User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/13/2019 11:35:08 PM EDT
I've been curious about what's going on inside this thing since I saw pictures of it last year. They just posted some new stuff to their FB page:
https://www.facebook.com/hallandpepper/ https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/hp-manufacturing-ugliest-suppressor-shot-show-2019/ 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2019 11:42:00 PM EDT
[#1]
My money says it doesn't work worth a shit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2019 11:42:07 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
I've been curious about what's going on inside this thing since I saw pictures of it last year. They just posted some new stuff to their FB page: https://www.facebook.com/hallandpepper/ https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/hp-manufacturing-ugliest-suppressor-shot-show-2019/ https://i.postimg.cc/VNNY5DsX/HP.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2019 11:51:55 PM EDT
[#3]
It looks awesome. Very aggressive, which is sometimes needed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2019 12:03:17 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My money says it doesn't work worth a shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2019 12:17:39 AM EDT
[#5]
I'm curious to try it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2019 12:23:27 AM EDT
[#6]
Just because you can, doesnt mean you should...
I'm interested in hearing how it actually performs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2019 12:26:46 AM EDT
[#7]
Is it integrated with the rail/hand guard ?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2019 12:35:14 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My money says it doesn't work worth a shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2019 1:31:17 AM EDT
[#9]
The article also mentions lower back pressure with semi autos. Seeing how it supposedly redirects the gas downward into that lower expansion chamber area might be some truth to that. As always when they are out in the wild and some real world independent testing can be done with guys like NFA Review and MAC etc......... if the claims are proven true then fugly for the win. Function over form always if the thing works like advertised.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2019 1:39:34 AM EDT
[#10]
Better, meaning more believable, than the absurd claims of Jesse Douchecanoe James Firearms.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2019 2:40:21 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Better, meaning more believable, than the absurd claims of Jesse Douchecanoe James Firearms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2019 7:16:12 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:Function over form always if the thing works like advertised. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2019 9:07:21 AM EDT
[#13]
Robert A. Moore patented a similar style suppressor back in 1910 to compete against Maxim. Moore Patent
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2019 9:50:20 AM EDT
[#14]
Looks like another "flow through" design such as the Helix from OSS.
The center of the can is just a hollow tube. The gas goes to the outside of the tube and passes over many small machined ridges. Then is free to exit out the front.  There is little back pressure because the can let's all the gas flow out the open front of the can. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cY1r5a_SZBc |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2019 10:12:49 AM EDT
[#15]
Is that a maze of expansion chambers underneath that ultimately vents out in the front?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2019 10:54:52 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just because you can, doesnt mean you should... I'm interested in hearing how it actually performs. I will be quietly rocking on the Sunset Autumn acres deck ogling 75 year old bathing beauties doing watercize. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2019 10:56:58 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
The article also mentions lower back pressure with semi autos. Seeing how it supposedly redirects the gas downward into that lower expansion chamber area might be some truth to that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2019 11:33:24 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Robert A. Moore patented a similar style suppressor back in 1910 to compete against Maxim. Moore Patent |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2019 11:54:10 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is that a maze of expansion chambers underneath that ultimately vents out in the front? From memory, the list of companies adopting the "flow through" approach include OSS, Delta P, MaxFlo 3D, Thermal Defense, and Larue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2019 1:22:40 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes--they are joining others who are following OSS's lead and trying to figure out how to redirect the gases instead of simply trapping them. At this point I think it's established by multiple companies and designs that this approach can lower ear levels compared to conventional baffles. The notion that you have to accept high muzzle SPL to get acceptable at-ear numbers is hogwash. It's just the paradigm for science-fiction-come-to-life designs like this thing. Conventional baffle cans are perfectly capable of producing hearing safe SPL at mil std muzzle position and shooter's ear. I'd put down $100 that the cheap YHM Turbo has better