Armory Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 30 Cal Testing Video (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 5/26/2015 12:22:40 PM EDT
|
Military Arms 30 Cal video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL2Q2DIX76o This video should answer a lot of questions I see asked on here |
| I had been waiting on this vid. Interesting results for my own personal curiosity. I like that there are 3 different vids now on the omega with multiple host, lengths, ammo and locales. Although the numbers are not exactly as advertised for a moment it felt like others and I may have fail victim to hype. However it turned out to be a quiet, lighter and shorter saker; I can roll with that. |
|
Quoted:
Disappointed that he was unable to test the Spectra 762 - it's consistently rated as one of the most effective 30 cal. cans. Otherwise, very good survey of contemporary models. Agree. Was disappointed that he didn't test the specwar 7.62. Also was surprised just how loud that surefire was on the 5.56. I do like his series a lot and like that he shows the meter during testing. |
|
Quoted:
Griffin is LEGIT. I'm in no way associated with them but I think they have the best mounting system (taper) and the quietest suppressors out there. Also the best looking IMO. I've been waiting for this vid. Thanks MAC! Every Griffin I've shot is louder to my ear than any of the silencerco can. They might rate less decibels but they certainly sound more harsh on my ear. |
|
Quoted:
Judging from what? Quoted:
Quoted:
Griffin is LEGIT. I'm in no way associated with them but I think they have the best mounting system (taper) and the quietest suppressors out there. Also the best looking IMO. I've been waiting for this vid. Thanks MAC! Judging from what? The numbers posted in this series? ETA: the silencershop test of the Recce 5 had it numbering in the high 120's I don't have any shooting experience with them. I would like to hear from someone who does but based on what I've seen from these videos as well as silencer shop they seem to be some of the best "in my opinion". |
|
Quoted:
The numbers posted in this series? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Griffin is LEGIT. I'm in no way associated with them but I think they have the best mounting system (taper) and the quietest suppressors out there. Also the best looking IMO. I've been waiting for this vid. Thanks MAC! Judging from what? The numbers posted in this series? A SpecWar 762 would be quieter than then all. |
|
Quoted:
Every Griffin I've shot is louder to my ear than any of the silencerco can. They might rate less decibels but they certainly sound more harsh on my ear. Quoted:
Quoted:
Griffin is LEGIT. I'm in no way associated with them but I think they have the best mounting system (taper) and the quietest suppressors out there. Also the best looking IMO. I've been waiting for this vid. Thanks MAC! Every Griffin I've shot is louder to my ear than any of the silencerco can. They might rate less decibels but they certainly sound more harsh on my ear. I believe this has to do with the design of the can. The better numbers at the muzzle/can is paid for with louder numbers at the shooters ear (back-pressure?) I saw this in the SilencerShop videos of the Griffin rifle cans |
|
Quoted:
I believe this has to do with the design of the can. The better numbers at the muzzle/can is paid for with louder numbers at the shooters ear (back-pressure?) I saw this in the SilencerShop videos of the Griffin rifle cans Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Griffin is LEGIT. I'm in no way associated with them but I think they have the best mounting system (taper) and the quietest suppressors out there. Also the best looking IMO. I've been waiting for this vid. Thanks MAC! Every Griffin I've shot is louder to my ear than any of the silencerco can. They might rate less decibels but they certainly sound more harsh on my ear. I believe this has to do with the design of the can. The better numbers at the muzzle/can is paid for with louder numbers at the shooters ear (back-pressure?) I saw this in the SilencerShop videos of the Griffin rifle cans I'll trade off a few more decibels down range to have it quieter at my girly sensitive ears. It's not like these things are Hollywood quiet anyway. |
|
Quoted:
Good info but I'm disappointed that there was no SDN-6 in this video! It is great to see another video in the series. On backpressure and at ear noise i can say that it isnt completely predictable. A can doing better or worse at the muzzle doesnt always correlate to a result at the ear. Different baffle designs respond differently with regard to at ear noise on gas operated platforms. I had one opportunity to meter a specwar on one platform during a road sales trip about a year ago. That was only with one type of ammo (300blk remington subsonic) on 12 inch barrels. The specwar outperformed the current generation recce 7 by 3-4db at the muzzle, but the @ right ear numbers were 138db for the recce 7, and 146db for the specwar. If you test @ear on a bolt gun the specwar would have outperformed the recce 7 because ejection port noise is not present on locked breach firing systems which push all gas out the muzzle Of the can. So really which choice is best for an end user as always depends in how they are using the product and how better performance is quantified by them personally. For one person weight and size might be more important than any other attributes. For another muzzle sound- for another ear sound- one user may own soely bolt guns etc. Another point of comparison is length and weight- the 7.6" 18.5 ounce recce 7 isnt in the class of the ~9" 24 ounce specwar. Not in my personal opinion anyway. The specwar would be better compared to the dead air sandman L mac tested or to the surefire 7.62 suppressor mac tested. In design each company has to theorize which performance attributes best fit the market or their market and push development in that direction. Unfortunately no one product can meet the needs of every customer. |
