Q_Sertorius
WKR
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2024
- Messages
- 1,498
After reading the recently published SAAMI standards, which say to use Z-weighting for sound values, rather than the A-weighting which most suppressor manufacturers list, I got interested in trying to look at how various "hunting cans" measure up.
The new SAAMI standards are only voluntary, but I believe that all manufacturers should adopt them and be fully transparent about the Z-weighted values. You can read them here:
"All channels shall be recorded with no frequency weighting. (Sometimes referred to as “Z-Weighting” or “unweighted”.)" - page 44
While we are on the subject of the new SAAMI standards, I will note two other things:
1. SAAMI requires a 20-round test group for bare muzzle and 20-round test group for suppressed with other variables covered and recorded. This makes eminent sense. I think it could be improved upon, for in house testing, by also using other common suppressors as a comparison (as US/UM does). There are some other requirements as well, such as only using relatively new suppressors for consumer performance rating testing (less than 60 rounds fired before testing begins). I will also note that the TBAC Summit Data only relies upon 5-round tests. Meeting these requirements gets rather expensive and complicated for small businesses (which is probably part of the point, based on my experience with other regulations and standards). This isn't to throw stones at anyone using smaller sample sizes, but larger sample sizes are obviously more statistically significant.
2. SAAMI suggests using a 24' barrel, which - unless it makes no measurable difference - I personally find ludicrous. If I was the manufacturer - and it makes a measurable difference - I would test with different barrel lengths between 16" and 22", since I believe these are the most common lengths for contemporary hunting rifles and I think that consumers want to know how quiet it should be with their rifle. Unless it can be shown that barrel length doesn't make a measurable difference (which is not my understanding), it makes sense to use "realistic" barrel lengths for testing. Until we get suppressors that are only 2" long, I think 24" data is really quite useless to most hunters.
Very loose definitions:
A-weighting - designed to measure what humans can hear. A can with a lower A-weighting should sound better to most people than a can with a higher A-weighting (assuming the difference is large enough for a human ear to hear. A person can probably not hear 130 vs 129, but should hear 130 vs 127).
Z-weighting or unweighted - designed to measure what can potentially affect human hearing. A can with a lower Z-weighting should provide better hearing protection than one with a higher Z-weighting.
"Hearing Safe" - A controversial term. OSHA says, "Exposure to impulsive or impact noise should not exceed 140 dB peak sound pressure level." OSHA also says that sounds at 115 decibels should be limited to 15 minutes per day. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.95#:~:text=The employer shall administer a,a dose of fifty percent.
In short, "Hearing Safe" does not mean "don't bother with other hearing protection." Best practice is to wear additional hearing protection whenever possible while using firearms. Given the issues with earplugs - improper insertion, incomplete expansion, etc. - and headphones - improper fit, particularly when wearing glasses - and with noise reaching your ears via bone conduction, I believe that it makes the most sense to use a suppressor, ear plugs, and headphones whenever you are on a shooting range.
When I am walking around plinking or hunting in open terrain with a suppressed rifle, I keep one ear plug in and have the other on a string for quick insertion. When I am hunting in close terrain, I don't wear hearing protection.
"Hunting can" - my parameters:
1. Length: 7" or less, with a strong preference for cans as short as possible, with a goal of allowing the hunter to carry a rifle whose barrel and suppressor combined are 26" or less;
2. Weight: 12 ounces or less, with a strong preference for cans as light as possible, but ideally a 4" can would weigh about 6 ounces (probably unrealistic with current technology and other criteria, but ideally it would weigh about the same amount as the equivalent length of sporter barrel);
3. Diameter: 1.8" or less, to allow for the unobstructed use of low rings and low magnification, with a preference for smaller diameter cans;
4. Durability: durable enough to present "zero risk" to the shooter and nearby persons, using factory loads for a given cartridge and barrel length combination;
5. Suppression - must measure below 140 decibels (unweighted) at the Shooter's Ear with the chosen cartridge and barrel length combination.
"Zero risk" - while not literally zero, the risk of the suppressor failing catastrophically should be the same as the rifle barrel or action on which it is mounted bursting. In other words, absent gross mistreatment and/or gross user error, the can should never fail.
So... which hunting cans currently on the market qualify? I have not scoured the Internet for every example, but I did go through the TBAC Summit reports for the past three years to take a look. I am happy to add additional suppressors to the list, if people have reliable Z-weighted numbers for them and they meet my length, weight, diameter, and suppression criteria. I've tried to be as unbiased as possible in my list. There are cans I have used and like - even cans I will use for hunting - that are not on the list because they don't meet the criteria I believe are optimal on a "hunting can." I also haven't completed the durability and restrictions information for each of them. If you spot an error or mistake, please let me know. Unlike the Pope, I am not infallible.
I have also included the four additional suppressors - Airlock, OG, OG 6.5, and Reaper - that have been the topic of the most conversation on Rokslide these past few weeks (and whose designers are most active here and may be able to supply Z-weighted numbers).
docs.google.com
Edit - as you may notice, some cans appear twice on the list with different values. As Form and others have repeatedly mentioned, suppressors can test very differently from day to day.
