New From Inland Manufacturing: Low-Cost .22 Suppressor w/ Polymer Baffles

A suppressor with injection-molded polymer baffles? With the HPA looming and the possible removal of silencers from the NFA, it was only a matter of time. Manufacturers will be competing even harder for the low-cost end of the suppressor spectrum, and the low heat and pressure of .22 LR really opens up options. New from Inland Manufacturing is the PM-22, a 3.5 oz can for .22 LR that employs an aluminum tube and, yessir, a polymer baffle core. Press release follows . . .

New .22 Rimfire Suppressor

Low-cost and high-efficiency–a double win!

MKS Supply, Inc., Dayton, OH, April 2017 Inland Firearms, makers of the incredibly popular Inland series of M1Carbines, is now producing a classic-looking sound suppressor for .22 rimfire firearms that will be marketed exclusively through MKS Supply and will be on display at the NRA Convention booth 4632.

Materials: The all-new PM-22 suppressor is constructed of 6000 series aluminum and weighs a feathery 3.5 ounces, making it one of the lightest such units on the market. The black anodized, one-inch-diameter tube is 5.5 inches long. For durability, the ½ x 28 threaded base adapter is stainless steel with a tough black oxide finish.

 

Interior sound baffles: The PM-22 uses a unique monolithic, X-design polymer baffle system core that can be used either “wet” or dry. Full disassembly can be completed without tools, and cleaning is simple using hot water and Inland’s dB Suppressor Foam.

 

Rimfire ammunition creates lower gas pressure, heat and flame than does centerfire ammunition. Inland’s patent pending polymer baffle system has been tested to 10,000 rounds (so far) without needing replacement. If baffle replacement does become necessary, the PM-22 has a lifetime warranty (NFA replacement and shipping rules apply).

 

Facts concerning this suppressor: Polymer baffles have less inherent harmonic metallic resonance than metal and they are produced using injection molding rather than with much more costly metal machining. This keeps the price lower.

 

Sound: The Inland suppressor keeps the decibel level in the low to mid-80s using subsonic ammunition and when shot dry. When combined with Inland’s patent pending sound suppressing dB Foam, the sound is reduced another 3-5 decibels (a 4-ounce can of dB Foam is included with each suppressor). To say it another way, with subsonic ammunition, only the functioning of the pistol’s action is audible from more than a few yards away.

Specifications:

  • Weight: 3.5 ounces
  • Length: 5.5 inches
  • Diameter: 1.0 inch
  • Exterior tube: Black anodized 6000 series aluminum with stainless steel black oxide barrel adapter
  • Baffles: Monolithic I-Core polymer monolithic X design
  • Lifetime warranty
  • MSRP: $189.95

 

MKS Supply, LLC

8611-A North Dixie Drive

Dayton, OH

45414

937-454-0363

info@mkssupply.com

www.mkssupply.com

comments

  1. avatar Jake C says:

    Though it may be used against me from a legal stand point, it sounds like the suppressor completely takes away the muzzle blast factor. This would open up new opportunities to make a “Silence build” for say, a Ruger 10/22. I’d love to see someone make a completely silent gun, though democrats would raise hell and try and have the HPA repealed (If and when it passes). If the HPA passes I will be buying these and the foam and testing different 10/22 parts to make a near silent gun (I doubt it will be silent since it will have a few metal parts and you would hear the trigger click, but I digress.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      I’d think the sound of the action cycling would be louder than the trigger clicking.

      1. avatar Jake C. says:

        The reason why I focused on that is because they make pieces to dampen the sound of the action, at least for the 10/22 and AR-15. I don’t know how effective these are, but I’m sure you can work with that to make it damn near silent, the trigger on the other hand I can’t think of anything for that. Though if/when HPA passes I feel like this would take off and companies will focus on the action’s sound after a bit. It’s an idea none the less and I hope someone takes it and runs with it. I’ll look for products that do what I want and possibly try and make my own if I can and see if I can have a company make one

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “I’d think the sound of the action cycling would be louder than the trigger clicking.”

        22 rimfire requires a rather authoritative hammer strike for reliable ignition.

        That’s a rather loud *click* that will be difficult to pull off silently.

        The only way I could see making an actually quiet firearm would be electric ignition…

  2. avatar Ruger Guy says:

    Full auto rated? Ease of cleaning baffle?

  3. avatar Chris says:

    At $189 I would buy a couple if the HPA passes.

    1. avatar TruthTellers says:

      Same here. This is a pretty light can.

