I did a search I figured this was a question asked many times but found almost nada. I am not going to name company names and I know some companies don't report reduction levels However I am wondering what people think of reports on say .22 cans from what I have seen of between 25 on the low end and 40 db's on the high-end. Is there that much difference between the well made cans regardless of whether any reported sound level is correct or accurate? Just wondering. I could post links but would rather have people thoughts without getting into that company lies, those cans suck etc talk. Thanks PG
Suppressors Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
- Thread starter PGG
- Start date
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
There have been a lot of people throughout the years who have questioned manufacturer's dB numbers. This has lead to some independent testing. John Titsworth was testing for a while and it was a service that one had to pay for. It seemed as though he was not on top of things and kind of went kaput. Bryon from Major Malfunction has invested in some pricey sound testing equipment and has been conducting independent testing and the results can be found on Silencer Forum. SilencerCo usually makes videos of their tests and they allow you to see what the process is and the numbers that they generate.
dB levels are going to be different from host to host, ammo dependant, and elevation, temp, humidity, and other weather conditions all play.
There is a lot of difference between cans. Baffle designs, construction material, length, weight, and multi-caliber use are all factors. A lot of SS .22 cans allow one to be able to shoot .17HMR, .22WMR, and FN 5.7 where (most) aluminum cans cannot handle the pressures. .22 cans need to be user servicable (IMHO) and some are a lot easier to service than others. It is all factored into the cost.
From the perception of my ear, I have heard cans that meter within 1-2dB and sound completely different. The "tones" of the cans differ and some are more pleasing than others. That is just my perspective.
There have been a lot of people throughout the years who have questioned manufacturer's dB numbers. This has lead to some independent testing. John Titsworth was testing for a while and it was a service that one had to pay for. It seemed as though he was not on top of things and kind of went kaput. Bryon from Major Malfunction has invested in some pricey sound testing equipment and has been conducting independent testing and the results can be found on Silencer Forum. SilencerCo usually makes videos of their tests and they allow you to see what the process is and the numbers that they generate.
dB levels are going to be different from host to host, ammo dependant, and elevation, temp, humidity, and other weather conditions all play.
There is a lot of difference between cans. Baffle designs, construction material, length, weight, and multi-caliber use are all factors. A lot of SS .22 cans allow one to be able to shoot .17HMR, .22WMR, and FN 5.7 where (most) aluminum cans cannot handle the pressures. .22 cans need to be user servicable (IMHO) and some are a lot easier to service than others. It is all factored into the cost.
From the perception of my ear, I have heard cans that meter within 1-2dB and sound completely different. The "tones" of the cans differ and some are more pleasing than others. That is just my perspective.
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Silenced America</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> .22 cans <span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="font-weight: bold">need</span></span> to be user servicable (IMHO) and some are a lot easier to service than others. </div></div>
I agree with everything you have said EXCEPT for this statement. Please tell me why you think this is true.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Silenced America</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> .22 cans <span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="font-weight: bold">need</span></span> to be user servicable (IMHO) and some are a lot easier to service than others. </div></div>
I agree with everything you have said EXCEPT for this statement. Please tell me why you think this is true.
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
"Sound Measurements
Few firms have been making suppressors and measuring the results as long as XXXX. We have measured so much, and for so long that over the last 30 years the companies who make measuring equipment have sought us out so that their own products could be improved. As such, we have seen it all when it comes to the ugly game of whose suppressor does what, when and how. We want you to own the best suppressors in the world and we strongly and verifiably believe those are made by XXXXX.
If for one moment we felt that publishing dB results gave any meaningful measure of how to judge one suppressor from another we would still be doing what we did for decades, publish numbers. But, we do not publish dB data, nor do we apologize for this policy. We, ourselves, have been frequently deceived by our own dB data. That which we found to meter wonderfully underperformed in the field, in use, because of one important and inescapable fact about noise, It's so important, we'll set it off by itself:
<span style="font-weight: bold">The problem with decibel readings is that it expresses a pressure level of sound, and gives no insight as to the "quality" or frequency of the sound. </span>
If we, the "experts", can deceive or can be deceived, users are at greater risk. That deception is now a crucial part of some of our competitors marketing campaigns. Far too often we have seen cases where the very best meter claimed that device "A" had a lower reading than device "B". However, observers unanimously agreed that device "B" sounded significantly quieter in all respects. In other words, the dB reading was the least accurate way to judge the true, and more importantly, applied use of a particular design. That leads us to another inescapable truth, again, important enough to be set off by itself:
We at XXXXX, do consider data produced by our meters, but we are more interested in how the device sounds in actual use as perceived by the parties who use them. The sound meter's opinion is considered, but it doesn't get the final word on what we build. XXXXX maintains extremely close contact with our clients, more so than any other suppressor company over the last 30 years. We rely on our own and our clients experience, intelligence and field requirements for the final design attributes. As a result, the bottom line is that we build the strongest, most compact, and highly effective units on planet Earth, and the vast majority of our customers remain with us for their lifetimes.
We strive to design our suppressors so that the shot fired sounds "unlike" or "not characteristic" of firearm noise. We are aware of several units produced by other companies that do, according to the meter, produce less noise than our device of similar nature. However, when these devices are compared in real world live fire tests our devices are noticeably more pleasant to the human ear. Several well known silencer aficionados have observed these tests and agree with our attitude toward the decibel. They say our suppressors have the "sweet sound".
If you still need more proof, consider this. A good example of this "deception" is the comparison of sound between a .308 caliber rifle and a .300 WIN MAG rifle. The meter will tell us that both rifles produce the same decibel level of noise. Upon firing these rifles, however, all would agree that the .300 WIN MAG sounds much louder. What the decibel meter doesn't tell us is that although both rifles produce the same peak sound pressure level (SPL), the .300 WIN MAG holds its peak duration longer. In other words the .300 WIN MAG sound remains at full value longer and IS louder while the .308 goes to peak and falls off more quickly. dB meters fail in this, and other regards.
Our experience has been that a few unprincipled manufacturers have published false data in order to appear "competitive. We have seen instances of an 8 year old suppressor from one manufacturer being tested against a can so new, that the firm hasn't figured out how to manufacture it yet in quantity. In short, if you're being told that the main selling point of a suppressor is its decibel readings, beware! We, at XXXX have gotten our balance on the issue of dB metering and we believe that you, the client, hopefully our client, will serve yourself well by following our lead on this topic."
p.s. Titsworth is clueless.
"Sound Measurements
Few firms have been making suppressors and measuring the results as long as XXXX. We have measured so much, and for so long that over the last 30 years the companies who make measuring equipment have sought us out so that their own products could be improved. As such, we have seen it all when it comes to the ugly game of whose suppressor does what, when and how. We want you to own the best suppressors in the world and we strongly and verifiably believe those are made by XXXXX.
If for one moment we felt that publishing dB results gave any meaningful measure of how to judge one suppressor from another we would still be doing what we did for decades, publish numbers. But, we do not publish dB data, nor do we apologize for this policy. We, ourselves, have been frequently deceived by our own dB data. That which we found to meter wonderfully underperformed in the field, in use, because of one important and inescapable fact about noise, It's so important, we'll set it off by itself:
<span style="font-weight: bold">The problem with decibel readings is that it expresses a pressure level of sound, and gives no insight as to the "quality" or frequency of the sound. </span>
If we, the "experts", can deceive or can be deceived, users are at greater risk. That deception is now a crucial part of some of our competitors marketing campaigns. Far too often we have seen cases where the very best meter claimed that device "A" had a lower reading than device "B". However, observers unanimously agreed that device "B" sounded significantly quieter in all respects. In other words, the dB reading was the least accurate way to judge the true, and more importantly, applied use of a particular design. That leads us to another inescapable truth, again, important enough to be set off by itself:
We at XXXXX, do consider data produced by our meters, but we are more interested in how the device sounds in actual use as perceived by the parties who use them. The sound meter's opinion is considered, but it doesn't get the final word on what we build. XXXXX maintains extremely close contact with our clients, more so than any other suppressor company over the last 30 years. We rely on our own and our clients experience, intelligence and field requirements for the final design attributes. As a result, the bottom line is that we build the strongest, most compact, and highly effective units on planet Earth, and the vast majority of our customers remain with us for their lifetimes.
We strive to design our suppressors so that the shot fired sounds "unlike" or "not characteristic" of firearm noise. We are aware of several units produced by other companies that do, according to the meter, produce less noise than our device of similar nature. However, when these devices are compared in real world live fire tests our devices are noticeably more pleasant to the human ear. Several well known silencer aficionados have observed these tests and agree with our attitude toward the decibel. They say our suppressors have the "sweet sound".
If you still need more proof, consider this. A good example of this "deception" is the comparison of sound between a .308 caliber rifle and a .300 WIN MAG rifle. The meter will tell us that both rifles produce the same decibel level of noise. Upon firing these rifles, however, all would agree that the .300 WIN MAG sounds much louder. What the decibel meter doesn't tell us is that although both rifles produce the same peak sound pressure level (SPL), the .300 WIN MAG holds its peak duration longer. In other words the .300 WIN MAG sound remains at full value longer and IS louder while the .308 goes to peak and falls off more quickly. dB meters fail in this, and other regards.
Our experience has been that a few unprincipled manufacturers have published false data in order to appear "competitive. We have seen instances of an 8 year old suppressor from one manufacturer being tested against a can so new, that the firm hasn't figured out how to manufacture it yet in quantity. In short, if you're being told that the main selling point of a suppressor is its decibel readings, beware! We, at XXXX have gotten our balance on the issue of dB metering and we believe that you, the client, hopefully our client, will serve yourself well by following our lead on this topic."
p.s. Titsworth is clueless.
