Official Rokslide Group Buy - Unknown Suppressors OG-6S

[knuckleball]

DM sent! This is going to be my first suppressor, now I just need to buy a gun to put it on. Thank You for the 20% off!

 

[ArmedInMD]

@Formidilosus with video 2456 is the end the dry firing that was showing around 126-128? I thought so but then thought I heard some shot echo in the background.

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus with video 2456 is the end the dry firing that was showing around 126-128? I thought so but then thought I heard some shot echo in the background.

Correct- dry fire only. At 6” from shooters right ear, it is 119-124 dB(A) depending on rifle.

Port pop on an AR is 143+ dB no matter what someone does. Really interesting that some are advertising sub 128 dB(A) at right ear on an AR….. the action cycling is louder than that.

 

[Flymost]

So…. I’m so wanting to sign up for one but torn between this and a nano. Anyone have any insight that I may not have considered? It’ll go on a 22” 22 arc so the extra couple ounces will be offset by the 1” shorter on a relatively long setup.

 

[Huntnpack 2]

Quote : “Also, at the end there is something interesting to compare dry fire dB to some claimed suppressor numbers…”

After Hearing that testing sequence in the video/audio posted above, and seeing the shot to shot spreads, it for sure highlights the
question of how accurate / reliable / repeatable are current tested db numbers across manufacturers & their advertised numbers listed in their product descriptions.

I think until we see some standardized method if that is even possible, there are just waaay too many variables affecting the numbers that actually matter regarding hearing loss/damage.

We consumers are still susceptible to marketing claims, features, price, availability, pier pressure,
Individual importance, experience, perception, exposure, etc.

Maybe Tone matters most. ?

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Quote : “Also, at the end there is something interesting to compare dry fire dB to some claimed suppressor numbers…”

After Hearing that testing sequence in the video/audio posted above, and seeing the shot to shot spreads, it for sure highlights the
question of how accurate / reliable / repeatable are current tested db numbers across manufacturers & their advertised numbers listed in their product descriptions.

I think until we see some standardized method if that is even possible, there are just waaay too many variables affecting the numbers that actually matter regarding hearing loss/damage.

We consumers are still susceptible to marketing claims, features, price, availability, pier pressure,
Individual importance, experience, perception, exposure, etc.

Maybe Tone matters most. ?

It’s not a musical instrument. It’s a suppressor. The only thing that matters is how much suppression/hearing protection you get for a given cost in durability, length, weight, and diameter.

I agree that the industry badly needs to use the SAAMI sound standard. While that isn’t perfect, it should provide reasonably repeatable results.

 

[ArmedInMD]

Correct- dry fire only. At 6” from shooters right ear, it is 119-124 dB(A) depending on rifle.

Port pop on an AR is 143+ dB no matter what someone does. Really interesting that some are advertising sub 128 dB(A) at right ear on an AR….. the action cycling is louder than that.

Thank you for clarifying that, I have spotted some of those lower dB numbers. Also realizing that listening to the suppressors on my computer was not the most accurate way to compare them after having trouble telling difference between shot or not shot in your video.

 

[Formidilosus]

Quote : “Also, at the end there is something interesting to compare dry fire dB to some claimed suppressor numbers…”

After Hearing that testing sequence in the video/audio posted above, and seeing the shot to shot spreads, it for sure highlights the
question of how accurate / reliable / repeatable are current tested db numbers across manufacturers & their advertised numbers listed in their product descriptions.

Functionally none- especially when advertised below about 130 dB. Without a Pulse system, it’s all just “about” numbers. The sample rate is just too low to get the real peak- for instance, you’ll be shooting a string of shots, and the quietest to your ears- noticeably, will then meter 3-5 dB higher.

I think until we see some standardized method if that is even possible, there are just waaay too many variables affecting the numbers that actually matter regarding hearing loss/damage.

The Pulse that TBAC uses is the answer currently. What manufactured aught to be doing is acknowledging the limit of the current meters that almost everyone is using, and be REAK, REAL careful advertising numbers that seem to be too good to be true.

We consumers are still susceptible to marketing claims, features, price, availability, pier pressure,
Individual importance, experience, perception, exposure, etc.

Correct. Which is why from the beginning of my posting on this forum I have stated that manufacturers lie, or are ignorant- often intentionally so, and once a can is safely in the mid 130’s- far more things really matter more.

