Unknown suppressors OG testing

[sndmn11]

A “normal gunshot” is approximately 170 dbA. Exposure to that noise level for even a single exposure can cause permanent hearing loss. Not “will”, but “can.”

The suppressor is supposed to get that one shot down below 140-dbA. That is the level at which OSHA has determined that the risk of permanent hearing loss from an infrequent exposure is acceptably low.

Permanent hearing loss can still occur from repeated exposure to sounds below 140-db. The little tiny hairs in your ear need time to recover. So, generally, it is safe to fire one suppressed shot in X amount of time (at least an hour, but I personally try to limit it to one suppressed shot per day). If I plan to fire more than one suppressed shot, I put in earplugs.

You quoted me, however, are you writing this for yourself?



The answer at the start of this thread, and all others like it, is to wear hearing protection when playing with firearms. 28 pages later, that's still the answer, to include your circular debating.

So, even with a great suppressor on a rimfire, you should be wearing hearing protection for a range session.

 

[McCrapper]

So are the Rokslide experts giving this the go ahead or not?

 

[112Savage]

I used to go to concerts, ride lawn mowers and farm tractors without being bothered by the sound. Now I can’t do any of those things without pain or serious tinnitus afterward. The ringing in my ears after exposure to even “safe levels” is more than it used to be.

I have several good suppressors and even on small cartridges they will cause ringing. They are still better than plugs alone especially when hunting. Everybody’s hearing is different in the same way that everyone’s perception of color is different. Just because something hurts your ears doesn’t mean it was knowingly falsely advertised or is in any way deceptive marketing. I think US wants the best suppressor on the market. Based on their findings it is very competitive with other popular suppressors like the
Q Trash Panda
Gunwerks 6ix
Surefire 762 Rc2
Omega 300 flat cap
While being shorter in front of the muzzle.

 

[omicron1792]

It seems as though you are not taking into account YOUR ears. They are not calibrated and may have already sustained damage at some point in their life time. Your ears ringing from one shot with an OG doesn’t mean that the properly measured DBA isn’t at what they claim it is.

Not trying to argue. But this is one of the reasons that comparing suppressors is very difficult without using the proper equipment and protocols (Including things like same atmospheric conditions).

Edit: from not form

Here is the issue. When you’ve already suffered some hearing damage it actually is “protective” against future damage from loud noises. It’s kinda like you are always wearing some muffs all the time. So in general it takes a stronger noise to cause more damage, not less.

Seems counterintuitive. But true none the less.

It is important to protect the hearing you have left. But that is not gonna make you more sensitive to weaker sound as far as hearing loss goes.

Can it make you more apt to tinnitus? Absolutely. Tinnitus is most of the time caused by hearing loss, so anything that temporarily decreases your hearing will make tinnitus worse at least in the short term.

People should wear hearing protection when shooting guns. Period. But that is not how humans works. If everyone always kept a suppressor on the end of their guns then there would be a lot less hearing loss. Because we know people don’t wear hearing protection every time. They are cumbersome and often uncomfortable. Make conversation and actually hunting harder. Quick shots arise. And people are just people and forget. Sunglasses are good for your eyes in intense sunlight, but how many times have your forgotten those?

 

[omicron1792]

My $300 MSA Sordin pro-x muffs are rated at less than 30 db reduction IIRC. So about 170 to 140. I think most foamies are rated a little over 30 db.. So my hearing protection doesn't make it safe to shoot guns either from that perspective.

This is truth. For range sessions you should wear in ear foam followed by over the ear muffs. Most single forms of sound protection rate around 30db by themselves.

If using a suppressor at range a single form can be fine. However if the guy next to you is shooting with a brake then double is needed for protection.

 

[WI-Carcosa]

i shot my OG for the first time today. I originally planned to compare it on a 6.5 PRC to a TBAC 7 for my view of handling and sound but the thread adapter thwarted those plans. I shot the OG on my 223 16.5” T3x against the banish backcountry which is at 9oz and 5.5” length. The OG sounded notable better to me at shooters ear (wearing ear pro the whole time), sounded better to my buddy about 10 yards away from me, and handled nicer with the over the barrel setup compared to even a short can. For what was described as a short light can that mitigates noise and recoil for hunting rifles (but maybe not to TBAC 7 levels), the OG is as described. I am curious if the OG magnum (if the will be sub 13-14oz and have raptor 8 sound suppression levels, I would be very interested in that one as well.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

You quoted me, however, are you writing this for yourself?



