Suppressors Griffin Armament's NEW! Silencer Testing Standard

GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT · Jan 5, 2023

Hey Guys,

Just wanted to let you know that we've altered our sound testing technique a bit. Instead of just continuing on with the standard PEAK impulse decibel data, we wanted to provide more information for customers regarding dosing data.

We contacted Hottinger Brüel & Kjær, inquiring how we'd be able to utilize our equipment and software to do such. They recommended researching the US Army Development Command's Army Research Laboratory AHAAH (Auditory Hazard Assessment Algorithm for Humans), as this is a supported function in the HBK PULSE LabShop software we possess.

Peak decibel data will still be present, as that is the loudest portion of the waveform, but this will be accompanied by more info. Data will include :

Peak dB sound pressure level reading
LAeq A-weighted Equivalent Continuous Sound Pressure Level (average A weighted dB sound pressure for the waveform over the defined time in milliseconds)
Leq Unweighted Equivalent Continuous Sound Pressure Level (average unweighted dB sound pressure for the waveform over the defined time in milliseconds)
Number of exposures with no protector worn, "warned" (how many gun shots would be safe to fire or be in the immediate vicinity of, daily and weekly, for an anticipating observer) applying to 95% of the exposed population
Source document of waveform graphic and table
Descriptive summary of testing

Auditory Hazard Assessment Algorithm for Humans (AHAAH)
History of Brüel & Kjær

HERE IS OUR NEWEST VIDEO USING THIS NEWLY INCORPORATED STANDARD :

Prior to using this new (to us) sound test method, we've been including flash data for the suppressors tested. These videos include photos showing the flash signature of FRP, Shot #2, & Shot #3 of the listed suppressors :

Allen Engineering

AEM 5 vs Griffin Armament

DUAL-LOK

PSR

5 | Sound Testing Overview
SIG SAUER

SLX556-QD vs DUAL-LOK

5 | Sound Testing Overview
Dead Air

SIERRA-5 | DUAL-LOK

HRT-556

| EXPLORR

.224 | Sound Testing Overview

E. Bryant · Jan 5, 2023

Repost:

Griffin Armory Silencer Testing Standard

https://www.griffinarmament.com/blog/introduction-to-griffin-armaments-silencer-testing-standard-/ It would appear that @GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT is advocating the use of the AHAAH model, which IMO isn't the worst idea in the world. (Background information is available here for those who are not...

www.snipershide.com

Generally speaking, I like your approach.

GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT · Jan 5, 2023

We've been communicating with a few different entities that also have the required equipment to perform this testing method and are seriously interested in doing so. We can perform the testing with our gear, and you should be able to get pretty similar results with yours. If not, it opens up the discussion as to why they were dissimilar.

_Windrider_ · Jan 5, 2023

GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT said:
Hey Guys,

Just wanted to let you know that we've altered our sound testing technique a bit. Instead of just continuing on with the standard PEAK impulse decibel data, we wanted to provide more information for customers regarding dosing data.

We contacted Hottinger Brüel & Kjær, inquiring how we'd be able to utilize our equipment and software to do such. They recommended researching the US Army Development Command's Army Research Laboratory AHAAH (Auditory Hazard Assessment Algorithm for Humans), as this is a supported function in the HBK PULSE LabShop software we possess.

Peak decibel data will still be present, as that is the loudest portion of the waveform, but this will be accompanied by more info. Data will include :

Peak dB sound pressure level reading

LAeq A-weighted Equivalent Continuous Sound Pressure Level (average A weighted dB sound pressure for the waveform over the defined time in milliseconds)

Leq Unweighted Equivalent Continuous Sound Pressure Level (average unweighted dB sound pressure for the waveform over the defined time in milliseconds)

Number of exposures with no protector worn, "warned" (how many gun shots would be safe to fire or be in the immediate vicinity of, daily and weekly, for an anticipating observer) applying to 95% of the exposed population

Source document of waveform graphic and table

Descriptive summary of testing

Auditory Hazard Assessment Algorithm for Humans (AHAAH)
History of Brüel & Kjær

HERE IS OUR NEWEST VIDEO USING THIS NEWLY INCORPORATED STANDARD :

Prior to using this new (to us) sound test method, we've been including flash data for the suppressors tested. These videos include photos showing the flash signature of FRP, Shot #2, & Shot #3 of the listed suppressors :

Allen Engineering AEM 5 vs Griffin Armament DUAL-LOK PSR 5 | Sound Testing Overview
SIG SAUER SLX556-QD vs DUAL-LOK 5 | Sound Testing Overview
Dead Air SIERRA-5 | DUAL-LOK HRT-556 | EXPLORR .224 | Sound Testing Overview

2 different silencers using different guns? Why didn’t you test the same gun with both silencers? dbs aren’t all that matters. Almost every silencer is close. It’s more about impulse and felt recoil and blowback all. Of which are different with every gun and every setup. The db thing is like FOM when it comes to night vision. It’s a neat number but really isn’t the most important factor.

