Clarification of Dry Fire #'s

[kopmantrey]

So, you are trying to do the same thing by using a wildly wrong number?


It's in several posts around the forum that a dry fire is in the 120 range. I'm just trying to figure out where it's all coming from.



Are you believing that 120 is actually correct?

Wasn't the dry fire video form posted shooters ear numbers? How is it not apples to apples? Is that not what most published suppressor numbers are? I have no dog in this fight I'm just a little confused with the argument.

 

[Formidilosus]

uh oh....

Form can't gaslight his way out of this one....

Let's see if he breaks down and says he is wrong. Because we all know he is.

You really are this obtuse huh? I haven’t had anything to do with you or your cans since our last exchange. I asked you an honest question in this thread- and then you proceeded to word vomit utter nonsense.

Say what you want- at least I know enough about cans, to know what port pop on an AR is, that no can meters under 140’ish dB at SE from an AR, and I’m not so egotistical and ignorant to not go look it up when it was pointed out to me. Every one can go read that exchange.


So that people can see clearly the exchange, and also see that in no way did I attack you here are the screen shots from the very first time I ever engaged with you:

Your post with 133 at ear on an AR:



My question to you about a 123 dB number and the shooters ear number on an AR-



Your response trying to claim that you can get low 130’s at SE on an AR-



My response- feel free to state where you believe I was rude, shitty, or anything other than asking legitimate questions. At this point I just pointed at that port pop ain’t 133, and super sonic 308 isn’t 123dB.



After some more “well that’s what mic said”, I did point out, or try to the reality of the numbers you were/claiming. It’s like stating your 30/30 with 170gr bullets is 6,000fps MV because a meter said it was- and then continuing to double and triple down on it.







This is you not acknowledging anything, and just saying that you stand behind the methodology and the results.




I did not respond to you after this. I asked questions from a company that I knew nothing about, that was stating numbers that are ridiculous. I was not trolling, I was not arguing to argue, I was not shitty. I never engaged with you again- until you posted nonsense like you did in this thread.



Btw- why didn’t you get mad at this person that stated your readings were artificially low?





Are you also this butthurt by Ryan’s videos showing your cans not metering what you stated either?

I don’t lie about what you have done, or try to do. Please feel free to go look at and show dB numbers that I have shown in videos that you believe are wildly inaccurate? Also be sure to quote in those every time I have stated that the dB’s shown are at best approximate, and for reference.

I have never stated that any numbers I have shown are to be taken as gospel, or anything close to it. I literally started videoing with a meter because of people calling BS, or companies bullshitting the consumer with absolute nonsense.

 

[TandKHunting]

@Formidilosus

2nd time you have brought all these old threads up in a massive post lol. And who has time to do this in a post? Good lord man, you need more hobbies. We have a new video up with all the metering on video. Yes, with port pop and all.

Go check it out so you can stop bringing up stuff that was fixed months ago. It was wrong. We fixed it. And now we meter better than you because of you. So you did something good there. You can learn from this Form. We all make mistakes on things we say and do. You just man up, say you were wrong, and fix them. It's not hard. I know you can do it.

At this point, you are beating a dead horse, but it's enjoyable thinking of the steam coming out of your ears as you spent an hour putting that post together.

Also, I only acknowledge you because people send me messages about you...then I come on here and get under your skin for a bit. Then I will prolly leave Rokslide for another few weeks.

 

[Billy Goat]

Wasn't the dry fire video form posted shooters ear numbers? How is it not apples to apples? Is that not what most published suppressor numbers are? I have no dog in this fight I'm just a little confused with the argument.

Because if a device is located 4 times closer to one thing than another, and you are trying to compare those too metered items directly, its apples to orangutans.


Measure both those items at the same distance.

I am confused by what you are meaning/asking.

You are seemingly trying to discredit something by stating something that seems just as wildly out of place.

For at least the third time- I do not know if 120 is correct for dry fire.

In all seriousness, if you don't know it, why keep saying it then?

 

[HuntHarder]

Looks like a bunch of amateurs with meters, throwing around #'s that they can't confirm.

I have said it before tho, the best thing we have in this dog shit testing scenario is head to head metering vs. different cans.

Pew science and Tbac summit are really the only way we get accurate or close to accurate testing, in a somewhat controlled environment.

 

[TandKHunting]

Looks like a bunch of amateurs with meters, throwing around #'s that they can't confirm.

I have said it before tho, the best thing we have in this dog shit testing scenario is head to head metering vs. different cans.

Pew science and Tbac summit are really the only way we get accurate or close to accurate testing, in a somewhat controlled environment.

