User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 12:10:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: hoody2shoez]
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Leicafan1990: I’m sorry, where are all the facts in this thread? This has been 4 pages of mostly baseless speculation about this company and their product. If you think Jay’s data is shit, then develop your own testing standard. I don’t see anyone else attempting it except for the companies themselves and honestly, that seems way way less trustworthy to me. Companies never ever publish bullshit, internally generated data to sell something to consumers who don’t know any better. The Huxwrx cans are very quiet when you understand what they were designed to accomplish. Everyone I know who owns one of their new DMLS cans is very happy with it. The Flow 556K was designed to have very little back pressure with a short length and excellent suppression at the shooters ear and that comes at the expense of industry leading suppression at the muzzle. It’s unreasonable to expect that a high flow K can will be as quiet as a long, low flow can like an OCL Polonium or a Maxim DSX. The SCI-SIX is a good can by the way. I thought it performed a little better than the SOCOM RC-2 I compared it to. This was purely subjective of course. They were close but I liked the tone of the SCI more. This is a technical forum. Post actual 2nd party testing supporting pew. Jay's testing Is a collection of dosing data. It's not science nor is it helpful. Which is why standards are actually important. If entity 'a' publishes results from an experiment using method 'x'. Then entity 'b' should be able to produce the same results as entity 'a'. If the results are different between the 2, then entity 'c' tests and has results that line up with either 'a' or 'b'. It's easy to deduce at that point who in fact is telling the truth. If entity 'b' uses method 'y' and doesn't share the exact method used in testing its all just bullshit. There's also a possibility at that point that both entities using different methods are indeed telling the truth, but outsiders can't tell the difference between the data sets. Complicate that by parties calling each other out claiming that everybody else is lying and now you've got real unclear information. Lastly, you've had several people in this thread comment that their experiences have been different than what Jay has published. The fact that in 2023 people still look to his data as something actually fact based is mind boggling. I actually wasn't talking about the csi-six. But a 17oz 556 can that is similar in performance to cans weighing much much less? Are you kidding me? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 12:33:59 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Leicafan1990: If you think Jay’s data is shit, then develop your own testing standard. I don’t see anyone else attempting it except for the companies themselves and honestly, that seems way way less trustworthy to me. Companies never ever publish bullshit, internally generated data to sell something to consumers who don’t know any better. Evidently you've been too busy with the CAT threads to notice the Silencer Summit thread. Anyone who is willing to participate in that, or have their cans tested by TBAC, Hansohn, etc on a Pulse, isn't hiding anything. The raw data is published, and the protocols and equipment are standard and available to anyone. As for Pew ratings, I'm not going to call out any manufacturers or models here, but I will say my experience has been the same as several other members posting in the is thread; the Pew rating and real world performance are frequently not aligned. Another aspect that is missing in the Pew ratings is consideration of what the suppressors actually are, the design parameters. Any of us with some experience can build a mongaloid suppressor with low back pressure and really good muzzle end suppression to achieve a high Pew rating, but who wants a 2.5" x 12" can hanging off the end of a 10.5" AR, or a lightweight hunting can to go abuse on a machine gun? The Pew rating is not unlike trying to use such a point based system to overall score a vehicle as "best" when the entrants include a Nissan Leaf, a Toyota Camry, a Corvette Z06, a Honda Odyssey, a Ford Transit and a Ram 3500 dually. Maybe the Z06 gets the highest overall rating, but that doesn't really matter to the buyer who needs to commute 120 miles every day, haul around a little league team or tow a 20,000 lb trailer. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 12:45:54 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ECCO_Machine: Evidently you've been too busy with the CAT threads to notice the Silencer Summit thread. Anyone who is willing to participate in that, or have their cans tested by TBAC, Hansohn, etc on a Pulse, isn't hiding anything. The raw data is published, and the protocols and equipment are standard and available to anyone. As for Pew ratings, I'm not going to call out any manufacturers or models here, but I will say my experience has been the same as several other members posting in the is thread; the Pew rating and real world performance are frequently not aligned. Another aspect that is missing in the Pew ratings is consideration of what the suppressors actually are, the design parameters. Any of us with some experience can build a mongaloid suppressor with low back pressure and really good muzzle end suppression to achieve a high Pew rating, but who wants a 2.5" x 12" can hanging off the end of a 10.5" AR, or a lightweight hunting can to go abuse on a machine gun? The Pew rating is not unlike trying to use such a point based system to overall score a vehicle as "best" when the entrants include a Nissan Leaf, a Toyota Camry, a Corvette Z06, a Honda Odyssey, a Ford Transit and a Ram 3500 dually. Maybe the Z06 gets the highest overall rating, but that doesn't really matter to the buyer who needs to commute 120 miles every day, haul around a little league team or tow a 20,000 lb trailer. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ECCO_Machine: Originally Posted By Leicafan1990: If you think Jay’s data is shit, then develop your own testing standard. I don’t see anyone else attempting it except for the companies themselves and honestly, that seems way way less trustworthy to me. Companies never ever publish bullshit, internally generated data to sell something to consumers who don’t know any better. Evidently you've been too busy with the CAT threads to notice the Silencer Summit thread. Anyone who is willing to participate in that, or have their cans tested by TBAC, Hansohn, etc on a Pulse, isn't hiding anything. The raw data is published, and the protocols and equipment are standard and available to anyone. As for Pew ratings, I'm not going to call out any manufacturers or models here, but I will say my experience has been the same as several other members posting in the is thread; the Pew rating and real world performance are frequently not aligned. Another aspect that is missing in the Pew ratings is consideration of what the suppressors actually are, the design parameters. Any of us with some experience can build a mongaloid suppressor with low back pressure and really good muzzle end suppression to achieve a high Pew rating, but who wants a 2.5" x 12" can hanging off the end of a 10.5" AR, or a lightweight hunting can to go abuse on a machine gun? The Pew rating is not unlike trying to use such a point based system to overall score a vehicle as "best" when the entrants include a Nissan Leaf, a Toyota Camry, a Corvette Z06, a Honda Odyssey, a Ford Transit and a Ram 3500 dually. Maybe the Z06 gets the highest overall rating, but that doesn't really matter to the buyer who needs to commute 120 miles every day, haul around a little league team or tow a 20,000 lb trailer. This reminds me of the great decible wars |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 1:25:08 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryCGS Mod 9 FS for one. High backpressure makes it miserable to shoot on a lot of hosts, and makes it sound great to bystanders but not so much to the shooter. Often has severe accuracy issues (likely due to crappy piston springs) as well. Plenty of owners have experienced these problems, myself included. So you’re saying Jay’s data is accurate? You are giving an example of a can where his data doesn’t match up with users subjective experiences but the CGS Mod 9 FS has the worst suppression rating at the shooter’s ear of all the 9mm cans he’s tested. It sounds like his numbers match up with your subjective experience. Accuracy reviews are also not part of his testing so he never made any claims or published data showing the can didn’t have a negative effect on accuracy. The Mod 9 FS was also one of his very first reviews. He’s reviewed hundreds of other cans since then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 1:56:02 PM EDT
[#5]
I'm a bit tired of the 5.56 can data or don't find it particularly useful. Despite all this testing and comparison of minutia, they are all too loud. The top rated ran on the Mk18 still falls into the "Minimum Suppression" category. Under ear pro they all sound fine. You know what I notice more than at ear or muzzle performance when I'm shooting? The boat anchor hanging off the end of my rifle.
As a guy who has 30+ cans and has some regrettable purchases under his belt, I wish I had paid more attention to how a silencer changes the handling characteristics of a weapon with regards to centerfire semi-auto pistol/rifle use. I don't need belt fed rated, I don't need top Pew scores, I need something that knocks down sound without feeling like I've changed much on the front end. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 1:58:45 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Leicafan1990: So you’re saying Jay’s data is accurate? You are giving an example of a can where his data doesn’t match up with users subjective experiences but the CGS Mod 9 FS has the worst suppression rating at the shooter’s ear of all the 9mm cans he’s tested. It sounds like his numbers match up with your subjective experience. Accuracy reviews are also not part of his testing so he never made any claims or published data showing the can didn’t have a negative effect on accuracy. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Leicafan1990: So you’re saying Jay’s data is accurate? You are giving an example of a can where his data doesn’t match up with users subjective experiences but the CGS Mod 9 FS has the worst suppression rating at the shooter’s ear of all the 9mm cans he’s tested. It sounds like his numbers match up with your subjective experience. Accuracy reviews are also not part of his testing so he never made any claims or published data showing the can didn’t have a negative effect on accuracy. Maybe my comment wasn't clear enough, I'll try again: Originally Posted By Leicafan1990: Here’s a more important question. Are there any cans he has published data on that performed very well in his tests but that same suppressor frequently gets poor subjective reviews from owners? - He's published data on the Mod 9 FS - The Mod 9 FS performed very well in his tests (sitting at #4 currently, almost tied with the Lithium except for the ear rating) - The Mod 9 FS frequently gets poor subjective reviews from owners, as I've demonstrated Don't deflect to ear ratings just because I answered your questions in a way you didn't like. Originally Posted By Leicafan1990: The Mod 9 FS was also one of his very first reviews. He’s reviewed hundreds of other cans since then. Your point being? And he's only published 120 reviews total, that's not hundreds of other cans. Many of those reviews are the same suppressors on different hosts or with different muzzle devices, so the number drops even more. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 1:58:49 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Outrider: I'm a bit tired of the 5.56 can data or don't find it particularly useful. Despite all this testing and comparison of minutia, they are all too loud. The top rated ran on the Mk18 still falls into the "Minimum Suppression" category. Under ear pro they all sound fine. You know what I notice more than at ear or muzzle performance when I'm shooting? The boat anchor hanging off the end of my rifle. As a guy who has 30+ cans and has some regrettable purchases under his belt, I wish I had paid more attention to how a silencer changes the handling characteristics of a weapon with regards to centerfire semi-auto pistol/rifle use. I don't need belt fed rated, I don't need top Pew scores, I need something that knocks down sound without feeling like I've changed much on the front end. You are not alone  Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 2:25:58 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By swampfoxoutdoors: I may be in the minority but I honestly don’t give a hoot what pew has to say. He has setup a neat little business for himself but it’s just that a business. |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 3:12:53 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Pomyluy: Maybe my comment wasn't clear enough, I'll try again: - He's published data on the Mod 9 FS - The Mod 9 FS performed very well in his tests (sitting at #4 currently, almost tied with the Lithium except for the ear rating) - The Mod 9 FS frequently gets poor subjective reviews from owners, as I've demonstrated Don't deflect to ear ratings just because I answered your questions in a way you didn't like. Your point being? And he's only published 120 reviews total, that's not hundreds of other cans. Many of those reviews are the same suppressors on different hosts or with different muzzle devices, so the number drops even more. Again, you are giving an example of a can that has flaws that fall completely outside of his testing criteria. How is this relevant? We are discussing the accuracy of his data and you are bringing up a product that has flaws that were never part of his published data. He said absolutely nothing about accuracy in his review because he never tested for that. Yes, the can has very high back pressure that some people hate. Did Jay ever claim that it didn’t? The Mod 9 FS is a very quiet can at the muzzle but its ear suppression is subpar compared to the competition. Jay’s data is in line with this. The Mod 9 also has performance issues that fall outside of the scope of Jay’s testing. I fail to see how this is a relevant example of flaws in Jay’s methods. You’re just looking at the composite score which is boosted the Mod 9’s strong muzzle suppression capabilities. Even Jay will tell you that it’s a very bad idea to just look at the composite score because that obscures data points that might be extremely relevant to a particular buyer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 3:17:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Pomyluy]
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Leicafan1990: Again, you are giving an example of a can that has flaws that fall completely outside of his testing criteria. How is this relevant? Again, I answered your questions exactly as you posed them. Maybe phrase your questions better next time if you have so many criteria the answers have to meet before you'll accept them. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 3:19:53 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Leicafan1990: Again, you are giving an example of a can that has flaws that fall completely outside of his testing criteria. How is this relevant? We are discussing the accuracy of his data and you are bringing up a product that has flaws that were never part of his published data. He said absolutely nothing about accuracy in his review because he never tested for that. Yes, the can has very high back pressure that some people hate. Did Jay ever claim that it didn’t? The Mod 9 FS is a very quiet can at the muzzle but its ear suppression is subpar compared to the competition. Jay’s data is in line with this. The Mod 9 also has performance issues that fall outside of the scope of Jay’s testing. I fail to see how this is a relevant example of flaws in Jay’s methods. You’re just looking at the composite score which is boosted the Mod 9’s strong muzzle suppression capabilities. Even Jay will tell you that it’s a very bad idea to just look at the composite score because that obscures data points that might be extremely relevant to a particular buyer. With 95% of your posts having been in this thread, and the other 5% was in the other PEW/CAT thread, it seems like you have a very personal interest not only in PEW but also this brand new whiz-bang suppressor manufacturer. |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 3:31:29 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Luny421: With 95% of your posts having been in this thread, and the other 5% was in the other PEW/CAT thread, it seems like you have a very personal interest not only in PEW but also this brand new whiz-bang suppressor manufacturer. Are you implying that I work for CAT? Yes, I’m a Pewscience fan. I’m here today because most of the hot takes in this thread are absurd and there should at least be one or two people here willing to provide counter arguments so this place doesn’t turn into an echo chamber. Even after the published data is out there, people here are still shitting on this company. I just think we should keep an open mind. The Pew data is impressive any way you want to cut it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 3:39:24 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Leicafan1990: Are you implying that I work for CAT? Yes, I’m a Pewscience fan. I’m here today because most of the hot takes in this thread are absurd and there