|
Quoted:
I'll trade off a few more decibels down range to have it quieter at my girly sensitive ears. It's not like these things are Hollywood quiet anyway. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Griffin is LEGIT. I'm in no way associated with them but I think they have the best mounting system (taper) and the quietest suppressors out there. Also the best looking IMO. I've been waiting for this vid. Thanks MAC! Every Griffin I've shot is louder to my ear than any of the silencerco can. They might rate less decibels but they certainly sound more harsh on my ear. I believe this has to do with the design of the can. The better numbers at the muzzle/can is paid for with louder numbers at the shooters ear (back-pressure?) I saw this in the SilencerShop videos of the Griffin rifle cans I'll trade off a few more decibels down range to have it quieter at my girly sensitive ears. It's not like these things are Hollywood quiet anyway. Good way to put it. I'd probably agree. |
|
Quoted:
Good way to put it. I'd probably agree. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Griffin is LEGIT. I'm in no way associated with them but I think they have the best mounting system (taper) and the quietest suppressors out there. Also the best looking IMO. I've been waiting for this vid. Thanks MAC! Every Griffin I've shot is louder to my ear than any of the silencerco can. They might rate less decibels but they certainly sound more harsh on my ear. I believe this has to do with the design of the can. The better numbers at the muzzle/can is paid for with louder numbers at the shooters ear (back-pressure?) I saw this in the SilencerShop videos of the Griffin rifle cans I'll trade off a few more decibels down range to have it quieter at my girly sensitive ears. It's not like these things are Hollywood quiet anyway. Good way to put it. I'd probably agree. I also agree. Was just looking at silencer shop numbers they had from testing the omega (different rifle different place and time and ammo but for ballpark sake) and on the 16" 308 it averaged 133 and 138.5 at shooters ear. Omega on 556 with end brake was 134.5 (close to what MAC had at 136.2, both were on 16" AR) and 145.8 at shooters ear. Then going to flat end cap went to 131.7 and 134 at shooters ear. That 11 DB drop at shooters ear seems crazy and wish MAC had been able to test all the cans he did at the shooters ear as well. Curious how the others would meter. |
|
Quoted:
Good way to put it. I'd probably agree. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Griffin is LEGIT. I'm in no way associated with them but I think they have the best mounting system (taper) and the quietest suppressors out there. Also the best looking IMO. I've been waiting for this vid. Thanks MAC! Every Griffin I've shot is louder to my ear than any of the silencerco can. They might rate less decibels but they certainly sound more harsh on my ear. I believe this has to do with the design of the can. The better numbers at the muzzle/can is paid for with louder numbers at the shooters ear (back-pressure?) I saw this in the SilencerShop videos of the Griffin rifle cans I'll trade off a few more decibels down range to have it quieter at my girly sensitive ears. It's not like these things are Hollywood quiet anyway. Good way to put it. I'd probably agree. I know this thread is about the 30 cal cans. But Griffins video of the latest version of the Recce 5 shows 141.8 at the right ear. You can see how the did the test and see the meter as well. Silencer shops test claimed 144. But it also claimed 144 for the AAC M4-2000 and 556 SD. So here is a can (Recce 5) that is slightly quieter at the muzzle, and slightly quieter or the same as the others at the shooters ear, yet it's hundreds of dollars cheaper, comes with the mount (which doesn't have any ratchet parts to wear out), is several ounces lighter and .4 inches shorter. What not to love? Don't get me wrong I like AAC. I don't like Surefire. That can seems loud to me. But of all the companies currently offering, I like Griffin the best. Just my own opinion. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OQpEd4RqhLY I would love to hear from more folks with real world Griffin use. I know a lot of it is subjective, and user preference. |
|
One of the things to know about at the ear testing is that there are standards and then their are realities and those differ a bit. The Mil-std test puts the microphones off to the sides of the weapon on one side or the other- I believe that distance is 15centimeters.
