Unknown suppressors OG testing

[Unknown Suppressors]

Going to redo it at 20” after several people pointing out 24” is too long. I was using my NRL hunter rifle to do the testing…

It’s also what TBAC uses

 

[4th_point]

Help me understand this a bit more. Am I interpreting correctly that, because of the chosen (48K) sample, that it may not be capturing the peak of the suppressed shot, thus (potentially) not providing an accurate DB reading?

That's basically it.

Think about the firing event in the time domain (time on X-axis, dB on the Y-axis). The noise peak is very short duration. So even though there are 48,000 samples per second, it is still possible that the peak is missed just based on sample rate. There are also other equipment factors too, like rise time.

The recently released SAAMI standard requires a minimum of 192,000 samples per second, for comparison.

In my opinion, it is OK to use these budget friendly SLM (sound level meter) with lower samples rates - as long as the can manufacturer, test person, etc. states what was used and the unit is suitable for gunfire (correct mic, range, etc.).

A full blown DAQ or acoustic analyzer for 192k sample rate is big bucks. And the learning curve to setup and use one can be very steep.

 

[RockAndSage]

It’s also what TBAC uses

Is there any kind of industry standard, or even a norm, for barrel length in testing suppressors? I haven't looked at anyone's suppressor data on barrel length, but definitely get annoyed when ammo companies list "velocity"...from a 24" barrel. Especially on .223/5.56. It would be much more useful if this kind of data tracked with what the average barrel length is across a user base, or if it was just listed across a range of lengths.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Is there any kind of industry standard, or even a norm, for barrel length in testing suppressors? I haven't looked at anyone's suppressor data on barrel length, but definitely get annoyed when ammo companies list "velocity"...from a 24" barrel. Especially on .223/5.56. It would be much more useful if this kind of data tracked with what the average barrel length is across a user base, or if it was just listed across a range of lengths.

There is, but it is voluntary and dumb. The new SAAMI lists it at 24" for non-magnum rifles and 26" for magnum rifles. This is the sort of standard that only a committee from the industry could develop.

The TBAC standard of ".308-20BA - AI-AX 20" shooting M118LR" (a 20" barrel on a bolt action rifle using a specific DODIC that is commonly available) for all .30 caliber suppressors makes far more sense than the new SAAMI standards. But the critical thing is not the barrel length chosen as the standard: it is to ensure that all manufacturers use the same standards and list all the same data on their websites.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://saami.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/SAAMI-Z299.6-202X-Suppressors-Approved-2025-07-30.pdf

 

[4th_point]

A full blown DAQ or acoustic analyzer for 192k sample rate is big bucks. And the learning curve to setup and use one can be very steep.

I should also state that, just because someone uses a high-end DAQ or analyzer it does not mean that they actually know how to use it correctly or that the test conditions were controlled.

So I would not judge the validity of results just based on Sound Level Meter (SLM) vs DAQ/analyzer, if that makes sense.

In fact, anyone using a handheld SLM should get training before taking and publishing numbers willy-nilly.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

That's basically it.

Think about the firing event in the time domain (time on X-axis, dB on the Y-axis). The noise peak is very short duration. So even though there are 48,000 samples per second, it is still possible that the peak is missed just based on sample rate. There are also other equipment factors too, like rise time.

The recently released SAAMI standard requires a minimum of 192,000 samples per second, for comparison.

In my opinion, it is OK to use these budget friendly SLM (sound level meter) with lower samples rates - as long as the can manufacturer, test person, etc. states what was used and the unit is suitable for gunfire (correct mic, range, etc.).

A full blown DAQ or acoustic analyzer for 192k sample rate is big bucks. And the learning curve to setup and use one can be very steep.

From a engineer's perspective, using more precise and expensive gear may be desirable. But from the perspective of a consumer looking to choose a suppressor, simply establishing a reasonable standard setup and equipment is the most desirable thing. For instance, I note that US/UM and Airlock are using the same model Spartan. I think that is just fine for inhouse testing as long as people follow an accepted method for setting it up.

The TBAC summit is using the B&K LanXI 3052-A-3/0, which presumably is one of the $40-50k versions. I haven't looked at every suppressor at the TBAC summits, but I have yet to see a manufacturer whose cans rate grossly higher at the summit than they do on the manufacturers' websites. But this is only something I have looked at for cans which I am considering purchasing.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I should also state that, just because someone uses a high-end DAQ or analyzer it does not mean that they actually know how to use it correctly or that the test conditions were controlled.

To me: this is why the TBAC Suppressor Summit is the most valuable source of sound ratings for suppressors. It is the most likely to produce consistent results.

 

[cuerro viejo]

This thread is wild. I bought an OG when they first went on sale. I paid the full price and its my first suppressor. Of course it stung a little when they almost immediately went on sale but the sale is based completely on an external change in regulations hard to fault unknow there.

As far as the new innovation that led to a better product I think its very difficult to hate on unknown for that. Releasing the best product they have seems like good business, certainly the accelerated timetable is not what we are used to but alternatively they could of kept the 6.5 og to themselves for the time being and would of been accused of not bringing the best thing to the public and using proprietary stuff.
Im happy with the OG for what it is. A suppressor that doesn't add a lot of length to a rifle. It currently lives on my wife's 6mm creedmoor and its a pleasure to shoot it.
If I were to buy one again today it would be a no brainer to go with the new 6.5 model(and it will likely be my next purchase) but I dont feel like I was lied to or that unknown is in the wrong for developing new models.