Agreed. After PEW Science we won't be doing shit with metering from a marketing stand point. We have learned a good bit over the past few months on how to correctly orientate, capture, and when to meter (prime atmospheric conditions), but at the end of the day....3rd party verification is the only way to go. Impulse systems are needed for accurate suppressor data. Comparing cans on a meter doesn't even prove anything because things like FRP, impulse, gas management, and more need to be evaluated when comparing one suppressor to another. A single dB number is not the end of the story. The more you research performance data...the more you will see that suppressor performance is complex with a laundry list of data points that matter.

A can may seem louder, but expose the user to less peak dB's within the shot sequence. Suppressor A has better impulse control creating elongated and deep tones versus sharp and fast energy dumps, resulting in a sharp tone with less gas staging and control. I think the biggest challenge is PEW Science can take a while, and Silencer Summit only occurs once a year. So in between those...we just try our best with what we have.

Why PEW is great is because the best average at ear or muzzle doesn't win. The best all around wins. Ear and muzzle dB numbers, impulse, gas staging, gas behavior, first round pop mitigation, shot sequence variation, etc. That's how the composite score is determined. And that's why it's the best standard. PEW Science rewards engineering. And the best engineered suppressors do everything well. Not just one or two things.

That's why the top 10 suppressors on .308, 300 subs, 5.56 etc. on PEW Science should be applauded. Those are truly the highest levels of engineering.

 

[Formidilosus]

Because if a device is located 4 times closer to one thing than another, and you are trying to compare those too metered items directly, its apples to orangutans.


Measure both those items at the same distance.




You are seemingly trying to discredit something by stating something that seems just as wildly out of place.

No. I’m pointing out that almost across the board- low 120’s dB at ear from super sonic rounds is bullshit. This can’t be stated any clearer. You can look at TBAC’s data and see that super sonic rounds are not breaking 125 dB at SE very often. When they do, they aren’t 4”-6” muzzle forward cans.

In all seriousness, if you don't know it, why keep saying it then?

Legit asking- are you just trolling?

Saying I don’t know that dry fire is 120 doesn’t mean it’s completely out of reality. I don’t know if it is exactly 120, or 117, or 121. It is certainly not 60 dB.

At ear- means AT EAR. It doesn’t matter how far away the muzzle is- the only thing that matters is what sound is hitting your ear.

Sub sonic is in the 115 to mid 120’s dB SE range. Regardless of where the sound originates, you can hear the firing pin fall- literally with good cans it’s the loudest part of the shot until the bullet hits.

Here’s TBAC’s 2025 results. This is a bolt action 300 blackout subsonic- remember the firing pin is as loud as the shot in good cans.



The best is 117 dB SE, the top 6 are all 120-124 dB SE. hmmm. Seems to line up with what I have been saying for a few years here.

Here’s the giant 338 cans on that same 16” barreled 300bo, and subs. Same 117-127 dB SE.



The quietest 308 can this past year was 130 dB SE. the quietest from 2024 in 308 was 129 dB SE. the quietest in 2023 was 127 dB SE with MONSTER 30 cal cans. And don’t look at what 300 BO subsonic is from an AR at SE, I mean I wonder what would be causing mid 140’s from subsonic AR’s…..

It’s almost like something is driving the low limit sub sonic bolt action to 117+/- dB SE…. And the lower limit super sonic rounds to high 120’s to 130 dB SE…. I wonder what those reasons could be?

Now, I am may be ignorant, or an idiot as some are saying. That’s possible. But then, TBAC and every legitimate test organization is too. Because there are no low 120 dB SE supersonic cans. And the lower limit for subs is nearly 120 dB…. Even though you can hear the firing pin fall.

 

[Billy Goat]

Legit asking- are you just trolling?

No.

I don't think its hard to understand why someone can be confused by the idea that a firing pin is reported to be as loud as a chainsaw or a jack hammer.

At ear- means AT EAR. It doesn’t matter how far away the muzzle is- the only thing that matters is what sound is hitting your ear.

I don't know if that's exactly true. If something is closer, that is causing the microphone to pickup on it is skewing the results of the test, or the perception of what the test is supposed to be. At short distances, inches, db can change pretty fast.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

No.

I don't think its hard to understand why someone can be confused by the idea that a firing pin is reported to be as loud as a chainsaw or a jack hammer.




I don't know if that's exactly true. If something is closer, that is causing the microphone to pickup on it is skewing the results of the test, or the perception of what the test is supposed to be. At short distances, inches, db can change pretty fast.

You can see where the microphone is located in the videos he posted. As far as I can tell, it’s in the right spot and orientation. To me, those videos just show that for that sound duration and intensity, that meter is completely useless.