The position of the mic is very important to the reading you will achieve. The left side of a gas operated AR (non ejection port) will be a lot more quiet. We internally test in the actual proximity of a right handed firers right ear without the ear actually there. That was how the test I mentioned was conducted. This is the only logical way to test IMO. Get even 2" (5CM) outside that position and you'll have readings spike several decibels as you enter the pressure wave of ejection port offgassing. I don't see the point of testing the more quiet ear, or of testing the left hand firers right ear location (which would be louder) because the left handed firer is about 10% of the population. As a company we are trying to give most people an idea of hearing risk or the lack thereof. The right ear mil-std location is about equivalent to a left handed firer's right ear, and to use it, clouds the results with information that doesn't apply to how 90% of the end users are using the firearms 95+% of the time. Our test gives the high limit risk for the worse ear side of the right handed majority firer. The left hand firer's risk will be more severe when operating a conventional right hand ejection gas operated firearm, but the left hand firer is the minority firer. Also if the left hand firer buys a left hand gas operated rifle, his numbers will mirror our data from our right hand testing method. |
|
Quoted:
I was actually surprised by how low the Saker numbers were and how loud the Dead Air L can was. Wish he tested more thread on cans though. Quoted:
I was actually surprised by how low the Saker numbers were and how loud the Dead Air L can was. Wish he tested more thread on cans though. As the chief designer on the Sandman, I'm really not that surprised. Here's why: it was optimized more for sound reduction for the shooter (and low back-pressure). But to be fair, considering this was on an 18" barrel it's within 1-2 dB of where I'd have guessed it would perform. The Sandman-L has always been 137-138 dB with most any .308 ammo on a 20" barrel. The Specwar is usually 136-137 and the Saker is always at 140-141. All of these test systems have about ±1 dB variation so I'd call these valid results. Even though the Sandman -L came in within less than 1 dB of the Saker, the at-the-ear sound for the Sandman will markedly less. At least I can be comforted I'm not AAC or Surefire right now. 
Quoted:
On backpressure and at ear noise i can say that it isnt completely predictable. A can doing better or worse at the muzzle doesnt always correlate to a result at the ear. Different baffle designs respond differently with regard to at ear noise on gas operated platforms. You nailed it bro. This is one thing that's hard to put in advertising because of the lack of standardized testing. At Dead Air, we've been testing at the shooters right ear because I want to characterize what the shooter is actually experiencing. While our -L model is always within 1-2 dB of the Specwar, we're significantly quieter at the shooters ear. All the big name suppressor companies have been developing their latest products for the muzzle meter (because it's so easy to put in front of customers). In reality, many of latest high-baffle-count suppressors out there will sound great for your buddies but will sound terrible to you behind the trigger. In our development, we set out to reduce the sound for the shooter first, and then optimized it at the muzzle after that. |
|
You have a good point. The ear reference locations aren't really standardized. The MIL-STD ear locations can be sampled from either side and with the ejection port being on the right (WHICH SIDE) makes a big difference here because the ejection port proximity will drastically alter results from one side to another. Also neither of those locations are really representative of actual ear locations. That's why we don't use them, and instead use something more like a NATO country that actually put a mic inside a human ear of a dummy head for testing. We simply put the mic at the loudest ear for the right handed firer on a right handed firearm. We've found that our suppressors are about as quiet as anything on the market there- and are within a DB of Surefire's 5.56mm RC which is probably the best ear protection on the market for a right handed firer on a 14.5" 5.56mm platform.