But at the end of the day there has to be a testing standard and all manufacturers need to comply with that standard otherwise it’s all meaningless marketing hype.

GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT · Jan 5, 2023

The PRI rifle was used with the AEM5 as the AEM5 has a very specific two piece mounting system and cannot be interfaced to standard barrels. The PRI gun was PRI built and is the best embodiment of the platform to showcase the AEM5 on since it was used in the SOPMOD package for the MK12 MODH. We tested the PSR 5 on a Griffin AR-15 as this would be an ideal platform for this suppressor, and it might just so happen to be an item we manufacture...

_Windrider_ · Jan 5, 2023

GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT said:
The PRI rifle was used with the AEM5 as the AEM5 has a very specific two piece mounting system and cannot be interfaced to standard barrels. The PRI gun was PRI built and is the best embodiment of the platform to showcase the AEM5 on since it was used in the SOPMOD package for the MK12 MODH. We tested the PSR 5 on a Griffin AR-15 as this would be an ideal platform for this suppressor, and it might just so happen to be an item we manufacture...

I mean I get why you did it, I have two mk12’s and an aem5. I was just saying it’s hard to compare the two because the platforms are completely different. Not to mention the mk12 was designed for mk262 77gr not 55 but that shouldn’t change much.

It’s difficult to have a standard with things like proprietary mounting systems, etc etc. but where possible, the same gun should be used to test different silencers because it matters too.

GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT · Jan 5, 2023

I understand what you are saying too. I'm sorry we couldn't totally reduce variables, and protect the factory configuration of the collectible PRI gun we bought for the test.

The PRI gun was a factory built gun, built in the "correct" way- with shims and a crush washer clocked no more than 90 degrees, the way Crane does it. Crush washers aren't supposed to be re-usable. It had the barrel profile to work with the AEM5. We wanted to leave it as configured because it is a collectible gun, that is in a correct properly working configuration. Two 16" barrels isn't all that different. We also needed to shoot POI shift comparisons and we wanted to do that on the same day, so we settup two rifles to do that outside on the same day. We also want to remind people we make rifles that they can buy, so our rifle appeared in the video.

Both rifles performed similarly for accuracy, both rifles performed fairly similarly for POI, they also performed pretty similarly for sound, with the AEM 5 winning in peak A weighted sound, and the Griffin winning in ARU dosing. Both cans are good, both rifles are good.

We're comfortable with saying Allen Engineering's AEM-5 can is a better sound performer, as we have limited experience with ARU's and we have a lot of experience with A-weighted peak testing, and I think that's really how the video portrays this comparison. Ron's a really nice guy, and Ops/Allen has a long history that we appreciate. We're proud to own the can and the Precision Reflex Rifle, and we are happy to show the Allen can tested on the SPR Mod Holland rifle, letting people who don't own the combination know how it performs in POI shift, flash, and sound in a more comprehensive manner than we've ever seen anyone relate that about a sound suppressor previously.

The PSR-5 is the length of the slightly shorter AEM-4, but we compared it to the AEM-5 because as a sniper owned company, the AEM-5, and its relationship to the Ops 12th model that preceded it, was more interesting to us. It is probably safe to say the AEM-5 is the star of the Allen Engineering line-up, and the item people are most interested in, even though there are a bunch of other cool cans like the Gordon carbine cans, and the M24A2's third model. I'm glad the AEM-5 did such a good job representing Allen Engineering, because Allen Engineering is essentially the existing representation of an OG company we have a lot of respect for, that is unfortunately no longer in business.

_Windrider_ · Jan 5, 2023

GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT said:
I understand what you are saying too. I'm sorry we couldn't totally reduce variables, and protect the factory configuration of the collectible PRI gun we bought for the test.

The PRI gun was a factory built gun, built in the "correct" way- with shims and a crush washer clocked no more than 90 degrees, the way Crane does it. Crush washers aren't supposed to be re-usable. It had the barrel profile to work with the AEM5. We wanted to leave it as configured because it is a collectible gun, that is in a correct properly working configuration. Two 16" barrels isn't all that different. We also needed to shoot POI shift comparisons and we wanted to do that on the same day, so we settup two rifles to do that outside on the same day. We also want to remind people we make rifles that they can buy, so our rifle appeared in the video.

Both rifles performed similarly for accuracy, both rifles performed fairly similarly for POI, they also performed pretty similarly for sound, with the AEM 5 winning in peak A weighted sound, and the Griffin winning in ARU dosing. Both cans are good, both rifles are good.

