300 Blackout suppressors SOUND TESTED on Noveske 8" 300BLK AR

[MAJ MALFUNCTION]

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l69/armorgod/Noveske8300BlackoutwithAAC762-SDN-6.jpg

We tested our fleet of demo 7.62mm cans and one 9mm can on a Noveske 300 Blackout 8" AR - ammo used was Remington 300 blackout 220 Gr. subsonic.

Suppressors tested in this session:
-AAC 300-SD
-AAC 762-SD
-AAC 762-SDN-6
-AAC Cyclone
-AAC Cyclone-K
-Gemtech HVT (thread-on)
-Gemtech Sandstorm
-YHM Phantom 7.62 SS/QD
-YHM Phantom 7.62 Ti/QD
-SWR Trident-9, 9mm suppressor



If you're new to the Forum, please read these two posts on our sound testing first:

HOW TO READ OUR SOUND TESTING RESULTS (http://www.silencerforum.com/forum/showthread.php?609-HOW-TO-READ-OUR-SOUND-TESTING-RESULTS)

SOUND TESTING EQUIPMENT, PROCEDURES & METHODOLOGY (http://www.silencerforum.com/forum/showthread.php?608-SOUND-TESTING-EQUIPMENT-PROCEDURES-amp-METHODOLOGY)



ABOUT THIS TESTING SESSION:

All of the suppressors cycled our Noveske perfectly, with the exception of the Gemtech HVT. For some reason the Noveske and the HVT didn't get along - we had feeding issues three times during the 10 round test.

We included one 9mm suppressor in this test. Most manufacturers rate their 9mm cans for 300 Blackout / 300 Whisper subsonic ammo. We'll do a full "9mm suppressors on 300 Blackout host" test in the future - we included this one 9mm can in the test for comparison purposes only.



AAC 300-SD:
http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l69/armorgod/AAC300-SDon300BLK17Jul11.jpg

AAC 762-SD:
http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l69/armorgod/AAC762-SDon300BLK17Jul11.jpg

AAC 762-SDN-6:
http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l69/armorgod/AAC762-SDN-5on300BLK17Ju8l11.jpg

AAC Cyclone:
http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l69/armorgod/AACCycloneon300BLK17Jul11.jpg

AAC Cyclone-K
http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l69/armorgod/AACCyclone-Kon300BLK17Jul11.jpg

Gemtech HVT (thread-on):
http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l69/armorgod/GemtechHVTon300BLK17Jul11.jpg

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l69/armorgod/GemtechSandstormon300BLK17Jul11.jpg

YHM Phantom 7.62mm SS/QD:
http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l69/armorgod/YHMPhantom762SS-QDon300BLK17Jul11.jpg

YHM Phantom 7.62mm Ti/QD:
http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l69/armorgod/YHMPhantom762Ti-QDon300BLK17Jul11.jpg

SWR Trident-9:
http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l69/armorgod/SWRTrident-9on300BLK17Jul11.jpg

[Renegade]

That the SDN6 is over 5dB LOUDER than the 7.62-SD pretty much contradicts everything that has been said about which to put on a short BBL.

I also see it is only 92 degrees, must feel like winter compared to previous tests.

ETA:

So the Sandstorm performed based on 300 BLK 8 inch. Doubt many would have bet on that.

[MAJ MALFUNCTION]

That the SDN6 is over 5dB LOUDER than the 7.62-SD pretty much contradicts everything that has been said about which to put on a short BBL.

I also see it is only 92 degrees, must feel like winter compared to previous tests.

LOL - I almost went inside to get a jacket to put on. :grin:

I was hoping the N6 would OWN on the SBR 300 BLK.

But keep in mind, it has had very respectable results on 5.56mm & 7.62mm.

[TronZy]

Wow the SDN6 is pretty disappointing.

[silent]

Thanks for the test. I'm disappointed in the SDN6 too.

Could you do a 300 Blackout test with 9mm cans?

[MAJ MALFUNCTION]

Could you do a 300 Blackout test with 9mm cans?

Yes sir!

Already planning on it!

I'm waiting for our Liberty Mystic & Infinity to arrive, before we do the same test w/9mm cans. :smile:

[este]

I'm glad I held off on the N6 for now. Compared to the standard SD it makes no sense for me I feel, same weight, louder, and only an inch shorter? Nah. Maybe it's a lot tougher being inconel but I'm not ever going to wear any of my supressors out.

[BriggsRi]

Wow the SDN6 is pretty disappointing.

No kidding, I had high hopes for this one!

[Nighthawk]

No kidding, I had high hopes for this one!

Same here. Too bad it didn't live up to the hype on shorter barrels.

[grinnie]

Add me to the list of people who are scratching their heads at the SDN-6. I expected mid 120's to be honest. When compared to the SWR Trident it makes me wonder if one already owns a 9mm can would it be a worthwile investment to buy the N6 for subsonic only use.

Bryon, when you shot these did you hear any noticable diffence between the Trident and the N6 tone wise? Do you feel that the Octane HD (which you metered at 4db lower than the Trident in a seperate 9mm test) would equal it or is it just to soon to tell with only one test run?

