Pew Science

[HuntHarder]

Anybody a member? What are your thoughts? After thinking about it, this actually seems like the best way to accurately compare cans. I have heard some guys don't like pew science, but never heard reasons why.

 

[omicron1792]

Anybody a member? What are your thoughts? After thinking about it, this actually seems like the best way to accurately compare cans. I have heard some guys don't like pew science, but never heard reasons why.

He charges for some of his data. Seems to make some mad. I don’t ever blame someone trying to make a Buck off their skills.

 

[HuntHarder]

I see that he charges for his data, but it's not that much and if it is true unbiased data, it may be worth the price. I could see how this could be a non starter for some tho.

 

[TandKHunting]

Highly suggest being a member if you are a data nerd and obsessed with suppressor performance like me. If you take the time to learn his ways and throughly learn and read about the reports...you will enjoy seeing his weekly drops.

After heavily researching this topic over the past two months. Nobody is even close to imitating what Jay does. Buying a high end meter (the $40,000 and up kind) and capturing accurate muzzle and ear numbers along with wave form data is only one part of the equation.

I personally think it has taken him decades to perfect the craft of measuring suppressors to the scientific depth that he does. Read his about me. The guy is more qualified than just about anybody.

The growing amount of people that refuse to buy a suppressor without PEW Science data behind it is telling. He's the most trusted 3rd party source in the suppressor world. Full stop.

Additionally, some companies are salty because they either don't do well on PEW or know they wouldn't do well on PEW because their marketing / sales roadmap is based on hype and self testing. That works temporarily until people get sick of seeing, "this is the best suppressor ever" and want to see it actually tested to the extensive scientific and engineering standards of PEW.

 

[omicron1792]

Highly suggest being a member if you are a data nerd and obsessed with suppressor performance like me. If you take the time to learn his ways and throughly learn and read about the reports...you will enjoy seeing his weekly drops.

After heavily researching this topic over the past two months. Nobody is even close to imitating what Jay does. Buying a high end meter (the $40,000 and up kind) and capturing accurate muzzle and ear numbers along with wave form data is only one part of the equation.

I personally think it has taken him decades to perfect the craft of measuring suppressors to the scientific depth that he does. Read his about me. The guy is more qualified than just about anybody.

The growing amount of people that refuse to buy a suppressor without PEW Science data behind it is telling. He's the most trusted 3rd party source in the suppressor world. Full stop.

Additionally, some companies are salty because they either don't do well on PEW or know they wouldn't do well on PEW because their marketing / sales roadmap is based on hype and self testing. That works for some until people get sick of seeing, "this is the best suppressor ever" and want to see it actually tested to the extensive scientific and engineering standards of PEW.

I do think he does good work from what I’ve seen.

I however get more out of seeing the Tbac summit where suppressors are matched against their peers in similar situations. That’s what I get the most out of.

 

[TandKHunting]

I do think he does good work from what I’ve seen.

I however get more out of seeing the Tbac summit where suppressors are matched against their peers in similar situations. That’s what I get the most out of.

I think Summit is valuable, no doubt. It’s great for seeing suppressors side by side under the same conditions.

The limitation is that muzzle and ear peak dB numbers only tell part of the story.

That’s where Pew is different. It’s not just looking at peak..it’s looking at the entire pressure waveform to include impulse duration, decay, secondary spikes, gas behavior, and total energy delivered to the shooter.

Two suppressors can meter the exact same at the muzzle and ear, but behave completely differently.

For example:

Suppressor A might have a sharp impulse that drops off quickly
Suppressor B might have an impulse that lingers longer or has secondary spikes

Even though they meter the same, Suppressor B can deliver more total energy to the ear and be more fatiguing or damaging over time.

That’s why peak dB alone doesn’t determine overall performance.

Same idea with first round pop or consistency. One suppressor might average better numbers across multiple shots but still have worse impulse characteristics because of inconsistent gas management.

Summit shows you what happened in that moment.

Pew helps explain how and why a suppressor actually performs the way it does across the entire shot event.

Both are useful, but they’re measuring different things.

I always thought dB numbers were the most important thing, until you realize that impulse control is damn near as important if not more important. That's what separates a #1 can from a #10 can.

Now, if you can get top dB numbers + dominate impulse....you have a ground breaking suppressor. Only way to know is to submit it to PEW Science. Jay is the only guy who can determine if your engineering meets the hype.

 

[dårlig jeger]

I'm a big fan of PewScience.