The answer at the start of this thread, and all others like it, is to wear hearing protection when playing with firearms. 28 pages later, that's still the answer, to include your circular debating.

I wasn't trying to argue with you. I was elaborating on what you were saying. That's all.

 

[Dave0317]

So, you are saying you would wear hearing protection while hunting? Even with a suppressor?


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

Personally no.
I accept the risk of hearing damage from those few shots per year. Suppressed or not.

But, as a general rule, if most people don’t hunt with ear pro, whether the gun is suppressed or not, suppressed is at least not as loud.

For routine range shooting, I’ll always wear ear pro and I’ll always recommend others do the same.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

that one went right over your head.

DB rating is published, whether or not you believe it is up to you.

OG – Unknown Suppressors

unknownsuppressors.com

I believe the published rating. I could swear that it was not listed there five weeks ago. We went through a lot of this same conversation back on page 7 and 8.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Personally no.
I accept the risk of hearing damage from those few shots per year. Suppressed or not.

But, as a general rule, if most people don’t hunt with ear pro, whether the gun is suppressed or not, suppressed is at least not as loud.

For routine range shooting, I’ll always wear ear pro and I’ll always recommend others do the same.

We are in agreement on that.

 

[5811]

i shot the OG on my 223 16.5” T3x against the banish backcountry which is at 9oz and 5.5” length. The OG.... handled nicer with the over the barrel setup compared to even a short can.

This is what I can't wrap my head around. I'm not some world renowned math-ist, but if I simplify the problem to a lever and compare the two cans on a 16" barrel with the assumptions that:

• The center of gravity of the 6" can is 3" past the muzzle,
• The CG of the OG is at the muzzle,
• I add the mass of each to a lever of that length,
• I compare the effort required by the lever to my hand 6" forward of the rifles balance point without a muzzle device,

I find that the lighter, short can in front of the muzzle requires less effort. If I change barrel lengths and hand positions, the numbers change but the relationship is the same - the OG is heavier in the hand. Not by much, maybe even negligible to most, but not lighter.

Am I oversimplifying this or missing something?

 

[Q_Sertorius]

This is what I can't wrap my head around. I'm not some world renowned math-ist, but if I simplify the problem to a lever and compare the two cans on a 16" barrel with the assumptions that:

• The center of gravity of the 6" can is 3" past the muzzle,
• The CG of the OG is at the muzzle,
• I add the mass of each to a lever of that length,
• I compare the effort required by the lever to my hand 6" forward of the rifles balance point without a muzzle device,

I find that the lighter, short can in front of the muzzle requires less effort. If I change barrel lengths and hand positions, the numbers change but the relationship is the same - the OG is heavier in the hand. Not by much, maybe even negligible to most, but not lighter.

Am I oversimplifying this or missing something?

View attachment 903190
View attachment 903191
View attachment 903192

Why are you trying to determine the center of gravity of the suppressor?

You also seem to be assuming that the cans are balanced in the middle. That isn’t necessarily true. The baffles are forward on the OG. The back half is hollow.

You want to determine the balance point of the rifle+suppressor for each suppressor. And compare the length advantage of the rifle+suppressor with each suppressor. I did this with my CZ 527 in this thread: https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/qs-unknown-suppressors-og-thread.409891/#post-4213729


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[WI-Carcosa]

This is what I can't wrap my head around. I'm not some world renowned math-ist, but if I simplify the problem to a lever and compare the two cans on a 16" barrel with the assumptions that:

• The center of gravity of the 6" can is 3" past the muzzle,
• The CG of the OG is at the muzzle,
• I add the mass of each to a lever of that length,
• I compare the effort required by the lever to my hand 6" forward of the rifles balance point without a muzzle device,

I find that the lighter, short can in front of the muzzle requires less effort. If I change barrel lengths and hand positions, the numbers change but the relationship is the same - the OG is heavier in the hand. Not by much, maybe even negligible to most, but not lighter.

Am I oversimplifying this or missing something?