should at least be one or two people here willing to provide counter arguments so this place doesn’t turn into an echo chamber. Even after the published data is out there, people here are still shitting on this company. I just think we should keep an open mind. The Pew data is impressive any way you want to cut it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Leicafan1990: Originally Posted By Luny421: With 95% of your posts having been in this thread, and the other 5% was in the other PEW/CAT thread, it seems like you have a very personal interest not only in PEW but also this brand new whiz-bang suppressor manufacturer. Are you implying that I work for CAT? Yes, I’m a Pewscience fan. I’m here today because most of the hot takes in this thread are absurd and there should at least be one or two people here willing to provide counter arguments so this place doesn’t turn into an echo chamber. Even after the published data is out there, people here are still shitting on this company. I just think we should keep an open mind. The Pew data is impressive any way you want to cut it. There is nothing absurd about calling somebody out on their outrageous claims about transparency or science when they themselves have zero transparency |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 4:00:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Leicafan1990]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By hoody2shoez: There is nothing absurd about calling somebody out on their outrageous claims about transparency or science when they themselves have zero transparency What you are asking for is completely unreasonable and unrealistic. Yes, some of his testing methods are protected IP because we all know that the manufacturers would cut him out in a second as soon as he puts all his cards on the table. The dude has to make a living and frankly, he is the first person to try to undertake the creation of a suppression testing standard that consistently publishes data average joe consumer can access so he deserves to get paid for his work. He doesn’t owe you full transparency and neither does CAT given the nature of their business. Frankly, this TBAC suppressor summit wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for Jay. It was created solely to cut Jay out of the loop while providing PewSciene-esque data that companies, who are unwilling to pay Jay, can use for marketing purposes. But let’s be real, TBAC and co. never would have pursued this project if they didn’t have to deal with constant heckling over not sending the stuff to PewScience. Whether you like it or not, Jay has seriously distrusted the industry and now consumers have way more data to make informed purchase decisions. Gone are the days of companies just saying “Trust me bro, it’s super duper quiet.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 4:09:30 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Leicafan1990: What you are asking for is completely unreasonable and unrealistic. Yes, some of his testing methods are protected IP because we all know that the manufacturers would cut him out in a second as soon as he puts all his cards on the table. The dude has to make a living and frankly, he is the first person to try to undertake the creation of a suppression testing standard that consistently publishes data average joe consumer can access so he deserves to get paid for his work. He doesn’t owe you full transparency and neither does CAT given the nature of their business. Frankly, this TBAC suppressor summit wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for Jay. It was created solely to cut Jay out of the loop while providing PewSciene-esque data that companies, who are unwilling to pay Jay, can use for marketing purposes. But let’s be real, TBAC and co. never would have pursued this project if they didn’t have to deal with constant heckling over not sending the stuff to PewScience. Whether you like it or not, Jay has seriously distrusted the industry and now consumers have way more data to make informed purchase decisions. Gone are the days of companies just saying “Trust me bro, it’s super duper quiet.” Ah yes, we swap the "trust me bro" from the silencer companies (who now mind you have come together to test their stuff against each other with an open procedure) vs. the "trust me bro" from one person with a hidden procedure. Sounds like a great swap. I'm not anti Pew Science as there is value in Jay's work. But I'm tired of it being treated as the gospel on silencers. And as a consumer having the silencer summit vs. Pew Science is the best thing that could happen to us. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 4:10:16 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Leicafan1990: What you are asking for is completely unreasonable and unrealistic. Yes, some of his testing methods are protected IP because we all know that the manufacturers would cut him out in a second as soon as he puts all his cards on the table. The dude has to make a living and frankly, he is the first person to try to undertake the creation of a suppression testing standard that consistently publishes data average joe consumer can access so he deserves to get paid for his work. He doesn’t owe you full transparency and neither does CAT given the nature of their business. Frankly, this TBAC suppressor summit wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for Jay. It was created solely to cut Jay out of the loop while providing PewSciene-esque data that companies, who are unwilling to pay Jay, can use for marketing purposes. But let’s be real, TBAC and co. never would have pursued this project if they didn’t have to deal with constant heckling over not sending the stuff to PewScience. Whether you like it or not, Jay has seriously distrusted the industry and now consumers have way more data to make informed purchase decisions. Gone are the days of companies just saying “Trust me bro, it’s super duper quiet.” Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Leicafan1990: Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: There is nothing absurd about calling somebody out on their outrageous claims about transparency or science when they themselves have zero transparency What you are asking for is completely unreasonable and unrealistic. Yes, some of his testing methods are protected IP because we all know that the manufacturers would cut him out in a second as soon as he puts all his cards on the table. The dude has to make a living and frankly, he is the first person to try to undertake the creation of a suppression testing standard that consistently publishes data average joe consumer can access so he deserves to get paid for his work. He doesn’t owe you full transparency and neither does CAT given the nature of their business. Frankly, this TBAC suppressor summit wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for Jay. It was created solely to cut Jay out of the loop while providing PewSciene-esque data that companies, who are unwilling to pay Jay, can use for marketing purposes. But let’s be real, TBAC and co. never would have pursued this project if they didn’t have to deal with constant heckling over not sending the stuff to PewScience. Whether you like it or not, Jay has seriously distrusted the industry and now consumers have way more data to make informed purchase decisions. Gone are the days of companies just saying “Trust me bro, it’s super duper quiet.” It’s so ironic, it’s funny Now it’s just “trust me bro, the science is settled” |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 4:13:53 PM EDT
[#17]
Was Jay invited to the Summit? I've seen conflicting answers
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 4:15:52 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By hoody2shoez: Lastly, you've had several people in this thread comment that their experiences have been different than what Jay has published. The fact that in 2023 people still look to his data as something actually fact based is mind boggling. I actually wasn't talking about the csi-six. But a 17oz 556 can that is similar in performance to cans weighing much much less? Are you kidding me? Where are all the examples of subjective impressions not lining up with Pew data? I’ve only seen the Flow 556K mentioned and the CGS Mod 9. The Flow 566K is objectively an excellent suppressor given its design parameters and the Mod 9 is highly flawed but in ways that fall completely outside the scope of Jay’s testing. The SCI-SIX is 17oz, same as the SOCOM RC2. It’s less than 1oz heavier than a Saker 556. The OCL Polonium pretty much weighs the same once you add the mount. The Flow 556K is the only similarly performing non-titanium can that is noticeably lighter. |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 4:17:29 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bully13: Was Jay invited to the Summit? I've seen conflicting answers He said he was not invited. |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 4:25:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Leicafan1990]
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Outrider: Ah yes, we swap the "trust me bro" from the silencer companies (who now mind you have come together to test their stuff against each other with an open procedure) vs. the "trust me bro" from one person with a hidden procedure. Sounds like a great swap. I'm not anti Pew Science as there is value in Jay's work. But I'm tired of it being treated as the gospel on silencers. And as a consumer having the silencer summit vs. Pew Science is the best thing that could happen to us. It is a great swap because you went from having zero sources of reliable suppressor data to two sources of data using similar methods. And the second source was more or less forced to do it by being bullied by the fans of the first source. It’s a win for all of us but Jay deserves the lion’s share of the credit because the manufacturers seemed perfectly content to just give us near useless DB reduction scores and would still be doing that if it wasn’t for PewScience. The funny thing is that the TBAC Silencer Summit will probably just verify that Jay’s data was accurate all along. It was never about proving that Jay isn’t providing accurate data, it’s about getting similar data out there without having to pay him. It was honestly created more out of spite than anything else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 4:26:59 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Leicafan1990: It is a great swap because you went from having zero sources of reliable suppressor data to two sources of data using similar methods. And the second source was more or less forced to do it by being bullied by the fans of the first source. It’s a win for all of us but Jay deserves the lion’s share of the credit because the manufacturers seemed perfectly content to just give us near useless DB reduction scores and would still be doing that if it wasn’t for PewScience. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Leicafan1990: Originally Posted By Outrider: Ah yes, we swap the "trust me bro" from the silencer companies (who now mind you have come together to test their stuff against each other with an open procedure) vs. the "trust me bro" from one person with a hidden procedure. Sounds like a great swap. I'm not anti Pew Science as there is value in Jay's work. But I'm tired of it being treated as the gospel on silencers. And as a consumer having the silencer summit vs. Pew Science is the best thing that could happen to us. It is a great swap because you went from having zero sources of reliable suppressor data to two sources of data using similar methods. And the second source was more or less forced to do it by being bullied by the fans of the first source. It’s a win for all of us but Jay deserves the lion’s share of the credit because the manufacturers seemed perfectly content to just give us near useless DB reduction scores and would still be doing that if it wasn’t for PewScience. Lol no he doesn't |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 4:30:01 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Leicafan1990: He said he was not invited. That’s unfortunate. It would have been cool for him to have a seat at the table, though I suspect he wouldn’t have accepted an invite. |