I feel that is an achievement given we're outperforming that by 4-5DB at the muzzle and providing a good balance of sound reduction in both the ambient environment and ear protection for the shooter. |
|
Quoted:
You have a good point. The ear reference locations aren't really standardized. The MIL-STD ear locations can be sampled from either side and with the ejection port being on the right (WHICH SIDE) makes a big difference here because the ejection port proximity will drastically alter results from one side to another. Also neither of those locations are really representative of actual ear locations. That's why we don't use them, and instead use something more like a NATO country that actually put a mic inside a human ear of a dummy head for testing. We simply put the mic at the loudest ear for the right handed firer on a right handed firearm. We've found that our suppressors are about as quiet as anything on the market there- and are within a DB of Surefire's 5.56mm RC which is probably the best ear protection on the market for a right handed firer on a 14.5" 5.56mm platform. I feel that is an achievement given we're outperforming that by 4-5DB at the muzzle and providing a good balance of sound reduction in both the ambient environment and ear protection for the shooter. Fascinating. I'm planning on ordering separate SOCOM2s for 5.56 and .308. The dB results in these comparisons were a little concerning to me, but I just assumed the Surefire would have less flash and reduced back pressure compared to the other cans. But they're also quieter when measured from the shooter's ear? Good to know! |
|
Quoted:
Military Arms 30 Cal video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL2Q2DIX76o This video should answer a lot of questions I see asked on here Neat. If I had a suggestion it would be to put up some sort of "hard stop" to set the end of the cans up against in order to maintain a closer 90-degree-off-the-muzzle's-face relationship to the test device. Meh, may be nothing, but seemed like as the Silencerco Omega crawled further forward (more so than the others did), it got a smidge or two quieter. ML |
|
Quoted:
I've never metered the 308 surefire. My comments were about the positive characteristics of the surefire 556 suppressor. I've never metered anything, but my Surefire 762-RC has the best tone and is the quietest (to my ear Mk1) of my current cans. I shoot rifles with Peltors on, so YMMV. I also have a Surefire 556 Mini and a Griffon M4SDK (great can!). The 556-Mini has a higher frequency tone and is a little louder at the ear (could just be the tone). The blowback on the Surefire cans is really low. The M4SDK does have a little more gas, but it's not as bad as I thought it would be. Much better than my old M4-2k. Right now, till more rifle cans clear (waiting on a 762 Saker and a pair of Surefire 556-SB's) the 762-RC is my favorite rifle can with the M4SDK as a close second. Awesome video by the way. |
|
Quoted:
I've never metered anything, but my Surefire 762-RC has the best tone and is the quietest (to my ear Mk1) of my current cans. I shoot rifles with Peltors on, so YMMV. I also have a Surefire 556 Mini and a Griffon M4SDK (great can!). The 556-Mini has a higher frequency tone and is a little louder at the ear (could just be the tone). The blowback on the Surefire cans is really low. The M4SDK does have a little more gas, but it's not as bad as I thought it would be. Much better than my old M4-2k. Right now, till more rifle cans clear (waiting on a 762 Saker and a pair of Surefire 556-SB's) the 762-RC is my favorite rifle can with the M4SDK as a close second. Awesome video by the way. Quoted:
Quoted:
I've never metered the 308 surefire. My comments were about the positive characteristics of the surefire 556 suppressor. I've never metered anything, but my Surefire 762-RC has the best tone and is the quietest (to my ear Mk1) of my current cans. I shoot rifles with Peltors on, so YMMV. I also have a Surefire 556 Mini and a Griffon M4SDK (great can!). The 556-Mini has a higher frequency tone and is a little louder at the ear (could just be the tone). The blowback on the Surefire cans is really low. The M4SDK does have a little more gas, but it's not as bad as I thought it would be. Much better than my old M4-2k. Right now, till more rifle cans clear (waiting on a 762 Saker and a pair of Surefire 556-SB's) the 762-RC is my favorite rifle can with the M4SDK as a close second. Awesome video by the way. I agree that Military Arms Channel did an excellent job on the video- it is entertaining and informative. It's great to see someone did some comparative testing- it's been a while since I've seen third party comparative testing. It's great to see Silencer Shop supporting the NFA community at the various demos and with support like Military Arms mentioned in the video. From what little I know about Silencer Shop, I've gathered the impression they really have done, and are doing a lot behind the scenes to advance NFA causes in general and to make suppressors and also information more accessible to the shooting community, and I appreciate that. If you have a first gen M4SD K, (serial under 50), it doesn't have the second generation baffling which lowered at ear and muzzle signatures. Judging from the numbers, MAC tested a second gen unit. |
|
Quoted:
I agree that Military Arms Channel did an excellent job on the video- it is entertaining and informative. It's great to see someone did some comparative testing- it's been a while since I've seen third party comparative testing. It's great to see Silencer Shop supporting the NFA community at the various demos and with support like Military Arms mentioned in the video. From what little I know about Silencer Shop, I've gathered the impression they really have done, and are doing a lot behind the scenes to advance NFA causes in general and to make suppressors and also information more accessible to the shooting community, and I appreciate that. If you have a first gen M4SD K, (serial under 50), it doesn't have the second generation baffling which lowered at ear and muzzle signatures. Judging from the numbers, MAC tested a second gen unit. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've never metered the 308 surefire. My comments were about the positive characteristics of the surefire 556 suppressor. I've never metered anything, but my Surefire 762-RC has the best tone and is the quietest (to my ear Mk1) of my current cans. I shoot rifles with Peltors on, so YMMV. I also have a Surefire 556 Mini and a Griffon M4SDK (great can!). The 556-Mini has a higher frequency tone and is a little louder at the ear (could just be the tone). The blowback on the Surefire cans is really low. The M4SDK does have a little more gas, but it's not as bad as I thought it would be. Much better than my old M4-2k. Right now, till more rifle cans clear (waiting on a 762 Saker and a pair of Surefire 556-SB's) the 762-RC is my favorite rifle can with the M4SDK as a close second. Awesome video by the way. I agree that Military Arms Channel did an excellent job on the video- it is entertaining and informative. It's great to see someone did some comparative testing- it's been a while since I've seen third party comparative testing. It's great to see Silencer Shop supporting the NFA community at the various demos and with support like Military Arms mentioned in the video. From what little I know about Silencer Shop, I've gathered the impression they really have done, and are doing a lot behind the scenes to advance NFA causes in general and to make suppressors and also information more accessible to the shooting community, and I appreciate that. If you have a first gen M4SD K, (serial under 50), it doesn't have the second generation baffling which lowered at ear and muzzle signatures. Judging from the numbers, MAC tested a second gen unit. Hey Green0, how can one tell if a Recce 5 they want to buy has the "technology upgrade" from this spring? Is it a certain manufacture date or serial number? |
|
Quoted:
I agree that Military Arms Channel did an excellent job on the video- it is entertaining and informative. It's great to see someone did some comparative testing- it's been a while since I've seen third party comparative testing. It's great to see Silencer Shop supporting the NFA community at the various demos and with support like Military Arms mentioned in the video. From what little I know about Silencer Shop, I've gathered the impression they really have done, and are doing a lot behind the scenes to advance NFA causes in general and to make suppressors and also information more accessible to the shooting community, and I appreciate that. If you have a first gen M4SD K, (serial under 50), it doesn't have the second generation baffling which lowered at ear and muzzle signatures. Judging from the numbers, MAC tested a second gen unit. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've never metered the 308 surefire. My comments were about the positive characteristics of the surefire 556 suppressor. I've never metered anything, but my Surefire 762-RC has the best tone and is the quietest (to my ear Mk1) of my current cans. I shoot rifles with Peltors on, so YMMV. I also have a Surefire 556 Mini and a Griffon M4SDK (great can!). The 556-Mini has a higher frequency tone and is a little louder at the ear (could just be the tone). The blowback on the Surefire cans is really low. The M4SDK does have a little more gas, but it's not as bad as I thought it would be. Much better than my old M4-2k. Right now, till more rifle cans clear (waiting on a 762 Saker and a pair of Surefire 556-SB's) the 762-RC is my favorite rifle can with the M4SDK as a close second. Awesome video by the way. I agree that Military Arms Channel did an excellent job on the video- it is entertaining and informative. It's great to see someone did some comparative testing- it's been a while since I've seen third party comparative testing. It's great to see Silencer Shop supporting the NFA community at the various demos and with support like Military Arms mentioned in the video. From what little I know about Silencer Shop, I've gathered the impression they really have done, and are doing a lot behind the scenes to advance NFA causes in general and to make suppressors and also information more accessible to the shooting community, and I appreciate that. If you have a first gen M4SD K, (serial under 50), it doesn't have the second generation baffling which lowered at ear and muzzle signatures. Judging from the numbers, MAC tested a second gen unit. Mine is less than 50 (a lot less....). Is this something that can be upgraded on my existing can, or do I "have what I have".... |
|
Mark, in many videos I've seen SilencerCo uses a mic stand w/o a microphone on it as the "hard stop." where they can just set the muzzle right up against it.