Oh boy I have no idea on the lever thing. One can is 9oz bare on the scale and all 5.5” of it are at the end of the barrel. And the other is 2ish ounces heavier with some of that weight over the barrel and only 4” on the end. My assessment was not scientific other than carrying, shooting, messing around with the rifle and finding the OG less annoying to handle on the end although it is heavier. I also had a heavier cover on the backcountry which probably closed the gap even further.

 

[5811]

Why are you trying to determine the center of gravity of the suppressor?

You also seem to be assuming that the cans are balanced in the middle. That isn’t necessarily true. The baffles are forward on the OG. The back half is hollow.

You want to determine the balance point of the rifle+suppressor for each suppressor. And compare the length advantage of the rifle+suppressor with each suppressor.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

Yes, I realize that my assumptions are vague but I am trying to simplify to the difference between them, not bring into account all of the variables in the balance of different rifles.

I am thinking the OG has internal walls and threads at the back half to cancel out the baffles in the front half. Same with a lightweight 6" can, more baffles towards the front but the hub is in the back.

 

[wind gypsy]

This is what I can't wrap my head around. I'm not some world renowned math-ist, but if I simplify the problem to a lever and compare the two cans on a 16" barrel with the assumptions that:

• The center of gravity of the 6" can is 3" past the muzzle,
• The CG of the OG is at the muzzle,
• I add the mass of each to a lever of that length,
• I compare the effort required by the lever to my hand 6" forward of the rifles balance point without a muzzle device,

I find that the lighter, short can in front of the muzzle requires less effort. If I change barrel lengths and hand positions, the numbers change but the relationship is the same - the OG is heavier in the hand. Not by much, maybe even negligible to most, but not lighter.

Am I oversimplifying this or missing something?

View attachment 903190
View attachment 903191
View attachment 903192

Huh?

There have been multiple posts that show a scythe or similar actually have a further rearward balance point on rifles than the OG because they weigh less. I.E. the OG's increased weight more than offsets the additional length to suppressor center of gravity of something like a scythe.

My understanding on balance and stability in general is that a higher percentage of weight on the ends = more stable. This is likely much more applicable in "barricade benchrest" disciplines than hunting but still applicable IMO. My hunting rifles tend to have balance points more rearward than i'd prefer anyway, especially with a sporter barrel chopped to 18".

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Yes, I realize that my assumptions are vague but I am trying to simplify to the difference between them, not bring into account all of the variables in the balance of different rifles.

I am thinking the OG has internal walls and threads at the back half to cancel out the baffles in the front half. Same with a lightweight 6" can, more baffles towards the front but the hub is in the back.

The OG has a hollow chamber in the back half.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[5811]

Oh boy I have no idea on the lever thing. One can is 9oz bare on the scale and all 5.5” of it are at the end of the barrel. And the other is 2ish ounces heavier with some of that weight over the barrel and only 4” on the end. My assessment was not scientific other than carrying, shooting, messing around with the rifle and finding the OG less annoying to handle on the end although it is heavier. I also had a heavier cover on the backcountry which probably closed the gap even further.

That makes a ton of sense. Thanks!

 

[5811]

The OG has a hollow chamber in the back half.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

But it also has an ID tube, which the front doesn't.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

But it also has an ID tube, which the front doesn't.

I don’t know what that means, but the only thing that matters for handling is where the rifle balances with the suppressor on it. As I showed in the thread linked above, the balance point for my rifle plus Scythe or OG is really close to what it is in the same rifle unmodified. The difference is that the rifle plus OG is much shorter, while still being very well-balanced. Which makes it a really handy package.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[5811]

Huh?

There have been multiple posts that show a scythe or similar actually have a further rearward balance point on rifles than the OG because they weigh less. I.E. the OG's increased weight more than offsets the additional length to suppressor center of gravity of something like a scythe.

My understanding on balance and stability in general is that a higher percentage of weight on the ends = more stable. This is likely much more applicable in "barricade benchrest" disciplines than hunting but still applicable IMO. My hunting rifles tend to have balance points more rearward than i'd prefer anyway, especially with a sporter barrel chopped to 18".

Okay, so I did lack a fundamental understanding of what people are saying when it "handles better." Thank you for explaining that to me.

I have stockys on my hunting rifles and they all feel nose heavy to me, so I was thinking lighter out front was better.