[GeneralPurpose]

The only way that the SDN-6 can be seen as a disappointment is if you believe AAC's numbers. (126db on a .300BLK)

I wouldn't expect the N6 to be quieter than the SD. You pay the extra $200 for all inconel construction, and you just happen to get a silencer ~1" shorter. With that comes very slightly worse sound suppression. We're talking about 1.9db at the ear louder compared to the SD. Longer silencers have an intrinsic advantage over shorter ones when it comes to suppression, and if you are going for the absolute quietest can, the N6 isn't it. It's a can made out of a world of many compromises, and manages to do well at everything, but not great at any one thing.

I'm holding out for the N6 to be tested on a 10.5" 5.56 AR15 and a 16" .308 semi before I feel like I've seen the full picture of this can.

[cajun 22]

I am seriously looking into the 300blk and am glad about this report. I already have the 762SD for use on four rifles now and this might push me into the 300 game a little sooner.

[kevin/aac]

That the SDN6 is over 5dB LOUDER than the 7.62-SD pretty much contradicts everything that has been said about which to put on a short BBL.

I also see it is only 92 degrees, must feel like winter compared to previous tests.

ETA:

So the Sandstorm performed based on 300 BLK 8 inch. Doubt many would have bet on that.

It's not. Something's wrong with the silencer or meter.

Silencerresearch.com tested it Mil-Std. Results are different.

[Emilio]

I don't see the fuss.:rolleyes:

That one test,,, one halve box ammo,,,,,one day. Barrel is 8" (a pistol) SDN6 still did well against bigger heavier other brands. Probly the toughest can in the test.

AAC isn't blowing that much smoke up peoples butts. Something stinking here like the TL tests.

More testing. :grin: (rifle this time :grin: )

My 2 peso's. :grin:

[RamblinMan]

It's not. Something's wrong with the silencer or meter.

Silencerresearch.com tested it Mil-Std. Results are different.
LMAO

[GlocksInMySocks]

It's not. Something's wrong with the silencer or meter.

Silencerresearch.com tested it Mil-Std. Results are different.

LMAO

classic

[Fastfive0]

For subsonic only use, I love the 9mm/300blk can combo on my 16". But on the 10" or shorter can the pistol can take the abuse? For now I'm very happy with my very quiet rifle! 9mm can wet is even better!

[kevin/aac]

We test a lot, and have for 15 years. The 762-SD is not 5-6dB quieter than the SDN-6. There is also major room for concern when numbers spike 10-15dB in a 10 shot string of testing.

This testing does not hurt AAC. It's actually helpful. I just, from experience, feel that that there are inconsistencies that do not add up.

[silent]

We test a lot, and have for 15 years. The 762-SD is not 5-6dB quieter than the SDN-6. There is also major room for concern when numbers spike 10-15dB in a 10 shot string of testing.

This testing does not hurt AAC. It's actually helpful. I just, from experience, feel that that there are inconsistencies that do not add up.

Are the 762-SD numbers in line with what you have tested?

[rsilvers]

I have two comments:

1 - It would be nice to get our B&K PULSE system next to this and compare with a 20 shot string. The higher the standard deviation, the more shots I like to see.

2 -SilencerCo people who coded this interface - it would be nice if this software displayed the dB as a value then had a +- then displayed 2 times the standard deviation in dB. This would show the range of dB one could expect for 95% of the shots. This is an easy to enhancement that will be very useful.

[Renegade]

This testing does not hurt AAC. It's actually helpful. I just, from experience, feel that that there are inconsistencies that do not add up.

That has been brought up before, and I suggested that the the digital meters be tested next to the analog meters to see if they give different numbers. This is not the first time the digital meters produced anomolies with the 762-SD.

[armed_zebra]

I also would have expected different results on the N6 but this is only 10 rounds through 1 rifle. I really appreciate the testing Bryon is doing but I'm sure the tests can vary a lot from other peoples' testing. In no way does this give me any second thoughts on my N6 purchase.

[MAJ MALFUNCTION]

It would be nice to get our B&K PULSE system next to this and compare with a 20 shot string.

Robert,

Kevin suggested the same thing in another thread - I'd love to set that up with y'all!

[MAJ MALFUNCTION]

That has been brought up before, and I suggested that the the digital meters be tested next to the analog meters to see if they give different numbers. This is not the first time the digital meters produced anomolies with the 762-SD.

Mike,

Go to our test of 7.62 cans on a bolt gun and compare those results to the testing done on the other site that uses analog metering - results are VERY similar (including the 762-SD).

[Renegade]

Mike,

Go to our test of 7.62 cans on a bolt gun and compare those results to the testing done on the other site that uses analog metering - results are VERY similar (including the 762-SD).

What I am saying is we need to put the issue behind us, eliminate that as a possible source.

[MAJ MALFUNCTION]

What I am saying is we need to put the issue behind us, eliminate that as a possible source.

I'm with ya brutha!

We'll work on getting a side-by-side (with analog) to put this to bed (once and for all).

