PewPewScience has a very thorough examination of the performance of suppressors they've tested with .300 Blackout (I love graphics and other pictures). Other reviews only offer me words like "quiet" or "very quiet", but have no numbers to back that up. In talking about firearms, we are used to numbers, we talk about numbers, we practically praise and worship numbers all of the time - so who else has published real life numbers I can actually compare in order to make an informed decision on something that's going to set me back $1,000 or so? Most of us don't have that in our back pocket on a daily basis. As an engineer, I fully understand that acoustics is science, but it's not "rocket brain-surgery-quality science".
- Thread starter AlanG
- Start date
So, I think you answered your question. Full disclosure, we are a corporate sponsor for Pew Science, so we believe that Jay does the best work in the business to present the data objectively. Who else has objective numbers? I am not aware of anyone else. Some manufacturers publish numbers and compare their can to another can, but you have to at least question the data. Maybe it is correct, maybe it is not correct, maybe it is correct, but they cheery-picked which data to present. Some manufacturers do a pretty good job with numbers. Others, meh.
In your last sentence, I agree that the science of suppressor testing can get too complex. To many, the test is "How does this can perform for me in the field, using my gun the way I shoot." For most of us, we cannot tell the difference between the graphs Jay gives us or the data points given by manufacturers with Pulse machine data.
As a suppressor user and dealer, and hearing real live customer reports, what I have observed is this:
1) Trust the "good names" in suppressors. actually, those correlate well to Jay's findings, as a brand.
2) Suppressor materials, geometries, sound reductions, and production methods have grown more in the last 3 years than the last 30 (subjective, but something like that I believe)
3) 10 years ago, suppressors were sold based on who had the best marketing budget, and the buyer really did not understand what went on in the tube. That has changed, and many brands that had great marketing have been shown to have very average products.
4) The .300 BLK is the easiest round to suppress if you are shooting subsonic. 220 grains is my favorite load, and even a poorly designed suppressor is going to do well.
As an engineer, you might be trying too hard. Read Pew Science, get an idea of which brands consistently perform better than others, and then pic 3 suppressors. Only 3. Trader Joe's philosophy is that more than 3 leads to analysis paralysis. Maybe present your use case here and get 33 suggestions, which will aid in your analysis paralysis.
I could give you my three, but they will be different than your three.
Most .300 BLK buyers want a short gun used for in-home or in-the-truck self-defense. Some want under-the rail performance, which leads to a rail selection that is large enough.
Good luck
Thanks, Longshot2000. You absolutely right about excess analysis. Even as an engineer of nearly 50 years, I have to admit that at some point you have to just "shoot the engineers and make a decision".
My use case, which I should have led the discussion with: Indoor home defense of a single family dwelling, 8.5" barrel, user is 73 years old. Secondary use as a truck gun or dealing with wild hogs for friends. I really don't want to have to pull the can to shoot supersonic ammo if the shot demands it. A mag swap for alternate ammo is a far more palatable answer.
Initial thoughts: Keep it light and the center of gravity close to my chest, if possible. Safe to shoot subsonic without hearing protection.
Problem: Short cans argue against good suppression. If needed, I'll go with a somewhat longer can to get good suppression.
I'll do some more rooting about in Jay's reviews, and also check out the Thunder Beast, as suggested by msgriff.
Thanks for the suggestion.
A long time ago, Mark White wrote something like, “In most cases, a moderate amount of suppression is all that is needed.”
I didn’t think much of it at that time, but I remembered it and with the medium-sized stamp collection I’ve built over past 20 years, I’ve found what he wrote to be true. Short & fat cans on rifles fit the bill pretty nicely, especially if they are short, fat and LIGHT. If they are a little louder than the long cans, it’s a trade I’ll gladly make.
I shot a subsonic match 3 weeks ago, almost all were using .300 BLK and cans. I loaned my integral Leonidas AR to a buddy, and I shot my 10.5” with a short n chubby Chaotic. The Leo was acclaimed the quietest at the match, and all the various other muzzle cans were roughly about the same.
I didn’t think much of it at that time, but I remembered it and with the medium-sized stamp collection I’ve built over past 20 years, I’ve found what he wrote to be true. Short & fat cans on rifles fit the bill pretty nicely, especially if they are short, fat and LIGHT. If they are a little louder than the long cans, it’s a trade I’ll gladly make.
I shot a subsonic match 3 weeks ago, almost all were using .300 BLK and cans. I loaned my integral Leonidas AR to a buddy, and I shot my 10.5” with a short n chubby Chaotic. The Leo was acclaimed the quietest at the match, and all the various other muzzle cans were roughly about the same.
I have been looking at the tbac dominus sr for a 300 black build. Any plans to put a rr brake on the end of the dominus in a new model release?
I have a DeadAir Sandman K on mine. I am happy and it has good reviews.
Best all-around .300 BLK can I’ve used is the Otter Creek Labs Hydrogen-S 7.62. L-cans are slightly quieter, but noticeably longer.
