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.

 

[atmat]

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

This is an appeal to an authority whose name you’re not even sharing. That’s a ridiculous argument lol

 

[TandKHunting]

This is an appeal to an authority whose name you’re not even sharing. That’s a ridiculous argument lol

Call it whatever you want. I’m not lying and I don't use peoples names publicly. You can believe it or don’t believe it. I could care less either way.

 

[Escalante11]

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.

What feels disingenuous here is arguing ‘conflicts’ with certain UM products, but not others. To be fair, your podcast has been a platform for UM for the past 18 months, your helping create certain of their products (your words), and you are business partners with individuals at UM.

We could care less about perceived conflicts by the way Ryan, I think we know you’re enough of a stand up guy that it wouldn’t alter your results. We just want more information and testing to inform our purchase decisions as consumers, and this seems like a great opportunity missed for all of us interested in the OG6-S…

 

[atmat]

Call it whatever you want. I’m not lying and I don't use peoples names publicly. You can believe it or don’t believe it. I could care less either way.

No one said you’re lying. But it’s a bad argument to say, “Someone important who I can’t name said you’re wrong for reasons I can’t explain.”

 

[4th_point]

What does this mystery man not like about the SAAMI standard? Or is that unknown?

 

[Q_Sertorius]

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

No, I would not. I might “buy” the statement if your authority had some basis for being respected in the “suppressor industry” and had published results done to a “scientific standard.”

As it is, your appeal to authority rings hollow.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s take the best case scenario. Let’s assume that this person was part of the SAAMI board (maybe a minority opinion in the final draft). Or perhaps some person who *should have been* part of the SAAMI board, but was excluded. What is stopping that person from publishing a “here’s why the new SAAMI standard is flawed and here are X number of ways it could be better” article?

Or, for that matter, what is stopping anyone from publishing standards they intend to use? And formulating tests that account for environmental differences.

Again, I am responding to you, but this isn’t directed at you in particular.

 

[Grundy53]

Wow, what a bunch of whiners. If you don't like the testing methods then ignore the results. If you want a test ran a certain way then do the testing yourself. I'm sure Ryan has enough on his plate without all your "suggestions". I appreciate that he's taking the time to do it.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

 

[Ucsdryder]

Wow, what a bunch of whiners. If you don't like the testing methods then ignore the results. If you want a test ran a certain way then do the testing yourself. I'm sure Ryan has enough on his plate without all your "suggestions". I appreciate that he's taking the time to do it.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

Couldn’t agree more. Same guys all the time. I’m here for the testing and looking forward to the videos. I think these videos are going to be valuable and as close as we get to actually screwing on some of the top suppressors and testing them ourselves before buying.

I wish there was a place where these guys could go where they were isolated and the rest of us didn’t have to sift through the drivel.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

This website is supposed to be about using statistically significant data as the basis for drawing reasonable conclusions.

If any test that people can run is truly flawed because of the equipment, no matter how many times you measure it, then you aren’t using the right equipment. And while many people can be forgiven for not knowing the equipment’s shortcomings, due to ignorance, if you know the equipment is insufficient and keep using it anyway, then you are part of the problem.

In my worldview, it’s always best to assume ignorance, not malice. But if someone knows the testing methodology is flawed and publishes the results anyway, then I lean back towards malice.

For instance, if I decided to test a hypothesis that Hornady bullets aren’t consistently the same length and this was how I was going to prove it, you would rightly suspect me of being ignorant, stupid, or dishonest.

But if I said, I am going to use this tool to do it, most people would accept that I was at least trying.

A handful would suggest that I don’t have the expertise in using a dial caliper to be the right person to conduct the test. And a few more would suggest that this particular dial caliper is not good enough or hasn’t been calibrated properly. And a bunch of people would point out that grabbing five random bullets out of one box is too small a sample size to show anything.

And if I persisted in doing the test without proper experience, with the wrong tool, with too small a sample size, then my conclusions would be essentially worthless. And if I concluded that Hornady bullets are the finest on the market and everyone should buy them, you might suspect I was dishonest, not just ignorant or stupid.

So, is the equipment commonly available the equivalent of a kid’s measuring stick? Or a decent dial caliper? Or something more?

Are the people operating it lawyers trying to make an argument? Or salesmen trying to make a sale? Or are they skilled technicians who know what they are doing?

I simply refuse to believe that the equipment is so bad that a large enough data sample won’t provide useful information. If it is, then publish something that says that and show the data that supports that conclusion. All I have read and heard on RokSlide and the podcast is basically, “our ears and the meters don’t agree, so the meters are wrong.” Or, “the results vary so widely from one day to the next that it’s hard to draw conclusions.”

