Outdoor life suppressor testing

[Sundodger]

Some of you guys need to review freshman physics in regard to the tone and decibels thing.

Tone is frequency(s) and decibels is basically an aggregation of the sound power (In this context) across a large range of frequency's. It's more complicated that that, but looking up Bode plot that has frequency on the X axis and Magnitude on the Y axis will help you get in the right place to think about it.

 

[JF_Idaho]

Some of you guys need to review freshman physics in regard to the tone and decibels thing.

Tone is frequency(s) and decibels is basically an aggregation of the sound power (In this context) across a large range of frequency's. It's more complicated that that, but looking up Bode plot that has frequency on the X axis and Magnitude on the Y axis will help you get in the right place to think about it.

What are you trying to point out?

I don't know too much about acoustics. But know enough to know that loudness and perceived loudness are 2 different things. Dependent on frequencies.

So you could have a supressor that "sounds quieter" and "more pleasant" to your ear but is actually louder and causing more hearing damage if not mitigated.

 

[cowboyarcher]

Given the cans at or under 9oz, who would you say the best value goes to? We can argue any specific metric, but cost is certainly a factor for some.

I bought an Enticer S-Ti on sale this year as my first can and am pretty happy to see it performing well given it's price point.

 

[tysonES]

I think at the end of the day this is awesome testing on a huge sampling of cans to evaluate recoil reduction in various configurations. Once you throw a brake on a can your suppression rating really gets thrown out the window and you've sacrificed that for muzzle rise, felt recoil, blast reduction and concussion mitigation.

If anyone is evaluating cans based on peak decibel ratings from any testing or "summit" and using that to evaluate hearing damage potential or "good cans" I'd strongly recommend you go read the silencer sound standard by Pew Science, in the most analytical, scientific way possible he lays out why peak decibels are a nice to have but they don't remotely tell the whole story of what a can will actually do to your ear.

As stated by other users this test really sheds light on the fact that most decent cans with a recoil x will do a damned good job of reducing felt recoil. At that point you can just filter by weight, length, options and then find the one for you.

 

[Bluefish]

AB generally doesn’t publish much on their suppressor testing. No suppression numbers on their website. No third party testing. They just produce good products.

I felt the had quite a bit of testing. They had a bunch of videos, including one showing how different endcaps effect level. I agree they don’t publish numbers on their site.

 

[Treelineasassin]

As far as AB goes, I believe a request was sent to them, but they didn't follow up, or want to be involved. @slim23 would have to confirm that though.

 

[307_timberstalker]

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.

No sh*t right?! It’s like people saying “I’d rather the govt audit themselves” I mean we’ve seen that before…

 

[bullmtn]

Thank you for doing this test and write-up!

 

[slim23]

I think most of it was oh look another guy claiming he’ll “test” our can if we send him one.
can’t blame them. I’m sure they get a few of those emails a week.
Some that surprised me were ones we had a little connection with and still declined.
Or were super excited about the first test we done and had several phone conversations about it and wanting to be a part of second test.
Sone were oversight. Some productions run timing.
But honestly the company response to the first test was much bigger than the the second. Not sure why really.

 

[Wiscgunner]

Thank you for doing the testing. Great to see Outdoor Life pushing "modern" content, great work.

 

[mwoolsey5]

Really it was my testing with them there for publicity. They helped secure some cans that I didn’t have the reach for.
We will be doing more testing in the future. Probably a hunting focused test?
Open to suggestions.

As far as diameter I believe they are around 1.7 ish.

First wanted to say thank you to all those involved. You guys put time, energy, and money into trying to give an unbiased apples to apples comparison for all of us. I know I for one really appreciate that. It was transparent and tried to treat every company equally.

Your assumption is wrong, particularly in the case of cans with brakes on the end. Look at the variance in db amongst cans and then note that a fat bastard brake vs bare muzzle is a 2 db difference at their sampling location - that is a sign.

Look at ‘24 tbac summit - Magnus s RR is 1 dBa QUIETER at muzzle than Magnus S and 12 dBa LOUDER at shooters ear. Which do you care more about?

I do think recoil reduction and quietness would benefit from separate testing in the future to reduce the chance of the data being skewed from being measured at muzzle vs shooters ear like mentioned on the post above.

I also recognize that will be a pain in the ass to do, but I don’t know how else to eliminate SE vs muzzle variance that may occur.

Again, thanks for all the hard work. Please post if you do more testing in the future, I’d be happy to donate to see more of this 3rd party type of standardized testing done.