We're comfortable with saying Allen Engineering's AEM-5 can is a better sound performer, as we have limited experience with ARU's and we have a lot of experience with A-weighted peak testing, and I think that's really how the video portrays this comparison. Ron's a really nice guy, and Ops/Allen has a long history that we appreciate. We're proud to own the can and the Precision Reflex Rifle, and we are happy to show the Allen can tested on the SPR Mod Holland rifle, letting people who don't own the combination know how it performs in POI shift, flash, and sound in a more comprehensive manner than we've ever seen anyone relate that about a sound suppressor previously.

The PSR-5 is the length of the slightly shorter AEM-4, but we compared it to the AEM-5 because as a sniper owned company, the AEM-5, and its relationship to the Ops 12th model that preceded it, was more interesting to us. It is probably safe to say the AEM-5 is the star of the Allen Engineering line-up, and the item people are most interested in, even though there are a bunch of other cool cans like the Gordon carbine cans, and the M24A2's third model. I'm glad the AEM-5 did such a good job representing Allen Engineering, because Allen Engineering is essentially the existing representation of an OG company we have a lot of respect for, that is unfortunately no longer in business.

I would never have expected you to modify the mk12. I think my point got lost somewhere. I’ll just stop. Your methodology is sound. I’m not disputing it. All I’m saying is if we are going to compare two silencers, use the same gun. If you were testing for a military contract you’d have to test it on the platform it was being fielded on right? That’s all I’m saying. Im out.

_Windrider_ · Jan 5, 2023

Last thing, we were talking about this over here too just so you know.

Griffin Armory Silencer Testing Standard

https://www.griffinarmament.com/blog/introduction-to-griffin-armaments-silencer-testing-standard-/ It would appear that @GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT is advocating the use of the AHAAH model, which IMO isn't the worst idea in the world. (Background information is available here for those who are not...

www.snipershide.com

GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT · Jan 12, 2023

TacticalDillhole said:
Last thing, we were talking about this over here too just so you know.

Griffin Armory Silencer Testing Standard

https://www.griffinarmament.com/blog/introduction-to-griffin-armaments-silencer-testing-standard-/ It would appear that @GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT is advocating the use of the AHAAH model, which IMO isn't the worst idea in the world. (Background information is available here for those who are not...

www.snipershide.com

Thanks for the heads up. I understand people's desire to have more information, and we are trying to help them get that, as are the guys at TBAC. There is more information out there than there formerly was. I think we're doing what we can to help people better understand silencer performance.

BaizuoBeGone · Feb 17, 2023

I have the HRT and DL7 in jail (haha, sure wish I knew about the Feb sale, as they went in on the 12th and 17th of Jan). I really appreciate you using scientific data to move your designs forward. I was sold on the dual-lok mounting system. I just wish you guys had some more independent reviews. I'm not even talking scientific data per se. Just some of the more trusted/non-bias guntubers out there. Either way, Thanks for all you're doing, and I can't wait to own my first two suppressors.

GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT · Feb 17, 2023

BaizuoBeGone said:
I have the HRT and DL7 in jail (haha, sure wish I knew about the Feb sale, as they went in on the 12th and 17th of Jan). I really appreciate you using scientific data to move your designs forward. I was sold on the dual-lok mounting system. I just wish you guys had some more independent reviews. I'm not even talking scientific data per se. Just some of the more trusted/non-bias guntubers out there. Either way, Thanks for all you're doing, and I can't wait to own my first two suppressors.

Thanks for the feedback. On youtube we would be happy to work with people who are relevant AKA 20,000+ views on videos. The connections aren't easy to make.

Genesis1984 · Oct 27, 2024

GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT said:
Thanks for the heads up. I understand people's desire to have more information, and we are trying to help them get that, as are the guys at TBAC. There is more information out there than there formerly was. I think we're doing what we can to help people better understand silencer performance.

Its funny you think thos is relevant when you could just use the 3rd party used by others. You arent doing shit except advertising. Pew science isnt perfect, but better than this biased bullshit. But, typical griffin method. Copy someone else and pretend they're original.

Search

Search

Download Gravity Ballistics

Having trouble using the site?

Subscribe to HideTV with code XMAS20 for 20% Off

Suppressors Griffin Armament's NEW! Silencer Testing Standard

GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT

Official Sniper's Hide account of Griffin Armament

E. Bryant

STABILITRAK ACTIVE

Griffin Armory Silencer Testing Standard

GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT

Official Sniper's Hide account of Griffin Armament

_Windrider_

Shiner of shoes

GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT

Official Sniper's Hide account of Griffin Armament

_Windrider_

Shiner of shoes

GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT

Official Sniper's Hide account of Griffin Armament

_Windrider_

Shiner of shoes

_Windrider_

Shiner of shoes

Griffin Armory Silencer Testing Standard

GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT

Official Sniper's Hide account of Griffin Armament

Griffin Armory Silencer Testing Standard

BaizuoBeGone

Private

GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT

Official Sniper's Hide account of Griffin Armament

Genesis1984

Private

Similar threads