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 762frmafr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Silenced America</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> .22 cans <span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="font-weight: bold">need</span></span> to be user servicable (IMHO) and some are a lot easier to service than others. </div></div>
I agree with everything you have said EXCEPT for this statement. Please tell me why you think this is true. </div></div>
That is why I stated IMHO. I believe this because I shoot a lot A LOT. The cans will fill full of lead. It is a fact. They will get heavy and become less effective over time. Most companies are producing user serviceable .22 cans for this reason. There are other companies that are offering re-coring, jailbreaking, and cleaning services for this reason. .22 is a filthy filthy little round. After 10k rounds, I start to notice a difference in performance. After 50k, there is a lot of difference. Most people probably won't shoot 50k rounds through there cans in a year. Some may never. The fact remains that if you service and care for your equipment that it will last longer.
Now, do I think you should service a centerfire can? No. I think you should clean the threads and the mount area. Have a I cleaned a centerfire can? Yes, and it is pointless IMHO. Manufacturers are making them user serviceable due to demand.
P.S. I agree that Tits is clueless. Hence the reason he went "tits" up. He is in the business of making cans and AR-type .308 receivers. His reputation speaks for itself with me and we will not be doing any type of business.
I know that you love AWC. I do not sell or own their products and it isn't anything against AWC. There just isn't any demand for their product and they don't market. Marketing is a lost art when it comes to NFA and only a few companies have figured it out. I would love to see some new and innovative stuff from AWC in the future and some marketing to go along with it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 762frmafr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Silenced America</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> .22 cans <span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="font-weight: bold">need</span></span> to be user servicable (IMHO) and some are a lot easier to service than others. </div></div>
I agree with everything you have said EXCEPT for this statement. Please tell me why you think this is true. </div></div>
That is why I stated IMHO. I believe this because I shoot a lot A LOT. The cans will fill full of lead. It is a fact. They will get heavy and become less effective over time. Most companies are producing user serviceable .22 cans for this reason. There are other companies that are offering re-coring, jailbreaking, and cleaning services for this reason. .22 is a filthy filthy little round. After 10k rounds, I start to notice a difference in performance. After 50k, there is a lot of difference. Most people probably won't shoot 50k rounds through there cans in a year. Some may never. The fact remains that if you service and care for your equipment that it will last longer.
Now, do I think you should service a centerfire can? No. I think you should clean the threads and the mount area. Have a I cleaned a centerfire can? Yes, and it is pointless IMHO. Manufacturers are making them user serviceable due to demand.
P.S. I agree that Tits is clueless. Hence the reason he went "tits" up. He is in the business of making cans and AR-type .308 receivers. His reputation speaks for itself with me and we will not be doing any type of business.
I know that you love AWC. I do not sell or own their products and it isn't anything against AWC. There just isn't any demand for their product and they don't market. Marketing is a lost art when it comes to NFA and only a few companies have figured it out. I would love to see some new and innovative stuff from AWC in the future and some marketing to go along with it.
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PGG</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I did a search I figured this was a question asked many times but found almost nada. I am not going to name company names and I know some companies don't report reduction levels However I am wondering what people think of reports on say .22 cans from what I have seen of between 25 on the low end and 40 db's on the high-end. Is there that much difference between the well made cans regardless of whether any reported sound level is correct or accurate? Just wondering. I could post links but would rather have people thoughts without getting into that company lies, those cans suck etc talk. Thanks PG </div></div>
Who is advertising 25DB's?
It seems everyone uses the P22 to derive their numbers (some companies using even shorter platforms like the Walther TPH). That is because the short barrels have the highest peak sound, and produce the highest sound reduction.
rifles peak sound can be 16-18DB's lower than the P22, so the rifle sound reductions are not as good, even though the rifle with suppressor may be as quiet, or even more quiet than the pistol with suppressor.
There are economical models on the market that offer competitive sound reduction and no, I don't believe the high end cans are worth the extra money, because the extra money is mot likely a markup / price you pay for brand affiliation.
John Titsworth's company even has made a good competitive .22lr suppressor that is cheaper than the most price commanding products on the market and probably their equal in performance.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PGG</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I did a search I figured this was a question asked many times but found almost nada. I am not going to name company names and I know some companies don't report reduction levels However I am wondering what people think of reports on say .22 cans from what I have seen of between 25 on the low end and 40 db's on the high-end. Is there that much difference between the well made cans regardless of whether any reported sound level is correct or accurate? Just wondering. I could post links but would rather have people thoughts without getting into that company lies, those cans suck etc talk. Thanks PG </div></div>
Who is advertising 25DB's?
It seems everyone uses the P22 to derive their numbers (some companies using even shorter platforms like the Walther TPH). That is because the short barrels have the highest peak sound, and produce the highest sound reduction.
rifles peak sound can be 16-18DB's lower than the P22, so the rifle sound reductions are not as good, even though the rifle with suppressor may be as quiet, or even more quiet than the pistol with suppressor.
There are economical models on the market that offer competitive sound reduction and no, I don't believe the high end cans are worth the extra money, because the extra money is mot likely a markup / price you pay for brand affiliation.
John Titsworth's company even has made a good competitive .22lr suppressor that is cheaper than the most price commanding products on the market and probably their equal in performance.
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
Scott has made some really good points here.
The sound meter measures maximum pressure. However, it fails to provide information regarding tone, sound dissipation, frequencies in which the suppressor operates, frequencies cancelled out, etc. This has been my main criticism of Mr. Titsworth over the years he was an "independent tester". He really pushed sound meter results as the most important consideration in picking a suppressor.
For example...
The Ops Inc 16th Model always gets beaten by a dB or two on the sound meter when compared with a similar competitor's product. However, when I used to demo both products people always said the Ops product sounded better due to a tone difference. That doesn't mean the other product was not also a great product. And some of those people who shot both side by side liked features of the other product so they'd buy that one instead of the Ops.
Point is there are a lot of things to consider besides just sound meter numbers.
Also as Scott mentioned, sound (to your ear and on the meter) will vary due to lots of variables (e.g. weather, altitude, host weapon, ammo, and heck even recoil springs can make a difference!).
Mark
Scott has made some really good points here.
The sound meter measures maximum pressure. However, it fails to provide information regarding tone, sound dissipation, frequencies in which the suppressor operates, frequencies cancelled out, etc. This has been my main criticism of Mr. Titsworth over the years he was an "independent tester". He really pushed sound meter results as the most important consideration in picking a suppressor.
For example...
The Ops Inc 16th Model always gets beaten by a dB or two on the sound meter when compared with a similar competitor's product. However, when I used to demo both products people always said the Ops product sounded better due to a tone difference. That doesn't mean the other product was not also a great product. And some of those people who shot both side by side liked features of the other product so they'd buy that one instead of the Ops.
Point is there are a lot of things to consider besides just sound meter numbers.
Also as Scott mentioned, sound (to your ear and on the meter) will vary due to lots of variables (e.g. weather, altitude, host weapon, ammo, and heck even recoil springs can make a difference!).
Mark
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
Can't clean aluminum .22s cans efficiently. Avoid them.
Avoid aluminum everywhere you can, rimfire or centerfire.
You get out of a .22 can what you put through them.
Crap ammo = crap.
50,000 is common, I've seen significantly higher round counts functional and suppressing. Its all about design and ammo.
IMO, center fire cans coming apart for cleaning is a "run away" sign. Has nothing to do with knowledgeable user requirements, everything to do with poor design and manufacturer requirements. The last thing you want is a centerfire rifle caliber can that opens. Pay a premium for the better cans as the highest cost of any operation on the floor is...welding.
Centerfire? - Clean and oil your Neilson.
Never mentioned a brand, you did. But now that you have. Grab a precision rifle, take out your AAC SD and a T.H.O.R. out to 600 and report back on technology. No need to bring any of your others, nothing against them either. P.S. at a time when many shops are slowing down, they are straight out on extended shifts.
"It seems everyone uses the P22 to derive their numbers (some companies using even shorter platforms like the Walther TPH). That is because the short barrels have the highest peak sound, <span style="font-weight: bold">and produce the highest sound reduction</span>." Respectfully, no. This is done because they round will not go supersonic and will be as slow as possible. Blast is worse (unburned powder can trace thru the can), sonic signature better. Always test your cans with supersonic rounds in the shortest but still supersonic barrel lengths, as that, and only that, will reveal the cans ability to handle full gas capacities and pressures. P22, like Mark IIIs have poor chamber designs and tolerances for suppression. They pop!
"rifles peak sound can be 16-18DB's lower than the P22, so the <span style="font-weight: bold">rifle sound reductions are not as good</span>, even though the rifle with suppressor may be as quiet, or even more quiet than the pistol with suppressor. " Respectfully, no. Whereas it is true that the trailing capacity of the post projectile volume increases with a longer barrel, lowering overall pressures and the resulting blast, one should still see the rated values with...good suppressors. In other words, a quality can will always outperform on a rifle, not because the "rifles sound reduction is not as good" but rather the pressures are lower, impact values at the blast chamber and subsequent chambers are lower pressure and longer durations, and a complete lack of unburned powder ignition.
Can't clean aluminum .22s cans efficiently. Avoid them.
Avoid aluminum everywhere you can, rimfire or centerfire.
You get out of a .22 can what you put through them.
Crap ammo = crap.
50,000 is common, I've seen significantly higher round counts functional and suppressing. Its all about design and ammo.
IMO, center fire cans coming apart for cleaning is a "run away" sign. Has nothing to do with knowledgeable user requirements, everything to do with poor design and manufacturer requirements. The last thing you want is a centerfire rifle caliber can that opens. Pay a premium for the better cans as the highest cost of any operation on the floor is...welding.
Centerfire? - Clean and oil your Neilson.
