Wyoming Arms Suppressors

[NSI]

I have the 5" 30 cal.

I shot it against the 4" and it was substantially quieter on both a .270 and a 6mm ARC. Have not tried on 300 WSM yet but assume it'll be fine.

The 5" is certainly not an "ears-off" practice can. However I find I generally shoot with ears anyway during practice, so the difference is academic. The weight savings, however, are far more than academic.

It's a specialized tool, but it does what it does better than anything else. For 1 or 2 shots outdoors hunting, it will save your ears if you are the type of hunter who would otherwise hunt unsuppressed without ears. I did not come away from the 4" convinced it would actually save my ears in that same way, and the incremental length/weight seemed worth it to me to accomplish a goal.

Hope this helps,
-J

 

[wilkup]

Raising an old one from the dead...
Anymore updates from potential new users of these lightweight Wyoming cans?
I'd love to hear any information about their 4'' TI option as a light/compact backcountry option.
Seems like it'd be a good compromise for my rifle, even if there are better, more efficient options out there. I don't know how you could beat the size/weight/price point of this one.
If it dropped the sound to a tolerable level in the backcountry, and helped mitigate a bit of recoil in the process, it would be a win for my needs. I'd basically be trading a muzzle brake for the slightly larger/heavier suppressor since I almost always seem to forget to the throw in earplugs in the excitement of the hunt.
Obviously, and I'm sure this goes without saying, the better it performs these duties, the more of a win it becomes.

 

[NSI]

Raising an old one from the dead...
Anymore updates from potential new users of these lightweight Wyoming cans?
I'd love to hear any information about their 4'' TI option as a light/compact backcountry option.
Seems like it'd be a good compromise for my rifle, even if there are better, more efficient options out there. I don't know how you could beat the size/weight/price point of this one.
If it dropped the sound to a tolerable level in the backcountry, and helped mitigate a bit of recoil in the process, it would be a win for my needs. I'd basically be trading a muzzle brake for the slightly larger/heavier suppressor since I almost always seem to forget to the throw in earplugs in the excitement of the hunt.
Obviously, and I'm sure this goes without saying, the better it performs these duties, the more of a win it becomes.

The 4" does surprisingly little, the 5" does surprisingly more. Both are marginal, but the 5" is more than enough for 1 or 2 shots in open country in a hunting context.

-J

 

[wilkup]

The 4" does surprisingly little, the 5" does surprisingly more. Both are marginal, but the 5" is more than enough for 1 or 2 shots in open country in a hunting context.

-J

Thanks!
What’s sort of recoil reduction are you experiencing?

 

[NSI]

Substantial recoil reduction from the 5" 30 cal on a 270 of roughly 30% prone, with no noticeable concussion. Still wore ears.

-J

 

[Macintosh]

Can't recall what one it was, but I heard the guy from wy arms this past year on some podcast. my understanding was that he felt for hunting purposes that trying to get a really quiet can was a waste, that the report of the bullet itself could not be suppressed and was like 150db or something, so he tried to take his cans only down to that level, and that it would mitigate the need to use ears in the field, deal with the concussion, etc, while keeping weight and bulk to a minimum. My impression listening was that it made sense but that I'd want to hear it in person before really making up my mind, and that strictly from a marketing standpoint he was swimming upstream agsint the "easy" sell of a quieter suppressor. I'm certainly paying attention though, it makes perfect sense to me on paper.

 

[JPeters218]

I haven’t looked into decibel rating on shorter cans like these, but many 7” cans barely get you into hearing safe range. So I have a hard time believing 4” and 5” cans would be hearing safe. I just don’t see the point in adding the length and weight to your rifle as well as the cost and wait of the suppressor if it’s still going to cause hearing damage with each shot. My personal opinion is that if you’re going to get a suppressor, you should do yourself a favor and get one that won’t damage your hearing.

 

[ChrisAU]

Well I'll hopefully have some feedback on the 4" can, got approved today. Only 268 days.

 

[Macintosh]

What does "hearing safe" mean from a db perspective?

 

[Formidilosus]

Can't recall what one it was, but I heard the guy from wy arms this past year on some podcast. my understanding was that he felt for hunting purposes that trying to get a really quiet can was a waste, that the report of the bullet itself could not be suppressed and was like 150db or something, so he tried to take his cans only down to that level, and that it would mitigate the need to use ears in the field, deal with the concussion, etc, while keeping weight and bulk to a minimum. My impression listening was that it made sense but that I'd want to hear it in person before really making up my mind, and that strictly from a marketing standpoint he was swimming upstream agsint the "easy" sell of a quieter suppressor. I'm certainly paying attention though, it makes perfect sense to me on paper.