[este]

I'm with ya brutha!

We'll work on getting a side-by-side (with analog) to put this to bed (once and for all).

God forbid the results match up and the SDN6 is still louder... I guess it'll be a bunch of posts about "tone" then. Seems like the current trend.

Really though, I am not understanding how if the weighting and mics are the same for the two systems how RELATIVE changes can not be accurate. If an analog reads 130db and a digital reads 135db wouldn't the comparison data between each rifle on each setup still be valid? Could there be some difference in impulse the system is sampling?

Even if there were, these two cans tested with this digital system should be the same relative change as the analog even if the base values do not correlate.

For digital to be "wrong" in the comparison data, the system itself would have to be inaccurate between shots even of the same rifle. Then in that case, it's just pure chance when one averages lower than another.

I'm skeptical.

[JohnInNH]

Please test a Mystic on this as well. I think it's the just about do everything can. (and get one up for review please....)

[MAJ MALFUNCTION]

Please test a Mystic on this as well. I think it's the just about do everything can. (and get one up for review please....)

Yes sir - we've got 'em coming from Liberty - we'll ad it to our long-term sound testing fleet! :smile:

[MAJ MALFUNCTION]

In this thread on S.T.: http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=86&t=74395 Robert says that he's getting 128 dB with 220 Gr and Jason said that he's seen 127-129 dB in AAC's testing on their 9" AAC 300BLK AR. I don't see why our average of 130.2 dB on our shorter 8" Noveske AR puts our testing system in question. A 1-2 dB difference (especially on a shorter barrel) isn't that odd.

[dustingaunder]

In this thread on S.T.: http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=86&t=74395 Robert says that he's getting 128 dB with 220 Gr and Jason said that he's seen 127-129 dB in AAC's testing on their 9" AAC 300BLK AR. I don't see why our average of 130.2 dB on our shorter 8" Noveske AR puts our testing system in question. A 1-2 dB difference (especially on a shorter barrel) isn't that odd.


That's what I was thinking.

[MAJ MALFUNCTION]

Here's Robert's reply on S.T., answering the question of why current dB averages for the can are slightly higher:


We did change powders in the 220 subsonic between now and then. The new version of the PDF is not done yet - I have to update the ballistics for the new supersonic ammo before it is ready. I am getting 128 dB now with the current ammo.

It's sounds like most of the reason why the N6s are posting slightly higher dB averages (currently) is because of the ammo.

[JohnInNH]

People may not understand how much difference a shorter barrel even that small of an amount can make with Muzzle Pressures. Play with Quickload for a while and you will see how big of a deal a SBR is for pressures.

[Nighthawk]

It's not a question of what the N6 metered, it's the fact that it metered higher than the SD in which case it was suppose to be quieter on shorter barrels from what we've been told by AAC. The ammo doesn't really matter because both the SD and N6 were tested with the same ammo and same host and the N6 was 5 dB louder.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still looking forward to mine and I know it's a quality built suppressor with good sound reduction, it was just surprising since it was supposedly quieter on shorter barrels.

[Emilio]

It's not a question of what the N6 metered, it's the fact that it metered higher than the SD in which case it was suppose to be quieter on shorter barrels from what we've been told by AAC. The ammo doesn't really matter because both the SD and N6 were tested with the same ammo and same host and the N6 was 5 dB louder.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still looking forward to mine and I know it's a quality built suppressor with good sound reduction, it was just surprising since it was supposedly quieter on shorter barrels.

But who has done more tests on the two. :grin:

[rsilvers]

20 shot averages would help as there is too much standard deviation to rank cans by 10 shots. One out of 19 shots will be more than 4dB from the mean based on this data.

Going back to if these numbers are correct - who knows. You can test the 1/4 mile time of a Corvette and never get the same results twice. 126 was typical at the time we published that sheet, but the powder did change because we changed the ammo OAL from 2.190 to 2.120 and the previous powder was too compressed. But I also once compared the ammo and the new stuff was not louder, so I am not necessarily saying the powder is the explanation. It could also be a winter/summer issue.

But yes, we believe the N6 is quieter on SBRs than the 762-SD.

As for if this meter is working - we paid a $3000 up charge to get software which had better control of not missing any signal processing. B&K said they felt it was needed. Maybe if we get these meters together we will learn something. We will either learn why our meter cost 4x as much or why we did not need to get a B&K. I am not sure because they have never been side by side.

[Silenced America]

There are so many factors as to why the dB Average on an N6 was/is different than what AAC got with their system, John T. got with his, and Bryon is getting with his. Bryon is in Oklahoma testing in 90 degree heat. AAC is in Georgia. John is in Arkansas and may have tested in Memphis during Silencer Shoot (as he was testing there). It was 100 degrees plus with 90%+ humidity. Elevation? Host weapon? Ammo? It is so funny how some folks are instantly questioning the results as not being accurate. I like AACs idea to test them side by side. Set them up the same and see what the results are. I like my N6. Like everything that AAC puts out, it is a quality can. That does not mean that I am drinking the kool aid. If the can meters louder, so what? I don't understand why everyone is getting their panties in a bunch. Bryon is attempting to put together a catalog of testing data. This is what a scientist would do...test test test. You cannot take one test on one day and say can "X" sucks, nor can you say that Bryon does not know what he is doing. It becomes this big dick swinging contest. Subjectively speaking, I like the N6. I like it on my 9" .300Blk. I like it on my 10" 300Blk. I think that it sounds great with the same ammo that Bryon used in his testing.

