Suppressor Testing??

[TandKHunting]

I think we should get back on task here in this thread. I am guilty of getting the thread a bit off track too. @Ryan Avery do we have that video yet? I know all of us are anxious to see it!

 

[Formidilosus]

If "intensity" is additive, and I in no way claim it is when it comes to hearing loss, these would be equal

5 shots at 133dB
10 shots at 130dB
100 shots of 120dB

And if you care about hearing damage- you shouldn’t be doing that with any of them.

 

[Shortschaf]

And if you care about hearing damage- you shouldn’t be doing that with any of them.

People who wore masks while driving alone in their car during COVID would agree.

We digress from the OP and I did not intend for that

 

[Formidilosus]

People who wore masks while driving alone in their car during COVID would agree.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Hearing loss from repeated gun shots is real and observable over long term use- what does that have to do with masks?

 

[omicron1792]

I’m ignorant. How do I functionally use what you just wrote?


And why won’t you state which can you use?

My main can is an ab raptor 8 with 5” reflex.

But I have many. 2 a-10. Banish 30 gold. Banish 22. A j sipp made 416 OTB. I have an airlock 6.5 and nano I haven’t shot yet.

Functionally, I would choose something that fit the needs of the type shooting you plan to do. Then, among that group, I would go with the quietest one.

 

[Formidilosus]

My main can is an ab raptor 8 with 5” reflex.

But I have many. 2 a-10. Banish 30 gold. Banish 22. A j sipp made 416 OTB. I have an airlock 6.5 and nano I haven’t shot yet.

Cool- so what do you do when it goes from 30° F, to 40 or 50° F? Do you just not shoot them anymore?

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Because it’s functionally useless. 1db has more danger than 2dB of sound. So what? How is that useful?

If he or you wants to say that “yes, in absolute terms 2 db difference does in fact increase total risk; but once you are below a certain threshold- there’s not much you can do about it functionally”- great. That is actually what I have stated all day.

I’ll ask the same question to you- what can do you use, with what cartridge, and what barrel length do you find acceptable?

It’s useful to the extent that less noise requires less recovery time between exposures. That recovery time difference may make zero functional difference for a hunter who takes one shot in a day. But for someone exposed to repeated shots, even while wearing other hearing protection, it represents additional protection. You really can’t argue that more protection is “bad.” Whether it is worth the costs in length, weight, diameter, etc. is another matter.

And since there is no such thing as “140 decibels is hearing safe” - the whole 140 decibel thing is a workplace rule about requiring hearing protection for workers exposed to a single exposure above that level - there is real value in having more hearing protection. It’s not like you magically don’t suffer hearing loss if you get the noise down to 118 (e.g. suppressed subsonic). You still have to limit your exposure and/or use other protection.

Last year you were lecturing me for taking a single shot without hearing protection using the OG (which, if I recall correctly, metered at 133). Said I was dangerously irresponsible and reckless, or words to that effect.

This year you are apparently dying on a hill that there’s no medical difference between 133 and 127 (you haven’t said that explicitly, but that’s what you are saying when you argue there’s no point getting it below the 130s). You are stubbornly wrong about that.

No one here is advocating for maximum suppression without regard to weight, length, etc.

You love to trot out the straw man that if someone doesn’t want to use an OG because it isn’t quiet enough for him, then he should be using some huge suppressor. As if those were the only two choices in the world. They aren’t.

As for what I use, today I used an AB Raptor 10 with 5” reflex on a 16.5” Tikka .223, an AB Raptor 8 with 3” reflex on a 20” Tikka .243, and an OG 6.5 on a 24” Mauser .25-06. And I also used headphones and ear plugs for every shot I fired today because I was on the range. I’ve hunted with the .25-06 and OG 6.5 combination enough to know that I really like it and it works well for me in the field. As did a 20” 6.5 CM with the AB Raptor 8 and a 22” 6.5 CM with the Airlock 6.5. And I’ve used those suppressors enough to know they work better - on any of my 6.5’s or below - than an option that meters at 133. And I’d rather use my AB Raptor 8 with 3” reflex on anything .308 or below than the OG.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

So which is worse, one shot at 133db or 10 shots at 130 db, or 100 at 120?