Any honest person could run a test that takes into account the environmental conditions by making them part of the average and recording them in the report. It’s just a lot of work and probably costs a lot of time and money.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Couldn’t agree more. Same guys all the time. I’m here for the testing and looking forward to the videos. I think these videos are going to be valuable and as close as we get to actually screwing on some of the top suppressors and testing them ourselves before buying.

I wish there was a place where these guys could go where they were isolated and the rest of us didn’t have to sift through the drivel.

I really am sorry for holding a gun to your head and making you read a post about testing suppressors in a thread about testing suppressors in the suppressors section on RokSlide.

 

[Bluefish]

So, is the equipment commonly available the equivalent of a kid’s measuring stick? Or a decent dial caliper? Or something more?

My take is that a video comparison with no metering is like measuring a bullet diameter with a ruler, the cheaper meters ($10k) is like using calipers, and the super high speed expensive daq systems are like using a micrometer. For what I want, using the calipers is probably ok, so keep the data coming and I will adjust knowing that it’s not perfect. It’s still way better than a ruler.

 

[Formidilosus]

This website is supposed to be about using statistically significant data as the basis for drawing reasonable conclusions.

If any test that people can run is truly flawed because of the equipment, no matter how many times you measure it, then you aren’t using the right equipment. And while many people can be forgiven for not knowing the equipment’s shortcomings, due to ignorance, if you know the equipment is insufficient and keep using it anyway, then you are part of the problem.

In my worldview, it’s always best to assume ignorance, not malice. But if someone knows the testing methodology is flawed and publishes the results anyway, then I lean back towards malice.

For instance, if I decided to test a hypothesis that Hornady bullets aren’t consistently the same length and this was how I was going to prove it, you would rightly suspect me of being ignorant, stupid, or dishonest.

But if I said, I am going to use this tool to do it, most people would accept that I was at least trying.

A handful would suggest that I don’t have the expertise in using a dial caliper to be the right person to conduct the test. And a few more would suggest that this particular dial caliper is not good enough or hasn’t been calibrated properly. And a bunch of people would point out that grabbing five random bullets out of one box is too small a sample size to show anything.

And if I persisted in doing the test without proper experience, with the wrong tool, with too small a sample size, then my conclusions would be essentially worthless. And if I concluded that Hornady bullets are the finest on the market and everyone should buy them, you might suspect I was dishonest, not just ignorant or stupid.

So, is the equipment commonly available the equivalent of a kid’s measuring stick? Or a decent dial caliper? Or something more?

Are the people operating it lawyers trying to make an argument? Or salesmen trying to make a sale? Or are they skilled technicians who know what they are doing?

I simply refuse to believe that the equipment is so bad that a large enough data sample won’t provide useful information. If it is, then publish something that says that and show the data that supports that conclusion. All I have read and heard on RokSlide and the podcast is basically, “our ears and the meters don’t agree, so the meters are wrong.” Or, “the results vary so widely from one day to the next that it’s hard to draw conclusions.”

Any honest person could run a test that takes into account the environmental conditions by making them part of the average and recording them in the report. It’s just a lot of work and probably costs a lot of time and money.

The reality is that the common meters, while better than nothing- do not have the sample rate to give consistent real numbers. Some cans meter significantly lower than they actually are, and some meter louder than they are. Systems that are precise enough to give real numbers with all can designs are very expensive- far above what almost all companies can afford. And for the most part, it actually doesn’t matter the small differences between good cans… as long as you aren’t totally ignorant (or deceitful) and claim impossible numbers.

Ok, so the meters available aren’t perfect- well, the way to deal with those limitations is to recognize when the numbers being given are too good to be true, and not state them. Do larger sample sizes, 10+ shots, compare with known cans sized by side, and test multiple days. Even still- it’s very easy to be 3-6 dB off actual. The problem is people and companies latch onto artificially low numbers (like a can metering less than dry fire, or metering less than the action cycling- let alone port pop, etc.).

Again, once numbers are comfortably in the 130’s- it really doesn’t matter, and people don’t notice the difference in real life. It’s only the internet dorks that argue about 1-2 dB’s, and especially from systems that can’t measure it consistently.

 

[Formidilosus]

My take is that a video comparison with no metering is like measuring a bullet diameter with a ruler

No. Video comparisons are 100% useless. Absolutely nothing can be known from video- the audio is so adjusted that it is utterly pointless.

, the cheaper meters is like using calipers,

No, more like ruler.

and the super high speed expensive daq systems are like using a micrometer.

Calipers, micrometers- doesn’t matter. The correct systems are precise enough to give real numbers- yet still will be +/- 1-2dB a day.