Air Lock Industries Suppressor

Why? Cant imagine it'd make a huge difference and you probably get additional back pressure and less flexibility as built in down sides.
Im ignorant with cans still, so excuse me. Lol.


I thought a suppressor works better/more efficient if you match the diameter of the can to the caliber?
 
Im ignorant with cans still, so excuse me. Lol.


I thought a suppressor works better/more efficient if you match the diameter of the can to the caliber?
It definitely does make a big difference and when you’re talking about shaving as much weight and length as possible a tighter bore will definitely help .
 
Im ignorant with cans still, so excuse me. Lol.

I thought a suppressor works better/more efficient if you match the diameter of the can to the caliber?

I'm sure there's some truth to that and it probably varies by can.

TBAC used to have an ultra 7 223 can but found zero performance benefits compared to their 6.5 bore of the same so that's at least one case of the juice not being worth the squeeze. 6.5 is already a tighter bore than a standard 30 cal. So maybe the 6mm version could be incrementally better but maybe not a huge improvement over 6.5 bore unless other things are tweaked as well? The below is a snip from TBAC's website.

1756233160934.png
 
I don’t think 20” is standard for 6.5 cm . In his testing he has used other silencers like the Sico harvester evo side by side to give a baseline .
Where is the information listed about the testing protocol with these side-by-side tests?

There is no "standard barrel length for 6.5 CM" or any other caliber - at least not explicitly in any kind of nonexistent industry regulations - but there are commonly accepted standards in the industry as used at the TBAC Summit and by Pew Science.

Part of the issue with shopping for a suppressor is the lack of well-defined industry standards and the difficulty of conducting sound tests - as Unknown Suppressors has repeatedly explained - but there are clear military standards and testing setups out there which manufacturers could choose to follow. Results can vary day-to-day based on environmental conditions. So the instant someone starts to take measures that look to me like they are trying to get away from the most common test setups - using a common .308 round (e.g. M118LR) in a 20" barrel - I get really suspicious. Maybe it doesn't actually amount to a measurable difference, but it bothers me that they chose to use a longer barrel and an unspecified round. I am going to assume that many manufacturers will try to put forward the best possible verifiable data, but I least want the starting point for the test to be as close as possible so I have some idea how something really compares.

The other measurables look really attractive.
 

Attachments

  • 1756233224410.png
    1756233224410.png
    93.2 KB · Views: 32
Where is the information listed about the testing protocol with these side-by-side tests?

There is no "standard barrel length for 6.5 CM" or any other caliber - at least not explicitly in any kind of nonexistent industry regulations - but there are commonly accepted standards in the industry as used at the TBAC Summit and by Pew Science.

Part of the issue with shopping for a suppressor is the lack of well-defined industry standards and the difficulty of conducting sound tests - as Unknown Suppressors has repeatedly explained - but there are clear military standards and testing setups out there which manufacturers could choose to follow. Results can vary day-to-day based on environmental conditions. So the instant someone starts to take measures that look to me like they are trying to get away from the most common test setups - using a common .308 round (e.g. M118LR) in a 20" barrel - I get really suspicious. Maybe it doesn't actually amount to a measurable difference, but it bothers me that they chose to use a longer barrel and an unspecified round. I am going to assume that many manufacturers will try to put forward the best possible verifiable data, but I least want the starting point for the test to be as close as possible so I have some idea how something really compares.

The other measurables look really attractive.
By “standard for 6.5cm “ I mean you’ll find a lot more 22”-24” 6.5cm rifles in the wild than 20” . Either way the guy just used what he had on hand .
 
Part of the issue with shopping for a suppressor is the lack of well-defined industry standards and the difficulty of conducting sound tests - as Unknown Suppressors has repeatedly explained - but there are clear military standards and testing setups out there which manufacturers could choose to follow. Results can vary day-to-day based on environmental conditions. So the instant someone starts to take measures that look to me like they are trying to get away from the most common test setups - using a common .308 round (e.g. M118LR) in a 20" barrel - I get really suspicious. Maybe it doesn't actually amount to a measurable difference, but it bothers me that they chose to use a longer barrel and an unspecified round. I am going to assume that many manufacturers will try to put forward the best possible verifiable data, but I least want the starting point for the test to be as close as possible so I have some idea how something really compares.

