The results are in: 2024 Silencer Summit Sound Test

[thinhorn_AK]

The banish 22 got the best results. The banish 30 gold also did well. Those suppressors seem to get a lot of flack on here, but mainly for their marketing strategies.

I have a banish 22, I think it's a great silencer, the banish 30 (not gold) that I have has been less than impressive. I agree that SC as a company is pretty crappy in general from purchasing all the way through warranty work.

 

[JohnJohnson]

All these companies have their own ratings, these are not groundbreaking.

Not groundbreaking, but notable to have multiple manufacturers agree upon mutual testing standards for any comparisons. When they normally just do specialized tests to push their products and rarely do comparisons.

It was more about some numbers that disagreed with his, and he was explaining why.

That's valid. Though implying a bunch of suppressor companies don't understand sound and hearing damage like he does is certainly confident. It may even be true but I'm sure the companies aren't completely ignorant.

The Summit is not a competitor to his products.

Kind of disagree there, at least to some extent. His testing may very well be better but it does appear that the Summit is a partial competitor to his product at least for the suppressors that were tested in it. I went on his website and see only suppressor testing/ranking related options to click on. Many/most of which are paywalled.

 

[Bluefish]

I for one like the data the summit is generating. The methodology may not be perfect, but it is consistent. It also shows not a single ar shooting 556 gets under 140 db at the shooters ear. If you do an A weighting they squeak in just under 140. While we assume that is the safe limit of exposure, I have seen data to suggest damage can occur at lower pressure levels.

I would like to see more data on bigger bore ie 35 cal, 45 cal as that’s what I have to use for hunting.

 

[wind gypsy]

The banish 30 gold also did well.

Kind of? At the length and weight it doesn’t stand out with the numbers but solid.

 

[thinhorn_AK]

Kind of? At the length and weight it doesn’t stand out with the numbers but solid.

Yeah 8+ inches and over 13 ounces is a bit much imo. I seem to remember a podcast where the SC guy was saying that the banish 30 gold was sort of intended for ultra magnums and stuff like that.

SC sucks but I still think the banish 22 and the backcountry are solid products. I really wish I’d gotten a backcountry instead of my banish 30 but it was released like a month after I ordered my 30.

 

[omicron1792]

Kind of? At the length and weight it doesn’t stand out with the numbers but solid.

I guess my number one attribute of a supressor is how much it supresses sound. I know there are other features that matter, but that is exhibit A.

In sound suppression, it was third (unless I misread it).

 

[justin davis]

Pretty cool. I think it’s really neat that TBAC does this and invites whoever wants to participate. What a cool company.

 

[wind gypsy]

I guess my number one attribute of a supressor is how much it supresses sound. I know there are other features that matter, but that is exhibit A.

In sound suppression, it was third (unless I misread it).

Are you referring to the at muzzle readings? I only looked briefly at dB at the shooters ear, because that is where it matters most to me. It did well at shooters ear but there's still some top 7" class cans that did at least as well there while being shorter/lighter.

I'm not audio/suppression nerd so it's very possible i overlooked best way to interpret the #'s.

 

[omicron1792]

Are you referring to the at muzzle readings? I only looked briefly at dB at the shooters ear, because that is where it matters most to me. It did well at shooters ear but there's still some top 7" class cans that did at least as well there while being shorter/lighter.

I'm not audio/suppression nerd so it's very possible i overlooked best way to interpret the #'s.

It’s possible I did the same. I was using the first dB number on the list. I didn’t dig deep at all.

The extra inch of length probably does more to limit noise exposure at shooters ear than anything. Getting that muzzle blast 1 inch further away. But then you have a longer barrel. Tradeoffs.

I have a banish 30 gold, but it’s my least used supressor. My fave is my Ab raptor 8 stack with reflex.