Maybe Tone matters most. ?

Different damage with different “frequency” ranges are known- especially outside the US. Pretty much only the US consumer believes that cans don’t sound different, and that that different sound doesn’t mean anything. Mostly this is because US consumers have such little experience with cans, and ALL the advertising has always been trying to one up everyone else with a dB number- that they don’t even know is real.

 

[Formidilosus]

It’s not a musical instrument. It’s a suppressor. The only thing that matters is how much suppression/hearing protection you get for a given cost in durability, length, weight, and diameter.

That is not correct. There are frequency ranges that cause no damage at 145dB, and there are ranges that cause damage at 135dB. It does matter.

 

[Formidilosus]

Thank you for clarifying that, I have spotted some of those lower dB numbers. Also realizing that listening to the suppressors on my computer was not the most accurate way to compare them after having trouble telling difference between shot or not shot in your video.

Yeah man- phones and computers distort and adjust the sound. Higher pitched sounds get artificially adjusted down, lower deeper pitches get left or even increased. Listening from a computer or phone is 100% worthless and tells you nothing.

 

[Huntnpack 2]

It’s not a musical instrument. It’s a suppressor. The only thing that matters is how much suppression/hearing protection you get for a given cost in durability, length, weight, and diameter.

I agree that the industry badly needs to use the SAAMI sound standard. While that isn’t perfect, it should provide reasonably repeatable results.

Exactly….. my point . Consumer is susceptible to getting hung up on intangibles rather than tangible

 

[Q_Sertorius]

That is not correct. There are frequency ranges that cause no damage at 145dB, and there are ranges that cause damage at 135dB. It does matter.

That’s why the SAAMI standard measures all the sound.

Edit - in contrast to nearly every manufacturer who lists the A weighting.

 

[rbutcher1234]

Will this have the same rear dimension requirements like the OG65? 0.750 diameter at muzzle, tapering to above 0.8”+ at the rear of the can?

Edit: looked and found asset appears to be yes.

 

[Bluefish]

Yeah man- phones and computers distort and adjust the sound. Higher pitched sounds get artificially adjusted down, lower deeper pitches get left or even increased. Listening from a computer or phone is 100% worthless and tells you nothing.

You are so right on this. Even 15 years ago there was little data on gunshot noise as most people didn’t have the equipment to measure impulse noise. Even if they had the equipment, it wasn’t important to study. Guns were loud and caused damage to hearing, end of story. It takes correct microphones and data acquisition with a fast enough sample rate to truly capture what’s going on. Normal sound meters and microphones are not designed to capture loud sounds.

The older studies relied on animal testing to determine damage. Turns out cats ears are a decent analog of a human ear.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Exactly….. my point . Consumer is susceptible to getting hung up on intangibles rather than tangible

The industry intentionally misleads the consumer by using the dbA measurements and inconsistent setups.

The SAAMI standard has been published long enough that anyone who is publishing numbers that aren’t measured in accordance with it is suspect to me. In other words, I don’t believe anyone’s self-published numbers and the only numbers I halfway trust are the TBAC summit numbers. They at least use the same setup and publish the unweighted values.

 

[Salmon River Solutions]

I found out that if you dip the mic in water before testing sound levels it meters substantially better. Obviously you should post those numbers cause they are way better right?

Even better probably if you cover the mic in something like peanut butter. Suddenly you're running 110 decibels on an AR. Port pop? Nah.

Joking aside, larger sample sizes are needed for a better average. What Form is doing is inherently better than what 95% of the industry does, guaranteed.

Ken

 

[Bluefish]

I found out that if you dip the mic in water before testing sound levels it meters substantially better. Obviously you should post those numbers cause they are way better right?

Even better probably if you cover the mic in something like peanut butter. Suddenly you're running 110 decibels on an AR. Port pop? Nah.

Joking aside, larger sample sizes are needed for a better average. What Form is doing is inherently better than what 95% of the industry does, guaranteed.

Ken

Reminds me of a friend who has a 83 corvette he swapped a 383 in that makes 450 to the ground. He has to run one of those recorder things for insurance and he drives like he stole it. Fix was to place the recorder into a tub of glycerine, damped the acceleration enough so it didn’t report his spirited driving. Always a way to distort the truth.