I am still wondering what effect comb filtering and the general testing environment have on the reported numbers. The phasing of the muzzle and ejection port (and/or gas port) noise might significantly alter results, and I haven't seen anyone address this in testing. |
|
Quoted:
And if you're a customer you'd be glad you didn't purchase an AAC or Surefire...  Quoted:
Quoted:
At least I can be comforted I'm not AAC or Surefire right now.
And if you're a customer you'd be glad you didn't purchase an AAC or Surefire... Decibels isn't the only thing that makes a suppressor desirable. If you read Green0 or Mageever's comments you would realize who hey are comparing their cans to. |
|
Quoted:
Mark, in many videos I've seen SilencerCo uses a mic stand w/o a microphone on it as the "hard stop." where they can just set the muzzle right up against it. I am still wondering what effect comb filtering and the general testing environment have on the reported numbers. The phasing of the muzzle and ejection port (and/or gas port) noise might significantly alter results, and I haven't seen anyone address this in testing. Not counting the ones posted by AAC aka SuppressorTalk/Test years and years ago, this MAC video is only thing here of late I've watched. The mil folks are rumored to be thinking about 20 or so of those mics scattered accurately to hell and back feeding into a CRAY 1 supercomputer (I took license with exaggeration there only a little). Meh, I'm the furthest thing from being an acoustic nerd, but do think if just one mic is going to be used, probably best to position it dead nuts on 90 degrees and same distance off suppressor face ... apples to apples and all that. ETA - Ammo, seen factory ammo with extreme spread of 100 fps ... |
|
Quoted:
Decibels isn't the only thing that makes a suppressor desirable. If you read Green0 or Mageever's comments you would realize who hey are comparing their cans to. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
At least I can be comforted I'm not AAC or Surefire right now.
And if you're a customer you'd be glad you didn't purchase an AAC or Surefire... Decibels isn't the only thing that makes a suppressor desirable. If you read Green0 or Mageever's comments you would realize who hey are comparing their cans to. Yeah, they say not to chase 1-2 dbs, but 9 dbs is a major difference and shows why Silencer Shop didn't publish their test numbers for the Surefire during their 30 cal test video. They wouldn't have been able to sell any and have been stuck with them unless selling at a loss like the OSS cans. |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, they say not to chase 1-2 dbs, but 9 dbs is a major difference and shows why Silencer Shop didn't publish their test numbers for the Surefire during their 30 cal test video. They wouldn't have been able to sell any and have been stuck with them unless selling at a loss like the OSS cans. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
At least I can be comforted I'm not AAC or Surefire right now.