That is not remotely true. The Wyo Arms 4 cans are not really suppressors. As in they are so loud with normal centerfires I would not waste the time getting one because you absolutely need hearing protection with them even hunting. The difference between the 4” can and a 6’ish inch decent can is so vastly different in sound, tone, and hearing safety as to be a joke to compare them.

 

[JPeters218]

What does "hearing safe" mean from a db perspective?

I believe 140 db is the point where permanent hearing damage is done. Many cans will Get you into the 130’s range

 

[Formidilosus]

What does "hearing safe" mean from a db perspective?

Generally stated as 140db at the ear for infrequent impact noise (gunshots). However, that’s only a couple shots a day, and it’s in the air- meaning a can that is technically 140db should be safe for one or two shots, however in the field where the ground and terrain reflect sound back, it increases the actual db that the ear receives.

Actually measuring it in the field in various positions and around obstacles, I want mid to low 130db for infrequent use- I.E., hunting. For true legitimate hearing safe to use without ear pro even when just normal shooting, you need/I want to be in the high 120db range.

 

[Lawnboi]

That ‘sound of the bullet’ is the sonic crack. Any supersonic round has it. IME the degree at which you hear it really depends on the environment you’re in.

I think the crack is said to be somewhere in the 130-140db range. There are surely suppressors that suppress the muzzle report below the noise of the crack from what Iv heard.

I would not buy another suppressor that’s not in that 6-7” range based on the cans Iv been around.

It’s a waste of a stamp. And I have stamps that I see as a waste.

 

[Macintosh]

Right or wrong, I am fairly certain what the guy said is that regardless of what the suppressor does, the bullet produces about 150db (or maybe less, see above) breaking the sound barrier, so whichever one of his cans he was talking about was designed to bre as small as possible while getting DB down only to that level--as I understood the can he was referring to was not intended to get it lower. I may have that figure wrong, but the bottom line was that he felt below this was not relevant for hunting becasue of the bullet breaking the sound barrier was not reduced by any can. Personally, I dont own a can and the ones I hear from the folks I shoot with are pretty quiet, so I was (and am) skeptical. I got the impression that he was approaching it from a very different direction than most, and that it would not make sense for many people. However, as explained it made some sense to me as I said on paper--I hunt unsuppressed and I do not wear ear protection while hunting, and I dont think it is viable to do so for most of my hunting, so a very light, small can like that could reduce sound to much less than without seemed to have some real value...not that it is "safe", just that it is "much safer", especially if you are comparing to a braked rifle.

I dug it up, google is my friend apparntly--it was episode 148 jan 18, 2022 of the "your mountain" podcast where they interviewed him if anyone wants to hear it from the horses mouth.

 

[Lawnboi]

Right or wrong, I am fairly certain what the guy said is that regardless of what the suppressor does, the bullet produces about 150db (or maybe less, see above) breaking the sound barrier, so whichever one of his cans he was talking about was designed to bre as small as possible while getting DB down only to that level--as I understood the can he was referring to was not intended to get it lower. I may have that figure wrong, but the bottom line was that he felt below this was not relevant for hunting becasue of the bullet breaking the sound barrier was not reduced by any can. Personally, I dont own a can and the ones I hear from the folks I shoot with are pretty quiet, so I was (and am) skeptical. I got the impression that he was approaching it from a very different direction than most, and that it would not make sense for many people. However, as explained it made some sense to me as I said on paper--I hunt unsuppressed and I do not wear ear protection while hunting, and I dont think it is viable to do so for most of my hunting, so a very light, small can like that could reduce sound to much less than without seemed to have some real value...not that it is "safe", just that it is "much safer", especially if you are comparing to a braked rifle.

I dug it up, google is my friend apparntly--it was episode 148 jan 18, 2022 of the "your mountain" podcast where they interviewed him if anyone wants to hear it from the horses mouth.

You should watch thunderbeasts videos about how they meter cans, it’s interesting in regards to the sonic crack of the bullet.