I’m not advocating for any of those. I’m advocating for one shot at 127 versus one shot at 133.

If I am shooting 10 shots at 130, I am wearing double hearing protection or I am in a life or death struggle. Because otherwise I need to shoot those 10 shots over something like 2.5-5 hours to mitigate the risk of hearing damage.

 

[TandKHunting]

I’m not advocating for any of those. I’m advocating for one shot at 127 versus one shot at 133.

If I am shooting 10 shots at 130, I am wearing double hearing protection or I am in a life or death struggle. Because otherwise I need to shoot those 10 shots over something like 2.5-5 hours to mitigate the risk of hearing damage.

Enough. Let's get the thread back on track.

 

[Formidilosus]

It’s useful to the extent that less noise requires less recovery time between exposures. That recovery time difference may make zero functional difference for a hunter who takes one shot in a day. But for someone exposed to repeated shots, even while wearing other hearing protection, it represents additional protection. You really can’t argue that more protection is “bad.” Whether it is worth the costs in length, weight, diameter, etc. is another matter.

Are you actually lecturing me on hearing protection with guns?

And since there is no such thing as “140 decibels is hearing safe” - the whole 140 decibel thing is a workplace rule about requiring hearing protection for workers exposed to a single exposure above that level - there is real value in having more hearing protection. It’s not like you magically don’t suffer hearing loss if you get the noise down to 118 (e.g. suppressed subsonic). You still have to limit your exposure and/or use other protection.

Ok. Tell me how to functionally use what you just wrote.

Last year you were lecturing me for taking a single shot without hearing protection using the OG (which, if I recall correctly, metered at 133). Said I was dangerously irresponsible and reckless, or words to that effect.

And that reality doesn’t give you enough pause to maybe think about what I have written, and maybe that you have missed something?

This year you are apparently dying on a hill that there’s no medical difference between 133 and 127 (you haven’t said that explicitly, but that’s what you are saying when you argue there’s no point getting it below the 130s). You are stubbornly wrong about that.

I didn’t say any of that- drop the lawyer nonsense and exaggeration, and read what I actually wrote.

No one here is advocating for maximum suppression without regard to weight, length, etc.

Then how is 2dB some big deal once it is below a certain threshold- especially when the meters can’t determine that level of detail? That literally is what I wrote.

You love to trot out the straw man that if someone doesn’t want to use an OG because it isn’t quiet enough for him, then he should be using some huge suppressor. As if those were the only two choices in the world. They aren’t.

What are you talking about? You cannot be this dense.

As for what I use, today I used an AB Raptor 10 with 5” reflex on a 16.5” Tikka .223, an AB Raptor 8 with 3” reflex on a 20” Tikka .243, and an OG 6.5 on a 24” Mauser .25-06.

Cool. Since 2dB is such a big deal- you know, the reality of variability in testing suppressors- what this entire back and forth has been about today; you don’t shoot any of those cans when it warms up 30°?

And I also used headphones and ear plugs for every shot I fired today because I was on the range. I’ve hunted with the .25-06 and OG 6.5 combination enough to know that I really like it and it works well for me in the field. As did a 20” 6.5 CM with the AB Raptor 8 and a 22” 6.5 CM with the Airlock 6.5. And I’ve used those suppressors enough to know they work better - on any of my 6.5’s or below - than an option that meters at 133. And I’d rather use my AB Raptor 8 with 3” reflex on anything .308 or below than the OG.

Neat. Not one of those things have I argued, nor addressed.

I want the quietest can I can get- that fits the size, length, and weight I will accept. And once below a certain threshold, there is no functional real risk increase that can be mitigated in reality. Again read what I have written here in context to what was being discussed- testing and metering suppressors with non professional level meters.

 

[4th_point]

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.

Cool- so what do you do when it goes from 30° F, to 40 or 50° F? Do you just not shoot them anymore?

Formi,

When you get a moment to come up for air...

There seems to be some issues with your equipment, setup, or understanding.

Question #1: How are you getting some cans to meter louder than actual, with insufficient sample rate?