performance on both ends than this thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2019 2:14:27 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not unless you believe every word from the companies themselves. Until there is reliable independent testing or these companies start putting out raw videos like Ray @ TBAC, it's all hype. The notion that you have to accept high muzzle SPL to get acceptable at-ear numbers is hogwash. It's just the paradigm for science-fiction-come-to-life designs like this thing. Conventional baffle cans are perfectly capable of producing hearing safe SPL at mil std muzzle position and shooter's ear. I'd put down $100 that the cheap YHM Turbo has better performance on both ends than this thing. Go look at the data at NFAtalk.org, Suppressed Nation and MAC videos, what Pete at TFB has been doing, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2019 2:37:13 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I would say it's been amply demonstrated by multiple independent third-party testers at this point that with a normal AR-15/10 unless you adjust the gas almost all baffle designs are much higher at the ear than the muzzle |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2019 3:26:17 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not unless you believe every word from the companies themselves. Until there is reliable independent testing or these companies start putting out raw videos like Ray @ TBAC, it's all hype. ... I'd put down $100 that the cheap YHM Turbo has better performance on both ends than this thing. I bet if this suppressor blocked off the port to the under side labyrinth, both the back pressure and the muzzle numbers would change insignificantly. Simple reflex chambers do a good job of reducing back pressure, mainly because the annular volume sees less resistance to 'flow' (actually more like pressure capacitance or an air spring) than the more restricted muzzle orifice and barrel-conduit. With designs like this there is a race condition between gas pressure dropping through the labyrinth and out the front diffuser, and simply back-spilling through the bore when the action opens. The slower the action, the better this will sound, but adjustable gas blocks already do that for blast enveloping designs. I'm sure it has some benefit, but that's a lot of metal and mass for what are probably minimal gains. I think a better implementation of these concepts (pressure drop of gases whose flow is already moving off the bore line and dispersion through front diffusers) is the Delta P .50 cal suppressor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2019 6:32:37 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What kind of moron would accept 150 dB muzzle to get just under 140 dB ear instead of spending $50 on an adjustable gas block to get mid-high 130s on both ends? It is a (somewhat) free country, and you are free to modify your guns as much as you desire. I just think it's nice that options are becoming available for the many people who will never touch their gas block or have other reasons to avoid the need to change gas settings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2019 7:43:22 PM EDT
[#25]
The cute labyrinth beneath the can will never get fed. The gas is going to go through the hole in the baffle/ path of least resistance.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2019 8:35:36 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are exaggerating the numbers on both ends in favor of your position Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are exaggerating the numbers on both ends in favor of your position I actually own a 2209 meter, I actually manufacture suppressors, and I actually use the ones I have. Did you ever even fire the OSS cans you bragged about owning but admitted to never having used while defending the product and their 5 meter testing nonsense? How many others do you own? Have you ever fired a can with a legitimate impulse sound meter present? A lot of the manufacturer published dBA figures are hokum. TBAC is honest, and I've never seen anything out of line from AAC. SilencerCo is full of shit, and they're not the only company who fudges the testing protocol or only posts the best numbers ever seen on the quietest hosts with the most cream puff ammo. Quoted:
I just think it's nice that options are becoming available for the many people who will never touch their gas block or have other reasons to avoid the need to change gas settings. Quoted:
The cute labyrinth beneath the can will never get fed. The gas is going to go through the hole in the baffle/ path of least resistance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2019 10:20:56 PM EDT
[#27]
Nice theory, but gas does not flow like that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2019 11:15:33 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And you know this based on your vast personal suppressor testing experience? I actually own a 2209 meter, I actually manufacture suppressors, and I actually use the ones I have. Did you ever even fire the OSS cans you bragged about owning but admitted to never having used while defending the product and their 5 meter testing nonsense? How many others do you own? Have you ever fired a can with a legitimate impulse sound meter present? A lot of the manufacturer published dBA figures are hokum. TBAC is honest, and I've never seen anything out of line from AAC. SilencerCo is full of shit, and they're not the only company who fudges the testing protocol or only posts the best numbers ever seen on the quietest hosts with the most cream puff ammo. 
