Suppressor data?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Ok, I've looked all over and I can't find this. Trust me, I wouldn't be posting here unless I was desperate.
Where can I find a list of suppressors ranked by dB reduction for a given caliber?
I think this is what I'm trying to post. I'll fix if it isn't.
>>28393198
Goddamn, you put this together yourself? Are you going off of advertised dB, or a third party test?
>>28393198
cool image, but this data doesn't mean much without an explanation of where the readings were taken, i.e. in a gun range, in a sound studio, outdoors, etc. but it does give a good representation of how quiet it gets with/without a suppressor.
bump
I thought I had more pics, but this is it, and I don't even think a fuel filter would work properly
>>28393317
OP here. I disagree. As long as they were all recorded in the same setting, it's a fair comparison.
...after thinking about it, it might not matter all that much. The time it takes for an echo to reach the instrument that's recording the sound, the loudest sound wave from the shot has come and is long gone. All it measures is the peak.
>>28393393
That was not the OP, faggot.
>>28393404
Calm down, newfriend. I just made that shit so anyone can use it - not just for this thread
>>28393419
Anon may not apprectiate you, but i do.
Listen, I hate to be the party pooper here BUT.....
The type of suppressor you choose is largely irrelevant. Sure, some are fancier looking inside/outside than others, but what makes a suppressor work is the fact that it is a series of decompression chambers.
That is it.
Just a series of decompression chambers for the gasses. There is no advanced science to it. One suppressor is usually as good as the others, and differences between suppressors performance usually fall within the margin of error and are imperceptible to a normal human ear.
Things like thermal transfer and noise canceling are largely gimmicks, although noise cancelling can be done, but only for a specific rifle with a specific barrel firing a specific type of ammunition.
>>28393443
Margin of error? Standard deviation on some of these tests is pretty fucking small.
>>28393387
ditto this, as long as the testing environment and conditions are stable [ie: environment, location of sensor/mic, ammo, barrel length] where the only variable is the suppressor the readings are valid in a comparison of different suppressors.
>ackshually.jpg
>>28393393
ty m8, this is the only other quietener pic I got, also, I aint OP
>>28393518
it bugs me how they didn't add the barrel tilt, glock isn't straight blowback, and iirc the osprey has some fancy spring buffer deal for pistols
>>28393245
Unfortunately not. I think that's all 3rd party testing, not sure of the source, might be MAC's? Someone compiled MAC's data:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yeV3_KiHhI7hqY1Ex6KSPlvZ4HYZgSoeO9tCLrOwAM0/edit#gid=94979683
>>28393555
>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yeV3_KiHhI7hqY1Ex6KSPlvZ4HYZgSoeO9tCLrOwAM0/edit#gid=94979683
damn, GA recce and spr are looking nice and consistent
>>28393387
Yeah I understand, I think the comparison is definitely fair but the decibel readings are not exactly accurate, however that doesn't really mean much to the point of the graph. It is helpful, though. Well-made, IMO.
>>28393171
What kind of data are you interested in.
Noise reduction according to mil-spec,
or noise reduction for hearing protection?
For hearing protection the type of gun is often more important than the suppressor,
and unfortunately data measuring at the ear extremely hard to come by...
>>28393694
Hearing protection. I would assume there is a direct and consistent correlation between measuring at the ear vs a few feet to side.
>>28393538
>silencer < suppressor
Kek, just reminded me of a thread where people got butthurt over it being a silencer or suppressor; sorry for irrelevance
Barrel length and the catridge load is too much of a variable, your list would be never ending mate.
If you want a suppressor get one but dont expect it to be movie silent, my .300wm is quieter than a .243 with a can on but not much.
The lack of muzzle blast, recoil reduction and minimising muzzle flip make them great for shooting if your not going to experiment with subsonic loadings.
>>28393639
Personally, I ordered the Omega; I should have it in a week or less (4 months waiting). There's more to it than just the dB; having a quality QD system (if you're into that), weight, and OAL are possible factors to consider.
>>28393752
Only to a certain degree, on a bolt action gun it will be the case.
But on something like a DI-AR the change in the pressure curve will affect the amount of crap being blown out of the ejection port into your ear (and face) which will often be louder than what is measured to the side of the muzzle, so a suppressor less good at the muzzle but creating a lower amount of pressure duration increase in the system can theoretically end up being better for hearing protection.
Unfortunately ear-measurements with different types of firearm tend to be neglected by most manufacturers, I've seen some by ase utra (not available in the US) that showed a 10+ dB difference at the ear when using the same suppressor on different firearms.
Can't find the numbers at the moment... Bolt action vs HK417 was drastic
15+ dB difference at the ear but not the muzzle,
standard DI-AR around 145dB at-ear vs the piston HK416 with something around 137.. both being upper 130s at the mil-spec side of the muzzle.
Unfortunately data on this,
measuring comparing ear exposure of suppressor models on different firearms,
Is pretty much non-existent.
