wind gypsy
WKR
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2014
- Messages
- 9,599
You acknowledge this as well, but 10” of barrel will make a huge difference in sound suppression. If the sycthe sounded close with a “similar” power round (albeit smaller bullet so a suppression hit there too) and a 10” shorter barrel. It would no doubt be on par and likely better back to back with same gun/round.
I was comparing to the U7 off memory on the same gun because the two weren't really close on the significantly different rifles. The two different rifles weren't an equal comparison as you point out.
Just looked. Depending what values you look at the brake actually reduces db by a few. That matches what dead air says with their ebrake system as well fwiw. I think it’s counter intuitive.
I've seen where brakes don't increase Mil-Spec (1m to the side of muzzle) dB but the spec that seems more useful to me is at the shooters ear and I've not seen a brake have a positive impact at that location. The suppressor summit data on the omega 300 with and without anchor brake shows exactly that. The mil-spec location was slightly lower db WITH the anchor brake (doesn't make sense to me but ok). However, it was notably louder at shooters ear with the brake. Top row below is without anchor brake, bottom is with anchor brake. Left column is Shooters ear dB, Right column is shooters ear dBAIMO I wouldn’t put a break on to reduce noise (even if data slightly supports it….for some reason). The brakes I have used do appear to slightly reduce recoil and that’s a good reason if weight/length isn’t an issue. Any reduction in noise is just a weird benefit I guess.
131.79 | 125.92 |
142.41 | 134.56 |
TBAC's published numbers for the RR line shows similar data. With the RR brake is fairly close to without at the Mil location but at shooters ear it metered 10ish dBA louder with the brake.
Last edited: