Want a can for my HK53 clone
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Joined
·
2,378 Posts
Surefire Socom 556-SB2 gets my vote.
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
First welcome to the site as I see you just joined this month. You have been given some great information. One thing I would add is I would also look into getting a #3 locking piece. The back pressure of the can will act as increased barrel length. I would also suggest using the search function with 53 can. Not all information from all members will be in this thread. There is quite a wealth of knowledge here.
Personally, I would look into a different caliber. I know of no practical subsonic 5.56X45 ammo that will cycle the action. 300 BLK OUT or 7.62X39 would be better choices IMHO. Both can have up to a 220 gr subsonic ammo that will cycle the action. I prefer the cost benefit of 7.62X39 because the super sonic ammo is $0.20 a round rather than $0.70 a round for supersonic 300 BLK OUT. Good luck with your project.
Scott
Personally, I would look into a different caliber. I know of no practical subsonic 5.56X45 ammo that will cycle the action. 300 BLK OUT or 7.62X39 would be better choices IMHO. Both can have up to a 220 gr subsonic ammo that will cycle the action. I prefer the cost benefit of 7.62X39 because the super sonic ammo is $0.20 a round rather than $0.70 a round for supersonic 300 BLK OUT. Good luck with your project.
Scott
Joined
·
367 Posts
Interesting, you guys have given me a lot to think about. I didn't realize the <10" length would affect it so much, that's great information to have before I get too deep into it. Thanks guys! I'll do some searching and see what comes up as well
And thank you for the welcome!
And thank you for the welcome!
Joined
·
367 Posts
By the way, I realize there are calibers that would be better suited for suppression. I just know that an HK53 is very loud and wanted to quiet it down a bit, but not necessarily run sub-sonic ammo. After finishing this build I intend on starting another project, possibly in 7.62x39 (since I already own a lot of AK's) or 9mm and I will be suppressing that as well.
Joined
·
1,596 Posts
I can see the pictures. You don't often see 33K photos so it's nice to see one. I put one in ATF jail back in July and can't quite remember what it looks like
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
How is accuracy for the 53 with the can installed? It is my understanding that there are two issues with barrels of less than 10" for use with a can. The first is the pressure and to a lesser extent the temperature of the gasses leaving the barrel. My understanding is the pressure decrees behind the bullet the further down the barrel the bullet goes, after the first couple of inches. So with a barrel less than nine inches the powder is still burning and is still at a very high pressure. So this very high pressure gas hits the first baffle with more force and temperature the shorter the barrel is. As with most materials, the metals tends to soften with an increase of temperature. So with many shots in rapid succession the materials of the can, especially the first baffle, the temperature goes up and wears more rapidly per shot at higher temperatures. That is why AAC tends to use Inconel (which handles high heat better than other metals even stainless steel) for the blast baffle (the first baffle the propellant gas hits) in their rifle caliber cans. But there is a limits as to temperature and pressure any material can stand. There is also a factor of the materials in the powder. If there are "fillers" in the powder to increase volume but don't burn up and have some mass, these fillers can act as the media (the sand) in a sand blasting machine. These particles can hit the baffle at a very high speed and wear the internals of the can. The shorter the barrel, the faster and harder these particles hit the internals of the can.
There is also the issue of stabilization. The shorter the barrel, the less time the bullet interacts with the rifling of the barrel. That is part of why the most highly accurate firearms tend to have longer barrels. The bullet and barrel have more time to interact with a longer barrel, stabilizing the of the bullet like a gyroscope. Again there is also an element of temperature that effects this interaction. The barrel tends to heat up from the friction between the bullet and the surface of the barrel. The burning of the powder has less of an effect on the barrel temperature as the fiction between the bullet and the inside of the barrel. A longer heavier barrel has more mass to absorb the friction heat that a shorter lighter profile barrel. Also the warmer the bullet is, the softer it becomes. The softer the bullet, the harder it is for the rifling to impart the spin which stabilizes the bullet that makes a bullet more accurate and stable.