Before we all jump to conclusions about a particular can, I think we should wait for more data. This is just one piece of the pie on one day. Thanks for the testing, Bryon. Don't let anyone get you down! :grin:

[Buckeye308]

Before we all jump to conclusions about a particular can, I think we should wait for more data. This is just one piece of the pie on one day. Thanks for the testing, Bryon. Don't let anyone get you down! :grin:

+1 Couldn't agree more!

[rext]

I like the time and effort put into this instead of just relying on existing numbers.If Bryon's equipment is off so what? Its still relative to the other cans tested on the same gun at the same time with the same ammo,right? I have a N-6 that I have been tinkering with lately too.Sounds OK to me so far.So if this is such a travesty,but we are all fine with the can, why does anyone get caught up in the numbers anyway? Each persons equipment could be at fault.Any of you here that know cars (I figure most of you because it goes hand and hand) will know that different types of dyno's will give different HP figures on the same car as well.So no big deal.

[Renegade]

If Bryon's equipment is off so what? Its still relative to the other cans tested on the same gun at the same time with the same ammo,right?

If that were true we could just use Radio Shack meters.

[m1garand30064]

I have a couple of comments/questions.

More surprising to me was not the N6 vs 762SD numbers but the Cyclone numbers. Does anyone have any idea why the Cyclone and Cyclone K metered higher than the 762SD?

Doesnt the 762SD and the Cyclone K have the same baffle stack? I seem to recall the only difference between the two is the cycloneK is thread on the the 762SD is QD. If I am correct about that it is really strange that the K is 15dB higher.

Also, when you do compare the systems side by side PLEASE compare them with a known standard (not a gunshot). That will give you a much clearer picture as to which meter is more accurate than just making two measurements on a gunshot. For example, if you measure a gunshot and get two different numbers how do you know which meter is correct and which one is wrong? You really have no idea because there are variables to how much pressure that gunshot will create and it will change every time you pull the trigger.

This method also has the added advantage of being able to be conducted in the air conditioning, and not in the 100 degree Oklahoma heat!! :grin:

Thanks for the data Major! I'm happy with my 762SD! :awesome:

[strobro32]

You need to try the Poseidon Bryon.

[MAJ MALFUNCTION]

The meter isn't "off".

Since I'm such a suppressor geek, I've "rat holed" any testing data I could find/read over the years. I've been comparing our results to historical data I've collected over time and it's all very, very similar.

[JasonM]

Doesnt the 762SD and the Cyclone K have the same baffle stack?

Different baffles in design and arrangement between the CYCLONEs and the 762-SD


Also, when you do compare the systems side by side PLEASE compare them with a known standard (not a gunshot). That will give you a much clearer picture as to which meter is more accurate than just making two measurements on a gunshot. For example, if you measure a gunshot and get two different numbers how do you know which meter is correct and which one is wrong? You really have no idea because there are variables to how much pressure that gunshot will create and it will change every time you pull the trigger.

Problem is, we ARE measuring gunshots here and so whether or not 2 given meters work the same on other sounds isn't really applicable to the very specific sound characteristics of a gunshot.

I ASSume (As I've seen done whenever testing occurred) that there is a calibrated test-tone source that is used to check the setup each time it is used.

Also, everyone needs to take astep back and let Bryon do his thing. this takes a ton of time, energy and money. And a single set of results on a given day don't give you the full picture... Once he runs these same tests a handful of times in different settings/etc we'll start to get comprehensive results.

[rext]

If that were true we could just use Radio Shack meters.
My point being like the dyno's giving different numbers.When I mean off, I mean different than the manufacturers printed reading.Not anything WRONG with his meter.If all the cans are tested accordingly the same, then it doesnt matter what the number is, the difference will be the same in theory between cans on his meter,my meter,AAC meter,JTs meter or whatever.The cans are the constant whether they be your can or my can,they are the exact same.The difference is the meter but the difference in the readings should be the same across the meters if they are all functioning correctly.That figure shouldnt change.A 10db difference between two cans at Bryons and a 10db difference between the same two cans somewhere else shouldnt change although the final number could be different.That can doesnt know where its at.

[Renegade]

My point being like the dyno's giving different numbers.When I mean off, I mean different than the manufacturers printed reading.Not anything WRONG with his meter.

The argument I have read on other forums is the meters/mics might not be fast enough to pick up sound. So on fast peaks it does not record the actual peak, on slow peaks it does. This then makes shots that peak fast look quieter than they really are.

This is just a theory put forth, and hence why I say we need to put the new system side by side with the old and find out once and for sure.