 

[IdahoHntr]

Form, you keep holding onto the idea that our company thinks the VORIX is low 120's dB SE on supers. We already told you that data was corrupted. We don't know how or why it showed those numbers, but it did. At the time, we believed them to be correct because that's literally what the meter showed. After many more weeks of testing they were not correct. We corrected the information and now have more accurate data on our website until PEW drops. We even had that corrected information before Ryan tested our cans, so your perception that I was butthurt is incorrect. In fact, the data he collected was already known by us internally.

You firmly stated we were either being misleading (which is defamatory) or didn't know what we were doing (which is not true). We had the mic orientated correctly and literally showed video of the meter collecting data 6 inches from the shooter's ear.

Our numbers are actually higher than Ryan's because we are capturing LZpeak at a faster rate and orientated the mic pointing toward the source instead of vertical.

The lowball shots referencing data we fixed is getting really old. You need to stop doing that. In turn, I will stop interacting with you.

And I don't think anyone thinks you are an idiot. You just can't talk to people worth a damn. You come off rude as hell, aggressive, and slightly keyboard warrior like. My first interaction with you was nothing but negative. I literally immediately didn't like you after our first interaction. I don't want to feel that way about anyone on here, but that was my immediate perception based on how you treated me. Accusing me of being misleading and/or incompetent. Maybe, just maybe, you could have sent a message and helped me? Because I don't claim to know everything. And guess what? 7 years of doing business....I'm wrong a lot. I'm also a leader. I accept feedback from my employees. I accept feedback from strangers. Hell, one guy, which you posted, said to orientate the mic differently...and I did it.

If I talked to my employees when they needed correction the way you do to people on here? I wouldn't have any employees left. It's okay to address things that you feel are not correct. Just use some tact and respect. You would be surprised at what you receive back.

I have met many Rok Sliders on here at trade shows. Shook their hands, laughed with them, chewed the fat, etc. I like almost everyone I come into contact with, and maybe some of the people on here can vouch on how I treat them in person. You get a lot of push back because of how you interact with people here. Maybe try approaching things differently and maybe...just maybe...people will challenge you less. Just some food for thought.

He’s not replying to you or talking about you… You don’t have to keep making it about you. You aren’t helping here. You make the same post over and over and aren’t even talking about the question. Move along, let the actual question get answered.

I don't know if that's exactly true. If something is closer, that is causing the microphone to pickup on it is skewing the results of the test, or the perception of what the test is supposed to be. At short distances, inches, db can change pretty fast.

Shooters ear is shooters ear. There is no distance difference. If he was comparing muzzle numbers to shooters ear then maybe your theory would have some merit, but he is just comparing what the meter says at shooters ear.

The takeaway really should just be that meters aren’t great, especially under certain thresholds. Decibel numbers don’t mean a whole lot, again, especially under certain thresholds. And the best way to compare suppressor data is comparison data (x is quieter than y).

 

[Billy Goat]

Shooters ear is shooters ear. There is no distance difference. If he was comparing muzzle numbers to shooters ear then maybe your theory would have some merit, but he is just comparing what the meter says at shooters ear.

There's a distance difference when you are using a sound that's 1/4 of the way closer than what you are trying to measure, and say that sound is the same db.

I'm asking if anyone believes that a firing pin is 120 db, because thats what is getting stated several places.

I think you can get one to measure at that, I can use centimeters and get 12 of them, but that doesn't make something a foot long. Means I aint using a tool correctly.


Now, maybe a statement like, something can't meter 117 db because measuring correctly at shooters ear the action will record a 120 db sound at that distance, would be accurate. That I could follow.

 

[Jethro]

I'm asking if anyone believes that a firing pin is 120 db, because thats what is getting stated several places.

I don’t. How could the sound of a firing pin drop be the same as a siren, chainsaw, or shotgun blast?

 

[Formidilosus]

Form, you keep holding onto the idea that our company thinks the VORIX is low 120's dB SE on supers.

I do not care about you or your cans. Nothing you quoted was in reference to you. You are the one that constantly brings up nonsense and talks shit in regards to me.

I hope your cans are awesome and wildly successful. Not everything is about you, and if you stop dragging me into your nonsense, I won’t point out the BS.

 

[Billy Goat]

This is a quick visual of what I'm seeing, from what I found of distance related to db change.




It's not accurate for muzzle blast versus action relationship of distance, but it's showing what can happen.

A sound thats 60" away that meters 120db would meter 132db at 15". And a 120 db at 15" would be 108 at 60".