Never mentioned a brand, you did. But now that you have. Grab a precision rifle, take out your AAC SD and a T.H.O.R. out to 600 and report back on technology. No need to bring any of your others, nothing against them either. P.S. at a time when many shops are slowing down, they are straight out on extended shifts.
"It seems everyone uses the P22 to derive their numbers (some companies using even shorter platforms like the Walther TPH). That is because the short barrels have the highest peak sound, <span style="font-weight: bold">and produce the highest sound reduction</span>." Respectfully, no. This is done because they round will not go supersonic and will be as slow as possible. Blast is worse (unburned powder can trace thru the can), sonic signature better. Always test your cans with supersonic rounds in the shortest but still supersonic barrel lengths, as that, and only that, will reveal the cans ability to handle full gas capacities and pressures. P22, like Mark IIIs have poor chamber designs and tolerances for suppression. They pop!
"rifles peak sound can be 16-18DB's lower than the P22, so the <span style="font-weight: bold">rifle sound reductions are not as good</span>, even though the rifle with suppressor may be as quiet, or even more quiet than the pistol with suppressor. " Respectfully, no. Whereas it is true that the trailing capacity of the post projectile volume increases with a longer barrel, lowering overall pressures and the resulting blast, one should still see the rated values with...good suppressors. In other words, a quality can will always outperform on a rifle, not because the "rifles sound reduction is not as good" but rather the pressures are lower, impact values at the blast chamber and subsequent chambers are lower pressure and longer durations, and a complete lack of unburned powder ignition.
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can't clean aluminum .22s cans efficiently. Avoid them.
Avoid aluminum everywhere you can, rimfire or centerfire.
You get out of a .22 can what you put through them.
Crap ammo = crap.
</div></div>
I have had great success with a soda blasting setup and aluminum internals. Soda blasting should be done with safety in mind. Eye protection and a respirator should be worn, kids.
I have also not had any problems with aluminum centerfire pistol cans. I have run a popular ecentric aluminum centerfire pistol can on a .300blk FA (10.5") and did not have any problems. The can performed very well (to my standards) and I was happy with the results.
Everyone has brand favorites. My favorite brands are the ones that sell well. I have a vast collection of cans, but my favorites are .22s. I like to shoot .22 because it is cheap, quiet, fun, and I can teach a young kid about firearms without scaring the bejesus out of them with something loud. I have more .22 cans than I do hosts at the moment, which I need to remedy.
I can shoot an SD (that is a 762 can) along with a Thundertrap that a customer of mine has with identical hosts and report back. I don't own a T.H.O.R., but it looks like an really good can and it seems as though AWC has moved a lot of them to the military.
Generally, I run CCI standards and subs. I will run other 22 ammo, but I tend to stay away from the nasty stuff. I agree that if you run crap ammo, you get what you deserve. Thanks for your input as I am never too old or too smart to learn from someone else. I continue to learn daily from good value added input like yours.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can't clean aluminum .22s cans efficiently. Avoid them.
Avoid aluminum everywhere you can, rimfire or centerfire.
You get out of a .22 can what you put through them.
Crap ammo = crap.
</div></div>
I have had great success with a soda blasting setup and aluminum internals. Soda blasting should be done with safety in mind. Eye protection and a respirator should be worn, kids.
I have also not had any problems with aluminum centerfire pistol cans. I have run a popular ecentric aluminum centerfire pistol can on a .300blk FA (10.5") and did not have any problems. The can performed very well (to my standards) and I was happy with the results.
Everyone has brand favorites. My favorite brands are the ones that sell well. I have a vast collection of cans, but my favorites are .22s. I like to shoot .22 because it is cheap, quiet, fun, and I can teach a young kid about firearms without scaring the bejesus out of them with something loud. I have more .22 cans than I do hosts at the moment, which I need to remedy.
I can shoot an SD (that is a 762 can) along with a Thundertrap that a customer of mine has with identical hosts and report back. I don't own a T.H.O.R., but it looks like an really good can and it seems as though AWC has moved a lot of them to the military.
Generally, I run CCI standards and subs. I will run other 22 ammo, but I tend to stay away from the nasty stuff. I agree that if you run crap ammo, you get what you deserve. Thanks for your input as I am never too old or too smart to learn from someone else. I continue to learn daily from good value added input like yours.
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
Sounds like a plan, I wanted to post out Mac's earlier comments on dBs as it addresses PPG's original question. That was the thrust of my piece. When you do go out, remember that TTs have been made for longer than most companies have been around, You are going to want a 5th gen and even then remember that AWC dealt with the inherent tonal characteristics of even their Ti TTs by wrapping the core with Stainless. Now, that is set aside as they came to realize they had to abandon the use of standardized, commercially available, thin wall, titanium envelopes (exterior superstructure tube) as they did not provide the required tonal values, structural strength attributes and required internal and external dimensions. In other words, everyone, including AWC was building cans severely restricted dimensionally and tonally by the commercially available titanium envelopes. Everybody else ends up retrofiting their new designs (if they even have them) to the same restrictive tube diameters and wall thicknesses. AWC knew that in order to achieve the end results required by their clients, they would commit to creating new titanium envelopes out of solid American melted and formed titanium billets. This would require a new line, new machinery and new techniques. P.S. the line is flat out and will be fore the forseable future. The wall thickness could now be customized, much thicker when required and provide unheard of strength. These would be some, if not, the strongest lightest, most precise cans in the world. A new standard. The tonality is four fold, the thickness at attachment, depth of weld (100% cicumferential) and the new baffle(s) facings and chamber designs.
Sounds like a plan, I wanted to post out Mac's earlier comments on dBs as it addresses PPG's original question. That was the thrust of my piece. When you do go out, remember that TTs have been made for longer than most companies have been around, You are going to want a 5th gen and even then remember that AWC dealt with the inherent tonal characteristics of even their Ti TTs by wrapping the core with Stainless. Now, that is set aside as they came to realize they had to abandon the use of standardized, commercially available, thin wall, titanium envelopes (exterior superstructure tube) as they did not provide the required tonal values, structural strength attributes and required internal and external dimensions. In other words, everyone, including AWC was building cans severely restricted dimensionally and tonally by the commercially available titanium envelopes. Everybody else ends up retrofiting their new designs (if they even have them) to the same restrictive tube diameters and wall thicknesses. AWC knew that in order to achieve the end results required by their clients, they would commit to creating new titanium envelopes out of solid American melted and formed titanium billets. This would require a new line, new machinery and new techniques. P.S. the line is flat out and will be fore the forseable future. The wall thickness could now be customized, much thicker when required and provide unheard of strength. These would be some, if not, the strongest lightest, most precise cans in the world. A new standard. The tonality is four fold, the thickness at attachment, depth of weld (100% cicumferential) and the new baffle(s) facings and chamber designs.
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HPLLC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PGG</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I did a search I figured this was a question asked many times but found almost nada. I am not going to name company names and I know some companies don't report reduction levels However I am wondering what people think of reports on say .22 cans from what I have seen of between 25 on the low end and 40 db's on the high-end. Is there that much difference between the well made cans regardless of whether any reported sound level is correct or accurate? Just wondering. I could post links but would rather have people thoughts without getting into that company lies, those cans suck etc talk. Thanks PG </div></div>
Who is advertising 25DB's?
It seems everyone uses the P22 to derive their numbers (some companies using even shorter platforms like the Walther TPH). That is because the short barrels have the highest peak sound, and produce the highest sound reduction.
rifles peak sound can be 16-18DB's lower than the P22, so the rifle sound reductions are not as good, even though the rifle with suppressor may be as quiet, or even more quiet than the pistol with suppressor.
There are economical models on the market that offer competitive sound reduction and no, I don't believe the high end cans are worth the extra money, because the extra money is mot likely a markup / price you pay for brand affiliation.
John Titsworth's company even has made a good competitive .22lr suppressor that is cheaper than the most price commanding products on the market and probably their equal in performance.
</div></div>
Here is 1 link to a 25db report.
http://www.rossgunworks.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26&Itemid=46
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HPLLC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PGG</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I did a search I figured this was a question asked many times but found almost nada. I am not going to name company names and I know some companies don't report reduction levels However I am wondering what people think of reports on say .22 cans from what I have seen of between 25 on the low end and 40 db's on the high-end. Is there that much difference between the well made cans regardless of whether any reported sound level is correct or accurate? Just wondering. I could post links but would rather have people thoughts without getting into that company lies, those cans suck etc talk. Thanks PG </div></div>
Who is advertising 25DB's?
It seems everyone uses the P22 to derive their numbers (some companies using even shorter platforms like the Walther TPH). That is because the short barrels have the highest peak sound, and produce the highest sound reduction.
rifles peak sound can be 16-18DB's lower than the P22, so the rifle sound reductions are not as good, even though the rifle with suppressor may be as quiet, or even more quiet than the pistol with suppressor.
There are economical models on the market that offer competitive sound reduction and no, I don't believe the high end cans are worth the extra money, because the extra money is mot likely a markup / price you pay for brand affiliation.
John Titsworth's company even has made a good competitive .22lr suppressor that is cheaper than the most price commanding products on the market and probably their equal in performance.
</div></div>
Here is 1 link to a 25db report.
http://www.rossgunworks.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26&Itemid=46
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
RPG 22 suppressor
<span style="font-weight: bold">6.125" OAL... 1" diameter. 2 ounces in 6061-T6. That is a housing with no baffles. I just depicted an extremely minimalist housing with .050 wall tube in solidworks in 100% 6061-T6 and it weighs 1.92 ounces. No wonder it's so loud.</span> 25DB's would mean a P22 that meters 131DB's. That's pretty loud. In our testing recently with our product the worst of two ten round strings metered 115.4DB average on our P22 with CCI SV.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-style: italic">Ross Precision Gunworks: </span>The unique monolithic design of the suppressor makes it impossible to have baffle strikes that can occur with other brand suppressors.</div></div>
<span style="font-weight: bold">
With no baffles it would be impossible to have a baffle strike. </span>
I don't agree aluminum can't be efficiently cleaned. a tube can be cleaned in a few seconds with a pipe cleaning brush. Spacers take the same few seconds each. 10 minutes isn't an inefficient cleaning regimen as it takes about 10 minutes to clean a .22lr pistol properly.