Inevitably, the same people will come in an parrot the same old "but he charges money!" criticism. Well, yeah. He does it professionally.

Of course he charges money to test cans. He doesn't just screw them on, shoot, and copy numbers into a spread sheet. If he didn't charge manufacturers, he would essentially be providing R&D for free.

And yes, he charges for his complete reports. But if you can't figure out how to read his free data, that's on you.

Mostly, I think people just want to skim to dBA SE or whatever they decide is best and read a number to compare to other numbers. They don't want an in depth report and a number generated by a proprietary algorithm, even if that algorithm produces numbers that more accurately assess risk to hearing damage.

And I get companies that are just starting maybe can't afford his testing. But I also think some are worried about the results.

In the end, Pew is way, way above anything else out there.

 

[omicron1792]

I think Summit is valuable, no doubt. It’s great for seeing suppressors side by side under the same conditions.

The limitation is that muzzle and ear peak dB numbers only tell part of the story.

That’s where Pew is different. It’s not just looking at peak..it’s looking at the entire pressure waveform to include impulse duration, decay, secondary spikes, gas behavior, and total energy delivered to the shooter.

Two suppressors can meter the exact same at the muzzle and ear, but behave completely differently.

For example:

Suppressor A might have a sharp impulse that drops off quickly
Suppressor B might have an impulse that lingers longer or has secondary spikes

Even though they meter the same, Suppressor B can deliver more total energy to the ear and be more fatiguing or damaging over time.

That’s why peak dB alone doesn’t determine overall performance.

Same idea with first round pop or consistency. One suppressor might average better numbers across multiple shots but still have worse impulse characteristics because of inconsistent gas management.

Summit shows you what happened in that moment.

Pew helps explain how and why a suppressor actually performs the way it does across the entire shot event.

Both are useful, but they’re measuring different things.

I always thought dB numbers were the most important thing, until you realize that impulse control is damn near as important if not more important. That's what separates a #1 can from a #10 can.

Now, if you can get top dB numbers + dominate impulse....you have a ground breaking suppressor. Only way to know is to submit it to PEW Science. Jay is the only guy who can determine if your engineering meets the hype.

Awesome of you to dig into that and Improve to make the best can possible!

I can see the benefit of those numbers for y’all.

I will say they are too in depth for 99% of people and if i was making a can I would work to get the simple dB at shooters ear as low as possible, while working the rest in the background.

Nice work!

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I’ve come around to the point of view that Pew offers a useful service. And the fact that he gets paid, doesn’t bother me as long as he gives honest results. His business model depends on his credibility. That doesn’t mean he is credible per se, but if he ever gets caught juking the stats, his business is as dead as Arthur Andersen.

I also see the value in letting his industry customers pay for his testing, but they control whether the numbers get published, while still being a bit skeptical of any company that would pay for his testing, but not release his results (especially if they publish their own in-house stats).

I accept that measuring gunshot impulses is a developing field and that there’s probably a lot more to it than an SE decibel number. From a legal and health perspective, in the long term, it will become important to “get the science right.” Anyone honestly seeking to advance the science has my support. Pew says he is trying to do that.

The TBAC Summit is also valuable as a free way to compare with what Pew offers (and valuable in its own right). If Pew says X and the Summit says Y, if the disparity is glaring, then that’s worthy of further investigation.

And, after reflecting on various things discussed this past weekend and over the past year, I am not going to be one to stress over raw numbers. Any of them. An ounce lighter, a half inch shorter, a couple of decibels quieter, etc. just not going to stress about it. Especially now that I have enough suppressors to experiment with a range of them and see what works. What settled it for me is the realization that “140 is a somewhat arbitrary number” and I really don’t have any idea how quiet or safe any of them are. But they are all quieter and safer than a bare muzzle. I’m going to try to reward innovation, transparency, and integrity in future purchases.

It was agonizing when I was buying my first suppressors and “trying to get it right” on what felt like a “buy it for life situation.” And that feeling dragged on for months as I dealt with various issues (like feeling duped by the Scythe and etc.). But now, with several thousand rounds through center fire suppressors, a lot of discussion here and elsewhere, and reflection, I just know that I am always going to use a suppressor. And, with or without additional hearing protection, I prefer shooting with a suppressor to the point where I start to recognize blast effects and other physical symptoms when I have to shoot without one.

The headaches I got from five unsuppressed shots from my 22” and 25” 9.3x62s from a covered bench (with double hearing protection) took two days to go away. It wasn’t quite as bad as the headache I used to get from a SMAW or AT-4, but it was bad. My suppressed 20” 9.3x62 didn’t do that to me.