Same I bought OG for my daughters 6cm. It’s exactly as advertised, unfortunately she prefers lessor recoil of the raptor 8(which is a significantly larger volume and longer can). I actually prefer the OG on her rifle, unfortunately Raptor was only 1” diameter reflex can I had, I need a dedicated replacement for Raptor 8 for carbon barreled 7prc and 22 CM. Thinking reaper with “blast chamber”.

OG moved to 223 trainer, unless I’m using her rifle, I left zero top sighted in for OG

 

[SC_Scout]

That's basically it.

Think about the firing event in the time domain (time on X-axis, dB on the Y-axis). The noise peak is very short duration. So even though there are 48,000 samples per second, it is still possible that the peak is missed just based on sample rate. There are also other equipment factors too, like rise time.

The recently released SAAMI standard requires a minimum of 192,000 samples per second, for comparison.

In my opinion, it is OK to use these budget friendly SLM (sound level meter) with lower samples rates - as long as the can manufacturer, test person, etc. states what was used and the unit is suitable for gunfire (correct mic, range, etc.).

A full blown DAQ or acoustic analyzer for 192k sample rate is big bucks. And the learning curve to setup and use one can be very steep.

So other than the cost passed on to the manufacturers, is there any substantial reason why more people decide not to use Pew for a testing standard? It sounds as if his experience in testing is what people would want, and the equipment set up is probably more robust than what anyone else has set up.
It seems reasonable for a person to charge for this service, for no other reason than to recover some of the equipment cost. Maybe your understanding of sound testing can shed a better light on how Pew tests/reports.

 

[RockAndSage]

There is, but it is voluntary and dumb. The new SAAMI lists it at 24" for non-magnum rifles and 26" for magnum rifles. This is the sort of standard that only a committee from the industry could develop.

Man, that really is dumb. At least from an American perspective. Do Euro hunters not use shorter barrels?

 

[Q_Sertorius]

So other than the cost passed on to the manufacturers, is there any substantial reason why more people decide not to use Pew for a testing standard? It sounds as if his experience in testing is what people would want, and the equipment set up is probably more robust than what anyone else has set up.
It seems reasonable for a person to charge for this service, for no other reason than to recover some of the equipment cost. Maybe your understanding of sound testing can shed a better light on how Pew tests/reports.

I don’t want to pay Pew to do this. He may not be a bad dude, but his business model is to set himself up as a middleman to get paid by both sides.

The TBAC Summit is how this should be handled by the industry.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[5811]

I don’t want to pay Pew to do this. He may not be a bad dude, but his business model is to set himself up as a middleman to get paid by both sides.

The TBAC Summit is how this should be handled by the industry.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

I think the idea that consumers need to pay for the information he generates is way overblown. The average person has access to more data than they understand for free.

 

[SC_Scout]

I don’t want to pay Pew to do this. He may not be a bad dude, but his business model is to set himself up as a middleman to get paid by both sides.

The TBAC Summit is how this should be handled by the industry.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

So the manufacturer pays to have their can tested. The manufacturer can either elect to give permission to disclose or not disclose the data. I can then see the basic data for free as a consumer on the Pew sight. I just don’t see where the problem is.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I think the idea that consumers need to pay for the information he generates is way overblown. The average person has access to more data than they understand for free.

Where is the SE dBA rating for any suppressor on the free side? Not a propriety rating system, but an actual SE dBA number which I can compare with the manufacturers’ claims.

This is the only set of numbers that matter and you have to pay for it.



____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[SC_Scout]

Where is the SE dBA rating for any suppressor on the free side? Not a propriety rating system, but an actual SE dBA number which I can compare with the manufacturers’ claims.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

Maybe this is where the disconnect is. As a basic consumer looking for any help in comparing suppressors, a color coded list that lists simple comparable numbers is appealing. Until getting involved reading this thread, I had no idea that SE dBA and dBA were different measurements.

Is there not a correlation between the free data and the more detailed SE dBA you mention? So if the free data lists a set of data, can that data actually be skewed, that is only shown in the paid for report?

This is an honest question, I really don’t understand how the two can be different.

 

[benconfused]

I should also state that, just because someone uses a high-end DAQ or analyzer it does not mean that they actually know how to use it correctly or that the test conditions were controlled.

So I would not judge the validity of results just based on Sound Level Meter (SLM) vs DAQ/analyzer, if that makes sense.

In fact, anyone using a handheld SLM should get training before taking and publishing numbers willy-nilly.

I would assume also that there are environmental influences regardless of what tools you use here right? (It's mentioned before). Ex: Outdoors, mic placement, acoustic test chamber etc.

 

[thinhorn_AK]

Tone is 100% a thing...

My ex wifes voice... that tone. See? It's a thing.

That's like a free throw with a baseball bat from the 20 yard line.

My wife also thinks tone is a real thing, she gets mad at me all the time for the tone of my voice.

 

[Salmon River Solutions]

My wife also thinks tone is a real thing, she gets mad at me all the time for the tone of my voice.

"I'm not yelling, you would know if I was yelling" Apparently I hit that tone where women think I'm yelling?

hahahaha

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Man, that really is dumb. At least from an American perspective. Do Euro hunters not use shorter barrels?

I don’t know or care what they use in Europe. A standard like this is just absurd for threaded American hunting rifles. Typical of our industry though… Brought to you by the same people who load the 8x57 Mauser with a round nosed 170-grain bullet at 2340 FPS instead of the usual European load of a 196-198 grain spitzer bullet at 2600-2700 FPS.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[Graves14]

Reaper

Day 1

View attachment 934362

Day 2

View attachment 934364

This is EXTREMELY good