    2. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      Hmm. People are willing to pay $189 for a threaded tube with a piece of injection molded plastic inside. Something that can be mass-produced for a few bucks. Interesting.

      P.T.Barnum was right.

      1. avatar Simon says:

        If the HPA passes, competition will come aboard and bring the price down to $50 or less.

        1. avatar Ebby123 says:

          ^^^ THIS!!

          The $200 NFA punitive tax creates an artificially high entry fee for the supressor market.

          Suppressors for most hunters should be disposable accesories.
          A 30-06 can that last 200 rds before decreased performance and costs $75 would fulfill the demands of most shooters.

          The problem is right now the tax makes them so expensive that designers are forced towards a “one can does everything and lasts forever” approach. Remove the tax and watch this technology get a WHOLE LOT more affordable..

        2. avatar Geoff says:

          $48 in the U.K. for a .22LR suppressor. No stupid forms to buy one either, just your firearms license.

      2. avatar Lost Down South says:

        “People are willing to pay $189 for a threaded tube with a piece of injection molded plastic inside. Something that can be mass-produced for a few bucks. Interesting.

        P.T.Barnum was right.”

        ***********************
        Being a moderately cheap bastard myself, I hear what you’re saying. But how much T&M went into R&D? A guy’s gotta eat. After they make and sell a couple thousand units (and have competition), they can lower their prices for volume sales.

        As a friend in the fastener business often says, “It doesn’t cost much to make a screw. It costs a whole lot to make the FIRST screw.”

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          The mold for injection molding can cost in the tens of thousands for items that must look good, like quality personal electronics. There is a *ton* of manual, skilled labor involved for smoothing out mold marks, for example.

          When who cares what it looks like, the cost is still in the thousands of dollar range.

          An item like that sounds ideal for home 3-D printers.

          Injection molding gets dirt cheap on a per-item basis when you mold 100s of thousands or millions of them…

  4. avatar Joe R. says:

    Better products are always appreciated. We don’t need to chase the EU into the toilet of suppressor quality.

    1. avatar Ebby123 says:

      Pray tell how many European suppressors have you personally owned and shot?
      lolz… hush child.

  5. avatar Ryan P. says:

    Low to mid-80s!? Interesting. Also someone should tell them their booth number is 4642.

    1. avatar Chris in SC says:

      Yeah, 80 dB sounds legit. That would be about 30 dB less than the best cans on the market now. It sounds to me like someone is taking liberties with the test set-up or methods. Maybe they measured 100m from the muzzle rather than 1m.

  6. avatar Ed says:

    So, the Feds tax you MORE than the m.s.r.p.? How is that even legal? Opressive theives.

    1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

      It’s been a $200 since 1934. That was a lot more back then, when a new firearm ran like $5. (adjusted for inflation, it’s like $3,400 in today’s dollars).

  7. avatar gsteele531 says:

    I would think that a pre-silencer, that attaches to the muzzle and directs the first gases into a lower chamber to drop pressure and temperature before they even reach the silencer, would adapt such a device for use with more powerful rounds – perhaps even centerfire. It’s all about the detention of the gases lowering the amplitude of the sound pulse. For any given volume of gas, the pop goes down as the time of release goes up.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Some of the problem with that is substantially reduced projectile velocities.

      Most barrel heating is a result of the friction of the projectile on the rifling lands.

      Removing the ‘push’ of the combustion gasses on the bullet while still engaged on the lands will be like slamming on the brakes on the projectile.

      I do recall, however, that some integrally suppressed firearms do ‘pre-vent’ before the muzzle…

  8. avatar Marauder4 says:

    While I have only a passing knowledge of how suppressors actually work, this raises the question of things like sacrificial internals to larger calibers. I mean, how many rounds a year total would your average shooter put through is cans? What about, say, a single sized outer shell, and sacrificial innards for different calibers? How long can the polymer stand up?

    Interesting to be sure, if it’ll fly…

    1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

      If HPA passes, sacrificial, inexpensive, and easily-end-user-swappable internals could become a reality.

    2. avatar c4v3man says:

      Well the ATF does consider things like rubber washers (I mean wipes, sorry… gotta come up with a scary term that makes an identical product that’s sold at home depot illegal to sell to a gun owner) suppressor parts, so depending on the way the HPA is passed, it could require a background check each time you buy new “sacrificial” internals.

