Taming the bark of an Avenger

[Robert 5mm]

Just got the longer "Plume" one designed by Subscriber - it is as quiet as my DonnyFl  adapter with a long moderator - super design work

I also got the "Shorty +2" - not as quiet as the Plume but quieter than the one it is replacing ( not saying who )
Again thanks to Subscriber and TorqueMaster for the excellent work.

[x3baddad]

I printed the Plume last night for my Avenger .22 took off the Donnyfl adaptor with a Tatsu and this thing is just as quiet and alot smaller and shorter, Great job on this by the way its the tallest structure ever built on my Vyper 3d printer

[subscriber]

Thanks, Terry

That is great feedback.

If any reader made it all the way through this thread, the Plume design came about after a long learning experience, about what works better, or worse in the Avenger and Liberty. 

This exercise was facilitated by input from many members, in many useful ways.  The most significant contributions came from forum members Soupyyy (Peter) and TorqueMaster Bob), who printed and tested an unending stream of devices that I designed.  That may have been tedious, but it helped my understanding of airgun LDC design tremendously.  Not just about what works "best", but about what is also practical.

[toddbrat]

I’ll second what Terry said, I printed the latest 4” plume a couple of days ago and while the weather has been too crappy to really test it, it is doing a great job.

[subscriber]

There were a few requests for the Plume LDC in .25 cal, so here it is.  Actually, there are two versions:

I am attaching the STL print files for both the 27 and 28 mm "nose" OD versions (they are the same in all other aspects).  As we have no test data for the .25 Plume LDC yet, and I don't know what power you might be running, my suggestion is to select the 28 mm OD version for a little higher strength.

I can make the walls even thicker, but at some point the LDC nose will interfere with removing and refitting the Avenger fill cap.  So, a little data would be useful on the gap between the shroud and fill cap, to figure how much more the wall thickness could be increased, if there is any indication this needs to be done.

STL attached as zip file

[subscriber]

Yesterday there was a PM request for a .22 Plume LDC for the Liberty PCP.  One that has a shroud front end to barrel muzzle distance that is 28 mm longer than the Avenger.   Essentially an Avenger Plume LDC, with an extra baffle chamber living in the shroud.

The zipped STL print file is attached so anyone can print it. 

If you lack the ability I can help arrange a print, or you can PM Bob (TorqueMaster) directly.   Bob makes the parts, so ask him for the price and delivery schedule:  https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=67950

[avator]

Not to be a buzzkill but, has anyone actually read rule #12 of this forum?

https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=919.0

[JimD]

Bill,

Thanks for the reminder and I can see why you brought it up.  I had read the rules but must admit I was a bit fuzzy on that one.

A clarification of the term "removable" in rule 12 would be valuable, I think.  I think it may be referring to devices which thread onto the end of barrel.  Is it also intended to refer to devices that do not protrude from the shroud?  Devices which thread onto the shroud and not barrel?  I prefer in shroud devices both for length reasons and to prevent any implication it could be used somewhere it shouldn't be used.  It would seem the biggest, if not the only, risk is from devices that attach to barrels.  Devices which attach to shrouds or are contained within shrouds would be pretty difficult to use in a way that is not intended.

Stated another way, if I pull out my angle grinder I can remove nearly anything.  I am pretty sure devices which have to be cut off were not intended to be covered by this rule.  The clarification I suggest it to make the reference to devices which are threaded onto and removable from the barrel. 

I also want to express my appreciation for moderators and others that work hard to keep us out of hot water so the forum can continue.   


Jim

[avator]

That rule has been in place for longer than I have belonged to the forum. It got a slight change a couple years ago to permit the term "silencer" which banned prior.
I suppose that, unless those in charge step in to clarify, we are free to interpret it however we choose.
I do know that, in the past, some were admonished for showing cut-a-ways and a step by step explanation of how to design and make one. I don't know if the new owners of the forum see it the same.
I understand that the rule was put into place so as not to draw unwanted attention to our hobby and forum. Turns out, there is plenty of that going on these days anyhow....   

[JimD]

Thanks.  Seems safer to me to talk about in shroud moderators or ones that screw into the shroud since IMHO, they are clearly airgun specific.  But the moderators Subscriber was describing screw into the shroud.  On an Avenger they slide over the exposed end of the barrel to help stabilize it but the attachment is via the shroud.  Maybe that was not clear?  Or maybe what I think should be OK is not.  Not sure.   

[subscriber]

Bill,

As I am the chief offender, I believe you might expect me to justify my contribution to this huge collection of "silencer porn".

I think it is fair to say that the new forum owner is aware of this thread.   As an astute businessman involved with the design, manufacture and sale of airguns and related products, Travis undoubtable recognizes tens of thousands of dollars of free R&D work when he sees it; gifted to the forum.  Something that he might use in future products, without IP dispute, precisely because it has been made public.

Now, I recognize that just because something has cost a lot in terms of time spent, does not mean it has equivalent value.  That said, some of my designs shared here work rather well.  This would not have come about without the time, effort and resources of interested volunteers, that made and tested a long list of LDCs.   General interest and enthusiasm expressed by forum members was and continues to be highly motivating.

Rather than claiming my LDC designs are quieter, smaller, lighter and cheaper than anything out there, I chose to gift the forum with the print files.  That way, anyone can try the designs for themselves, rather than buy an unknown quantity, only from me.  The people that print their own and are super happy with the results are the best promotors of interest, expressed by those that lack the facility to make their own.   Those folks are free to find their own maker, using the files I generated free of charge.   Or, I can point them to a major facilitator of this work, who will make parts for them, for a lot less than they might expect to pay.