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 4:30:11 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Leicafan1990: What you are asking for is completely unreasonable and unrealistic. Yes, some of his testing methods are protected IP because we all know that the manufacturers would cut him out in a second as soon as he puts all his cards on the table. The dude has to make a living and frankly, he is the first person to try to undertake the creation of a suppression testing standard that consistently publishes data average joe consumer can access so he deserves to get paid for his work. He doesn’t owe you full transparency and neither does CAT given the nature of their business. Frankly, this TBAC suppressor summit wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for Jay. It was created solely to cut Jay out of the loop while providing PewSciene-esque data that companies, who are unwilling to pay Jay, can use for marketing purposes. But let’s be real, TBAC and co. never would have pursued this project if they didn’t have to deal with constant heckling over not sending the stuff to PewScience. Whether you like it or not, Jay has seriously distrusted the industry and now consumers have way more data to make informed purchase decisions. Gone are the days of companies just saying “Trust me bro, it’s super duper quiet.” As a scientist that does and has published research before I went off on my own, this is false. |
|
|
LA, USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 4:35:25 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bully13: Was Jay invited to the Summit? I've seen conflicting answers I highly doubt it. the summit is the industry's answer to the popularity of his testing. don't lump me into a category because I am looking forward to the summits information and I also appreciate pew's info. What some people don't understand is you can have both and they both can have value. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 4:36:23 PM EDT
[#25]
The good news is that people can skip the hype, avoid any future warranty/CS issues with CAT, and save some money by buying the Aero can which has a better overall score.
|
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 4:39:06 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By hoody2shoez: Lol no he doesn't It’s obvious that you aren’t here to have good faith arguments. Do you seriously think the TBAC test would exist if Pewscience hadn’t attempted to create a measurement standard and then monetize it? How fucking awful of him to put a lot of work into something and then want to get paid for it. Quit pearl-clutching. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 4:45:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: hoody2shoez]
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Leicafan1990: It’s obvious that you aren’t here to have good faith arguments. Do you seriously think the TBAC test would exist if Pewscience hadn’t attempted to create a measurement standard and then monetize it? How fucking awful of him to put a lot of work into something and then want to get paid for it. Quit pearl-clutching. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Leicafan1990: Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: Lol no he doesn't It’s obvious that you aren’t here to have good faith arguments. Do you seriously think the TBAC test would exist if Pewscience hadn’t attempted to create a measurement standard and then monetize it? How fucking awful of him to put a lot of work into something and then want to get paid for it. Quit pearl-clutching. Tbac was doing testing longggggg before Jay came along. There's no pearl clutching-as side ways as this thread has been, this is still a technical forum. You've been called out on multiple occasions of posting incorrect information. Either post statistical, viable data supporting your arguments or shut the fuck up. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 4:49:54 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bully13: Was Jay invited to the Summit? I've seen conflicting answers He referred to it as the “anti pew science summit on his podcast. 
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 4:53:46 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Leicafan1990: Are you implying that I work for CAT? Yes, I’m a Pewscience fan. I’m here today because most of the hot takes in this thread are absurd and there should at least be one or two people here willing to provide counter arguments so this place doesn’t turn into an echo chamber. Even after the published data is out there, people here are still shitting on this company. I just think we should keep an open mind. The Pew data is impressive any way you want to cut it. I'm here today because I want you to go back to reddit |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 5:01:40 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By triburst1: He referred to it as the “anti pew science summit on his podcast. Oh man, that is seriously cringe |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 5:02:49 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Luny421: With 95% of your posts having been in this thread, and the other 5% was in the other PEW/CAT thread, it seems like you have a very personal interest not only in PEW but also this brand new whiz-bang suppressor manufacturer. Location is interesting. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 5:05:44 PM EDT
[#32]
Since we are talking about specters cat..