RPG 22 suppressor
<span style="font-weight: bold">6.125" OAL... 1" diameter. 2 ounces in 6061-T6. That is a housing with no baffles. I just depicted an extremely minimalist housing with .050 wall tube in solidworks in 100% 6061-T6 and it weighs 1.92 ounces. No wonder it's so loud.</span> 25DB's would mean a P22 that meters 131DB's. That's pretty loud. In our testing recently with our product the worst of two ten round strings metered 115.4DB average on our P22 with CCI SV.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-style: italic">Ross Precision Gunworks: </span>The unique monolithic design of the suppressor makes it impossible to have baffle strikes that can occur with other brand suppressors.</div></div>
<span style="font-weight: bold">
With no baffles it would be impossible to have a baffle strike. </span>
I don't agree aluminum can't be efficiently cleaned. a tube can be cleaned in a few seconds with a pipe cleaning brush. Spacers take the same few seconds each. 10 minutes isn't an inefficient cleaning regimen as it takes about 10 minutes to clean a .22lr pistol properly.
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
I will say this I looked at the inside of one of these RPG22 cans it has what I would call baffles not sure how to explain it. I was actually quite impressed with these .22 cans as far as how they are made and their weight but I have not heard one in use. I know that is almost all that matters also. Again I was not trying to get a company bashing thread going I was only trying to ask about reported DB reductions that various companies make. Another example is Gemtech list the outback IID as -39.4 and the alpine as -37.9. There are plenty of other examples I am just asking if these listed ranges are accurate. PG
I will say this I looked at the inside of one of these RPG22 cans it has what I would call baffles not sure how to explain it. I was actually quite impressed with these .22 cans as far as how they are made and their weight but I have not heard one in use. I know that is almost all that matters also. Again I was not trying to get a company bashing thread going I was only trying to ask about reported DB reductions that various companies make. Another example is Gemtech list the outback IID as -39.4 and the alpine as -37.9. There are plenty of other examples I am just asking if these listed ranges are accurate. PG
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PGG</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will say this I looked at the inside of one of these RPG22 cans it has what I would call baffles not sure how to explain it. I was actually quite impressed with these .22 cans as far as how they are made and their weight but I have not heard one in use. I know that is almost all that matters also. Again I was not trying to get a company bashing thread going I was only trying to ask about reported DB reductions that various companies make. Another example is Gemtech list the outback IID as -39.4 and the alpine as -37.9. There are plenty of other examples I am just asking if these listed ranges are accurate. PG </div></div>
<span style="font-weight: bold">To answer the question, the numbers you quoted above are accurate.</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PGG</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will say this I looked at the inside of one of these RPG22 cans it has what I would call baffles not sure how to explain it. I was actually quite impressed with these .22 cans as far as how they are made and their weight but I have not heard one in use. I know that is almost all that matters also. Again I was not trying to get a company bashing thread going I was only trying to ask about reported DB reductions that various companies make. Another example is Gemtech list the outback IID as -39.4 and the alpine as -37.9. There are plenty of other examples I am just asking if these listed ranges are accurate. PG </div></div>
<span style="font-weight: bold">To answer the question, the numbers you quoted above are accurate.</span>
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
Ever thought that the 2 oz. weight spec. on the website is an error?
Ever thought that the 2 oz. weight spec. on the website is an error?
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
Perhaps it is. There is a statement that baffle strikes are impossible, and over here:
http://www.texashuntingforum.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/2085422/1
He says the silencer is 2.0 ounces and only 3 pieces <that would seem to be the front cap, the rear cap, and the tube, with no baffle in those three, but the baffle could be connected to the front cap, if the weight spec was wrong.
The concept of no baffles was supported by the 25DB reduction which is pretty low performance.
Here is the model I made of 6061T6 in solidworks that weighs 1.915 ounces
Perhaps it is. There is a statement that baffle strikes are impossible, and over here:
http://www.texashuntingforum.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/2085422/1
He says the silencer is 2.0 ounces and only 3 pieces <that would seem to be the front cap, the rear cap, and the tube, with no baffle in those three, but the baffle could be connected to the front cap, if the weight spec was wrong.
The concept of no baffles was supported by the 25DB reduction which is pretty low performance.
Here is the model I made of 6061T6 in solidworks that weighs 1.915 ounces
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
After thinking about it I realized the way to make that possible might be to weld one thin baffle in the middle- so you still have 3 components, you could then do it with minimal weight gain, and it would still be serviceable. The term monolithic would then make sense, and the only thing curious would be the statement about baffle strikes not being possible.
After thinking about it I realized the way to make that possible might be to weld one thin baffle in the middle- so you still have 3 components, you could then do it with minimal weight gain, and it would still be serviceable. The term monolithic would then make sense, and the only thing curious would be the statement about baffle strikes not being possible.
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
Same thread, same author, same can....
"Due to overwhelming customer request, we created a new 22 caliber suppressor that will compete with anything on the market today. "
"I will put them up against anyones in the same category"
That category is a $250 all aluminum can.
As for the weight. Its aluminum. There is a <span style="font-weight: bold">9mm can</span> been sold to the services under contract for decades, still is, weight? <span style="font-weight: bold">3.3 oz.</span> solid titanium. That can is smaller than his .22 can. Tens of thousands sold. You get what you pay for.
Same thread, same author, same can....
"Due to overwhelming customer request, we created a new 22 caliber suppressor that will compete with anything on the market today. "
"I will put them up against anyones in the same category"
That category is a $250 all aluminum can.
As for the weight. Its aluminum. There is a <span style="font-weight: bold">9mm can</span> been sold to the services under contract for decades, still is, weight? <span style="font-weight: bold">3.3 oz.</span> solid titanium. That can is smaller than his .22 can. Tens of thousands sold. You get what you pay for.
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
The one I looked at was a tube with one end removable so that's two pieces. Then there is a center piece that runs down the middle with a small tube with baffles if I remember right there were like 5-6 and small cut out vents between them. It was three pieces but only one end is removable.
It was very well made and very light again I didnt hear it shot.
The one I looked at was a tube with one end removable so that's two pieces. Then there is a center piece that runs down the middle with a small tube with baffles if I remember right there were like 5-6 and small cut out vents between them. It was three pieces but only one end is removable.
It was very well made and very light again I didnt hear it shot.
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
Sometimes you get more than you pay for. Maybe the Ross RPG 22 is one of those times. The owners meter isn't an industry meter (the thing he's holding in the top video displayed on the site.)
So the 25DB's in this case could be high or low of actual. The posters description sounds interesting. That would imply the weight is not accurate in specs, because the baffling being described would have to have weight.
Sometimes you get more than you pay for. Maybe the Ross RPG 22 is one of those times. The owners meter isn't an industry meter (the thing he's holding in the top video displayed on the site.)
So the 25DB's in this case could be high or low of actual. The posters description sounds interesting. That would imply the weight is not accurate in specs, because the baffling being described would have to have weight.
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
I held one it was really light but I didn't weigh it myself. My buddy ordered two cans from him and he does a trust for free it is a good deal just for having the trust out of the way. He seemed like a very good guy and certainly appeared to know what he was talking about to me. Others have post here on the hide he was good also. Like I said I wasn't trying to make this about anyone in particular just wondering about the listed measurements. Thanks PG
I held one it was really light but I didn't weigh it myself. My buddy ordered two cans from him and he does a trust for free it is a good deal just for having the trust out of the way. He seemed like a very good guy and certainly appeared to know what he was talking about to me. Others have post here on the hide he was good also. Like I said I wasn't trying to make this about anyone in particular just wondering about the listed measurements. Thanks PG
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 762frmafr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ever thought that the 2 oz. weight spec. on the website is an error? </div></div>
This was an error, I just corrected it. Weight should have been 3 oz.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 762frmafr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ever thought that the 2 oz. weight spec. on the website is an error? </div></div>
This was an error, I just corrected it. Weight should have been 3 oz.
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
The DB scale is some kind of reference, I do not trust any company that will not subject for said reference, because of so called cheating, in my opinion it is because they can not compete and create an excuse not to play.
I would be fine with a board of 10 people just using their ears to judge and put silencers in order.
I just had Mr Titsworth re-core and AAC Scarab for me, by my ear I know this silencer is quieter than an AAC Prodigy, and a YHM Mite, with very good first round pop reduction, I do not need a meter to tell me that I can hear it for myself.
The DB scale is some kind of reference, I do not trust any company that will not subject for said reference, because of so called cheating, in my opinion it is because they can not compete and create an excuse not to play.
I would be fine with a board of 10 people just using their ears to judge and put silencers in order.
I just had Mr Titsworth re-core and AAC Scarab for me, by my ear I know this silencer is quieter than an AAC Prodigy, and a YHM Mite, with very good first round pop reduction, I do not need a meter to tell me that I can hear it for myself.
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Sound Measurements
Few firms have been making suppressors and measuring the results as long as XXXX. We have measured so much, and for so long that over the last 30 years the companies who make measuring equipment have sought us out so that their own products could be improved. As such, we have seen it all when it comes to the ugly game of whose suppressor does what, when and how. We want you to own the best suppressors in the world and we strongly and verifiably believe those are made by XXXXX.