I didn't say a word about my experience--I pointed to other sources. For example, from https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/09/01/oss-suppressors/ on a 16" 5.56: MODEL: OSS HX-QD 556MILSTD Muzzle 145.8 137.1 140.7 138.1 140.8 138.3 138.7 138.9 139.6 139.8 That's not exactly "150 dB muzzle" If there's something that can beat these ear numbers on a 16" 7.62 semi-auto, I haven't seen it yet: 137.2 135.1 137. 139.9 137.2 136.8 137.2 137.1 136.9 136.1 Also this https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/08/11/oss-helix/ Test Silencer: OSS HX-QD 556Host: Dynamic Defense 18" Romeo with adjustable gas block Ammunition: 62gr Federal Fusion SP Meter Location: MILSTD Muzzle 144.8 (failure to feed) 142.4 (FTF) (1/4 turn open on SLR gas block) 140.5 139.2 142.1 141.5 Meter Location: Right Ear 136 135.8 136.1 136 135.1 134.6 134.7 138.1 136 136.2 136.5 135.8 137.7 137.6 140+ (bolt hold open) And there's this for Delta P on a 5.56: https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/01/05/3d-printed-silence/ BCM 18" MILSTD Muzzle 140+ 140+ 141 140.1 138.8 136.1 139.5 139.1 139.3 139.9 134.8 Ear 138.2 137.8 137.2 138.8 140+ 137.7 139.4 138.6 138 Delta P Prototype BCM 18" MILSTD Muzzle 142.6 139 140.5 140.9 140.8 140.5 141 140 139.1 141 Ear 140 138.8 138.3 138.9 138.2 138.7 138.8 140+ 137.6 139.9 The only data I've seen for the MaxFlo 3D is in the NFATalk spreadsheet--using a 10.5" piston gun they got 142.9 muzzle and 136.5 ear. I'd like to see more testing done with all of these new alternative designs, but to say "What kind of moron would accept 150 dB muzzle to get just under 140 dB ear" is a significant exaggeration based on the data available so far. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2019 12:01:31 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryI'd like to see more testing done with all of these new alternative designs, but to say "What kind of moron would accept 150 dB muzzle to get just under 140 dB ear" is a significant exaggeration based on the data available so far. BTW, even my stubby Five By Five put down better numbers at both ends shooting inside a 12x24 room on a 10.5" cheapie PSA uppered SBR than the OSS 5.56K, and better ear numbers than the 5.56 standard managed on 12" or 16" premium rifles. Tested with a B&K Pulse system, mil spec left & right positions averaged 145.04, shooter's ear averaged 140.03. This is a 5" long can, 1-9/16" diameter. Oh, and I charge $300 less than OSS. At any rate, from your links: Model: OSS HX-QD 556K Host: Dynamic Defense 12” Sierra https://dynamicdefensedevelopment.com/product/sierra/ Ammunition: Federal 62gr M855 MILSTD Muzzle 140+ 152.5 151.4 152.3 151.9 150.9 151 150.4 150.7 150.8 At The Ear 141 141.7 142 140 140.3 142.2 142.4 141.1 143.1 142.5 BHO Model: OSS HX-QD 556 MILSTD Muzzle 149.5 142.6 142. 143.7 143.9 144.6 143.5 144.6 143.9 144.2 At The Ear 140.6 141 142 141.5 140.4 140.5 139.2 138.1 139.5 138.1 BHO For the 5.56K, that's a muzzle average of 151.3 and @ ear average of 141.6. (What was that about my numbers being exaggerated?) For the full size, muzzle avg. 142.25 ear avg. 140.09 And besides being larger cans on a longer barrel, that's shooting outdoors on a meter with less peak impulse sensitivity than the Pulse I tested my 1.56x5" model on. The 6.5" long YHM Turbo will beat the OSS cans by an even bigger margin. But this thread is not about OSS. It's about a can that, as far as I can tell, will perform even worse. Something I hadn't even mentioned yet, but sharp corners in suppressors also make for a snappy tone. I'm sure you'll excuse that, too, though. I can't for the life of me understand why you so vehemently defend some of the most overpriced, under-performing products on the market, but it seems to be your mission. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2019 1:19:01 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Still cherry picking your data, I see. BTW, even my stubby Five By Five put down better numbers at both ends shooting inside a 12x24 room on a 10.5" cheapie PSA uppered SBR than the OSS 5.56K, and better ear numbers than the 5.56 standard managed on 12" or 16" premium rifles. Tested with a B&K Pulse system, mil spec left & right positions averaged 145.04, shooter's ear averaged 140.03. This is a 5" long can, 1-9/16" diameter. Oh, and I charge $300 less than OSS. At any rate, from your links: Model: OSS HX-QD 556K Host: Dynamic Defense 12" Sierra https://dynamicdefensedevelopment.com/product/sierra/ Ammunition: Federal 62gr M855 MILSTD Muzzle 140+ 152.5 151.4 152.3 151.9 150.9 151 150.4 150.7 150.8 At The Ear 141 141.7 142 140 140.3 142.2 142.4 141.1 143.1 142.5 BHO Model: OSS HX-QD 556 MILSTD Muzzle 149.5 142.6 142. 