Why would you put a hub backend on if you won't warranty the product if the buyer uses another manufacturers muzzle device? And this?  Attached File |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 5:05:55 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By hoody2shoez: Tbac was doing testing longggggg before Jay came along. There's no pearl clutching-as side ways as this thread has been, this is still a technical forum. You've been called out on multiple occasions of posting incorrect information. Either post statistical, viable data supporting your arguments or shut the fuck up. I’m sorry, where is all the data you have been posting to back up your claims? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Sheesh. I’m still waiting for that list of non-titanium cans that weigh significantly less than the SCI-SIX but have similar performance. And don’t say the Flow 556K because you’ve already said that can sucks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 5:11:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: hoody2shoez]
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Leicafan1990: I’m sorry, where is all the data you have been posting to back up your claims? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Sheesh. I’m still waiting for that list of non-titanium cans that weigh significantly less than the SCI-SIX but have similar performance. And don’t say the Flow 556K because you’ve already said that can sucks. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Leicafan1990: Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: Tbac was doing testing longggggg before Jay came along. There's no pearl clutching-as side ways as this thread has been, this is still a technical forum. You've been called out on multiple occasions of posting incorrect information. Either post statistical, viable data supporting your arguments or shut the fuck up. I’m sorry, where is all the data you have been posting to back up your claims? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Sheesh. I’m still waiting for that list of non-titanium cans that weigh significantly less than the SCI-SIX but have similar performance. And don’t say the Flow 556K because you’ve already said that can sucks. GA dual-lok 5 is going to have similar performance, is similar in size, and weighs under 12oz. Paging @Green0 This would be an interesting head to head |
|
|
|
AK, USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 5:14:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: UMP45_Enthusiast]
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By triburst1: He referred to it as the “anti pew science summit on his podcast. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By triburst1: Originally Posted By bully13: Was Jay invited to the Summit? I've seen conflicting answers He referred to it as the “anti pew science summit on his podcast. His tacit resistance to the summit only fuels suspicion towards his payed adverts. Too bad his cult following will dismiss any naysaying. |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 5:22:53 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UMP45_Enthusiast: His tacit resistance to the summit only fuels suspicion towards his payed adverts. Too bad his cult following will dismiss any naysaying. Resistance? They literally didn’t invite him and created the summit specifically to help companies get around paying him for testing. You’d be annoyed too if someone was trying to gut your business out of spite. |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 5:24:37 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By hoody2shoez: GA dual-lok 5 is going to have similar performance, is similar in size, and weighs under 12oz. Paging @Green0 This would be an interesting head to head Cool. Now show me the data to back that up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 5:25:06 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By adavis: Oh man, that is seriously cringe Yeah, not very professional. Most of us in this industry actually get along really well despite being competitors; comments like that are a good way to end up a pariah like KB. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 5:25:14 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Leicafan1990: Resistance? They literally didn’t invite him and created the summit specifically to help companies get around paying him for testing. You’d be annoyed too if someone was trying to gut your business out of spite. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Leicafan1990: Originally Posted By UMP45_Enthusiast: His tacit resistance to the summit only fuels suspicion towards his payed adverts. Too bad his cult following will dismiss any naysaying. Resistance? They literally didn’t invite him and created the summit specifically to help companies get around paying him for testing. You’d be annoyed too if someone was trying to gut your business out of spite. From what I’ve gathered. Jay refused the invite. He didn’t want to go. |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 5:27:09 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wildcats859: I'm here today because I want you to go back to reddit Nah, I think I’ll stick around. You guys are fun. Plus Reddit isn’t a free speech friendly platform so I got banned there years ago. You couldn’t pay me to go back there. |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 5:32:14 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StrikeEagle15: From what I’ve gathered. Jay refused the invite. He didn’t want to go. Well from what I’ve gathered, he was never invited in the first place. And even if he did get an invite, I wouldn’t blame him for not going. Why voluntarily spend a weekend with people who openly hate you and want undermine your business? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 5:33:14 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Leicafan1990: What you are asking for is completely unreasonable and unrealistic. Yes, some of his testing methods are protected IP because we all know that the manufacturers would cut him out in a second as soon as he puts all his cards on the table. The dude has to make a living and frankly, he is the first person to try to undertake the creation of a suppression testing standard that consistently publishes data average joe consumer can access so he deserves to get paid for his work. He doesn’t owe you full transparency and neither does CAT given the nature of their business. Frankly, this TBAC suppressor summit wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for Jay. It was created solely to cut Jay out of the loop while providing PewSciene-esque data that companies, who are unwilling to pay Jay, can use for marketing purposes. But let’s be real, TBAC and co. never would have pursued this project if they didn’t have to deal with constant heckling over not sending the stuff to PewScience. Whether you like it or not, Jay has seriously distrusted the industry and now consumers have way more data to make informed purchase decisions. Gone are the days of companies just saying “Trust me bro, it’s super duper quiet.” What are you talking about? There are two TBAC cans reviewed on Pew. |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 5:39:44 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ECCO_Machine: Yeah, not very professional. Most of us in this industry actually get along really well despite being competitors; comments like that are a good way to end up a pariah like KB. Jay seems to get along just fine with plenty of companies in the industry, just not the ones running this forum, which is totally fine. Consumers don’t really care if y’all are chummy with each other. We just want good products and reasonably trustworthy sources of data to make purchase decisions a little easier. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 5:59:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: KalmanPhilter]
[#44]
……..