[Emilio]

Also, everyone needs to take astep back and let Bryon do his thing. this takes a ton of time, energy and money. And a single set of results on a given day don't give you the full picture... Once he runs these same tests a handful of times in different settings/etc we'll start to get comprehensive results.

Bingo! These are one test.

Also, more than one suppressor would be nice but even more time and money. :blush:

[JasonM]

The cans are the constant whether they be your can or my can,they are the exact same.

You bring up an interesting point here, because every can (of a given kind) is not the same... I wonder if we need +/- dB ratings for every can model- side by side testing of 5 identical models to see any difference.

This never ends, sorry bryon. ;)

[m1garand30064]

Different baffles in design and arrangement between the CYCLONEs and the 762-SD

Interesting. That makes the numbers more believable. Thanks for the clarification.



Problem is, we ARE measuring gunshots here and so whether or not 2 given meters work the same on other sounds isn't really applicable to the very specific sound characteristics of a gunshot.

I ASSume (As I've seen done whenever testing occurred) that there is a calibrated test-tone source that is used to check the setup each time it is used.

I agree that more data needs to be compiled before any conclusions are drawn.

However, I do still contend that setting up two sound meters and taking dB readings on gunshots and comparing the numbers is a worthless test. Unless you had a way to quantify beyond a reasonable doubt how much pressure every individual gunshot is producing and then comparing the sound meters to that you really have not learned anything. Look at it from a scientists perspective: So what if the numbers differ? How would you be able to tell me which number is accurate and which one is not? And if they are the same how could you tell me that both meters are not wrong? Is the standard deviation a product of the meter or is it a product of the different variables that are involved with each and every gunshot? From all the sound metering data I have seen in guns up to this point I can conclude that no two gunshots (even on the same gun, same ammo, same time) are going to be exactly the same in terms of sound pressure produced.


Also, everyone needs to take astep back and let Bryon do his thing. this takes a ton of time, energy and money. And a single set of results on a given day don't give you the full picture... Once he runs these same tests a handful of times in different settings/etc we'll start to get comprehensive results.

ABSOLUTELY! I do agree that we need to just let Bryon do his thing. I really do not think it is worth his time to do a bunch of comparison tests between different sound meters. I'd much rather see him spend his time processing forms, ordering silencers, going to silencer shoots, spend time with his family, etc. The data is what it is, and we all need to remember that if I blow a dog whistle that produces a 120 dB pressure wave that will make a 22 can that produces a 117 dB pressure wave seem like garbage! :smile:

These numbers are very interesting to look at, but we do need to keep what they mean in perspective. This is something Titsworth failed to do which I have been very critical of.

[Renegade]

However, I do still contend that setting up two sound meters and taking dB readings on gunshots and comparing the numbers is a worthless test. Unless you had a way to quantify beyond a reasonable doubt how much pressure every individual gunshot is producing and then comparing the sound meters to that you really have not learned anything. Look at it from a scientists perspective: So what if the numbers differ? How would you be able to tell me which number is accurate and which one is not? And if they are the same how could you tell me that both meters are not wrong? Is the standard deviation a product of the meter or is it a product of the different variables that are involved with each and every gunshot? From all the sound metering data I have seen in guns up to this point I can conclude that no two gunshots (even on the same gun, same ammo, same time) are going to be exactly the same in terms of sound pressure produced.

No, worthless is to invest anymore time or money until you know you are getting valid results. Here is what a scientist has to say:

Let say we setup two meters and we get (simplified for illustration):

Test1:

Analog Meter says Silencer A = 125 dB, Silencer B = 130 dB.
Digital Meter says Silencer A = 125 dB, Silencer B= 130 dB.

This would be what we hope for.

Test2:

Analog Meter says Silencer A = 125 dB, Silencer B = 130 dB.
Digital Meter says Silencer A = 130 dB, Silencer B= 135 dB.

Not what we want, but it appears their is correlation.

Test3:

Analog Meter says Silencer A = 125 dB, Silencer B = 130 dB.
Digital Meter says Silencer A = 130 dB, Silencer B= 140 dB.

Obviously we are fooked.

This is why we need to know if the meter is correct or not. It would sure suck if Bryon tested for another year only to find out we had Scenario #3, and it could have been corrected by changing out part XYZ for only a small amount of $$$.

[JasonM]

I really do not think it is worth his time to do a bunch of comparison tests between different sound meters. I'd much rather see him spend his time processing forms, ordering silencers, going to silencer shoots, spend time with his family, etc.

BS! Bryon is our dancing bear that will entertain us all and feed us info as we want it... ;)

[m1garand30064]

No, worthless is to invest anymore time or money until you know you are getting valid results. Here is what a scientist has to say:

Let say we setup two meters and we get:

Test1:

Analog Meter says Silencer A = 125 dB, Silencer B = 130 dB.
Digital Meter says Silencer A = 125 dB, Silencer B= 130 dB.

This would be what we hope for.

Test2:

Analog Meter says Silencer A = 125 dB, Silencer B = 130 dB.
Digital Meter says Silencer A = 130 dB, Silencer B= 135 dB.