143.7 143.9 144.6 143.5 144.6 143.9 144.2 At The Ear 140.6 141 142 141.5 140.4 140.5 139.2 138.1 139.5 138.1 BHO For the 5.56K, that's a muzzle average of 151.3 and @ ear average of 141.6. (What was that about my numbers being exaggerated?) For the full size, muzzle avg. 142.25 ear avg. 140.09 And besides being larger cans on a longer barrel, that's shooting outdoors on a meter with less peak impulse sensitivity than the Pulse I tested my 1.56x5" model on. The 6.5" long YHM Turbo will beat the OSS cans by an even bigger margin. But this thread is not about OSS. It's about a can that, as far as I can tell, will perform even worse. Something I hadn't even mentioned yet, but sharp corners in suppressors also make for a snappy tone. I'm sure you'll excuse that, too, though. I can't for the life of me understand why you so vehemently defend some of the most overpriced, under-performing products on the market, but it seems to be your mission. Do the terms straw man or red herring mean anything to you? You ought to look them up. Nobody said OSS was perfect. YOU made a broad generalization that flow-through designs require accepting "150 dB muzzle to get just under 140 dB ear". I said you were exaggerating/misrepresenting. You challenged my basis for my statement. I provided some hard data (generated with a 2209) that showed you were exaggerating/misrepresenting. You respond by picking the worst possible example and ignoring everything else, as if that validates your claims? YOU'RE the one cherrypicking. Maybe you don't understand how this works--to DISPROVE something you simply have to provide any data that contradicts the claim. To PROVE a claim there can be no exceptions that contradict. If you'd like to add a little nuance and detail and revise your claims feel free, but don't try to play logic games with me--I have a degree in math and logic is my specialty. I used OSS only because that's where most of the available data is found and their claims about essentially eliminating increases in backpressure are essentially accepted at this point. I don't know anything more about H&P Manufacturing than what's in the links I provided--I just shared it here in case anybody else found it interesting. You are free to say anything you want about it and I will have no reason to respond to it, but if you make broader generalizations then I'm going to correct them because there might be people reading this who wouldn't know any better if I didn't and I think it's a good idea to keep the record straight and not to allow bad information to perpetuate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2019 10:12:49 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think a better implementation of these concepts (pressure drop of gases whose flow is already moving off the bore line and dispersion through front diffusers) is the Delta P .50 cal suppressor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2019 11:08:09 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wish I had a gif of somebody beating their head against a wall, because that's where we are at this point. Do the terms straw man or red herring mean anything to you? You ought to look them up. Nobody said OSS was perfect. YOU made a broad generalization that flow-through designs require accepting "150 dB muzzle to get just under 140 dB ear". I said you were exaggerating/misrepresenting. You challenged my basis for my statement. I provided some hard data (generated with a 2209) that showed you were exaggerating/misrepresenting. You respond by picking the worst possible example and ignoring everything else, as if that validates your claims? YOU'RE the one cherrypicking. Maybe you don't understand how this works--to DISPROVE something you simply have to provide any data that contradicts the claim. To PROVE a claim there can be no exceptions that contradict. If you'd like to add a little nuance and detail and revise your claims feel free, but don't try to play logic games with me--I have a degree in math and logic is my specialty. I used OSS only because that's where most of the available