 

[Formidilosus]

Right or wrong, I am fairly certain what the guy said is that regardless of what the suppressor does, the bullet produces about 150db (or maybe less, see above) breaking the sound barrier,

That is not correct. The sonic crack is below the limit of hearing safe for impact noise.

so whichever one of his cans he was talking about was designed to bre as small as possible while getting DB down only to that level--as I understood the can he was referring to was not intended to get it lower. I may have that figure wrong, but the bottom line was that he felt below this was not relevant for hunting becasue of the bullet breaking the sound barrier was not reduced by any can. Personally, I dont own a can and the ones I hear from the folks I shoot with are pretty quiet, so I was (and am) skeptical. I got the impression that he was approaching it from a very different direction than most,

Not trying to get personal, however- yes that would be approaching it from a different direction- that is, a different marketing direction. I have a 4’ish inch can sitting beside me, much better than most others, and in a normal center fire there is no way I would use it without hearing pro.

and that it would not make sense for many people. However, as explained it made some sense to me as I said on paper--I hunt unsuppressed and I do not wear ear protection while hunting, and I dont think it is viable to do so for most of my hunting, so a very light, small can like that could reduce sound to much less than without seemed to have some real value...not that it is "safe", just that it is "much safer", especially if you are comparing to a braked rifle.

Saying “safer” in this context is like saying wearing tennis shoes is “safer” when you drop a 30lb weight on your toes. Yeah, maybe, but not enough to matter- the end result is you still have broken toes.

 

[JGRaider]

Anybody who believes a 4" cam will perform like a 6" can is fooling themselves. Also, anyone who believes anything that asshat at Wy Arms says is asking for trouble. He's a smartass, blowhard, and a fraud, been fired from multiple jobs, shady past as far as paying his taxes, and just an overall douchenozzle.

 

[Macintosh]

@Formidilosus , no worries, it's not personal--I'm just relaying what the guy said as best as I can recall. I and many others think nothing of hunting unsupressed/no ears, while thinking that braked rifles are obnoxiously loud, with the concussion being a major part of that...something that others also think is unreasonable, which may be true. Probably why I can't hear for $&!+ anymore. While it may be irrational to some it makes some sense to me, especially since my understanding is that Db increase is not linear. Granted, not enough that I've tried to buy one, but I noted it because the approach was so different, and filed it in the "check one out in person if you get the chance to do so on someone else's dime" department. I would encourage you to listen to the podcast if what I'm saying doesn't make sense (entirely likely), and you can speak to his intent more directly.

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus , no worries, it's not personal--I'm just relaying what the guy said as best as I can recall. I and many others think nothing of hunting unsupressed/no ears, while thinking that braked rifles are obnoxiously loud, with the concussion being a major part of that...something that others also think is unreasonable, which may be true. Probably why I can't hear for $&!+ anymore. While it may be irrational to some it makes some sense to me, especially since my understanding is that Db increase is not linear. Granted, not enough that I've tried to buy one, but I noted it because the approach was so different, and filed it in the "check one out in person if you get the chance to do so on someone else's dime" department. I would encourage you to listen to the podcast if what I'm saying doesn't make sense (entirely likely), and you can speak to his intent more directly.

I am listening to it now, and your assessment of what was said is correct. But the assertion that the sonic crack at the shooters ear is 150db is objectively false. The bullet breaking the sound barrier is hearing safe at the shooters ear- factually. The muzzle blast/sound is what the issue is.

Db is logarithmic- that is every 10db is ten times “louder” then the previous. So, 140db is ten times louder than 130db. So while yes, a muzzle brake is way louder than a 4” poor performing suppressor, it’s silly when going through the whole thing to still have permanent hearing damage to save 1” and 4 to 6 ounces. The cost to get a 4oz, 4 inch long can is that it still is very loud and still needs hearing pro. A good 5.5 to 6 inch can is 8-10oz and is hearing safe.

 

[wilkup]

I am listening to it now, and your assessment of what was said is correct. But the assertion that the sonic crack at the shooters ear is 150db is objectively false. The bullet breaking the sound barrier is hearing safe at the shooters ear- factually. The muzzle blast/sound is what the issue is.

Db is logarithmic- that is every 10db is ten times “louder” then the previous. So, 140db is ten times louder than 130db. So while yes, a muzzle brake is way louder than a 4” poor performing suppressor, it’s silly when going through the whole thing to still have permanent hearing damage to save 1” and 4 to 6 ounces. The cost to get a 4oz, 4 inch long can is that it still is very loud and still needs hearing pro. A good 5.5 to 6 inch can is 8-10oz and is hearing safe.

5.5” @ 8oz that’s hearing safe is intriguing…
Could you point me in that direction…?