I have a banish 22 also and it does fine, but a coke can would probably give good 22 suppression.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

That is a good question, which value is most useful in terms of hearing protection? I have been looking at shooters ear Leq dBA, is the SE dBA more approriate?

The AR platform thing being loud at shooters ear is why I think it'd be nice if they did a 556 bolt action so we know what these 556/6mm cans could do in those scenarios.

 

[JohnJohnson]

The AR platform thing being loud at shooters ear is why I think it'd be nice if they did a 556 bolt action so we know what these 556/6mm cans could do in those scenarios.

Well TBAC has historically posted their suppressors on all sorts of platforms/cartridges. Just need other manufacturers to do the same. They always just post numbers in the video description if you don't want to watch the video (it's boring/repetitive testing). Since the Magnus, Ultra-9 Gen 2, and 338 Ultra Gen 2 should be on the Summit testing you can kind of guess about the non-TBAC ones.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Well TBAC has historically posted their suppressors on all sorts of platforms/cartridges. Just need other manufacturers to do the same. They always just post numbers in the video description if you don't want to watch the video (it's boring/repetitive testing). Since the Magnus, Ultra-9 Gen 2, and 338 Ultra Gen 2 should be on the Summit testing you can kind of guess about the non-TBAC ones.

They did the 30cal stuff on a bolt action, no issues there.

They did the 556/6mm on a gas gun (where are all louder than 30cal cans on bolt action at the shooter ear as you could expect). For those of us that shoot 223/6mm bolt actions it would have been nice to know how the caliber specific bore cans worked on those platforms across the field of those.

Beggars can't be choosers I know. . Dunno if its reasonable instead look at muzzle volume on those cans instead to try and get a feel for performance.

 

[kthomas]

I feel pretty damn good right now about steering my friend towards an OCL Hydrogen-L 6.5 can since TBAC was out of stock everywhere a couple weeks ago. I was basing that off the 2023 Summit results but seems like it aged well.

A good suppressor is a good suppressor. That doesn't change in a years time.

OCL makes good cans.

 

[kthomas]

I think it might have been on reddit? Comments on a post about the 2023 Summit?

I hope I'm not out of whack here, but in my recollection it was mainly targeting the way they adjusted the readings to make up for shooting in a tin shed. And something about how he (Jay) uses proprietary algorithms to get to his sound rating vs raw dB data so that manufacturers can't game the test with lower peak readings but still causing equivalent harm by extending the duration.

Again, don't quote me on any of this. The gist was that those readings at the Summit do not equate directly to risk of hearing loss mitigation and are only part of the picture.

Jay is probably pissed because he perceives this information as a threat.

Why pay Jay for his arbitrary and proprietary suppressor ratings when you can get a free spreadsheet with a lot of cans tested side by side?

I don't really have anything against Jay, but I think people put way too much stock into his analysis. He's also incredibly hard to listen to, he says a lot without actually saying a lot.

 

[5811]

Jay is probably pissed because he perceives this information as a threat.

Why pay Jay for his arbitrary and proprietary suppressor ratings when you can get a free spreadsheet with a lot of cans tested side by side?

I don't really have anything against Jay, but I think people put way too much stock into his analysis. He's also incredibly hard to listen to, he says a lot without actually saying a lot.

I get that TBAC has extremely loyal fans and appears to be a great company, but I don't get where you have to knock one to support the other.

There is no reason to think that Jay is pissed. The people that want Jay's data are not the same people that look at a table of "readings" and draw conclusions and go on with their day. The Summit is very cool and I have nothing against tbac or their data, but it is not the same as what you can get from Jay, for free. Nor is it in the same ballpark as the deliverable reports he is paid to produce by suppressor companies when he tests their cans.

A different poster above is asking about how to relate which readings to what and what's safe. If only there was a site that held such information and made the numbers easy to read and free to get.....

Again, not knocking TBAC or the Summit data. It's awesome that they do that and I love to see the comparisons. It's great to see all these companies come together. Business is good.