data is found and their claims about essentially eliminating increases in backpressure are essentially accepted at this point. I don't know anything more about H&P Manufacturing than what's in the links I provided--I just shared it here in case anybody else found it interesting. You are free to say anything you want about it and I will have no reason to respond to it, but if you make broader generalizations then I'm going to correct them because there might be people reading this who wouldn't know any better if I didn't and I think it's a good idea to keep the record straight and not to allow bad information to perpetuate. Have you actually shot your suppressors yet or... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2019 8:01:00 PM EDT
[#33]
I thought it may be good to show some video of this thing in action, I wasn't aware of this thread until someone told me about it. Yes it works. The video shows that we are able to divert the majority of the gases thru the ducts as opposed to following the bullet thru the exit opening.
The measurements were taken with a Larson Davis 800B meter, which is used for Mil Spec testing. I don't take measurements with cell phones or other inadequate equipment. Hopefully the youtube video works properly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpH65VPV4j4  UGLY338 Gas Exit in Slow Motion |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2019 8:51:45 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought it may be good to show some video of this thing in action, I wasn't aware of this thread until someone told me about it. Yes it works. The video shows that we are able to divert the majority of the gases thru the ducts as opposed to following the bullet thru the exit opening. The measurements were taken with a Larson Davis 800B meter, which is used for Mil Spec testing. I don't take measurements with cell phones or other inadequate equipment. Hopefully the youtube video works properly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpH65VPV4j4  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpH65VPV4j4 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2019 9:25:50 PM EDT
[#35]
UGLY338 Gas Exit in Slow Motion |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2019 10:57:18 PM EDT
[#36]
Sound meter wasn't shown in that video.
Measurements were taken at a different point in the day along with measurements for other calibers/designs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2019 11:16:29 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought it may be good to show some video of this thing in action, I wasn't aware of this thread until someone told me about it. Yes it works. The video shows that we are able to divert the majority of the gases thru the ducts as opposed to following the bullet thru the exit opening. The measurements were taken with a Larson Davis 800B meter, which is used for Mil Spec testing. I don't take measurements with cell phones or other inadequate equipment. Hopefully the youtube video works properly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpH65VPV4j4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpH65VPV4j4 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2019 10:46:05 AM EDT
[#38]
Rifle is a hodge-podge of parts assembled by me. Mausingfield bolt action, Barlein heavy varmint barrel, Masterpiece Arms BA Chassis, Atlas Bipod, XTSP trigger, Nightforce ATACR 7-35 scope, American Rifle Company scope rings.
.338 Lapua Magnum is not what I prefer to take to the range but I have it for testing the designs. Ammunition used was handloads of 285gr Hornady ELD-M over 90.5gr of IMR 7977 that ran 2667fps on that day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 1:16:23 AM EDT
[#39]
You mentioned other calibers--will you be telling us what kind of numbers you got, or was it just part of your R&D?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 11:01:59 AM EDT
[#40]
On that day I also metered our non-Ugly designs. They have a more traditional shape but have complex baffle designs that only additive manufacturing can produce. They weather was not cooperating so we setup for measuring at the shooter's location and not the Mil spec testing configuration. So please keep in mind that these are not mil-spec ratings but should be within 2 or 3dB of the mil-spec values. Here's a summary of the 4 baffle configurations. Values are averages.