Now, if you believe that the above is contrary to all the laws of decency, and violates every principle the forum owner cares about, then petition him to delete all the offensive posts and images in this thread. 

I will continue to design bits for people who contact me via PM.  As I cannot charge even $5 an hour for that work (because very few want to pay $ 50 or $100 for a custom LDC design that has no test results to back it up), I do it for free.  Not because I am set financially, but because of the love of the sport.   If my generosity and that of the other contributors to this thread is wasted, that is sure to put a dent in our motivation.   That could be restored, if Travis commissioned me to design parts for him directly, at my normal consulting fee of $100 an hour.

[avator]

Nicely written post DJ but I was just pointing out the rules of the forum. I realize it suspiciously followed your post but believe me, it was not directed at you specifically.
If Travis, or whom ever is in charge, thinks it's ok then maybe it's time to change the rules. I would think that would be the better option than to make it appear that the rules apply to some and not to others. Or that some rules are valid and some are not.

[JimD]

Just in case it isn't already clear, I think the existing rule if vague and should be rewritten.  My way of doing it would be to say that discussion of devices intended to attenuate sound need to be clearly airgun specific to be discussed in this forum.  Devices that attach to the end of the barrel are not clearly enough airgun specific to be discussed.  Devices that fit within shrouds or attach to shrouds are clearly airgun specific and OK to discuss. 

I think that is still pretty conservative.  It could also be argued that devices made of plastic are not very usable on other than airguns. 

Might be better just to remove the reference to removable and replace it with the first sentence "Discussion of devices intended to attenuate sound on this forum need to be clearly airgun specific."  I think that is the key point.  We have a whole sticky on threaded on devices.

[avator]

I hear ya Jim..
These rules were written several years ago when it was taboo to even mention the term "silencer". Probably before shrouded guns were even mainstream. In the case of this forum, the founding fathers (Bob and Gene) did what they could to fly under the radar and avoid attracting unwanted attention to our hobby/sport. As we can see looking around today.
There are those in the World who oppose guns, in any form, and will go to any length to support that opposition, including falsely comparing devices that quiet the report of airguns to those used on PB guns.
Maybe they do need to rewrite some of the rules to the forum. That's not my call. But, for now, they are the rules we agreed to when we joined.
There are many topics that are against forum rules to discuss. Would it make it right to discuss them if I weren't charging anyone for my input?

[Bentong]

Device made out of plastic is pretty much one shot deal and be useless,  but sometimes all it takes is that one shot on other than AG to get the job done... just my 10₵

[subscriber]

There is a good reason to leave the rules regarding silencers as is:  Plausible deniability for the forum owner, should a member get the wrong kind of legal attention from outside.

Yes, having some rules enforced and others not may create other complications, but this is the way I see it:  The forum owner/s get to state the rules; and get to decide how they want to enforce them.  Else, I could easily make a strong case that the silencer rule is and has been violated, equivalent and worse than the contents of this thread.   For years, with clear examples.

There are at least two reasons why I am not going to do the above:
It would bring negative attention to valuable forum contributors.  As such, I would come across as a spoilsport; and potentially "force the hand" in a manner where everyone loses.

The fact is that the forum owner has veto over challenges to his rules, and to the application of his rules.  So, no matter how good a legal argument I might offer, the forum owner is the arbiter, not any external legal body.  I have no interest in challenging the forum owner about the rules, because I will lose.  Not because my arguments are weak, but because they are irrelevant.

[subscriber]

If the forum rule specifically disallows discussion of removable sound attenuation devices, why is the 20 silencer test thread a "sticky"?  Making a thread a "sticky" means it has been blessed by the mods.  The very bastion of rule enforcers.

The reason that the 20 silencer thread is allowed, is because it contains a lot of very useful information.   Not just for the regular members, but for those in the business of making and selling airguns and accessories.  This is de facto taking precedence over de jure.  I could go on, but I would rather go design something useful...

[Robert 5mm]

I think Subscribers design work is better than the various vendors in both quality and sound reduction.

I hope his kind of help for the airgun user does not disappear.

I was surprised in the new "G's and A's" magazine there are actual PB silencers advertised for sale with help to get an approval from ATF.

I use airgun moderators ( silencers ) to stay neighbor friendly ( my first one is on a Benjamin SBD Trail Break Barrel - not removable )

I do not think airgun silencers are in the same ball park as PB silencers - and I do not think airgun ones could actually work on a PB.

Just some of my opinions.

[avator]

DJ, nowhere in the rules does it say that we can't discuss or compare what is available to quiet the report of our airguns. What the rules clearly say is that we cannot show how to make one. A cutaway does exactly that. As for the "20 silencer test" thread, not once on the 12 pages does a cutaway picture show how to make one. It simply compares what is available.
As for attracting unwanted attention.... ask DonnyFL how that's working out for them.

[avator]

Look guys... I am not an enforcer of the rules of this forum.
I have been a member for several years and completely enjoy the fellowship and many other things airgun related provided here.
It would be a great loss if all that went away if it were shut down because it was deemed that we are a source of information for producing illegal (or what are prescribed to be by those with authority to do so) items.
That is exactly why the rule was put in place.