Not what we want, but it appears the delta is OK.

Test3:

Analog Meter says Silencer A = 125 dB, Silencer B = 130 dB.
Digital Meter says Silencer A = 130 dB, Silencer B= 140 dB.

Obviously we are fooked.

This is why we need to know if the meter is correct or not. It would sure suck if Bryon tested for another year only to find out we had Scenario #3, and it could have been corrected by changing out part XYZ for only a small amount of $$$.

That I could buy. Just note that in scenario 2 and 3 you would not be able to make a determination as to which meter is superior, just that they do not agree.

[Renegade]

That I could buy. Just note that in scenario 2 and 3 you would not be able to make a determination as to which meter is superior, just that they do not agree.

I would imagine there are test tones and such you can run that it has to pass, much like a tuning fork for a radar unit or whatever.

The real problem is fast rise times. They might both be able to measure the same dB over 99% of all gunshots, but what if one cannot measure a very fast rise time? 99% of all results would match up, except for a small number of shots with fast rise times.

[RamblinMan]

You bring up an interesting point here, because every can (of a given kind) is not the same... I wonder if we need +/- dB ratings for every can model- side by side testing of 5 identical models to see any difference.

This never ends, sorry bryon. ;)
I think Bryon has done enough testing already to get a pretty decent idea of how much results vary from serial number to serial number of the same model.

The Spectre and Warlock have baffle stacks that are identical geometrically. Bryon has tested these on the same hosts on three different occasions. On the P22 the results were very close (0.2 db muzzle, 0.3 db ear), on the 10/22 they were also very close (0.4 db muzzle, 0.9 db ear), and an the on the bolt action they were also very close (0.2 db muzzle, 3 db ear). The ear data was a little wobbly on the bolt-action, so I think the last figure can be overlooked.

He also has tested a YHM Phantom 7.62mm SS/QD and a YHM Phantom 7.62mm Ti/QD side by side on three different hosts. On the 5.56 AR the differences were 1.1 db muzzle, 0.7 db ear, on the 7.62 bolt action they were 0.3 db muzzle, 0.2 db ear, and on the 300 BLK AR 1.3 db muzzle, 1.0 db ear.

I think that's enough information to form a sound opinion that from serial number to serial number within the same model, the cans are probably pretty consistent. You can even further assume that material used does not even make much difference. The overwhelmingly most important factor in a can's performance is then the geometry and dimensions (design) of the baffle stack.

[m1garand30064]

I would imagine there are test tones and such you can run that it has to pass, much like a tuning fork for a radar unit or whatever.

The real problem is fast rise times. They might both be able to measure the same dB over 99% of all gunshots, but what if one cannot measure a very fast rise time? 99% of all results would match up, except for a small number of shots with fast rise times.

Yeah then it would come down to how large your sampling size is, and the one that is wrong 1% of the time would need a much larger sample size than the one that is wrong .02% of the time (for example) in order to get an accurate determination of what the dB reading truly is.

Dont you own a lot of silencers? How would you say dB numbers and differences equate to perceived sound of the can?

[Renegade]

Dont you own a lot of silencers? How would you say dB numbers and differences equate to perceived sound of the can?

It is voodoo.

Sometimes a shot is obviously soft/loud, other times it is not. And the variation within 10-shot strings is often too much to make it valid.

[Buckeye308]

This is why we need to know if the meter is correct or not. It would sure suck if Bryon tested for another year only to find out we had Scenario #3, and it could have been corrected by changing out part XYZ for only a small amount of $$$.

Please do not buy into the Digital vs. Analog. Silencerco and SWR have tested this very system that Bryon is using against the Analog one and found that the results are the same. Also AAC is using a Digital system because they found it is the way to go too.

What everyone needs to take away from all of these first run tests from Bryon is that they are a starting point! This is the first 10 shot string that Bryon has tested. He will be doing many more. Once the sample size is large enough, say 100 rounds, you will see a more precise picture. He will be doing the tests at different times with different conditions so everyone will get a good idea of what the overall average will be for each can.

[Renegade]

Please do not buy into the Digital vs. Analog. Silencerco and SWR have tested this very system that Bryon is using against the Analog one and found that the results are the same. Also AAC is using a Digital system because they found it is the way to go too

I am just using that for shorthand. It is obviously more than just that - microphones, software, etc. all play a role. You can have all 100% certified and correct equipment and then use it wrong, Or even if you do it all correct, process it on a computer with Pentium DIV error and still get incorrect results and not know it.

[Nighthawk]

Or we could settle this by getting together with Bryon and all of us listening to each can being tested. At the end of the day we take a poll by answering multiple choice questions for each suppressor such as:

Did silencer X sound
A) Quiet
B) Moderately quiet
C) Barely quiet
D) Loud as hell

Then Bryon can collect all the test sheets from everyone and feed them into his super computer and in a matter of mere seconds it should spit out the results for each suppressor. (I saw Batman do something similar with the Justice League computer back in the 70's so I'm sure it should be even easier these days.) :razz:

[Gary_SilencerCo]

I would very much like to have an N6 as I have said multiple times on this forum. I think its an awesome can. So........