The new SAAMI standards are only voluntary, but I believe that all manufacturers should adopt them and be fully transparent about the Z-weighted values. You can read them here:
"All channels shall be recorded with no frequency weighting. (Sometimes referred to as “Z-Weighting” or “unweighted”.)" - page 44
While we are on the subject of the new SAAMI standards, I will note two other things:
1. SAAMI requires a 20-round test group for bare muzzle and 20-round test group for suppressed with other variables covered and recorded. This makes eminent sense. I think it could be improved upon, for in house testing, by also using other common suppressors as a comparison (as US/UM does). There are some other requirements as well, such as only using relatively new suppressors for consumer performance rating testing (less than 60 rounds fired before testing begins). I will also note that the TBAC Summit Data only relies upon 5-round tests. Meeting these requirements gets rather expensive and complicated for small businesses (which is probably part of the point, based on my experience with other regulations and standards). This isn't to throw stones at anyone using smaller sample sizes, but larger sample sizes are obviously more statistically significant.
2. SAAMI suggests using a 24' barrel, which - unless it makes no measurable difference - I personally find ludicrous. If I was the manufacturer - and it makes a measurable difference - I would test with different barrel lengths between 16" and 22", since I believe these are the most common lengths for contemporary hunting rifles and I think that consumers want to know how quiet it should be with their rifle. Unless it can be shown that barrel length doesn't make a measurable difference (which is not my understanding), it makes sense to use "realistic" barrel lengths for testing. Until we get suppressors that are only 2" long, I think 24" data is really quite useless to most hunters.
Very loose definitions:
A-weighting - designed to measure what humans can hear. A can with a lower A-weighting should sound better to most people than a can with a higher A-weighting (assuming the difference is large enough for a human ear to hear. A person can probably not hear 130 vs 129, but should hear 130 vs 127).
Z-weighting or unweighted - designed to measure what can potentially affect human hearing. A can with a lower Z-weighting should provide better hearing protection than one with a higher Z-weighting.
"Hearing Safe" - A controversial term. OSHA says, "Exposure to impulsive or impact noise should not exceed 140 dB peak sound pressure level." OSHA also says that sounds at 115 decibels should be limited to 15 minutes per day. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.95#:~:text=The employer shall administer a,a dose of fifty percent.
In short, "Hearing Safe" does not mean "don't bother with other hearing protection." Best practice is to wear additional hearing protection whenever possible while using firearms. Given the issues with earplugs - improper insertion, incomplete expansion, etc. - and headphones - improper fit, particularly when wearing glasses - and with noise reaching your ears via bone conduction, I believe that it makes the most sense to use a suppressor, ear plugs, and headphones whenever you are on a shooting range.
When I am walking around plinking or hunting in open terrain with a suppressed rifle, I keep one ear plug in and have the other on a string for quick insertion. When I am hunting in close terrain, I don't wear hearing protection.
"Hunting can" - my parameters:
1. Length: 7" or less, with a strong preference for cans as short as possible, with a goal of allowing the hunter to carry a rifle whose barrel and suppressor combined are 26" or less;
2. Weight: 12 ounces or less, with a strong preference for cans as light as possible, but ideally a 4" can would weigh about 6 ounces (probably unrealistic with current technology and other criteria, but ideally it would weigh about the same amount as the equivalent length of sporter barrel);
3. Diameter: 1.8" or less, to allow for the unobstructed use of low rings and low magnification, with a preference for smaller diameter cans;
4. Durability: durable enough to present "zero risk" to the shooter and nearby persons, using factory loads for a given cartridge and barrel length combination;
5. Suppression - must measure below 140 decibels (unweighted) at the Shooter's Ear with the chosen cartridge and barrel length combination.
"Zero risk" - while not literally zero, the risk of the suppressor failing catastrophically should be the same as the rifle barrel or action on which it is mounted bursting. In other words, absent gross mistreatment and/or gross user error, the can should never fail.
So... which hunting cans currently on the market qualify? I have not scoured the Internet for every example, but I did go through the TBAC Summit reports for the past three years to take a look. I am happy to add additional suppressors to the list, if people have reliable Z-weighted numbers for them and they meet my length, weight, diameter, and suppression criteria. I've tried to be as unbiased as possible in my list. There are cans I have used and like - even cans I will use for hunting - that are not on the list because they don't meet the criteria I believe are optimal on a "hunting can." I also haven't completed the durability and restrictions information for each of them. If you spot an error or mistake, please let me know. Unlike the Pope, I am not infallible.
I have also included the four additional suppressors - Airlock, OG, OG 6.5, and Reaper - that have been the topic of the most conversation on Rokslide these past few weeks (and whose designers are most active here and may be able to supply Z-weighted numbers).
Q's Suppressor Comparisons
Edit - as you may notice, some cans appear twice on the list with different values. As Form and others have repeatedly mentioned, suppressors can test very differently from day to day.