 

[alexnelon]

This is a quick visual of what I'm seeing, from what I found of distance related to db change.


View attachment 1062158

It's not accurate for muzzle blast versus action relationship of distance, but it's showing what can happen.

A sound thats 60" away that meters 120db would meter 132db at 15". And a 120 db at 15" would be 108 at 60".

You're on the right track, sort of.

Sound decay obeys the inverse square law. Every time you double the distance, pressure decays by ~6dB if there are no reflections or reverberation.

The rocky ground on the side of a mountain is hyper reflective. For the dB reading to be accurate (not just over a certain threshold, but the actual number) it must be recorded with the proper equipment by a professional in a treated environment with a noise floor below ~30dB.

Any readings or reports on impulse noise taken from meters used by uninitiated amateurs in random open environments should be summarily disregarded. They are truly and completely worthless and mean nothing.

 

[BasicUtahrd95]

You're on the right track, sort of.

Sound decay obeys the inverse square law. Every time you double the distance, pressure decays by ~6dB if there are no reflections or reverberation.

The rocky ground on the side of a mountain is hyper reflective. For the dB reading to be accurate (not just over a certain threshold, but the actual number) it must be recorded with the proper equipment by a professional in a treated environment with a noise floor below ~30dB.

Any readings or reports on impulse noise taken from meters used by uninitiated amateurs in random open environments should be summarily disregarded. They are truly and completely worthless and mean nothing.

This makes sense in regards to the actual number on the meter. Is there no value in comparing suppressors against each other in the same environment?

 

[Billy Goat]

This makes sense in regards to the actual number on the meter. Is there no value in comparing suppressors against each other in the same environment?

The question isn't really about comparing a can to a can. I can see some value in saying this can meters this, and this can meters this in these conditions. You aren't saying those numbers are actually accurate, its just under these conditions, this is what the difference of these two are.


But if the number on the on the meter is capturing something that is twice as close as what the meter is designed to be testing at, its gonna skew that in relation to what its measuring at the actual distance its supposed to measure.

I think most are intended to read at a M. So what, 39 1/3 inch? 40 inches makes that number easy to play with. Something that is 20" away for comparison will read 6db higher than what it should, 10" away is going to be 12db greater. So *if a firing pin is 15" away, it might be reading 9 db off. 5" would make it 18db louder.


This isn't making the readings correct. This is just comparison of readings taken at the same time.

 

[Ucsdryder]

The question isn't really about comparing a can to a can. I can see some value in saying this can meters this, and this can meters this in these conditions. You aren't saying those numbers are actually accurate, its just under these conditions, this is what the difference of these two are.


But if the number on the on the meter is capturing something that is twice as close as what the meter is designed to be testing at, its gonna skew that in relation to what its measuring at the actual distance its supposed to measure.

I think most are intended to read at a M. So what, 39 1/3 inch? 40 inches makes that number easy to play with. Something that is 20" away for comparison will read 6db higher than what it should, 10" away is going to be 12db greater. So *if a firing pin is 15" away, it might be reading 9 db off. 5" would make it 18db louder.


This isn't making the readings correct. This is just comparison of readings taken at the same time.

This was well explained. The reality is that it’s been proven over and over again that these meters are easily manipulated by changing the distance, direction, orientation, etc. It is pretty obvious that certain people are manipulating the numbers to further their agenda.

 

[Billy Goat]

This was well explained. The reality is that it’s been proven over and over again that these meters are easily manipulated by changing the distance, direction, orientation, etc. It is pretty obvious that certain people are manipulating the numbers to further their agenda.

I'm just trying to get an understanding of wtf is happening, because it seems 120 would be way off.


I can put the incorrect inputs into a dyno, and get the wrong hp. I can setup my optical chrono wrong and get the wrong fps. Usually, I like to think I know enough to catch a mistake that makes something wildly off, and I wouldn't use that data.

120db on a dry fire seemed wildly off to me. I was asked if I was trolling for asking if that was incorrect? Or for an explanation of it I guess.

At this point I'm just going to conclude that I have figured this out for myself now.

 

[alexnelon]

This makes sense in regards to the actual number on the meter. Is there no value in comparing suppressors against each other in the same environment?

In my opinion, no. Certainly not by metering. Simply hearing them side by side has more value than a number on an instrument being used incorrectly and inconsistently in the wrong environment for an application that was never intended by someone who doesn't know how to use it in the first place.

They're all too loud to shoot safely without plugs/muffs.

They're all quiet enough to shoot safely with plugs/muffs.

The numbers are purely for marketing. They mean nothing. There's no standard, no accountability, no functional difference in actual sound suppression between the quality manufacturers.