Suppressor Testing??

[Formidilosus]

You’ll notice a lot of videos were made. But I haven’t seen one showing comparison to an airlock.

I’ll be told how silly I am. But why not just post a video of airlock vs OG (any or all of them) with same meters and setup

The issue across the board, is that people get emotional with all of it. I will test any can that someone wants to send Ryan for the eval- just like the scopes. However, the eval is what it is for a lot of reasons- reasons that come from hundreds of thousand of rounds of legitimate testing. I’ve got test cans from multiple companies, specifically doing field evals on them before they come to the market- in the last two weeks I have seen over 10,000 rounds being shot from suppressors during testing- I don’t give two flying flips which cans do what, anymore than I do which bullet does which, or what scope does what. You have people that posted for months in every thread how one can or another is “so loud” all while never allowing it to be looked at and metered, and then falling all over themselves for another can that is demonstrably as loud.

People have sent cans to Ryan, and specifically and directly stated that I am not to use the cans…. Funny how that works.

 

[few907]

@Formidilosus ...who doesn't want you to test their cans???

 

[Ryan Avery]

I think it's totally disingenuous of me, owning Rokslide, to review something I helped create against another product.

T&K asked me to test some cans, and that's what I'm going to do. Along the way, you will see why these meters suck, and why we do need a better standard.

I should have the first video up tomorrow for your viewing pleasure.

 

[HuntHarder]

I was mainly talking about @Formidilosus. He was making alot of videos for a while comparing OG cans to different other cans. I remember one specifically comparing to a raptor without the reflex.

But I haven’t seen one comparing to an airlock.

Post in thread '**Results are in** REAPER vs AIRLOCK vs PTR VENT 1 vs NOMAD TI-XC vs DD ENTICER LTI TITANIUM SHOOTOUT' https://rokslide.com/forums/threads...cer-lti-titanium-shootout.427266/post-4464742

Airlock stood out amongst all these cans that are all considerably larger. So far, I haven't had a person yet not think my airlock isn't my quietest, best sounding can. I have compared it against my Scythe, OG30, Og65, gemtech and a few buddies Ultra 7, Ultra 5 and an Omega. From a size/weight, suppression factor, I don't think I have seen an equal for a hunting rifle can.

 

[4th_point]

I am saying it may not be measurable. Ie our meters are simply not accurate enough and/or the event of firing a projectile is too variable to get a measurement that has enough confidence that it’s actually different. If you are saying it makes a 1 db difference, I argue that the current technology is not that accurate. If you are saying 3 db, then yes it might be reliably measured with today’s tech. But from testing data I have been able to find, that’s a pretty big change like a baffle or two difference.

Small sample size bias just like people claiming nodes exist. If you simply do small sample sizes, they can exist, but when you do enough test to be statistically significant, they no longer exist. I have never seen anyone provide statically significant data on a suppressor test. I also believe it’s not relevant. As a user, I am more interested in big changes, ie 3-5db. 1-2 db changes are noise. I have also concluded that once you are around 130-133, it really doesn’t matter if it’s quieter. I can’t tell the difference on a rifle. Standing next to it, sure, but not when shooting.

Bluefish,

I think we're on the same page. My question is at the end of this post, but bear with me here.

Ryan's link doesn't show what meter/preamp/mic he's using (only the brand) but assuming it's a Class 1 with appropriate mic and range, then it should be +/- 1 dB in the band of interest. And +/- 2 dB for Class 2.

Either way, you have a point, simply based on datasheets. But the +/- 1 dB is really the limit right? And possible that the equipment can do better than 1.

Some tests with bare muzzles have shown less than 1 dB std dev. Not 30 rounds, but I think 20 IIRC. So the shot to shot variation with bare muzzle can be very low. Impulse from simple pressure vent. But accuracy of equipment plus std dev of ammo can make detection of small design changes difficult.

Are you also saying that once you add a can, its affect on the actual pressure has more variability? In other words, it's no longer a simple pressure vent, but more complicated gas expansion and gas path leading to measurable differences in peak pressure? Therefore, large shot counts are needed?

 

[Q_Sertorius]

According to a reputable source that tests in this industry, SAAMI has a lot of flaws. I can't speak on it personally, but that's from someone with 20 years of testing experience.