If for one moment we felt that publishing dB results gave any meaningful measure of how to judge one suppressor from another we would still be doing what we did for decades, publish numbers. But, we do not publish dB data, nor do we apologize for this policy. We, ourselves, have been frequently deceived by our own dB data. That which we found to meter wonderfully underperformed in the field, in use, because of one important and inescapable fact about noise, It's so important, we'll set it off by itself:
<span style="font-weight: bold">The problem with decibel readings is that it expresses a pressure level of sound, and gives no insight as to the "quality" or frequency of the sound. </span>
If we, the "experts", can deceive or can be deceived, users are at greater risk. That deception is now a crucial part of some of our competitors marketing campaigns. Far too often we have seen cases where the very best meter claimed that device "A" had a lower reading than device "B". However, observers unanimously agreed that device "B" sounded significantly quieter in all respects. In other words, the dB reading was the least accurate way to judge the true, and more importantly, applied use of a particular design. That leads us to another inescapable truth, again, important enough to be set off by itself:
We at XXXXX, do consider data produced by our meters, but we are more interested in how the device sounds in actual use as perceived by the parties who use them. The sound meter's opinion is considered, but it doesn't get the final word on what we build. XXXXX maintains extremely close contact with our clients, more so than any other suppressor company over the last 30 years. We rely on our own and our clients experience, intelligence and field requirements for the final design attributes. As a result, the bottom line is that we build the strongest, most compact, and highly effective units on planet Earth, and the vast majority of our customers remain with us for their lifetimes.
We strive to design our suppressors so that the shot fired sounds "unlike" or "not characteristic" of firearm noise. We are aware of several units produced by other companies that do, according to the meter, produce less noise than our device of similar nature. However, when these devices are compared in real world live fire tests our devices are noticeably more pleasant to the human ear. Several well known silencer aficionados have observed these tests and agree with our attitude toward the decibel. They say our suppressors have the "sweet sound".
If you still need more proof, consider this. A good example of this "deception" is the comparison of sound between a .308 caliber rifle and a .300 WIN MAG rifle. The meter will tell us that both rifles produce the same decibel level of noise. Upon firing these rifles, however, all would agree that the .300 WIN MAG sounds much louder. What the decibel meter doesn't tell us is that although both rifles produce the same peak sound pressure level (SPL), the .300 WIN MAG holds its peak duration longer. In other words the .300 WIN MAG sound remains at full value longer and IS louder while the .308 goes to peak and falls off more quickly. dB meters fail in this, and other regards.
Our experience has been that a few unprincipled manufacturers have published false data in order to appear "competitive. We have seen instances of an 8 year old suppressor from one manufacturer being tested against a can so new, that the firm hasn't figured out how to manufacture it yet in quantity. In short, if you're being told that the main selling point of a suppressor is its decibel readings, beware! We, at XXXX have gotten our balance on the issue of dB metering and we believe that you, the client, hopefully our client, will serve yourself well by following our lead on this topic."
p.s. Titsworth is clueless. </div></div>
Hi, I think I asked for your background and relation to the sound suppressor business in an earlier thread?
The above quote is from AWC, are you working for them or otherwise affiliated with them? I recall many posts with detailed info on AWC technology that you have posted
And could you also explain why John Titsworth is clueless?
He is one of the few people who has independently tested suppressors with the correct equipment and although lately he has not posted much new tests, the work he did earlier was surely worth $30 if one was about to buy suppressors ranging from $500-1500 in price.
Of course he now has his own .22 suppressors, so he is not and "outsider" any more.
Best Regards!
Tuukka Jokinen
Ase Utra sound suppressors
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Sound Measurements
Few firms have been making suppressors and measuring the results as long as XXXX. We have measured so much, and for so long that over the last 30 years the companies who make measuring equipment have sought us out so that their own products could be improved. As such, we have seen it all when it comes to the ugly game of whose suppressor does what, when and how. We want you to own the best suppressors in the world and we strongly and verifiably believe those are made by XXXXX.
If for one moment we felt that publishing dB results gave any meaningful measure of how to judge one suppressor from another we would still be doing what we did for decades, publish numbers. But, we do not publish dB data, nor do we apologize for this policy. We, ourselves, have been frequently deceived by our own dB data. That which we found to meter wonderfully underperformed in the field, in use, because of one important and inescapable fact about noise, It's so important, we'll set it off by itself:
<span style="font-weight: bold">The problem with decibel readings is that it expresses a pressure level of sound, and gives no insight as to the "quality" or frequency of the sound. </span>
If we, the "experts", can deceive or can be deceived, users are at greater risk. That deception is now a crucial part of some of our competitors marketing campaigns. Far too often we have seen cases where the very best meter claimed that device "A" had a lower reading than device "B". However, observers unanimously agreed that device "B" sounded significantly quieter in all respects. In other words, the dB reading was the least accurate way to judge the true, and more importantly, applied use of a particular design. That leads us to another inescapable truth, again, important enough to be set off by itself:
We at XXXXX, do consider data produced by our meters, but we are more interested in how the device sounds in actual use as perceived by the parties who use them. The sound meter's opinion is considered, but it doesn't get the final word on what we build. XXXXX maintains extremely close contact with our clients, more so than any other suppressor company over the last 30 years. We rely on our own and our clients experience, intelligence and field requirements for the final design attributes. As a result, the bottom line is that we build the strongest, most compact, and highly effective units on planet Earth, and the vast majority of our customers remain with us for their lifetimes.
We strive to design our suppressors so that the shot fired sounds "unlike" or "not characteristic" of firearm noise. We are aware of several units produced by other companies that do, according to the meter, produce less noise than our device of similar nature. However, when these devices are compared in real world live fire tests our devices are noticeably more pleasant to the human ear. Several well known silencer aficionados have observed these tests and agree with our attitude toward the decibel. They say our suppressors have the "sweet sound".
If you still need more proof, consider this. A good example of this "deception" is the comparison of sound between a .308 caliber rifle and a .300 WIN MAG rifle. The meter will tell us that both rifles produce the same decibel level of noise. Upon firing these rifles, however, all would agree that the .300 WIN MAG sounds much louder. What the decibel meter doesn't tell us is that although both rifles produce the same peak sound pressure level (SPL), the .300 WIN MAG holds its peak duration longer. In other words the .300 WIN MAG sound remains at full value longer and IS louder while the .308 goes to peak and falls off more quickly. dB meters fail in this, and other regards.
Our experience has been that a few unprincipled manufacturers have published false data in order to appear "competitive. We have seen instances of an 8 year old suppressor from one manufacturer being tested against a can so new, that the firm hasn't figured out how to manufacture it yet in quantity. In short, if you're being told that the main selling point of a suppressor is its decibel readings, beware! We, at XXXX have gotten our balance on the issue of dB metering and we believe that you, the client, hopefully our client, will serve yourself well by following our lead on this topic."
p.s. Titsworth is clueless. </div></div>
Hi, I think I asked for your background and relation to the sound suppressor business in an earlier thread?
The above quote is from AWC, are you working for them or otherwise affiliated with them? I recall many posts with detailed info on AWC technology that you have posted
And could you also explain why John Titsworth is clueless?
He is one of the few people who has independently tested suppressors with the correct equipment and although lately he has not posted much new tests, the work he did earlier was surely worth $30 if one was about to buy suppressors ranging from $500-1500 in price.
Of course he now has his own .22 suppressors, so he is not and "outsider" any more.
Best Regards!
Tuukka Jokinen
Ase Utra sound suppressors
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
And I think I answered that...many times.
I stripped out all references as what mattered was the message, that being, dBs, without duration and frequency is garbage data, easily manipulated, always has been. It not about 1 meter to the left, never was. Its about 50 or 100 meters out. Anybody can cut and paste and I did because I felt that piece said it all a decade ago.
Titsworth, IMO, opinion....
Any monkey can buy a dB meter. He fought for years the idea that if he was going to do his web he had to face up to the facts that duration and frequency were imperative. Ancient news for designers. Sometimes experimental and impossible to manufacture cans being tested against other cans that were years, generations, old. In fact some louder dB cans can outperform lower dB cans at 100 yards. Its about the quality and tonality of the remnant frequencies.
Listen to cans! As many as you can, and never buy a can without first hearing it. dBs is only part of a successful purchase.
Thanks.
And I think I answered that...many times.
I stripped out all references as what mattered was the message, that being, dBs, without duration and frequency is garbage data, easily manipulated, always has been. It not about 1 meter to the left, never was. Its about 50 or 100 meters out. Anybody can cut and paste and I did because I felt that piece said it all a decade ago.
Titsworth, IMO, opinion....
Any monkey can buy a dB meter. He fought for years the idea that if he was going to do his web he had to face up to the facts that duration and frequency were imperative. Ancient news for designers. Sometimes experimental and impossible to manufacture cans being tested against other cans that were years, generations, old. In fact some louder dB cans can outperform lower dB cans at 100 yards. Its about the quality and tonality of the remnant frequencies.
Listen to cans! As many as you can, and never buy a can without first hearing it. dBs is only part of a successful purchase.
Thanks.
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
One afternoon I met John Titsworth, I went to lunch with him, we shot together, and over the last few years I and many other manufacturers have had products tested by John.
IMO he is an intelligent, honest, and reasonable guy. He struck me as a good person.
Anyone can be trained to run a meter, but that doesn't mean metered sound results are garbage. They do a good job of evaluating product performance. That's why all the good manufacturers have sound meters.
I understand some people feel a little disappointed that testing ended on Silencer Research, but the $30 enables them to view 3-4 years of test results. There are 50-100 products tested in his reviews, and he does have a meter that is sent to be NIST certified periodically.
In my experience sound meter results have told the story more often than they have not.