I'm just some knucklehead on the internet. Take my point of view with a grain of salt. But what I do know is that portraying pewscience data as all hidden behind a paywall is not being honest.

 

[B23]

I have two SC Banish 22 cans and their Banish 30. Also have the older sealed TBAC rimfire cans their "S" and "L" as well as I've shot with numerous TBAC TD22 and DA Mask rimfire cans. To my ears and this is obviously very unscientific but my Banish22 cans tend to consistently have more FRP then the others I have or I've used and it doesn't seem to matter if it's on a 22LR or 17 HMR. Also, my Banish 22 cans tend to start getting a bit louder the more dirty they get and a clean Banish 22 is usually quieter then a dirty one.

Regardless, my two Banish 22 cans have been good and I'd say they are easily on par with the other top tier rimfire cans with regard to suppression and are a little lighter then most of the top rated rimfire cans. I've used them on my 17 Hornets and 17 WSM they do well on those too.

The Banish 30 in full length is decent for a 1.5 dia. can but in the shorter 7in configuration mine is pretty unimpressive. Honestly, to do all over again I'd rather have a new TBAC Gen2 Ultra 7

 

[JohnJohnson]

but I don't get where you have to knock one to support the other.

Jay from pewscience.com poked some pretty big holes in the methodology after last year, but he is on another level. I think it has some value as a comparison tool, but I can also understand where there might be some hesitancy.

?

 

[5811]

?

You're right, I shouldn't have brought pewscience into this. I didn't think I was saying anything that was a knock on TBAC, just something I remembered from last year in an attempt to explain why not all companies would participate in the Summit.

 

[kthomas]

I get that TBAC has extremely loyal fans and appears to be a great company, but I don't get where you have to knock one to support the other.

There is no reason to think that Jay is pissed. The people that want Jay's data are not the same people that look at a table of "readings" and draw conclusions and go on with their day. The Summit is very cool and I have nothing against tbac or their data, but it is not the same as what you can get from Jay, for free. Nor is it in the same ballpark as the deliverable reports he is paid to produce by suppressor companies when he tests their cans.

A different poster above is asking about how to relate which readings to what and what's safe. If only there was a site that held such information and made the numbers easy to read and free to get.....

Again, not knocking TBAC or the Summit data. It's awesome that they do that and I love to see the comparisons. It's great to see all these companies come together. Business is good.

I'm just some knucklehead on the internet. Take my point of view with a grain of salt. But what I do know is that portraying pewscience data as all hidden behind a paywall is not being honest.

You're right, I shouldn't say Jay is pissed. I don't know that. I don't know Jay personally, nor have I seen what he's typed or said about the TBAC Summit. I shouldn't assume based on ambiguous comments on a forum, that's a fair critique.

IMO, I think the data and analysis that Jay provides is way overhyped and overvalued. I also think there's issues with having a proprietary and arbitrary suppressor rating system. But if people want to pay for that, by all means. Its your money, I'm not going to tell you how to spend it.

While some of the info Jay provides is interesting, I personally think the utility in his analysis when picking a suppressor is marginal at best. There's so much more to a suppressor than a dB rating. I've literally have never bought a single suppressor using that metric, or any arbitrary and proprietary metric Jay uses.

 

[CMP70306]

They did the 30cal stuff on a bolt action, no issues there.

They did the 556/6mm on a gas gun (where are all louder than 30cal cans on bolt action at the shooter ear as you could expect). For those of us that shoot 223/6mm bolt actions it would have been nice to know how the caliber specific bore cans worked on those platforms across the field of those.

Beggars can't be choosers I know. . Dunno if its reasonable instead look at muzzle volume on those cans instead to try and get a feel for performance.

Just cross reference some of the muzzle vs SE numbers on the bolt guns and use that as the basis for the SE numbers on a bolt action .223. The muzzle numbers should be similar regardless of action type so It will get you close enough to have an idea