So, for the time being at least, that’s where I stand on Pew Science.

 

[ckt3]

I believe Pew Science is the absolute gold standard of suppressor testing and understanding that we currently have available to us as consumers. No question about it.

But don’t take anyone’s word for it. Pay the $8 for a month membership, and read a bunch of his work (methodology and supporting articles in addition to the suppressor evaluations) and check out a couple podcast episodes to see if it checks out to you. To me, the extreme quality, depth, and balanced interpretation of the results was obvious.

The opinion on Pew Science seems to vary somewhat across forums. I think much of the distrust/criticism is unfounded, and I shared some thoughts on it here:
https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/6-5cm-suppressor-recommendation.437635/post-4536517

 

[Samson7x]

I find all the suppressor drama amusing. I also would take any of his data with a grain of salt. It may be good info for first time buyers, along with summit data, but once you have a dozen or more cans the dB here or there just doesn't matter. Pick the proper tool for it's intended purpose.

 

[TandKHunting]

I believe Pew Science is the absolute gold standard of suppressor testing and understanding that we currently have available to us as consumers. No question about it.

But don’t take anyone’s word for it. Pay the $8 for a month membership, and read a bunch of his work (methodology and supporting articles in addition to the suppressor evaluations) and check out a couple podcast episodes to see if it checks out to you. To me, the extreme quality, depth, and balanced interpretation of the results was obvious.

The opinion on Pew Science seems to vary somewhat across forums. I think much of the distrust/criticism is unfounded, and I shared some thoughts on it here:
https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/6-5cm-suppressor-recommendation.437635/post-4536517

Of course I had to click your link and lo and behold it's that person talking badly of Jay.

 

[ckt3]

Of course I had to click your link and lo and behold it's that person talking badly of Jay.

Not sure if you’re referencing some past history or something, but it’s nothing personal for me. Just sharing/debating ideas in good faith so the good ones rise to the top. I have learned a tremendous amount from the information Form has shared. Just disagree on this take.

 

[joshs]

Of course I had to click your link and lo and behold it's that person talking badly of Jay.

I don't think criticizing that we don't know exactly how he is manipulating the raw data to get to his single rating is necessarily "talking badly." That's why I personally don't find the ratings themselves very useful (even though I do appreciate the amount of raw data he has published on various cans).

Also, every audiologist I've talked to about the "hearing safe" ratings he (any anyone else using that claim) does disagrees that anyone should be putting such a label on the impulse from any suppressed firearm because we still don't understand enough about the mechanisms of hearing loss.

 

[TandKHunting]

I don't think criticizing that we don't know exactly how he is manipulating the raw data to get to his single rating is necessarily "talking badly." That's why I personally don't find the ratings themselves very useful (even though I do appreciate the amount of raw data he has published on various cans).

Why would he share his formula for the composite score? Do you know the recipe for Dr. Pepper?

He's not being devious. He's literally protecting a formula he developed over years of testing. No different than someone getting a patent on a product.

Anybody can go buy a cheap meter and get muzzle and ear numbers. Those numbers are okay, but they don't tell you much other than if a can has first round pop, if it's consistent, and what it's comparable to.

You should find them useful, because a single dB number at ear or muzzle doesn't prove the suppressor is better than a suppressor getting 1 or 2 dB's more. That's why his science is so useful. A suppressor can have good numbers, but literally expose you to more damaging impulse. That's why a can that you think should go #1 due to overall metering goes #7 or #8.

First round pop and sloppy impulse due to improper gas management, etc. gets exposed. His formulas literally give you the best suppressor for the health of you and others around you at the range.

 

[Samson7x]

Why would he share his formula for the composite score? Do you know the recipe for Dr. Pepper?

He's not being devious. He's literally protecting a formula he developed over years of testing. No different than someone getting a patent on a product.

Anybody can go buy a cheap meter and get muzzle and ear numbers. Those numbers are okay, but they don't tell you much other than if a can has first round pop, if it's consistent, and what it's comparable to.

You should find them useful, because a single dB number at ear or muzzle doesn't prove the suppressor is better than a suppressor getting 1 or 2 dB's more. That's why his science is so useful. A suppressor can have good numbers, but literally expose you to more damaging impulse. That's why a can that you think should go #1 due to overall metering goes #7 or #8.

First round pop and sloppy impulse due to improper gas management, etc. gets exposed. His formulas literally give you the best suppressor for the health of you and others around you at the range.