It is my understanding that because of these factors a 10" barrel seems to be the cutoff point most manufacturers are comfortable with their cans being used with. I would think with a shorter barrel/higher pressure a manufacturer can tell the barrel length their product was used with. Without that 10" barrel length the stabilization of the bullet will be more limited. If the bullet isn't stabilized baffle strikes will be more likely. I think the 33K would be a good length for the tighter baffle diameter if a 5.56 can. I would be very concerned with baffle clearance/stabilization of use of a 5.56 can on a barrel of less than nine inches. Barrels wear over time. As the rifling wears stabilization won't be as good as when it was new.
I bought a 7.62 can for two reasons. First there is no reasonably priced commercially available subsonic 5.56X45 that will cycle a semi auto/full auto firearm reliably. There was a company that did make pressed tungsten powder subsonic 5.56X45 that would cycle the action. It was a little over $2.50 per round. I did a quick search and could not find it. The rifle rounds that I could find that would cycle the action were 7.62 (300 BLK OUT and 7.62X39) diameter. So it would make sense to have a can for that diameter round.
Second, If I was going to occasionally mount the can on a 5.56 barrel shorter than 10" I would want extra clearance for stabilization of a short barrel. So if the 5.56 bullet wasn't perfectly stable from the short barrel, there still wouldn't be a baffle strike as the 7.62 can would give extra clearance. I have a couple of 53 ARs and a 7.5" AR upper so I don't worry about baffle strikes with a 7.62 can. I don't know as I would want to put a 5.56 can on guns with that short of a barrel. I also have a couple of 53Ks. With a 5.1" barrel and the extreme muzzle pressure of that barrel and with the very limited stabilization, I have no plans to mount my 7.62 can on a 53K. These are just things I do and some of the reasons why. There have been a couple of threads here over the years where a 5.56 can was mounted on a 53 and the owner complained of accuracy problems. In both cases, as I remember, the accuracy issues were because of baffle strikes. YMMV.
Scott
Joined
·
4,303 Posts
the twist of the rifling has more to do with stabilization, rather than barrel length. e.g. 1 in 7 twist would stabilize the 62gr projo where 1 in 12 would not.
http://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmstab-5.1.cgi
No barrel length is used in the calculation of stability.
Barrel length restriction from can manufacturers has more to do with baffle erosion.
At least that is my undestanding
http://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmstab-5.1.cgi
No barrel length is used in the calculation of stability.
Barrel length restriction from can manufacturers has more to do with baffle erosion.
At least that is my undestanding
I have run my AAC M4-2000 can on my HK 53 for about 5 years without any user identifiable issues. Meaning there might be excessive micro metal wear as compared to a can run in longer barrels that can only be detected by special equipment in a laboratory.
My 53 is an HK93 converted to a 53 using a 53 parts kit with a 1:7 barrel. At first I had the #15 locking piece and shot only surplus M193 and got upward of 750rpm. Now I mainly shoot surplus M855 but more recently switched to 69gr OTM using the #3 locking piece and getting around 650RPM. I usually only shoot a mag or 2 then let cool for about 15mins before firing again. I did dump a beta-c mag once and if it was dark I would bet it would have been glowing!
My 53 is an HK93 converted to a 53 using a 53 parts kit with a 1:7 barrel. At first I had the #15 locking piece and shot only surplus M193 and got upward of 750rpm. Now I mainly shoot surplus M855 but more recently switched to 69gr OTM using the #3 locking piece and getting around 650RPM. I usually only shoot a mag or 2 then let cool for about 15mins before firing again. I did dump a beta-c mag once and if it was dark I would bet it would have been glowing!
Joined
·
2,378 Posts
Now that Dead Air released their Key-Mo adapter, I will be running the Sandman-S, L & SiCo Saker 762 & Saker 556K. 1 mount, 4 cans.
I ran my 53 with an AAC 762 SDN6 as my HD setup for a long time. Agree on going with a 30 cal can to take a bit of the edge off the back pressure. I didn't change my locking piece and it runs like a champ in semi - never a problem. Had issues both suppressed and Unsuppressed when I put in the sear but that's the gun, not the suppressor. Still noisy (forget about subsonic 223) but it suppresses well, eliminates the muzzle blast and makes it viable for an indoor defensive weapon. I liked it even though many told me it was a poor host. Best, Matt
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