The Ops 12th model sounded a little better than the sound meter implied. (it metered 132.5 and I think it sounded like 130.) When you shoot the same Ops can on a baffled range, it sounds more like it meters. That's probably because the peak sound does have a very short duration to the extent that it sounds less loud to human ears than it actually is.
The occasions on which a suppressor sounds significantly better than products in the same peak sound performance class in my experience are very rare and usually also involve other factors (like the Ops 12th model being 2" longer than a 6.5" suppressor that might also meter 32.5DB reduction). having a tighter bore also helps the product sound a little better to human ears in my opinion. Tighter bores seem to shorten the duration of peak sound (of course not short enough that a proper sound meter fails to record the peak).
I'd be much more surprised by a product that sounded better, metered worse, and was exactly the same size / had the same bore tolerance.
<span style="font-weight: bold">What I have noticed more than anything is that suppressor companies preach a host of sound variables as the reason people should buy their product.
Most of the time when someone is talking about frequency, pitch, tone, duration, humidity, temperature and other variables, I would rather hear the B&K 2209 or similar, metered DB reduction of the device because it really feels like I'm being fed a lot of crap. </span>
One afternoon I met John Titsworth, I went to lunch with him, we shot together, and over the last few years I and many other manufacturers have had products tested by John.
IMO he is an intelligent, honest, and reasonable guy. He struck me as a good person.
Anyone can be trained to run a meter, but that doesn't mean metered sound results are garbage. They do a good job of evaluating product performance. That's why all the good manufacturers have sound meters.
I understand some people feel a little disappointed that testing ended on Silencer Research, but the $30 enables them to view 3-4 years of test results. There are 50-100 products tested in his reviews, and he does have a meter that is sent to be NIST certified periodically.
In my experience sound meter results have told the story more often than they have not.
The Ops 12th model sounded a little better than the sound meter implied. (it metered 132.5 and I think it sounded like 130.) When you shoot the same Ops can on a baffled range, it sounds more like it meters. That's probably because the peak sound does have a very short duration to the extent that it sounds less loud to human ears than it actually is.
The occasions on which a suppressor sounds significantly better than products in the same peak sound performance class in my experience are very rare and usually also involve other factors (like the Ops 12th model being 2" longer than a 6.5" suppressor that might also meter 32.5DB reduction). having a tighter bore also helps the product sound a little better to human ears in my opinion. Tighter bores seem to shorten the duration of peak sound (of course not short enough that a proper sound meter fails to record the peak).
I'd be much more surprised by a product that sounded better, metered worse, and was exactly the same size / had the same bore tolerance.
<span style="font-weight: bold">What I have noticed more than anything is that suppressor companies preach a host of sound variables as the reason people should buy their product.
Most of the time when someone is talking about frequency, pitch, tone, duration, humidity, temperature and other variables, I would rather hear the B&K 2209 or similar, metered DB reduction of the device because it really feels like I'm being fed a lot of crap. </span>
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And I think I answered that...many times.
I stripped out all references as what mattered was the message, that being, dBs, without duration and frequency is garbage data, easily manipulated, always has been. It not about 1 meter to the left, never was. Its about 50 or 100 meters out. Anybody can cut and paste and I did because I felt that piece said it all a decade ago.
Titsworth, IMO, opinion....
Any monkey can buy a dB meter. He fought for years the idea that if he was going to do his web he had to face up to the facts that duration and frequency were imperative. Ancient news for designers. Sometimes experimental and impossible to manufacture cans being tested against other cans that were years, generations, old. In fact some louder dB cans can outperform lower dB cans at 100 yards. Its about the quality and tonality of the remnant frequencies.
Listen to cans! As many as you can, and never buy a can without first hearing it. dBs is only part of a successful purchase.
Thanks.
</div></div>
With regards to your first sentence, I might have missed a disclosure of your industry relation, as I do not follow this forum so closely.
You make valid points with regards to measuring gun shot / impulse noise, however in my opinion if someone is commenting quote authoritively, it would be nice to know his background and/or relation to the industry.
With regards to John, I agree more with the comments by Griffin Armament. He invested money and money to conduct those tests, maybe some of the reviews are not very extensive, but atleast people get a dB baseline across a range of products.
With regards to your mention of listening to the suppressors, that is a good advice for people to do if possible in their area and to be able to try various suppressors before purchasing, to also see which suppressor fits their criteria with regards to size, weight, performance, price and other important features.
As an example, the sales guys of Sako, our Finnish distributor, tour around the country yearly to demonstrate the firearms and accessories they represent.
So people across the country have the chance to examine and test our products before they buy. I believe that is one important reason why our sales have been increasing continuously.
Regards!
Tuukka Jokinen
Ase Utra sound suppressors
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And I think I answered that...many times.
I stripped out all references as what mattered was the message, that being, dBs, without duration and frequency is garbage data, easily manipulated, always has been. It not about 1 meter to the left, never was. Its about 50 or 100 meters out. Anybody can cut and paste and I did because I felt that piece said it all a decade ago.
Titsworth, IMO, opinion....
Any monkey can buy a dB meter. He fought for years the idea that if he was going to do his web he had to face up to the facts that duration and frequency were imperative. Ancient news for designers. Sometimes experimental and impossible to manufacture cans being tested against other cans that were years, generations, old. In fact some louder dB cans can outperform lower dB cans at 100 yards. Its about the quality and tonality of the remnant frequencies.
Listen to cans! As many as you can, and never buy a can without first hearing it. dBs is only part of a successful purchase.
Thanks.
</div></div>
With regards to your first sentence, I might have missed a disclosure of your industry relation, as I do not follow this forum so closely.
You make valid points with regards to measuring gun shot / impulse noise, however in my opinion if someone is commenting quote authoritively, it would be nice to know his background and/or relation to the industry.
With regards to John, I agree more with the comments by Griffin Armament. He invested money and money to conduct those tests, maybe some of the reviews are not very extensive, but atleast people get a dB baseline across a range of products.
With regards to your mention of listening to the suppressors, that is a good advice for people to do if possible in their area and to be able to try various suppressors before purchasing, to also see which suppressor fits their criteria with regards to size, weight, performance, price and other important features.
As an example, the sales guys of Sako, our Finnish distributor, tour around the country yearly to demonstrate the firearms and accessories they represent.
So people across the country have the chance to examine and test our products before they buy. I believe that is one important reason why our sales have been increasing continuously.
Regards!
Tuukka Jokinen
Ase Utra sound suppressors
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
I think that a person saying that one can is quieter to the ear is about as subjective and non-scientific as a test can get. In my eyes, it is a worthless test. "Tonality" does have a lot to do with how the human ear interperts sound. One can may sound quieter than another and actually be louder. When you are pushing the limits of hearing damage levels, that is important.
Here is my bitch with John. He started out being a really good guy for the industry. He let his ego get in the way. He provided a service for a fee and then did not produce what he promised. Bryon from M3 actually help him test with Bryon volunteering the cans. When M3 and Silencer Forum decided to start conducting tests for FREE (Bryon's dime) John came unglued. He challenged all of Bryon's results and blasted him on arfcom. He displayed 0 professionalism. He even questioned the results on M3's facebook page. He knew Bryon, so why didn't he give him a call?
I wish John and his ventures the best of luck. It just left a bad taste in my mouth. When it comes to testing suppressors, the milspec tests are the way to go IMO because they allow for one to conduct a scientific test where the variables of the test only change due to mother nature. There are different meters, differnt methodologies, and different results.
I think that a person saying that one can is quieter to the ear is about as subjective and non-scientific as a test can get. In my eyes, it is a worthless test. "Tonality" does have a lot to do with how the human ear interperts sound. One can may sound quieter than another and actually be louder. When you are pushing the limits of hearing damage levels, that is important.
Here is my bitch with John. He started out being a really good guy for the industry. He let his ego get in the way. He provided a service for a fee and then did not produce what he promised. Bryon from M3 actually help him test with Bryon volunteering the cans. When M3 and Silencer Forum decided to start conducting tests for FREE (Bryon's dime) John came unglued. He challenged all of Bryon's results and blasted him on arfcom. He displayed 0 professionalism. He even questioned the results on M3's facebook page. He knew Bryon, so why didn't he give him a call?
I wish John and his ventures the best of luck. It just left a bad taste in my mouth. When it comes to testing suppressors, the milspec tests are the way to go IMO because they allow for one to conduct a scientific test where the variables of the test only change due to mother nature. There are different meters, differnt methodologies, and different results.
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
We have gone quite far afield, but it is an important subject, not well understood.
GA, my response would be as follows and, is again, my opinion:
1. Perhaps more than any other can, the Ops Inc 12 is mentioned as a suppressor that's tonal qualities are not well represented by the meter. I would agree and would mention that 12th has unique characteristics that are dissimilar than even Ops Inc's other offerings. A two point system utilizes a number of gas redirection techniques that are simply not employed in any forward to muzzle single point blast system. Long before Ops Inc, others experimented with two point systems and found distinct advantageous and some critical disadvantageous. The advantageous are what we will focus on here.
Aside from the obvious, shorter OAL, the ability to:
1 - Increase total volume of the suppressor.
2 - Redirect the primary blast rearward, providing enormous initial dwell and turbulence and essentially "splitting" the main gas jet. This provides for the trailing gas to actually be moved forward in sync as it moves through the stack. The result of using a brake, in the case of the 12th, a real and serious brake to intentionally reverse the main blast's direction is possible only in a two point system. In a single point system the brake is fair to poor as increased dwell works against the interests of the can, creating hot spots and poor gas flow at just the place you want the diverter to flow. Think of it as forced carbon right at the single point threads.
3 - Enormous unifying strength. Few are aware that almost every single point entry in major LR solicitations fail the "drop test." Most single points, certainly not all.
