Outdoor life suppressor testing

[omicron1792]

Hard to say that airlock didn’t perform well across the board. When you look at their weight and size vs the sound numbers they kicked some butt.

 

[omicron1792]

I like the Tbac summit.

However. It’s hard for me to believe that they aren’t setup for what Tbac knows tests best for their cans.

Third party always the best imo. Even though not perfect, this data matters and is significant.

 

[Firestone]

Hard to say that airlock didn’t perform well across the board. When you look at their weight and size vs the sound numbers they kicked some butt.

Airlock makes a bad ass product

 

[Treelineasassin]

Both the airlocks in the test were mine, I love them, they're great cans. They need to get a braked can to market. It's gonna add a fair amount of weight, but please DON'T time it with shims in an attempt to keep it as light as possible.

 

[Split toe]

Why would you want a company to do their “own” test? Give me a 3rd party, unbiased test. We’ve already heard the “tone” spin.

Exactly. The "tone" nonsense was just straight up comical. It turns out, they just don't meter that well>

 

[AirlockIndustries]

Both the airlocks in the test were mine, I love them, they're great cans. They need to get a braked can to market. It's gonna add a fair amount of weight, but please DON'T time it with shims in an attempt to keep it as light as possible.

We already have a timing system designed that adds little to no weight, is tool-less, and doesn’t involve shims.

 

[Firestone]

The majority of those who have been running a suppressor for multiple years now will agree, this isn’t the answer. Will it sell to first time suppressor buyers and competitive shooters? Absolutely. Is an 8 ounce, 7” suppressor that is not remotely hearing safe what most experienced suppressor owners here out west desire in a their rifle system? No.

No, they are gonna sell like crazy to western hunters and to those that have been running suppressors for multiple years

 

[Huntnpack 2]

Personally I was interested to review this testing & was able to glean some information from the test.
Nothing earth shattering but helped me confirm
my overall goal for my desired next suppressor purchase. I’m on the right track, & plan to wait
for some soon to come products.

Good to have options.

 

[wpeach1912]

Both the airlocks in the test were mine, I love them, they're great cans. They need to get a braked can to market. It's gonna add a fair amount of weight, but please DON'T time it with shims in an attempt to keep it as light as possible.

Idk how well a brake will work on those. It’s not going to be more recoil at least, but reducing recoil with a brake means wider bore and more gas flow to let the brake work which will be detrimental to sound. The SAW Orev w/brake is pretty similar recoil wise to a scythe/recoil x Gen 2 while being significantly lighter and quieter if you’re looking for a good option right now

 

[Ucsdryder]

We already have a timing system designed that adds little to no weight, is tool-less, and doesn’t involve shims.

Well when are we seeing this because I need it’

 

[Treelineasassin]

Idk how well a brake will work on those. It’s not going to be more recoil at least, but reducing recoil with a brake means wider bore and more gas flow to let the brake work which will be detrimental to sound. The SAW Orev w/brake is pretty similar recoil wise to a scythe/recoil x Gen 2 while being significantly lighter and quieter if you’re looking for a good option right now

All the results show a supressor that's 5-7" long saw a 30-35% reduction in sled travel by removing the end cap and installing a recoilX, the shorter than can, generally showed a better increase in travel.

On a precision match rifle, weight isn't a concern. The orev is 7.5oz, gen2 recoilX will make it 11oz.

I'm very interested in the muzzle behavior with thr airlock braked can, I bet it'll be very close to, or actually be hearing safe at the shooters ear.

I had the chance to shoot a few rounds with the tenet cans that day on a 65mm short mag, and it was crazy flat with very little sight picture disturbance in the scope. 3d print titanium with brakes and getting them to hearing safe levels will be the future of supressors.

Once this tech is figured out, shooters will be able to start stepping up in cartridge size without the previous drawbacks that came from the push provided by a can disturbing the sight picture to the point of losing your target.

 

[Sundodger]

It was only a few years ago that there were no cans available that I was interested in for hunting, now in a very short time there are a handful.

I can’t wait to see what’s going to roll out in the next few years,

 

[slim23]

Very cool stuff. So much cool stuff available and on the horizon.

My main gripe with the test is sound readings at muzzle vs shooters ear. Cans will test significantly different based on this metric and some braked cans can perform well at muzzle but shitty at shooters ear which I care about much more. Curious how those tenet cans are at shooters ear.

The reason we tested at muzzle was it was not giving consistent results at the ear as we were testing. to test at the ear we would have had to reshoot every combination off a tripod adding another 650ish rounds to the test. And at the end of the day me and vantage research were paying for the ammo

 

[slim23]

I'm confused at their summary results, why are the Airlock 7mm and Tenet Reserve 6.5 not on the "lightest" results? They're 8.3 and 6.7 oz, that beats out 2+ of the "lightest" ones.

John chose to not highlight each can by a manufacturer but instead showcase multiple ones

 

[slim23]

Suppressor Test 2.0

docs.google.com

 

[slim23]

My take on the test

 

[slim23]

The google sheet is searchable in every metric.
I believe the 3d printed cans are the future and will not be buying welded baffle stack cans. Lighter weight, lower sound, shorter. What's not to like

 

[slim23]

It is very interesting, indeed. I’m going to need some time digesting it. Airlock definitely had a good showing in weight vs sound reduction.

On the recoil testing, especially for the comp cans w/brakes, this limitation in what they measured really sticks out to me:


I’m not sure how you do it, but measuring how well a brake or braked can mitigates muzzle rise seems more important to me than how much it reduces rearward recoil energy. I don’t know how you’d test that in a controlled environment though. And OL specifically flags this limitation in their article.

I really appreciate the work OL put into this and all the companies pushing suppressor technology. This is a great time to be an American.

ETA: this does have me wondering whether to put a recoil x on my original model dead air nomad for NRL Hunter.

We tested with a sensor on the muzzle to track just that. That data is still being processed

 

[slim23]

Did they sponsor this whole testing process? Overall, their cans tested pretty dang good.

I can assure you they did not sponsor the testing. I paid thousands out of my pocket in designing the testing, recoil sled, muzzle sensor....
I had a lot of support from friends who brought cans, donated bullets, brass, loading, time, programing, days of there life. But in the end we done the testing and outdoor life recorded what we did because we wanted a bigger audience that we could provide.
Tenet done very well in the testing and I believe they have a great product that will push others to evolve. We are in a great time of suppressors!

 

[Ucsdryder]

I can assure you they did not sponsor the testing. I paid thousands out of my pocket in designing the testing, recoil sled, muzzle sensor....
I had a lot of support from friends who brought cans, donated bullets, brass, loading, time, programing, days of there life. But in the end we done the testing and outdoor life recorded what we did because we wanted a bigger audience that we could provide.
Tenet done very well in the testing and I believe they have a great product that will push others to evolve. We are in a great time of suppressors!

Thank you for the time, money, and effort.