actually looks like on the inside?

I appreciate your answer, thank you. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you would machine several individual segments that would then be welded to form a stack, and essentially get the same thing, right?

[paco ramirez]

I don't know about that. I have the Bantam and it is really small and quiet. Could you shrink the Helios DT down to 5x1.2" and be at 140db? I'm not saying that to be rude it's an honest question.

Of course. It'd be even quieter than that on 16" 5.56 metering at the proper 1m left of muzzle location with a single peak BK 2209 meter. If that's what you're trying to compare to your Bantam then take into account the part on their website that says "the average for the 360 degree sound profile on the Bantam is 137dB" and that should tell you everything you need to know:

1) They aren't utilizing PewScience when they definitely should be because single peak meter data is completely useless and doesn't tell you how a silencer actually performs in real life and single peak meter data is very easily manipulated by manufacturers and dealers, very easily misunderstood by consumers, and can't be used for comparison.

2) The description of the sound metering tells you they're intentionally trying to move the goal post to make performance seem better than it really is by advertising single peak measurements using a method that isn't actually used, especially since most consumers have no idea what "360 deg sound profile" even means, but consumers still believe it can be compared to others data even though it can't for a number of reasons. If they're using the same 360 deg profile as everyone else then it means they're using mics five meters away from the muzzle in multiple directions, not one meter left of the silencer muzzle.

3) They very likely aren't using a meter that even meets the MIL-STD anyway, and even if they were their advertised dB claims aren't comparable to anyone else's for a multitude of reasons and peak dB doesn't tell consumers the whole story anyway, or even a meaningful part of the story.

I appreciate your answer, thank you. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you would machine several individual segments that would then be welded to form a stack, and essentially get the same thing, right?

Yes, it would be functionally identical. You wouldn't necessarily have to weld it either, you could construct it like a rimfire or handgun silencer using the front cap to compress the stack depending how you go about it.

[Fatorangecat]

I have no idea what methodology they use. The 139db I was referencing was from a review that took measurements at the ear and at the muzzle. In all honesty I have no idea what meter or how stringent the methodology. Once again don't take this as smarmy but if you can shrink the Helios down to 5 or 6 oz and still keep the sound reduction why don't you do it? I want the smallest lightest suppressor possible on 5.56 that still does the job.

[georgeib]

Yes, it would be functionally identical. You wouldn't necessarily have to weld it either, you could construct it like a rimfire or handgun silencer using the front cap to compress the stack depending how you go about it.

I can see that. Thanks again.

[paco ramirez]

I have no idea what methodology they use. The 139db I was referencing was from a review that took measurements at the ear and at the muzzle. In all honesty I have no idea what meter or how stringent the methodology. Once again don't take this as smarmy but if you can shrink the Helios down to 5 or 6 oz and still keep the sound reduction why don't you do it? I want the smallest lightest suppressor possible on 5.56 that still does the job.

For the same reasons you're not going to use a 22LR silencer for your AR15. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Different things are done for different reasons in silencers to get various desireable attributes based on whatever the size envelope may be while balancing the trade offs. Anyone can make a short, light silencer that can be somewhat borderline tolerable depending on cartridge and barrel length. Whoever wrote the article you're referencing is not providing good or reliable data and is doing consumers a great diservice.

[okie]

I don't know about that. I have the Bantam and it is really small and quiet. Could you shrink the Helios DT down to 5x1.2" and be at 140db? I'm not saying that to be rude it's an honest question.

First and foremost, I want to reiterate that the human ear is incapable of judging whether something is hearing safe or not. Tone and peak can both hide a very damaging pressure wave so that you're completely unaware any damage is occurring. I would never intentionally habitually shoot any supersonic centerfire round without some form of hearing protection.

The other factor here is that port pop is a big source of noise with semiautomatic centerfire rifles. Far more than most people even realize. Moreover, it's the biggest source of noise to the shooter's ear when shooting with an effective suppressor. Silencers like the Bantam don't have much if any back pressure, so they don't increase port pop. It's no different in principle than using a 30 cal can on a 223 to reduce noise at the shooter's ear.

Again, I want to reiterate that the Bantam looks to be a very good suppressor for what it is, and I would absolutely buy one. I wish the company didn't do the whole smoke and mirrors routine because they have a pretty nice product at a reasonable price that can stand on its own merits. I think as an SBR can it's just about perfect.

PS, Paco is right, though. Wouldn't be hard to replicate as a traditionally manufactured silencer. You could even replicate the helical skirts if you really wanted to, though it wouldn't be advantageous. They don't really do anything as far as I can tell, but I know from experience why they're necessary, or at least advantageous, to the 3d printing process. Especially if they were using FDM to prototype, which is very common.