4. - A decidedly improved concussion cone focus post can that is both forward and focused. Good for the operator....bad for dB readings(!) and the cause of your observations.
5 - Bore alignment. Although a quality single point will do exactly as well, a two point may do so when the operator is under enormous stress. Basically "guiding" the operator through attachment.
6 - Larger shoulder mounting surfaces (plural) equal robust lock-up.
7 - Here is an important one and directly related to your insights about the validity of tonal qualities observed. When one utilized a two point system that contributed harmonics of the can itself is fundamentally different. The dampening effect of a mid point attachment actually changes the overall frequencies contributing to what many describe as the lower "thump" of the the 12th.
We have gone quite far afield, but it is an important subject, not well understood.
GA, my response would be as follows and, is again, my opinion:
1. Perhaps more than any other can, the Ops Inc 12 is mentioned as a suppressor that's tonal qualities are not well represented by the meter. I would agree and would mention that 12th has unique characteristics that are dissimilar than even Ops Inc's other offerings. A two point system utilizes a number of gas redirection techniques that are simply not employed in any forward to muzzle single point blast system. Long before Ops Inc, others experimented with two point systems and found distinct advantageous and some critical disadvantageous. The advantageous are what we will focus on here.
Aside from the obvious, shorter OAL, the ability to:
1 - Increase total volume of the suppressor.
2 - Redirect the primary blast rearward, providing enormous initial dwell and turbulence and essentially "splitting" the main gas jet. This provides for the trailing gas to actually be moved forward in sync as it moves through the stack. The result of using a brake, in the case of the 12th, a real and serious brake to intentionally reverse the main blast's direction is possible only in a two point system. In a single point system the brake is fair to poor as increased dwell works against the interests of the can, creating hot spots and poor gas flow at just the place you want the diverter to flow. Think of it as forced carbon right at the single point threads.
3 - Enormous unifying strength. Few are aware that almost every single point entry in major LR solicitations fail the "drop test." Most single points, certainly not all.
4. - A decidedly improved concussion cone focus post can that is both forward and focused. Good for the operator....bad for dB readings(!) and the cause of your observations.
5 - Bore alignment. Although a quality single point will do exactly as well, a two point may do so when the operator is under enormous stress. Basically "guiding" the operator through attachment.
6 - Larger shoulder mounting surfaces (plural) equal robust lock-up.
7 - Here is an important one and directly related to your insights about the validity of tonal qualities observed. When one utilized a two point system that contributed harmonics of the can itself is fundamentally different. The dampening effect of a mid point attachment actually changes the overall frequencies contributing to what many describe as the lower "thump" of the the 12th.
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Silenced America</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think that a person saying that one can is quieter to the ear is about as subjective and non-scientific as a test can get. In my eyes, it is a worthless test. "Tonality" does have a lot to do with how the human ear interperts sound. One can may sound quieter than another and actually be louder. When you are pushing the limits of hearing damage levels, that is important.
Here is my bitch with John. He started out being a really good guy for the industry. He let his ego get in the way. He provided a service for a fee and then did not produce what he promised. Bryon from M3 actually help him test with Bryon volunteering the cans. When M3 and Silencer Forum decided to start conducting tests for FREE (Bryon's dime) John came unglued. He challenged all of Bryon's results and blasted him on arfcom. He displayed 0 professionalism. He even questioned the results on M3's facebook page. He knew Bryon, so why didn't he give him a call?
I wish John and his ventures the best of luck. It just left a bad taste in my mouth. When it comes to testing suppressors, the milspec tests are the way to go IMO because they allow for one to conduct a scientific test where the variables of the test only change due to mother nature. There are different meters, differnt methodologies, and different results. </div></div>
Hi Scott,
I've met John a few times at the past SHOT Shows and have had a good impression of him.
I saw John's initial posts on critiquing the equipment of some other folks conducting testing, however I have not followed all of them through.
Giving constructive criticism if someone is not measuring with suitable equipment is one thing, but if he turned them into an unprofessional direction? thats not a good thing and will certainly not help him in the startup of his own suppressor company.
RollingThunder, I think this is a pretty straightforward question, that I'd like to hear the response to; Are you affiliated with any suppressor company?
On the various suppressor forums or subforums on larger firearms forums dedicated to suppressors, usually all of the industry people will disclose who they work for and even preferably post under their own name.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Silenced America</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think that a person saying that one can is quieter to the ear is about as subjective and non-scientific as a test can get. In my eyes, it is a worthless test. "Tonality" does have a lot to do with how the human ear interperts sound. One can may sound quieter than another and actually be louder. When you are pushing the limits of hearing damage levels, that is important.
Here is my bitch with John. He started out being a really good guy for the industry. He let his ego get in the way. He provided a service for a fee and then did not produce what he promised. Bryon from M3 actually help him test with Bryon volunteering the cans. When M3 and Silencer Forum decided to start conducting tests for FREE (Bryon's dime) John came unglued. He challenged all of Bryon's results and blasted him on arfcom. He displayed 0 professionalism. He even questioned the results on M3's facebook page. He knew Bryon, so why didn't he give him a call?
I wish John and his ventures the best of luck. It just left a bad taste in my mouth. When it comes to testing suppressors, the milspec tests are the way to go IMO because they allow for one to conduct a scientific test where the variables of the test only change due to mother nature. There are different meters, differnt methodologies, and different results. </div></div>
Hi Scott,
I've met John a few times at the past SHOT Shows and have had a good impression of him.
I saw John's initial posts on critiquing the equipment of some other folks conducting testing, however I have not followed all of them through.
Giving constructive criticism if someone is not measuring with suitable equipment is one thing, but if he turned them into an unprofessional direction? thats not a good thing and will certainly not help him in the startup of his own suppressor company.
RollingThunder, I think this is a pretty straightforward question, that I'd like to hear the response to; Are you affiliated with any suppressor company?
On the various suppressor forums or subforums on larger firearms forums dedicated to suppressors, usually all of the industry people will disclose who they work for and even preferably post under their own name.
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
Sure, I do not work for anybody, I have not worked for anybody, I do not get paid by anybody, I do not get free product from anybody. I shoot allot of cans, for decades, know many and they are my friends and I spend far too much time on the subject of suppression.
Sure, I do not work for anybody, I have not worked for anybody, I do not get paid by anybody, I do not get free product from anybody. I shoot allot of cans, for decades, know many and they are my friends and I spend far too much time on the subject of suppression.
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sure, I do not work for anybody, I have not worked for anybody, I do not get paid by anybody, I do not get free product from anybody. I shoot allot of cans, for decades, know many and they are my friends and I spend far too much time on the subject of suppression. </div></div>
Ok, just that there have been many posts here on the forums by you detailing, recommending and basically advertising AWC suppressors, that go just beyond a mention of a product or private end user review ( detailed explanations of the construction, materials, new THOR models etc.)
Reading them, atleast in my opinion gives a perception that you are connected to them. Nothing wrong with that, everyone can comment on their products, within the guidelines or rules that different forums have.
I just prefer that if someone is in the industry, that he discloses his company and also preferably his name, just like the folks from AAC, KAC, SureFire or any other current company does.
Best Regards!
Tuukka Jokinen
Ase Utra sound suppressors.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sure, I do not work for anybody, I have not worked for anybody, I do not get paid by anybody, I do not get free product from anybody. I shoot allot of cans, for decades, know many and they are my friends and I spend far too much time on the subject of suppression. </div></div>
Ok, just that there have been many posts here on the forums by you detailing, recommending and basically advertising AWC suppressors, that go just beyond a mention of a product or private end user review ( detailed explanations of the construction, materials, new THOR models etc.)
Reading them, atleast in my opinion gives a perception that you are connected to them. Nothing wrong with that, everyone can comment on their products, within the guidelines or rules that different forums have.
I just prefer that if someone is in the industry, that he discloses his company and also preferably his name, just like the folks from AAC, KAC, SureFire or any other current company does.
Best Regards!
Tuukka Jokinen
Ase Utra sound suppressors.
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
No problem, there are more detailing theory without a brand. Just that so many produce without a whit about successful theory and practical application. Last year it was Nemesis, before that EDM, then there was McMillian, Surgeon, soon it will be something else. Do the research, use the products, understand the science, have an opinion, try to be generous and patient.
How one can write a piece like I did above about mod 12 and nobody ask how it is that nobody else builds them anymore remains the most interesting part of all. Right? You don't make a 2 point can, and you know why, right? Right? If somebody listed out 1/2 dozen reasons, they would say I'm "bashing" them.
Anyway...no problem.
No problem, there are more detailing theory without a brand. Just that so many produce without a whit about successful theory and practical application. Last year it was Nemesis, before that EDM, then there was McMillian, Surgeon, soon it will be something else. Do the research, use the products, understand the science, have an opinion, try to be generous and patient.
How one can write a piece like I did above about mod 12 and nobody ask how it is that nobody else builds them anymore remains the most interesting part of all. Right? You don't make a 2 point can, and you know why, right? Right? If somebody listed out 1/2 dozen reasons, they would say I'm "bashing" them.
Anyway...no problem.
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
So there is no chance of you giving out a straight response?
I just took a look around with regards to you posts, they could not be more clearer advertisement of AWC products.
I am sure I am not the only one who thinks so. If I understood right, one has to be a commercial partner of the forums to advertise here?
If you are not working for AWC, you sure put out a lot of posts advertising and detailing their products for free then.
Best Regards!
Tuukka Jokinen
Ase Utra sound suppressors
So there is no chance of you giving out a straight response?
I just took a look around with regards to you posts, they could not be more clearer advertisement of AWC products.
I am sure I am not the only one who thinks so. If I understood right, one has to be a commercial partner of the forums to advertise here?