      The real boon to the industry will be integrally suppressed rifles, especially 22’s. Why not have a 10″ rifled barrel, with a 6″ permanently attached cheap suppressor, that doesn’t require a SBR tax stamp. Just like the original Sig MPX design with integrated muzzle break/suppressor core, those will sell very well if/when the HPA passes. A $400 10/22 breakdown integrally suppressed would make a hell of a training gun for new shooters.

  9. avatar Brassporkchop says:

    Damn I was really looking forward to getting a 22 revolver and now cool things like this comes out which makes me seriously reconsider a semi automatic.

  10. avatar George S Young says:

    Low to mid 80’s?? BS! There is no .22 LR suppressor on the market that can do that… A bolt falling on an empty Ruger .22 pistol or rifle is around 115 to 119 and you can always hear a little bit of muzzle puff. Watch the videos at Silencer Shop and on YouTube. Agreed when you move 10 to 20 yards away you will probably not hear anything except for bullet impact and mechanical noise, but there are no near the muzzle readings of lo to mid 80’s anywhere.
    I’ve been selling suppressors for 37 years and I can say you will definitely get what you pay for. And the HPA is not going to make quality suppressor companies start giving away their products. In fact, when and if the HPA ever passes and is implemented you are going to have a hard time buying anything with the glut there will be on suppressor sales… to say nothing of trying to get any pistons muzzle adapters. Remember the difficulty finding the suppressor or adapters you wanted before the whole Trust thing ended? The HPA will make that seem like the good old days… and then later on it will be an absolutely awesome thing… until the liberals vote it out or executive order it away… I would pay the $200 now, get a quality can while they are now readily available and isn’t it a part of the HPA that you will get your $200 back?

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      As to your last sentence, I wouldn’t call anything I had to wait at least nine months to get “readily available.” Also, I wouldn’t be so sure the that the tax refund will get through.

    2. avatar gsteele531 says:

      What percentage of the shooting public now owns silencers, given the $200 entry fee and the high cost? Now – absent the $200 entry fee, and competition opening up (Beta was better than VHS – but VHS won) with less effective but much less expensive cans, what percentage is likely to own one? Now – once the volume explodes, what makes you think that volume economy of scale will not apply to bring down the retail cost for this item, unlike all the other items for which it HAS brought down the cost? In Europe, they are routinely less than $100 – and few Europeans own guns; this is a HUGE market by comparison. My sense of the market is that they will be under $50 in short order – as they should be (for Yugos). Those who want to burn money, just as Ferrari owners do, are free to buy the exotica; but the mass market? Nuh-uh. Finally, if you think the government is going to give back the $200, given that it has already been spent by the BATFE, you need to stop smoking the end of your suppressor . . .

      1. avatar George S Young says:

        I’ll bet most members if the shooting public spend more on beer, Patron, weed and Netflix a year than the cost of a nice stainless or titanium baffle can and the $200 stamp. I think many of you are simply going to miss the boat if you are waiting on the HPA to pass and be implemented… and I’m all in favor of the HPA and repealing the illegal Hughes amendment (no post 86 fun guns). And you have to wait 8-10 months? Ridiculous yes, but get on it now… get on it five times and get everything you need before something happens to our top two leaders, or the next Senate/House elections… or whatever… and you wake up with Samantha Bee as President.
        Where do I get the money to pay for these tubes of aluminum, steel and titanium and the $200 fee (before I got my SOT Class 3). I worked and saved and didn’t blow it all up my nose or getting a new CR-250 every year or jetskiing in Hawaii every year. It’s a matter of a work ethic and some financial planning.
        Unregistered solvent traps and oil filter suppressors or even a 2 Liter plastic soda bottle, once it’s taped to your muzzle all work and will all get you a felony so bad you will wish for the day you could have paid a $200 tax and waited 10 months…
        Many of you will be on this and other blogs a year from now still bitching about the ATF when we live in a country where you can actually buy the damn things by jumping through some hoops… yeah, yeah, yeah… they are easy to buy in Europe and New Zealand, but I don’t think you can easily keep a Sig handgun or a Bushmaster AR in your house…. I still like living here.

        1. avatar MeRp says:

          I don’t spend enough on “beer, Patron, weed and Netflix” in a year to pay for the tax stamp, much less the silencer to go with it….