Config 1 .223 Rem AR 18" barrel: 144dB .223 Bolt gun 20" Barrel: 129dB .223 Bolt gun 24: barrel: 128dB 6x47Lapua Bolt gun 28" barrel: 128dB, For reference my Thunderbeast 30P-1 metered at 130dB and the sound was very comparable to my friend's ultra 9. I didn't meter the ultra 9 because I couldn't put it on any of these host guns for direct comparison. Config 2 .223 AR 18" Barrel: 143dB .223 Bolt gun 24" barrel: 126dB Config 3 .223 AR 18" Barrel: 144dB .223 Bolt gun 24" barrel: 125dB Config 4 .223 AR 18" Barrel: 144dB .223 Bolt gun 24" barrel: 127dB It appears that the meter was registering something in the action, probably the bolt slamming. Mil spec testing may actually produce significantly lower values due to the fact that the meter will be place further away from the cycling of the bolt carrier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 4:18:17 PM EDT
[#41]
There's a lot of variability/noise in that data but then again real world action noise, different powder pressure-time curves, atmospheric and environmental conditions and reflective surfaces are a real thing. If 2" of barrel is that effective a small increase in blast chamber volume would also help but I'd guess you've already tested that response sensitivity. More than likely gas system dwell time and bolt speed are the independent variables affecting your measurements.
Have you tried blocking off your diffuser/capacitance section to optimize the blast-forward stack? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 10:32:10 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
On that day I also metered our non-Ugly designs. They have a more traditional shape but have complex baffle designs that only additive manufacturing can produce. They weather was not cooperating so we setup for measuring at the shooter's location and not the Mil spec testing configuration. So please keep in mind that these are not mil-spec ratings but should be within 2 or 3dB of the mil-spec values. Here's a summary of the 4 baffle configurations. Values are averages. Config 1 .223 Rem AR 18" barrel: 144dB .223 Bolt gun 20" Barrel: 129dB .223 Bolt gun 24: barrel: 128dB 6x47Lapua Bolt gun 28" barrel: 128dB, For reference my Thunderbeast 30P-1 metered at 130dB and the sound was very comparable to my friend's ultra 9. I didn't meter the ultra 9 because I couldn't put it on any of these host guns for direct comparison. Config 2 .223 AR 18" Barrel: 143dB .223 Bolt gun 24" barrel: 126dB Config 3 .223 AR 18" Barrel: 144dB .223 Bolt gun 24" barrel: 125dB Config 4 .223 AR 18" Barrel: 144dB .223 Bolt gun 24" barrel: 127dB It appears that the meter was registering something in the action, probably the bolt slamming. Mil spec testing may actually produce significantly lower values due to the fact that the meter will be place further away from the cycling of the bolt carrier. I'm most curious about what your "ugly" configuration can produce at the ear--it seems like you would be giving the gas somewhere to go so back pressure should be better...? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 11:31:58 PM EDT
[#43]
Just a clarification on the reported test data. Each configuration is a different design, primarily different baffle designs in the same outer body to determine which baffles work better. The different baffle designs handle gas flow in completely different ways. The variability in the data is more the differences in designs and platforms. The reported dBs are averages of five readings and most had an extreme spread of ~3dB or less for each set.
I will be releasing more Ugly data in upcoming weeks, if the torrential rain ever stops long enough to get set up for mil-spec metering. The Ugly design is tailored more for applications that make other attributes higher priority than ultimate sound reduction. The shortened length and shifted center of gravity can be more important to those that may be clearing buildings, holding the weapon up for long periods of time, want lower operating temps, etc. So the Ugly design does reduce sound but admittedly it doesn't reduce sound as much as someone like Thunderbeast or other reputable brand. It does give other benefits for certain users however. I use the Ugly 338 every time I take the .338 to the range because it works very well (check some of Ray's Thunderbeast 338 videos for reference) and doesn't protrude 11"+ from the already long barrel. And that gun is unbearable to be around without one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkL25aG2sbI&feature=youtu.be  Ugly 338 Side view slow motion |
|
|
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.