And if you're a customer you'd be glad you didn't purchase an AAC or Surefire... Decibels isn't the only thing that makes a suppressor desirable. If you read Green0 or Mageever's comments you would realize who hey are comparing their cans to. Yeah, they say not to chase 1-2 dbs, but 9 dbs is a major difference and shows why Silencer Shop didn't publish their test numbers for the Surefire during their 30 cal test video. They wouldn't have been able to sell any and have been stuck with them unless selling at a loss like the OSS cans. Again, sound reduction isn't some people's number one choice when buying a can. |
|
Quoted:
Meh, I'm the furthest thing from being an acoustic nerd, but do think if just one mic is going to be used, probably best to position it dead nuts on 90 degrees and same distance off suppressor face ... apples to apples and all that. Just a note...SilencerShop is now doing all their tests with the mic 90-degrees from the muzzle of the barrel, regardless of whether the suppressor is mounted or not (so not moving back the length of the can). They explained it in their blog about two weeks ago. |
|
Quoted:
Just a note...SilencerShop is now doing all their tests with the mic 90-degrees from the muzzle of the barrel, regardless of whether the suppressor is mounted or not (so not moving back the length of the can). They explained it in their blog about two weeks ago. Quoted:
Quoted:
Meh, I'm the furthest thing from being an acoustic nerd, but do think if just one mic is going to be used, probably best to position it dead nuts on 90 degrees and same distance off suppressor face ... apples to apples and all that. Just a note...SilencerShop is now doing all their tests with the mic 90-degrees from the muzzle of the barrel, regardless of whether the suppressor is mounted or not (so not moving back the length of the can). They explained it in their blog about two weeks ago. Roger that, I'll go take a look. Speaking of old videos, maybe it was just me, in one of the us vs them videos, with mic on left side, sure looked like the us's can was shot into the right side of berm and them's can was shot into left side of same berm ... college degrees. 
|
|
Quoted:
Roger that, I'll go take a look. Speaking of old videos, maybe it was just me, in one of the us vs them videos, with mic on left side, sure looked like the us's can was shot into the right side of berm and them's can was shot into left side of same berm ... college degrees. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Meh, I'm the furthest thing from being an acoustic nerd, but do think if just one mic is going to be used, probably best to position it dead nuts on 90 degrees and same distance off suppressor face ... apples to apples and all that. Just a note...SilencerShop is now doing all their tests with the mic 90-degrees from the muzzle of the barrel, regardless of whether the suppressor is mounted or not (so not moving back the length of the can). They explained it in their blog about two weeks ago. Roger that, I'll go take a look. Speaking of old videos, maybe it was just me, in one of the us vs them videos, with mic on left side, sure looked like the us's can was shot into the right side of berm and them's can was shot into left side of same berm ... college degrees. Which one Mark? |
|
Quoted:
Which one Mark? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Meh, I'm the furthest thing from being an acoustic nerd, but do think if just one mic is going to be used, probably best to position it dead nuts on 90 degrees and same distance off suppressor face ... apples to apples and all that. Just a note...SilencerShop is now doing all their tests with the mic 90-degrees from the muzzle of the barrel, regardless of whether the suppressor is mounted or not (so not moving back the length of the can). They explained it in their blog about two weeks ago. Roger that, I'll go take a look. Speaking of old videos, maybe it was just me, in one of the us vs them videos, with mic on left side, sure looked like the us's can was shot into the right side of berm and them's can was shot into left side of same berm ... college degrees. Which one Mark? Jeeminy, years are flying by, was around 2007 ... all I got. |
|
Quoted:
Just a note...SilencerShop is now doing all their tests with the mic 90-degrees from the muzzle of the barrel, regardless of whether the suppressor is mounted or not (so not moving back the length of the can). They explained it in their blog about two weeks ago. Quoted:
Quoted:
Meh, I'm the furthest thing from being an acoustic nerd, but do think if just one mic is going to be used, probably best to position it dead nuts on 90 degrees and same distance off suppressor face ... apples to apples and all that. Just a note...SilencerShop is now doing all their tests with the mic 90-degrees from the muzzle of the barrel, regardless of whether the suppressor is mounted or not (so not moving back the length of the can). They explained it in their blog about two weeks ago. Testing with controlled parameters is part of the concept of engineering as I'm sure Larue understands as well as anyone else involved in product design and testing. This new Silencer Co firearm muzzle 90 degree suppressor method I'm not fond of as it introduces a variable- suppressor length and its distance relationship to the microphone. So if two suppressors create the same sound reduction, the longer of the two will actually meter as if it were more quiet than the other because it will be further in front of the microphone. Distance from the microphone itself is corresponded with a reduction of noise measured because pressure diminishes in air with distance. In testing, the elimination of variables is what I (and as far as I'm aware - all decent engineers and product designers) go for. The 90 degree to the suppressor muzzle Mil-std test requires that and eliminates that additional variable (of changing distance in relation to the microphone). |
