This year we tested over 360 gun/can combinations with 347 ending up in the public results.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Suppressors 2024 Silencer Summit Results
- Thread starter Zak Smith
- Start date
This year we tested over 360 gun/can combinations with 347 ending up in the public results.
Holy crap, there's a lot of data here. But how am I supposed to trust it if the results aren't partially hidden behind a paywall, and the testing process and equipment are transparently described, and there isn't a proprietary rating scheme, and if you're not soliciting money from the manufacturers of the product that you're testing? I remain skeptical.
Love that you guys do this! It's a very selfless thing to do for the suppressor community. I've been looking at 9mm options but I'm getting a Fly 9 now. Thanks guys
It's cool to see ECCO Machines cans on there. His cans are underrated and your testing shows it. Love my Five by Fives.
It's cool to see ECCO Machines cans on there. His cans are underrated and your testing shows it. Love my Five by Fives.
ECCO Machine is impressive. I have two older cans that they recored with their baffles. They sound very good. This testing confirms my experience.
Thanks to TBAC for all the work.
Thanks to TBAC for all the work.
Damn...that is A LOT of data to digest. Oy vey...
Thanks to TBAC for taking the time to design, test and document all of this data. Very impressive...
Thanks to TBAC for taking the time to design, test and document all of this data. Very impressive...
A big thank you @Zak Smith @TBACRAY and the rest of the crew. This was a lot of work, and a lot of data.
Flow through silencers perform terrible compared to traditional baffle silencers of the same length and internal volume.
I have to say, owning some of the best performing silencers on their test list, and the flow through Hux, you'd never know it in actual use. The Huxwrx flows more, less back pressure, less recoil, etc...there really is something to them and they work very well across the board. So while I too take their data into consideration when making purchases, if I've learned anything through actual use, it's that data doesn't tell the whole story because our ears aren't calibrated meters. This of course refers to gas guns and not bolt. Their host weapon was also a bolt gun on the 30 cal cans and not a gas gun.
If you are referring to the Flow 762 Ti, it was also shot on the 16" AR-15 (5.56) and the 16" AR-15 (.300BO subs)
Look for categories:
.30 CALIBER SUPPRESSORS SHOOTING CARTRIDGE/HOST: 5.56-16AR
.30 CALIBER SUPPRESSORS SHOOTING CARTRIDGE/HOST: .300BO-16AR-SUB
Look for categories:
.30 CALIBER SUPPRESSORS SHOOTING CARTRIDGE/HOST: 5.56-16AR
.30 CALIBER SUPPRESSORS SHOOTING CARTRIDGE/HOST: .300BO-16AR-SUB
They were R&D prototypes or nonproduction cans, or in a couple cases, "unapproved" caliber-can combinations that the mfgr wanted to test anyway.
I'm still digesting all of this, but one of the more interesting things that stood out upon my initial skimming was the commentary on the .22LR host:
I recently acquired one of this fine rifles to do some other testing unrelated to suppressors, and hadn't noticed this yet. Now I'm curious what other platforms might exhibit similar behavior.
What happened with Shooter's Ear (SE) on the 22's?
Due to a last-minute rifle malfunction with our usual .22 host, we have to switch to a Volquartsen Summit .22 rifle. This rifle exhibits a specific sound pulse that appears only at Shooter's Ear (SE) at just before 0.048 sec (when using the normal suppressed trigger conditions) that is only present in roughly half the tests/shots. This only affects the SE number and confused the SE dB and SE dBA columns the most.I recently acquired one of this fine rifles to do some other testing unrelated to suppressors, and hadn't noticed this yet. Now I'm curious what other platforms might exhibit similar behavior.
There is always some host noise, be it the striker/hammer falling or in a dramatic case, all the various events on a gas gun. In this case, suppressed .22's are so quiet that a something as "minor" as -- hypothetically -- the striker causing some other part of the gun to ring, can easily be louder than the muzzle report to the mic that is very close to the action.
Now I'm feeling the urge to formally mic up a dry-fire session and see what the worst offender is (both in absolute terms and relative to typical suppressed SE values).
When I was getting my data acq system configured, I did take a couple measurements of whatever rifle was mounted on the tripod at the time (AXMC, maybe?) and the peak value were higher than expected - something north of 115 dB IIRC. There was no real area under the curve so it's negligible in terms of hearing risk, but that's still kinda loud.
Dryfire 121+ dB
I think we have another video of dryfire on an AI around somewhere too-- ahh here it is:
I didn't even realize you'd done the whole thing again in 2024! Had to scroll up and see the new link, LOL. Next year, test 300 blackout on a short barrel. There's only like 3 guys shooting a 16" 300 blackout in the whole world. I kid I kid. But seriously, shorter barrel.
I'm still digesting all the data but it's interesting in that of all the suppressors I own, and my personal experiences with them on my hosts, they line up with your data in that I really can't tell much of a difference between them. This despite how different they all are in size, construction and configuration.
I was pretty surprised how well the Ventum did vs. the other Huxwrx 5.56 cans. On some of the shooter's ear data, notably the .30 cal suppressors on a 5.56 host, they're all within like 3db or less of one and other for shooter's ear dBa.
@Zak Smith : TBAC 2024 Silencer Summit Sound Test Results - Data Mod Request
Zak, thank you so much for you and your team's efforts to test and compile this enormous amount of work. Thank You.
I have what I hope is an easy and simple modification request to the data set and / or formatting.
Within the broad results displayed, there are last lines within some of the tabulations that show the "bare muzzle" test result.
I notice that not every table shows the base muzzle result. That makes it very difficult to determine how well that table's entries have performed against a base muzzle result. There is essentially no comparisons to be made against the bare muzzle since the entry is lacking.
Would you please add that information to the table entries where it's missing?
Thank You!
Zak, thank you so much for you and your team's efforts to test and compile this enormous amount of work. Thank You.
I have what I hope is an easy and simple modification request to the data set and / or formatting.
Within the broad results displayed, there are last lines within some of the tabulations that show the "bare muzzle" test result.
I notice that not every table shows the base muzzle result. That makes it very difficult to determine how well that table's entries have performed against a base muzzle result. There is essentially no comparisons to be made against the bare muzzle since the entry is lacking.
Would you please add that information to the table entries where it's missing?
Thank You!
I was able to parse the 300 BLK results to determine how well the represented cans that were not optimized for subsonic, how well they actually did (or not) for the subsonic testing.
That is, there is alot of discussion but not much data, about using cans that are designed for supers and using them in a subs role. What Zak et al have presented here, is a very valuable addition to that knowledge base. Even at 16" barrel testing, you can obtain apples to apples comparisons with the same cans using Supers. A simple difference value will tell you pretty quick about which is doing a better job in a Subs role. Notice also that there is no 300 Supers data sets.
As I think about it, another data table variable may be needed for the Subs data sets to be most useful: A Velocity column. There's no question that the Supers do not become transonic except well downrange from the muzzle. But, unless you're told (via tabulated data), you dont know if the bullet starts down the tube as subsonic, or if it will actually becomes transonic shortly after leaving the muzzle. I think this would substantially affect the test results.
What do you think?
Similar threads