          I’m sure there are certain types of gun owners who do spend lots of money on such things. But, just as certainly, there are those of us who do not. Everyone’s point, every single one, is that there are different types of people who like guns. Many, or even most, would benefit from, and like to have, silencers for their guns. Not all of them want or need the premium ultra-special titanium weightless super edition silencer. Some of us could live with a steel, polymer, and/or aluminum model priced to be disposable and/or with baffles that were priced to be disposable. With NFA regs on silencers in place that is simply not possible; almost nothing the size of a silencer is priced to be disposable as long as you tack $200 onto the price. If the HPA (or something like it) passes, then things can start to be priced to be disposable. The manufacturers of the premium style silencers can still, potentially sell them, but it also opens up a commodity style market for silencers. When people say it will bring the prices of silencers down this si what they are talking about; of course there will be market instability as things right size for the new reality, but once all the dust settles, if silencers end up delisted from NFA or somehow no longer require wait period + tax stamp, then eventually the market WILL correct itself and there will be silencers that do the job, but are priced as an accessory, rather than as a highly-regulated special taxed semi-custom luxury item.

        2. avatar George S Young says:

          I maintain that you get what you pay for, And who wants a cheap, disposable silencer when the rules governing all of these things could change with the next Presidential/Congressional election(s)? I doubt that the government will ever go backwards on suppressor ownership but there is always the chance that future sales will either stay highly regulated or outlawed entirely. I’m truly sorry that you can’t raise the money for a decent suppressor. Maybe less time on the phone or computer visiting wishful blogs and go get that second job. I had three additional jobs while working full time as a firefighter and raising four kids as a single dad. I hunted and fished for a lot of our food… driving cab and cooking fast food are not jobs that are beneath me.

    3. avatar Ian says:

      I have seen the “you’ll get your $200 back” statement from a lot of people, but my understanding is that you will get a TAX CREDIT for it, not a refund. I’m in agreement with gsteele, pretty sure there’s no way in hell the ATF would give that money back.

      1. avatar George S Young says:

        I haven’t fully read the proposed HPA, just going by what the summaries of the bill say. And who really cares anyway? If you can’t afford $200 for the stamp then you probably can’t afford a Rugged Surge or a Gemtech One or anything else with quality.. sometimes we just have to prioritize our spending…..
        And I would take a tax credit, after all it’s a dollar for dollar credit against your taxes and I pay plenty of Federal Tax every year…

  11. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    Too bad I won’t be doing any shooting “from more than a few yards away.”

  12. avatar LGonTTAC says:

    We all know that MKS Supply is associated with Hi-Point, no?

    Innovators in the BUDGET game!

  13. avatar Ian says:

    It always bothers me when people throw around the <$100 suppressors available over the counter in Europe and elsewhere. While I agree that can prices are probably a bit inflated, my understanding is that most of these cheap cans that are available are DISPOSABLE, and not intended to last for tens of thousands of rounds like most of the cans on the American market. While I agree that cheap "disposable" cans will probably be a big deal if the HPA passes (more and more dubious that it will ), there will still be a market for the currently produced quality level of cans. I have purchased two recently and see them as buy once cry once purchases.

    1. avatar George S Young says:

      I totally agree with your reasoning!

  14. avatar jimmy james says:

    And when I can buy one over the counter without a $200 tax stamp, I’ll take 2 please and thank you. I have an NFA trust but not putting up with fed gov BS and red tape over a f#cking piece of pipe with some baffles in it.

  15. avatar TommyJay says:

    The manufacturer’s ads do not say “injection molded” anywhere, that I can find. From the picture it looks like the one piece baffle could be machined pretty easily from round bar stock. If so, that would justify the price point a bit.

    While I am not an expert, injection molded plastics are not particularly high temperature resistant. Some bar stock plastics are pretty good in that aspect, however. Vespel (DuPont trademark) or polyimide can handle hot temps very well.

    1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

      Alternatively, one could read the entire press release 😛 …

      Facts concerning this suppressor: Polymer baffles have less inherent harmonic metallic resonance than metal and they are produced using injection molding rather than with much more costly metal machining.

      Or assist one’s finding capabilities with a Control+F for “injection” or something haha

      BTW both Vespel and polyimide are thermoplastics that are suitable to injection molding. I’m not aware of a strength or temp advantage to machining something from a plastic extrusion vs. making it via an injection mold and I’m not sure if many plastics exist that can be extruded yet not injection molded. I’d understand more if you were talking about machining the baffles from something like a glass/carbon/fiber-reinforced resin/epoxy laminate bar. Maybe from a phenolic rod or something. But if you’re going to machine it, it may as well be aluminum. Injection molding is where the per-unit cost savings are, in both time and materials. Maybe you could do MIM.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email