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 6:09:04 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KalmanPhilter: I’d be annoyed if I had to up my game due to competition, even if it were good for me. T(ey invited manufacturers of silencers. Jay doesn’t design, make, or even recommend silencers. His white papers aren’t even reviews. Not sure why he’d care other than to see testing he has already discounted and derided. How exactly is the TBAC summit forcing Jay to up his game? Do you know something about their testing methods that the rest of us don’t? How can you assume that the TBAC test is superior to what Jay does? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 6:09:08 PM EDT
[#46]
Originally Posted By Leicafan1990: Jay seems to get along just fine with plenty of companies in the industry, just not the ones running this forum, which is totally fine. Consumers don’t really care if y’all are chummy with each other. We just want good products and reasonably trustworthy sources of data to make purchase decisions a little easier. I would say it speaks volumes to the consumer that most of us don't try to elevate our product by denigrating those of other companies. And unlike CAT, most of us are very forthcoming with customers. Jay would do well to get on board with the summit instead of fighting it, as that's where it's going to be going forward. He marketed himself well and enjoyed a monopoly of sorts for a time, but those eventually come to an end, and the Summit aims to be transparent in a way that he never has. The low information crowd takes Pew as the final word, but there has been no shortage of skeptics from the beginning, and that number grows by the day. Not everyone got an invite for the debut Summit event, but that will change, and it can't be any more transparent than products from just about every outfit being tested side by side with no variation among hosts, ammo, equipment or environment, the methodolgy, equipment and raw data being made public, and nobody profiting from the testing itself. Everything will be out there for consumers to see without bias, and it will promote development which benefits the consumer, as no matter how friendly we may be, we all want to make the best mousetrap. Don't get me wrong, I have no ill will toward Jay and see value in what he does, but like so many others, I will always question the results of a testing/evaluation process that is clandestine. |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 6:13:15 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Trumpet: What are you talking about? There are two TBAC cans reviewed on Pew. Many of the companies involved in the TBAC summit have avoided sending cans to Jay for testing. That’s why I said TBAC …. and company. Yes, TBAC has had two cans at Pew before and probably won’t send anymore after the very lukewarm Dominus review. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 6:17:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: KalmanPhilter]
[#48]
……..
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 6:19:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Evintos]
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Leicafan1990: What you are asking for is completely unreasonable and unrealistic. Yes, some of his testing methods are protected IP because we all know that the manufacturers would cut him out in a second as soon as he puts all his cards on the table. The dude has to make a living and frankly, he is the first person to try to undertake the creation of a suppression testing standard that consistently publishes data average joe consumer can access so he deserves to get paid for his work. He doesn’t owe you full transparency and neither does CAT given the nature of their business. What is to stop Pew Science from continuing what they are doing if manufacturers switch to his standard of testing? If anything, the data released under this standard could then be fact checked and you'll be able to see if manufacturers were lying to the consumer. Pew Science supporters cling to the idea that there has to be industry wide collusion to falsify data and there must be Pew Science to save them. Why not demand the manufacturer test and release good data for free access in the format/standard you trust (the Pew Standard) and if there is any doubt, have Pew Science fact check it? Help me understand why is it not in the best interest to us as the consumer to have the industry as a whole, move to a singular, repeatable, cross checkable, transparent standard? Wouldn't that make the industry more honest? I'll leave off with - is this really about the importance of honest data anymore (the message)? Or have the Pew Science supporters shifted to placing more importance onto who/where the data comes from (the messenger)? The Pew fans now seem more and more interested in protecting someone's revenue stream because that person gives them the warm and fuzzies rather than having good data coming out from all sources. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2023 6:22:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: KalmanPhilter]
[#50]
……..
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