It might not be deception, but simply an oversight not to include the round used on the Air Lock website.

I'd be less concerned regarding 20" vs 22", or the round used, and more concerned trying to compare results from different people with different equipment, even if a standardized test was followed.

Without your own test equipment, someone like Pew Guy might be your best bet for consistent method and equipment. I find him a bit annoying to listen to, but have not heard anything incorrect from him regarding acoustics, at least in the few podcasts that I have listened to.
 
Im ignorant with cans still, so excuse me. Lol.


I thought a suppressor works better/more efficient if you match the diameter of the can to the caliber?
Slightly. The test data from AB shows 3-5 db less with a matched bore vs larger bore. They have a YouTube video showing the testing. Most people can’t tell a difference of less than 3db. Ears are simply not that sensitive, especially for impulse noise.
 
Slightly. The test data from AB shows 3-5 db less with a matched bore vs larger bore. They have a YouTube video showing the testing. Most people can’t tell a difference of less than 3db. Ears are simply not that sensitive, especially for impulse noise.


Muzzle forward or reflex can?
 
Muzzle forward
. They compare a 22 cal with 30 cal and a 30 cal with 22 endcap.


this is what should have stood out-
IMG_0427.jpeg


The AB Raptor 8 is a great can- it however is not producing 123dB at shooters ear or the muzzle on a 16” 223. So the question there is- where was the microphone?
 
The reason i ask is 127 Dba at shooters ear didn't seem out of question with the 30 cal bore/end cap. The difference for the 223 bore is huge though.

127dBA is close enough to where it should be that it isn’t surprising IIRC the Raptor 8 30cal on 20” 223’s was around 130 or so dBA from what I have seen. The issue, is 123 isn’t. Not close. I’ve seen the Raptor 8 in almost every configuration shot over calibrated sound meters way before US started, and have never seen a 123db. That is at, or below the functional limit for massive 338 size cans on 223’s. The only way that is functionally possible, is if they had oil or solvent in the can- then you can get some 124’s. 223 through 30cal is also the worst possible case- 6mm causes even less difference, and by 6.5mm there is almost none.

That 1.4 dBA difference between 30cal end cap and 223 end cap- that is about what should be expected for smaller calls through larger bored cans.


All of that does not seem to be the case for OTB cans, with OTB there can be 2-5 dBA differences from 22 to 30 cal bored cans.
 
My question for Form is simple: what do you think of this can’s design and potential?


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”
 
this is what should have stood out-
View attachment 927047


The AB Raptor 8 is a great can- it however is not producing 123dB at shooters ear or the muzzle on a 16” 223. So the question there is- where was the microphone?

In an older video he showed how they upgraded to a B&K analyzer from an SLM. The video posted by Bluefish was done with the SLM. At that time, it sounds like they put the SLM "mid-gun" due to issues. You can see it strapped down to a block in the video, and wobbling around during firing, probably on the shooting bench. Not sure how much offset.
 
My question for Form is simple: what do you think of this can’s design and potential?


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”


Haha.

I am highly skeptical of 4.3” long suppressor (actual MF length) and 130dBA.- that’s an AB Raptor 8, one of the best near 7” long cans.
Not even due to any purposeful deceit, but just taking new can out of printing, flushing it and then shooting it causes it to be much lower dB than it really is due to residual fluid left inside until it completely burns off.
As an example, doing the same to an OG variation the other day, it showed multiple 123 and 124dBA readings, and then slowly creeped back up after 15-20 shots to where it really is.

As well, there will be actual cartridge and barrel length restrictions on a 1.7” diameter sub 6oz can.
 
Back
Top