Sorry, not buying that statement. Anyone can look at the SAAMI specifications and see potential flaws (as I have pointed out in a couple of threads), but any test that only shows the “sound we can hear” versus the “sound that can affect our hearing” is flawed. The best part of SAAMI is the minimum 20-round sample size, unweighted values, and consistent setup. Are those flawed?

I’m willing to accept that suppressor X may sound different to my ears, on my rifle, in my field, today, than it did yesterday, or than it did on a test rifle in Idaho six weeks ago.

But if the meter isn’t accurate enough to give statistically repeatable measurements over a statistically significant sample size, then get a better meter or don’t bother advertising the numbers. If it truly takes equipment the average small business cannot afford or that the industry refuses to purchase, then maybe a middleman like Pew is needed? (Assuming his equipment is good enough, his methods are sound, and his setup is reliable enough).

I am sick of seeing people who I know wouldn’t accept a 0.25” 5-shot group as statistically significant, post up graphs or videos of results from five shots in a random setup and tell me “it rates a 126.” Or whatever. This paragraph isn’t directed at anyone in particular. It just seems to be standard practice across the industry. And it disappoints me that people who have the opportunity to do it according to a published standard (or even their own, documented, modification of a published standard) are not doing it differently.

 

[TandKHunting]

Sorry, not buying that statement. Anyone can look at the SAAMI specifications and see potential flaws (as I have pointed out in a couple of threads), but any test that only shows the “sound we can hear” versus the “sound that can affect our hearing” is flawed. The best part of SAAMI is the minimum 20-round sample size, unweighted values, and consistent setup. Are those flawed?

I’m willing to accept that suppressor X may sound different to my ears, on my rifle, in my field, today, than it did yesterday, or than it did on a test rifle in Idaho six weeks ago.

But if the meter isn’t accurate enough to give statistically repeatable measurements over a statistically significant sample size, then get a better meter or don’t bother advertising the numbers. If it truly takes equipment the average small business cannot afford or that the industry refuses to purchase, then maybe a middleman like Pew is needed? (Assuming his equipment is good enough, his methods are sound, and his setup is reliable enough).

I am sick of seeing people who I know wouldn’t accept a 0.25” 5-shot group as statistically significant, post up graphs or videos of results from five shots in a random setup and tell me “it rates a 126.” Or whatever. This paragraph isn’t directed at anyone in particular. It just seems to be standard practice across the industry. And it disappoints me that people who have the opportunity to do it according to a published standard (or even their own, documented, modification of a published standard) are not doing it differently.

You would "buy" the statement if you knew who it was. But I digress.

We meter, Ryan meters. and others meter. 20 shots, 100 shots. It doesn't matter. Everyday will be different numbers based on wind, temp, time, humidity, and more.

It may be extremely hard for people to understand, but that's the truth. The best thing one can do is a string of metering over weeks and average out the numbers if doing internal / independent test.

I just advised you we use unweighted LZpeak numbers on the HBK 2255. It's 64kHz and still not perfect. Working on getting the BETA version software that offers higher sampling at 200 plus kHz. The difference between muzzle and ear at slower rates (48-64) and higher rates (200-250) is 2, 4, maybe even 6 dB's from what we can see from testing.

How do we know? Because we have baseline numbers from a testing facility that samples at the 200-253 range. We tested that suppressor with our meter and received 4-5 dB difference. Just because a suppressor company says, "126" doesn't mean they are lying. That's the numbers they may have gotten on the particular meter they have, on a particular day, with a particular firearm host, and with a particular ammo.

The question that people should be asking companies, "126 dB. That's good. What was the meter, host firearm, caliber, barrel length, ammo, etc? Was it cold and snowy? Hot and humid? How many shots? Is 126 the average?"

Our cans, along with everyone's cans, will test different on a .308 than a 6.5MM. That's why we try to publish multiple host numbers instead of a flat number with no context behind it.

Lastly, just because one "thinks" a can is more quite doesn't mean it is. It's kind of funny. My buddy and I will listen to the same shooting videos and have vastly different opinions because, well, all of our ears are different. Metering tells a good story, as long as the cans are the same caliber, tested on the same host, same ammo, and within immediate time frames.