Everybody likes data that goes their way. None of the cans that metered well have been brought up???? (Something along the lines of "See...Told ya, Tirant45" comes to mind....) its easy to be critical when you don't like the result, its much harder when you do. if the data is good and comparable on products that meter well, but bad on products that don't meter the way people thought they would.....hmmmm

Watched a lot of cans get metered...Sometimes it just isn't your day. Sometimes, for no discernible reason stuff is loud. Its the way it is. Long term averages are more valuable than a single event. Hopefully this will all be put to rest soon. This bickering and in fighting would leave an extremely bad taste in my mouth... If I had not come to expect it. God forbid some newbies and potential new NFA blood see all this drama and opt out entirely..Who wins then?

[Emilio]

God forbid some newbies and potential new NFA blood see all this drama and opt out entirely..Who wins then?

We do, they will always be in stock. :awesome::awesome::awesome:

[Emilio]

Or we could settle this by getting together with Bryon and all of us listening to each can being tested. At the end of the day we take a poll by answering multiple choice questions for each suppressor such as:

Did silencer X sound
A) Quiet
B) Moderately quiet
C) Barely quiet
D) Loud as hell

Then Bryon can collect all the test sheets from everyone and feed them into his super computer and in a matter of mere seconds it should spit out the results for each suppressor. (I saw Batman do something similar with the Justice League computer back in the 70's so I'm sure it should be even easier these days.) :razz:

What we need is Red Jacket's "Mr microphone". :awesome::awesome::awesome:

[Silenced America]

I would very much like to have an N6 as I have said multiple times on this forum. I think its an awesome can. So........

Everybody likes data that goes their way. None of the cans that metered well have been brought up???? (Something along the lines of "See...Told ya, Tirant45" comes to mind....) its easy to be critical when you don't like the result, its much harder when you do. if the data is good and comparable on products that meter well, but bad on products that don't meter the way people thought they would.....hmmmm

Watched a lot of cans get metered...Sometimes it just isn't your day. Sometimes, for no discernible reason stuff is loud. Its the way it is. Long term averages are more valuable than a single event. Hopefully this will all be put to rest soon. This bickering and in fighting would leave an extremely bad taste in my mouth... If I had not come to expect it. God forbid some newbies and potential new NFA blood see all this drama and opt out entirely..Who wins then?

Precisely.

I have said it before, and I will say it again, IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE RESULTS OR THINK THAT THEY ARE FLAWED, PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL (918) 808-3661. Before Al Gore and Bill Clinton invented the internet, there used to be this thing called "PROFESSIONALISM." Now, we resort to infighting. I agree with what Gary said about the new blood to NFA. I would think WTF if I stumbled upon all of this confusion and infighting and build another SBR instead of buying a can and let everyone figure out what is going on before I bought anything.

Here is a novel idea...take the tests as an independent tester testing all of these cans independently. Don't compare them across the board with what AAC, YHM, SWR, Gemtech, SilencerCo, Titsworth, et. al. publishes as their numbers. Look at the numbers that Bryon produces over a good amount of time. Compare his tests with his tests. The only thing we should be concerned with is everything being set up the same every time, and I don't think we have to worry about that.

Bryon, as always, thank you for the free service. I, for one, appreciate the work you are doing. Eventually, everyone will be happy. :grin:

[Nighthawk]

What we need is Red Jacket's "Mr microphone". :awesome::awesome::awesome:

We can't use it, they already "cornered the market" with their high tech suppressor metering device.:awesome:

[rext]

Here is a novel idea...take the tests as an independent tester testing all of these cans independently. Don't compare them across the board with what AAC, YHM, SWR, Gemtech, SilencerCo, Titsworth, et. al. publishes as their numbers. Look at the numbers that Bryon produces over a good amount of time. Compare his tests with his tests. The only thing we should be concerned with is everything being set up the same every time, and I don't think we have to worry about that.

Bryon, as always, thank you for the free service. I, for one, appreciate the work you are doing. Eventually, everyone will be happy. :grin:

Agreed.

[kaotic504]

hey Byron,
i know you mentioned testing the 8" 300blk Noveske on 9mm cans, but would you mind also testing it along side the Osprey45? i know SilencerCo already posted a video, but i'd like to see it tested on the same setup b/c i happen to have an 8" 300blk Noveske as well.

I wish AAC would make 5/8x24 pistons for their pistol cans. I wonder how a TiRant would perform as well.

Just curious. thanks!

[MAJ MALFUNCTION]

hey Byron,
i know you mentioned testing the 8" 300blk Noveske on 9mm cans, but would you mind also testing it along side the Osprey45? i know SilencerCo already posted a video, but i'd like to see it tested on the same setup b/c i happen to have an 8" 300blk Noveske as well.

I wish AAC would make 5/8x24 pistons for their pistol cans. I wonder how a TiRant would perform as well.

Just curious. thanks!