Question #2: Are you saying that cans get louder, as ambient increases?

Recall our previous posts where you were using A-weighting, when you should have used Z-weighting. Likewise, you were using arithmetic average, when you should have used log average.

I think you've got similar issues going on here.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Are you actually lecturing me on hearing protection with guns?






Ok. Tell me how to functionally use what you just wrote.





And that reality doesn’t give you enough pause to maybe think about what I have written, and maybe that you have missed something?





I didn’t say any of that- drop the lawyer nonsense and exaggeration, and read what I actually wrote.





Then how is 2dB some big deal once it is below a certain threshold- especially when the meters can’t determine that level of detail? That literally is what I wrote.




What are you talking about? You cannot be this dense.





Cool. Since 2dB is such a big deal- you know, the reality of variability in testing suppressors- what this entire back and forth has been about today; you don’t shoot any of those cans when it warms up 30°?






Neat. Not one of those things have I argued, nor addressed.

I want the quietest can I can get- that fits the size, length, and weight I will accept. And once below a certain threshold, there is no functional real risk increase that can be mitigated in reality. Again read what I have written here in context to what was being discussed- testing and metering suppressors with non professional level meters.

Once the ad hominems come out, the conversation is generally over. But to answer your last question, I am going to keep shooting cans that reliably measure quieter than cans that don’t. I’ve never argued over 133 vs 132. But between 133 and 127, I am taking the 127 (all other factors being equal). Assuming the same margin for error on each can, quieter is still quieter.

And no, I won’t stop shooting if the ambient temperature goes up enough to make 127 into 128 or 129. Because, as you pointed out so many times, 1 or 2 decibels isn’t really worth arguing about. But if it gets hot enough to take 127 up to 140, I probably won’t be shooting anymore. Because I’ll be baked alive. Not even Kuwait or Jordan got that hot.

And, to get back on topic, it would be really nice to see someone test suppressors with proper equipment, proper sample sizes, and consistent setups. I’m done paying attention to videos of dudes in a field holding a meter and firing off five rounds.

 

[Formidilosus]

Formi,

When you get a moment to come up for air...

There seems to be some issues with your equipment, setup, or understanding.

Question #1: How are you getting some cans to meter louder than actual, with insufficient sample rate?

I don’t know how it works. I haven’t used, or been around the non professional level systems really until a year or two ago.

But, it is VERY obvious with all bystanders that randomly a known, extremely consistent can meters 136-137 dB- that there is no way is real, given that same shot sounds to everyone exactly the same as the ones metering 129 dB.
For instance, it is not unusual to have the TBAC UL7 Gen 2 to randomly pop a 135-137 dB(A) on a 20” 223. That isn’t real. Not at all. That never shows up in real systems. Not only that- frequently two, calibrated identical Spartan meters don’t read the same when it happens.

Question #2: Are you saying that cans get louder, as ambient increases?

I’m saying that absolutely cans meter different in different conditions. And it is frequently a 3-4 dB range up and down.
I am not saying it is a huge difference when metering with correct systems; I am saying that it is with the meters that almost everyone is using.

I am stupid on this; are you saying environmental conditions don’t cause variability in testing suppressors?

Recall our previous posts where you were using A-weighting, when you should have used Z-weighting.

Sure. Recall what I actually wrote- we can quote it if you want in its entirety in case I am mistaken. IIRC- what I stated was that A weighting is what the entire industry uses, and not being a professional sound person- that from what I have been told, it is fine for this use because we don’t actually know what is “safe” and “not safe”- the unknown is so large that as long as you are comfortably under 140, it’s probably about as fine as you will get. Also remember, that I started showing the Z-weighting afterwards.

You disagree with that- awesome. Can you tell me how and why, and how I can functionally use that information? How do I compare one can that only has A-weighting listed, with another can that uses Z-weighting?

Not any of that has to do with whether the meters being used are accurate enough to pick up the difference in 1-2 dB.

FFS you have people on here claiming that cans are metering in the 120’s on right side ear from an AR15…. And everything is good because “that’s what the meter says”.

Likewise, you were using arithmetic average, when you should have used log average.

I think you've got similar issues going on here.