|
Quoted:
Not counting the ones posted by AAC aka SuppressorTalk/Test years and years ago, this MAC video is only thing here of late I've watched. The mil folks are rumored to be thinking about 20 or so of those mics scattered accurately to hell and back feeding into a CRAY 1 supercomputer (I took license with exaggeration there only a little). Meh, I'm the furthest thing from being an acoustic nerd, but do think if just one mic is going to be used, probably best to position it dead nuts on 90 degrees and same distance off suppressor face ... apples to apples and all that. ETA - Ammo, seen factory ammo with extreme spread of 100 fps ... Quoted:
Quoted:
Mark, in many videos I've seen SilencerCo uses a mic stand w/o a microphone on it as the "hard stop." where they can just set the muzzle right up against it. I am still wondering what effect comb filtering and the general testing environment have on the reported numbers. The phasing of the muzzle and ejection port (and/or gas port) noise might significantly alter results, and I haven't seen anyone address this in testing. Not counting the ones posted by AAC aka SuppressorTalk/Test years and years ago, this MAC video is only thing here of late I've watched. The mil folks are rumored to be thinking about 20 or so of those mics scattered accurately to hell and back feeding into a CRAY 1 supercomputer (I took license with exaggeration there only a little). Meh, I'm the furthest thing from being an acoustic nerd, but do think if just one mic is going to be used, probably best to position it dead nuts on 90 degrees and same distance off suppressor face ... apples to apples and all that. ETA - Ammo, seen factory ammo with extreme spread of 100 fps ... For NATO's purposes, they should set up their ridiculous arrangement of equipment at Aberdeen, under a roof where it can be plugged into a power grid and left set up, and allow manufacturers to submit suppressors for testing conducted in house. I went to a meeting and saw reaction of most of the people present. A couple companies took notes. Most of the facial expressions were nauseous or bewildered. A couple people mentioned it was a part of their life they wouldn't get back. |
|
Quoted:
Testing with controlled parameters is part of the concept of engineering as I'm sure Larue understands as well as anyone else involved in product design and testing. This new Silencer Co firearm muzzle 90 degree suppressor method I'm not fond of as it introduces a variable- suppressor length and its distance relationship to the microphone. So if two suppressors create the same sound reduction, the longer of the two will actually meter as if it were more quiet than the other because it will be further in front of the microphone. Distance from the microphone itself is corresponded with a reduction of noise measured because pressure diminishes in air with distance. In testing, the elimination of variables is what I (and as far as I'm aware - all decent engineers and product designers) go for. The 90 degree to the suppressor muzzle Mil-std test requires that and eliminates that additional variable (of changing distance in relation to the microphone). Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Meh, I'm the furthest thing from being an acoustic nerd, but do think if just one mic is going to be used, probably best to position it dead nuts on 90 degrees and same distance off suppressor face ... apples to apples and all that. Just a note...SilencerShop is now doing all their tests with the mic 90-degrees from the muzzle of the barrel, regardless of whether the suppressor is mounted or not (so not moving back the length of the can). They explained it in their blog about two weeks ago. Testing with controlled parameters is part of the concept of engineering as I'm sure Larue understands as well as anyone else involved in product design and testing. This new Silencer Co firearm muzzle 90 degree suppressor method I'm not fond of as it introduces a variable- suppressor length and its distance relationship to the microphone. So if two suppressors create the same sound reduction, the longer of the two will actually meter as if it were more quiet than the other because it will be further in front of the microphone. Distance from the microphone itself is corresponded with a reduction of noise measured because pressure diminishes in air with distance. In testing, the elimination of variables is what I (and as far as I'm aware - all decent engineers and product designers) go for. The 90 degree to the suppressor muzzle Mil-std test requires that and eliminates that additional variable (of changing distance in relation to the microphone). Other than I think you meant SilencerShop, we are in agreement - measure where the noise comes out. |
|
That is a silencer co / ASA testing std that Silencer Shop adopted. At SHOT show the ASA was trying to get industry companies to switch from the industry std method.
The data it produces isnt devoid of information. It just isnt directly comparable with information comming from other companies or even older testing from the same sources prior to the std change. Under henry, i believe silencerco tested mil-std like everyone else. Silencer shop tests just about everything so really any testing method they use will produce useful data on that level. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 30 Cal Testing Video (Page 1 of 2)
Armory Sponsor