Yes sir, I think we can ad the Osprey 45 to that group of pistol cans we'll be testing on 300 Blackout! :smile:

[Darin Reiss]

Hi Bryon,

Thanks for the testing! I am looking forward to seeing how the SF 6" 762-Mini performs on this. I think the short SF can on the 8" barrel would make a great CQB gun.

Hopefully SF will release this can before too long. They should release it before Silencerco turns the centerfire rifle can market on it's ear.

Thanks,
Darin

[MAJ MALFUNCTION]

Hi Bryon,

Thanks for the testing! I am looking forward to seeing how the SF 6" 762-Mini performs on this. I think the short SF can on the 8" barrel would make a great CQB gun.

Hopefully SF will release this can before too long. They should release it before Silencerco turns the centerfire rifle can market on it's ear.

Thanks,
Darin

We've got the new Surefire 762 MINIs on order, Darin.

As soon as they arrive, we'll get 'em in the testing rotation! :smile:

[Wahoo95]

Would love to see test data in the new Spikes MRS can too!

[SC-Texas]

Interesting results

[thebob24]

Hello, I'm new here.
I'm extremely interested in the .300AAC cartridge.
I looked at all the results, but haven't read everyone's comments...
by any chance does someone have decibel ratings for the HK MP5SD?
I'm curious because LWRCI says their 8.5" with AAC SDN6 is more quiet than the MP5SD.
Will be following this closely.
Thanks for your hard work!

[MAJ MALFUNCTION]

Hello, I'm new here.
I'm extremely interested in the .300AAC cartridge.
I looked at all the results, but haven't read everyone's comments...
by any chance does someone have decibel ratings for the HK MP5SD?
I'm curious because LWRCI says their 8.5" with AAC SDN6 is more quiet than the MP5SD.
Will be following this closely.
Thanks for your hard work!

We probably won't ever sound test an MP5SD. Since they're only available as a transferable M.G., they're relatively rare for civilian gun enthusiasts (sorry).

[thebob24]

We probably won't ever sound test an MP5SD. Since they're only available as a transferable M.G., they're relatively rare for civilian gun enthusiasts (sorry).

Oh, I understand that. I was just wondering if someone knew some numbers out there. But after thinking about it the numbers are mostly useless if they don't come from the same testing. :P

Anyway, I'm really excited about this thread. I hope to see some Spike's Tactical MRS2 numbers (although that would require a different setup for the reflex design). Also SilencerCo is working on a 30cal can, so I hear, and hopefully very similar to the Saker design.

[Renegade]

Oh, I understand that. I was just wondering if someone knew some numbers out there. But after thinking about it the numbers are mostly useless if they don't come from the same testing. :P

Anyway, I'm really excited about this thread. I hope to see some Spike's Tactical MRS2 numbers (although that would require a different setup for the reflex design). Also SilencerCo is working on a 30cal can, so I hear, and hopefully very similar to the Saker design.

Robert posted numbers when they announced the 300BLK. Check the original Powerrpoint on the 300 blackout web site. It was quieter than the MP5SD.

I have an MP5SD with KAC can, I also have a 9 inch AAC 300 BLK, if I ever get around someone testing, I will have it done.

[thebob24]

Robert posted numbers when they announced the 300BLK. Check the original Powerrpoint on the 300 blackout web site. It was quieter than the MP5SD.

I have an MP5SD with KAC can, I also have a 9 inch AAC 300 BLK, if I ever get around someone testing, I will have it done.

Thanks for the info!
I look forward to your testing.

[flilow06]

I have an MP5SD with KAC can, I also have a 9 inch AAC 300 BLK, if I ever get around someone testing, I will have it done.

How would you say they compare at your ears?

[trenttyre]

I would like to know how the quicksand is on a 300blk 8". But I am for sure holding out to see what silencer co comes out with soon.

[JAYMAN]

Hello everyone. First time here. Just wondering - What stock is that in the picture???

[trenttyre]

Hello everyone. First time here. Just wondering - What stock is that in the picture???

Its a magpul UBR

[Renga488]

I know that a few of these (like the SD) have been discontinued. Have there been any other 7.62 cans that have come out that have performed as well recently (that would ideally work with .308 also)?

And, more superficially, does anyone know what rail and rail covers are being used on that SBR? I haven't been able to make the plunge on a rail for my 8 inch pistol because I want a rail that will end at the threading, like in the picture at the beginning of the thread. Also, the rail covers just look plain wicked!

[dbwebbsr]

I can't answer your can question, but the rail covers are LaRue Tactical Index Clips, available in several colors:

http://www.laruetactical.com/rail-covers

[Renga488]

Thanks!

Would you happen to know what the rail is?

[dbwebbsr]

Vltor VIS monolithic : http://www.vltor.com/vis.htm

[Dynamo]

I'm considering getting the YHM can but I'm a little hesitant due to their warranty policies towards 8" barrels. Which is my question, based on your tests where there any noticeable concerns? Their new line of supressors (4300 LT/LTA) state to be rated up to .308 cal, is there really a risk of running 300blk (subsonic) out of a quality 8" bbl or are their policies more directed towards running 5.56 and other high pressure rounds out of a bbl shorter than 10.5" ?