If you are not working for AWC, you sure put out a lot of posts advertising and detailing their products for free then.
Best Regards!
Tuukka Jokinen
Ase Utra sound suppressors
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
Go up a few lines and you will see me giving you seven (7) detailed explanations of the advantgeous of a two point can. Much more than most, even owners, come to understand. In depth product design, material engineering, construction techniques, finishes, on and on and on are the result of decades of in depth direct questions to those that build them. Or, as an example, in this thread I answer the very obtuse question "Who actually built the first Cheytacs" and where they matched assemblies or part rifles with full military swapability. Only three folks know that info, one of them never worked for the factory, never met the other two, but asked a direct question a long time ago and kept copious records. Later I showed internal factory shots of the now defunct facilities. Folks can and will beat that topic to death, but those are the facts about the first Cheytacs.
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1708546&page=2
In other words, if you asked me about the 100s of posts I've written about the appropriate timing of oversized injectors in Vipers using roots supercharging in GenII, you might see me recommending strongly, with astonishing detail and tons of internal shots, but guess what? I never worked for Dodge or anybody else in that industry. In my world, you either know as much as you can or you get to work.
I really like suppression and right now? I'm suppressing my desire to tell you to go fuck yourself. Damn....chamber pop.
Best Regards!
Go up a few lines and you will see me giving you seven (7) detailed explanations of the advantgeous of a two point can. Much more than most, even owners, come to understand. In depth product design, material engineering, construction techniques, finishes, on and on and on are the result of decades of in depth direct questions to those that build them. Or, as an example, in this thread I answer the very obtuse question "Who actually built the first Cheytacs" and where they matched assemblies or part rifles with full military swapability. Only three folks know that info, one of them never worked for the factory, never met the other two, but asked a direct question a long time ago and kept copious records. Later I showed internal factory shots of the now defunct facilities. Folks can and will beat that topic to death, but those are the facts about the first Cheytacs.
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1708546&page=2
In other words, if you asked me about the 100s of posts I've written about the appropriate timing of oversized injectors in Vipers using roots supercharging in GenII, you might see me recommending strongly, with astonishing detail and tons of internal shots, but guess what? I never worked for Dodge or anybody else in that industry. In my world, you either know as much as you can or you get to work.
I really like suppression and right now? I'm suppressing my desire to tell you to go fuck yourself. Damn....chamber pop.
Best Regards!
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
Hey, not my fight and im not in the habit of starting arguments online.
I just got the impression through your numerous posts with regards to AWC that you are connected to them, in my opinion the wording of the posts went way beyond just detailing a product.
This does not just concern you, as I said before, when discussing anything with someone else, who comes across authoritively or other wise gives indications of co-operation with a company, it is nice to know if there is a business connection.
Hey, not my fight and im not in the habit of starting arguments online.
I just got the impression through your numerous posts with regards to AWC that you are connected to them, in my opinion the wording of the posts went way beyond just detailing a product.
This does not just concern you, as I said before, when discussing anything with someone else, who comes across authoritively or other wise gives indications of co-operation with a company, it is nice to know if there is a business connection.
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
Stop it...of course you are.
Show me where it is anything more than the most in depth review of a product possible and a very generous overview of the technologies involved. If I bought your product, I would know absolutely everything I could before I threw a .300WM through it. You and I would either co-operate on my understanding what holds you cans together or I wouldn't buy them. If I said to you "why the hell does only your "s" products show materials in your product section, what the hell are the other cans made of?" or "How is it that there is still a market for heavy centerfire hunting cans made soley out of steet that, at .30, still weight over 20oz where you live?" By the end you and I would know allot about each other and you would make a choice, as would I, as to the exact qualities of your products. Its that simple.
Look, when you strip out the company website from your by line, it means your uncomfortable with the idea of selling on line. Honestly, I don't see it that way, I wish more manufacturers would participate, as there are so many questions still worth exploring.
Stop it...of course you are.
Show me where it is anything more than the most in depth review of a product possible and a very generous overview of the technologies involved. If I bought your product, I would know absolutely everything I could before I threw a .300WM through it. You and I would either co-operate on my understanding what holds you cans together or I wouldn't buy them. If I said to you "why the hell does only your "s" products show materials in your product section, what the hell are the other cans made of?" or "How is it that there is still a market for heavy centerfire hunting cans made soley out of steet that, at .30, still weight over 20oz where you live?" By the end you and I would know allot about each other and you would make a choice, as would I, as to the exact qualities of your products. Its that simple.
Look, when you strip out the company website from your by line, it means your uncomfortable with the idea of selling on line. Honestly, I don't see it that way, I wish more manufacturers would participate, as there are so many questions still worth exploring.
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Stop it...of course you are.
Show me where it is anything more than the most in depth review of a product possible and a very generous overview of the technologies involved. If I bought your product, I would know absolutely everything I could before I threw a .300WM through it. You and I would either co-operate on my understanding what holds you cans together or I wouldn't buy them. If I said to you "why the hell does only your "s" products show materials in your product section, what the hell are the other cans made of?" or "How is it that there is still a market for heavy centerfire hunting cans made soley out of steet that, at .30, still weight over 20oz where you live?" By the end you and I would know allot about each other and you would make a choice, as would I, as to the exact qualities of your products. Its that simple.
Look, when you strip out the company website from your by line, it means your uncomfortable with the idea of selling on line. Honestly, I don't see it that way, I wish more manufacturers would participate, as there are so many questions still worth exploring. </div></div>
Now were getting somewhere.
Then you are a rare case, as not many people go that deep in product description or continue to mention the same manufacturers products for a long period. Except maybe journalists, but then that is a another type of connection.
Yes, there are forums where people post detailed reviews of products, however usually those are by an individual product cases, not a continuing trend.
I have no qualms with regards to representing our products online, I do so over various Finnish, Swedish, French, UK and American forums. We just are not actually selling online.
And I dont advertise our products here, as to my knowledge this forum has rules on how a manufacturer represents their products.
I have commented on our products in the past when I feel I have had something to input to a discussion or our products have come up in discussion.
If you want me to answer detailed questions about our products, we can open up a new thread, so we dont derail this one any further
As to a carbon steel .30 calibre suppressor at 20 oz weight, well I would say it is more than competitive with many of the quality American thread mounting suppressors. That said, we do have alternative .30 calibre products, in other materials as well.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Stop it...of course you are.
Show me where it is anything more than the most in depth review of a product possible and a very generous overview of the technologies involved. If I bought your product, I would know absolutely everything I could before I threw a .300WM through it. You and I would either co-operate on my understanding what holds you cans together or I wouldn't buy them. If I said to you "why the hell does only your "s" products show materials in your product section, what the hell are the other cans made of?" or "How is it that there is still a market for heavy centerfire hunting cans made soley out of steet that, at .30, still weight over 20oz where you live?" By the end you and I would know allot about each other and you would make a choice, as would I, as to the exact qualities of your products. Its that simple.
Look, when you strip out the company website from your by line, it means your uncomfortable with the idea of selling on line. Honestly, I don't see it that way, I wish more manufacturers would participate, as there are so many questions still worth exploring. </div></div>
Now were getting somewhere.
Then you are a rare case, as not many people go that deep in product description or continue to mention the same manufacturers products for a long period. Except maybe journalists, but then that is a another type of connection.
Yes, there are forums where people post detailed reviews of products, however usually those are by an individual product cases, not a continuing trend.
I have no qualms with regards to representing our products online, I do so over various Finnish, Swedish, French, UK and American forums. We just are not actually selling online.
And I dont advertise our products here, as to my knowledge this forum has rules on how a manufacturer represents their products.
I have commented on our products in the past when I feel I have had something to input to a discussion or our products have come up in discussion.
If you want me to answer detailed questions about our products, we can open up a new thread, so we dont derail this one any further
As to a carbon steel .30 calibre suppressor at 20 oz weight, well I would say it is more than competitive with many of the quality American thread mounting suppressors. That said, we do have alternative .30 calibre products, in other materials as well.
Re: Thoughts on reported decibel reduction?
In America we live in a world where the sales people figure out how to represent a product as the only way of getting the job done, because it is the only way to deconstruct free enterprise into a monopoly legally.
Premier makes a 38 ounce 3-15x50 scope everyone would buy over the 21 ounce 4.5-14x50mm Leupold in the same class if they were the same price. That's 17 ounces different in weight.
<span style="font-weight: bold">The only reasonable explanation why people think the 20 ounce suppressor product is strongly inferior to the 13 ounce one is marketing propaganda. </span>
KAC's M110 suppressor is 32 ounces, but you don't hear suppressor people trying to argue it is an inferior good. It is a military grade can for a semi-automatic sniper rifle. I've used it, liked it, and if I could miracle one onto my Ar10 without spending $1600+ I would.
The KAC M4-QD is 22 ounces and it's still a highly sought after product. If weight is the cost of extreme durability it is a worthy compromise.
In America we live in a world where the sales people figure out how to represent a product as the only way of getting the job done, because it is the only way to deconstruct free enterprise into a monopoly legally.
Premier makes a 38 ounce 3-15x50 scope everyone would buy over the 21 ounce 4.5-14x50mm Leupold in the same class if they were the same price. That's 17 ounces different in weight.
<span style="font-weight: bold">The only reasonable explanation why people think the 20 ounce suppressor product is strongly inferior to the 13 ounce one is marketing propaganda. </span>
KAC's M110 suppressor is 32 ounces, but you don't hear suppressor people trying to argue it is an inferior good. It is a military grade can for a semi-automatic sniper rifle. I've used it, liked it, and if I could miracle one onto my Ar10 without spending $1600+ I would.
The KAC M4-QD is 22 ounces and it's still a highly sought after product. If weight is the cost of extreme durability it is a worthy compromise.
Similar threads