100%. I am ignorant as can be. Can you or omicron educate and teach me where and how 2dB difference (129 to 131 say) is changing how I use a can, or what steps I must take to remove the risk increase?

 

[HuntHarder]

I like it when Form is drinking! Entertaining

 

[Formidilosus]

Once the ad hominems come out, the conversation is generally over.

What did I write that was an ad hominem? What I wrote- is that you don’t understand what is actually being argued be me here, or you are arguing to argue. To be clear, you have a very real, objectively noticeable habit of doing so.

Are or were you not a lawyer? Do lawyers not tend to argue just about anything, even when there really isn’t an argument?

And no, I won’t stop shooting if the ambient temperature goes up enough to make 127 into 128 or 129. Because, as you pointed out so many times, 1 or 2 decibels isn’t really worth arguing about.

Then what are you arguing with me about? If you actually believe what you just wrote above, then you have been arguing with me for the sake of arguing. That is near word for word what I wrote that started this nonsense today.

This is what I wrote- read the last paragraph:

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.

And, to get back on topic, it would be really nice to see someone test suppressors with proper equipment, proper sample sizes, and consistent setups. I’m done paying attention to videos of dudes in a field holding a meter and firing off five rounds.

It sure would. How do you think that is going to happen given the limitations and expense required to do so; for non professional, sporting use?

On that note: go back through the suppressors evals I have done, and the numbers shown for known suppressors- then go look at TBAC Summit results; has there been any that are out of bounds in results that I have shown?

 

[nm.otter]

How do I compare one can that only has A-weighting listed, with another can that uses Z-weighting?

Lacking the raw samples from which each was derived -- you can't

 

[Formidilosus]

You can't -- unless you have the raw samples from which each was derived.

Would you then say, that given that- you need to, at a minimum; use the same standard that everyone else is using, until a better standard is common?

If not, then people will choose the can that “metered” 129 dB versus the one that metered 134-135 dB…. Even though they are the exact same can, and exact same shots. Just expressed with different weighting.

 

[Bluumoon]

I’m half deaf and not particularly sensitive to sounds, not saying loudness, more like no musical inclination what so ever. So not a great judge of tone, decibel etc…

But, as a shooter wearing ear protection are you guys really noticing much difference between cans? I shot 8 different cans off the same .223 this last week from 7” long can to 4” can and unless I intentionally pulled ear pro out slightly I wasn’t noticing a giant difference. The two short cans were a lot snappier and less pleasing to the ear w loose ear pro.

As a bystander I can certainly notice the differences.

So I guess my questions for everyone bickering over minutia is from what perspective are you evaluating things or are you just arguing over #s?

I’ll have 12 guys here shooting in a few weeks, everyone shooting suppressed. I suspect we’ll have at least 20 different cans available. Aside from metering ( which seems marginally useful) what is actual useful information?

Like the bro test have everyone turn their backs and rate the cans? Doesn’t tell you anything about shooter perspective.
Have a guy lay behind berm and shoot over them to try and gain animals perspective?

 

[Bluefish]

But, as a shooter wearing ear protection are you guys really noticing much difference between cans? I shot 8 different cans off the same .223 this last week from 7” long can to 4” can and unless I intentionally pulled ear pro out slightly I wasn’t noticing a giant difference. The two short cans were a lot snappier and less pleasing to the ear w loose ear pro.

As a bystander I can certainly notice the differences.

This is my experience as well. On the gun with ear pro they all sound pretty similar. Off to the side, there can be big differences. When shooting a 45-70 I had sonic and subs of basically the same load. Some just over the speed of sound, some under. There was a noticeable difference when off to the side when a sonic round went downrange.

 

[nm.otter]

Would you then say, that given that- you need to, at a minimum; use the same standard that everyone else is using, until a better standard is common?

Definitely. As long as both use the same meters with the same settings, it's down to environmental differences, sample size, and a laundry list of other, decreasingly less significant, factors.

A-weighting is a simplistic (but not unreasonable) approximation of loudness perceived by the average listener. Z-weighting is 'unweighted', at least in the frequency domain. Given the same input waveform, they are related by a transfer function.