I believe the argument is that it isn't actually true science because his tests can't be replicated. He keeps the "formula" to himself. Therefore he theoretically could be manipulating numbers based on how much manufacturers have paid him. I get it, it's a business yada, yada, don't really care. Like I said previously, take it with a grain of salt. Or take it as the end all be all and base purchase decisions on it. Hopefully you will be happy either way.

 

[joshs]

Why would he share his formula for the composite score? Do you know the recipe for Dr. Pepper?

He's not being devious. He's literally protecting a formula he developed over years of testing. No different than someone getting a patent on a product.

Anybody can go buy a cheap meter and get muzzle and ear numbers. Those numbers are okay, but they don't tell you much other than if a can has first round pop, if it's consistent, and what it's comparable to.

You should find them useful, because a single dB number at ear or muzzle doesn't prove the suppressor is better than a suppressor getting 1 or 2 dB's more. That's why his science is so useful. A suppressor can have good numbers, but literally expose you to more damaging impulse. That's why a can that you think should go #1 due to overall metering goes #7 or #8.

First round pop and sloppy impulse due to improper gas management, etc. gets exposed. His formulas literally give you the best suppressor for the health of you and others around you at the range.

No, but I also don't rely on KDP to compare various beverages. An industry standard should be open to the public. Like this: https://saami.org/technical-information/ansi-saami-standards/

ETA: I don't care at all about how he ranks cans, I'm saying that any standard that claims that a suppressed firearm is "hearing safe" is flawed because there is no medical consensus on how to measure such a standard.

 

[Formidilosus]

Of course I had to click your link and lo and behold it's that person talking badly of Jay.

Because science doesn’t “hide” how testing was conducted, or formulas used to generate data and results. “You” are charging both the consumer and the manufacturer for “testing”, then hiding how that testing was conducted, how the data was generated, and how the results and rankings were ordered. That is not science, or legitimate data or testing. In every actual field- doing that immediately disqualifies your “research” from consideration.


As for “that person”-

I have never had a interaction with you until you posted that SE on an AR15 is 120 something dB with your can, and being mad that I tried to point out to you that it’s physically impossible for it to be so. Then continuing to hammer down that you are using the best meter that can be used and “that’s what the meter said” all while ignoring all actual information that shows it isn’t possible.

Note: I stated the 120db incorrectly above. It was 133.9db that was stated. My apologies to @TandKHunting.

 

[dårlig jeger]

I believe the argument is that it isn't actually true science because his tests can't be replicated. He keeps the "formula" to himself. Therefore he theoretically could be manipulating numbers based on how much manufacturers have paid him. I get it, it's a business yada, yada, don't really care. Like I said previously, take it with a grain of salt. Or take it as the end all be all and base purchase decisions on it. Hopefully you will be happy either way.

Not necessarily an argument with what you said, but I'd be more concerned if he shared his algorithm and manufacturers started to use it themselves.

Would you trust it more or less if manufacturers put out their own "pew" numbers? Or would some of them take liberties to made adjustments to the algorithm and we end up with more noise than signal?

Would the average consumer be able to tell where the calculations were "adjusted"? Is Jay now to audit all other results to keep the standard he created?

There's ample opportunity for someone to create their own scale and write their own reports. I think that the lack thereof is telling.

 

[TandKHunting]

Because science doesn’t “hide” how testing was conducted, or formulas used to generate data and results. “You” are charging both the consumer and the manufacturer for “testing”, then hiding how that testing was conducted, how the data was generated, and how the results and rankings were ordered. That is not science, or legitimate data or testing. In every actual field- doing that immediately disqualifies your “research” from consideration.


As for “that person”-

I have never had a interaction with you until you posted that SE on an AR15 is 120 something dB with your can, and being mad that I tried to point out to you that it’s physically impossible for it to be so. Then continuing to hammer down that you are using the best meter that can be used and “that’s what the meter said” all while ignoring all actual information that shows it isn’t possible.

The way you talk to people is what I have a problem with.

We fixed the way we meter cans. And we never claimed 120 on an AR. It was more like 134 or 135, which we now know wasn't accurate, but that is indeed what the meter said during that time. As soon as we researched heavily, talked with HBK, and did more testing...we took those numbers off. I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong, and I was certainly wrong on the at ear numbers when it comes to port pop of a gas gun.

My problem with you is that you are not using unweighted, using a 48 kHz meter, and not capturing any impulse data, while acting like nobody knows anything except you.