@Formidilosus, it’s interesting that such a simple question got such an emotional response from you. I was a bit snarky in the final sentence and for that I apologize.
There is no emotion- I have no desire to once again go round and round with someone who cannot or will not understand this. Most of your posts I see on this board is repeating nonsense about products you’ve never used. Your question(s) were not legitimate, or if they were there is nothing more I can do to help you, as in the thread the answers were given.
and… I thought it was a “genuine question? If it was a genuine question- why did you delete it?
That said, you’ve spent plenty of time publicly dissecting other companies’ performance claims—Airlock being one of the more obvious examples.
Correct- just as I have with scopes, actions, rifles, packs, sleeping bags, clothing, bullets, spotting scopes, binos, LRF’s, tripods, etc etc.
Btw- what do you think that I said, that I was incorrect on in regards to Airlock? What about any other suppressors?
The irony here is that you’re reacting to me exactly how the companies you criticized/dissected probably wanted to react to you…
No. You troll. Saying the same nonsensical thing repeatedly is not “asking genuine questions”. Again- please feel free to post what I have stated to other suppressor companies that you believe is not correct… because I will screenshot what I stated.
From memory:
1). That a normal muzzle forward can wasn’t 123 dB in a 308- I was correct.
2). That port pop on an AR15 isn’t low 130 dB- I was correct.
3). That a thin Ti can with high back pressure will show issues more than cans that are not so aggressive- I was correct.
4). That ultra high back pressure cans cause issues in the field with pressure and sticky bolts- I was correct.
As for Airlock, I shot a ZG65 quite a bit this year (most likely for more rounds than anyone else on this board), and had three others brought to classes. If someone wants that type of can, it’s probably the best on the market… and it still has the downsides that I stated it does.
Please feel free to post what you believe I have been wrong about, or inconsistent on. I’ve already posted screenshots of what I actually wrote- that were consistent with what I am still saying.
If the scrutiny was fair when you were asking the questions, it’s fair now too. Maybe the better approach was to just answer the question.
Once again- I have been “questioned”, trolled, cursed at, and lied about more than any poster on this board…. And more than any poster on this board have been proven correct, repeatedly.
You do not ask a question, get a real answer and then go “oh, that makes sense” and then apply it to future thought. Much like huntharder, no matter how many times things are shown to you, or explained to you- you just keep repeating the same things over and over.
It’s not hard-
“Our can meters 125 dB on a 300wm”
“You know there are no normal cans that have been measured that meter 125 on a 300wm?”.
“Our cans do”
“Ok, can you hear the firing fall?”
“No.”
“Low 120 dB range and you can hear the firing pin”
Then later-
“223 meters ‘x’..”
“No, I don’t believe the numbers the meter is putting out, because I don’t fully believe any number that these meters put out.”
“And yes, you can sometimes hear the firing pin fall behind the rifle. Not only the shooter, but bystanders can sometimes hear it”.
Please explain where you see discrepancies between those two examples.
....FOMO marketing. Admittedly, I want one!!
)