A bit dated by today's standards: http://amzn.com/0873649095
>>28394008
These show the difference in muzzle vs ear quite nicely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmsfUnwOOVk
Seems like the Specwar is the best bang for buck, plus they look nice
Seriously the SOCOM RC is fucking garbage and costs five hundred more dollars than everything else
buy a Saker or a SpecWar if you don't need the removable caps and mounts
>>28394008
>what is an adjustable gas block
>>28394275
Didn't want to go into details how to set up the gun, only that there is not necessarily i direct consistent correlation between mil spec measurement and ear exposure. :-).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdJg5gLpwuw
Damn, I really really really want a Saker 762. They just released the BE Meyers M249 Saker that works with these. I don't think the FH will bring my 13.7 to 16" though
>>28394217
I've had less issues with my 762rc than compared to my 762 saker and the issues with my saker have started to piss me off.
I have more carbon fusing on the saker with the maad module than my 762rc on any of my rifles I've shot. I've had the fusing happen in 50 rounds and take a bit of liquid wrench before it'd break free. That was even using fireclean on the mounting surfaces, which works just fine on my sf can.
Is it louder, yeah but poi shift is only .5" at 100m, there is no loss of precision on my guns, I have less blowback, and any carbon blown out from the can is in a specific area because of it's design
>>28393393
lel
>>28394641
>using fireclean
It is canola oil. I wonder why low temp cooking oil causes your QR to seize?
>>28396922
I thought it was rape sees.
As to OP. Good luck. Silencer shop might be the best bet.
Not a lot of people have the funds to buy the test equipment or the licenses to borrow short term/or the funds to out outright buy the cans, on a form4.
I found a dealer eith a large instock selection and had a live demo. From that i bought 3 cans.
>>28396978
Canola is rape-seed oil.
>>28393921
is not, whats so hard about conducting a test with one, maybe two identical rifles, using the same ammo from the same can(box/brand)? theluckygunner did some ammo test on steel cased vs brass or something and they used 4 ar15's from s&w, same barrel length and everything to maintain proper testing conditions. what is so hard about that?
yeah maybe if you want results for different cartridges or barrel lenghts, but then youre not testing silencers anymore, are you?
>>28396922
Because it works. I don't care if it was horse piss. It fixed my rc from carbon seizing to the mount, yet even with fireclean on the mount for the saker it still seizes.
Also my saker was seizing long before I put on any fireclean too. FC was something I was using to try and fix the issue obviously to no avail.
>>28397514
>Because it works...
lol, implying canola oil doesn't work...
>>28393393
I just realized that the ATF may be more Mallninja than anyone on /k/.
>>28397406
Not everyone would be satisfied with that 1 or 2 guns you use.
If you use a piston ar15 and di in 16" people will ask why aren't you using 18, 20, 14.5, 13.7, 11, 10.5, or 12" bbls instead. or why are you using a scar16/sigmcx/hkmr556/tavor/bolt guns/
If you are going to test 20 different suppressors you will need to at least 10-20 rounds per suppressor plus a baseline of 10-20 rounds after every 5 suppressors to make sure local conditions don't change enough to change the sound pressure. if local conditions changed your metered readings would be different from a previous data set. so on ammo alone you'll need about half a case.
You will also need at least 3-5 people to dedicate that whole day to completing that testing.
1 person for the sound meter
1 person to shoot
1 person to live record the data
1 person to change out muzzle devices for the firearm not being used
1 person to be a rover and help out where needed. getting parts, loading mags, helping out anyone that gets tired, etc.
In your testing youll need to have a baseline temp that you will start each test at. So a gun's chamber may need to be 80* or whatever. Once it reaches the predetermined level the test for that particular suppressor can proceed. you would then commence for each firearm. you'd then go and start changing out muzzle devices for the next suppressor.
Also the 1 thing you'd have to think about is will you be using new suppressors or seasoned ones? I've noticed that my cans have seemingly become more quiet as they got used. So in your testing if you do new suppressors will you retest after a preset number of rounds thru each suppressor (say 1k rounds) to show if a suppressor truly does become more useful after seeing some use?
>>28397670
pic related
here's that luckygunner link
http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/brass-vs-steel-cased-ammo/
>>28397738
that is a minimal budget oriented test proposal, because it is assumed that thousands of dollars was just spent on silencers and fucking tax stamps
Your plan sounds good to me, excessive attention to detail is better than a complete lack of acknowledgement of wildcard variables. HOWEVER the DI AR15 will still be a baseline weapon because its cheap, and the test is for the effectiveness of the suppressor in general, not the effectiveness of the suppressor on "X" platform in "Y" situation. it is a test of NO-SUPPRESSOR vs THIS SUPPRESSOR vs THAT ONE.
>http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/11/jeremy-s/556-muzzle-device-shootout/
see that? it's sufficient for what it's trying to find.
one gun (barrel length), one type of ammo he is comparing muzzle devices measuring recoil vs bare-barrel. yeah his testing conditions were a tad sloppy, but they are CONSISTENT even carrying over to test no.2 CONSISTENCY is key here. Not whatever bullshit youre whining about needing 5 people to run a product test like its an indie movie production (pro-tip, you forgot craft services and medic).
>I'm just mad I didnt go as in-depth as you. well played, /k/omrade
