15 10
empty. 122.9 127.8
mag. 122.8 125.1
RNDs 116.6 123.3
Suppressors AR15 v AR10 bolt drop sound test
- Thread starter TBACRAY
- Start date
15 10
empty. 122.9 127.8
mag. 122.8 125.1
RNDs 116.6 123.3
The point is if we know what the bottom is we have something to shoot for. Also we can tell when someone is talking shit
I'm sorry, I am stupid. I do not understand the point of the test. Would you take a few moments to explain to the lower IQ folks among us?
It's kind of hard to claim your super silencer is 115db when the action all by itself is 122db (or whatever the number was).
So, let's just get this clear:
A guy shooting an AR-10 is going to be shooting from a fully loaded AR, round in chamber, rounds in magazine.
Are you claiming that when a person runs out of rounds after shooting them suppressed is going to give himself by dropping a bolt on a full mag? Do you think a person in a position to be using one of these rifles at distance is going to be able to load a round without making a lot of noise?
Again...I have absolutely no idea what your point is. You are claiming a guy dropping the bolt with a full mag is going to give his distance away?
Please do the same "test" at distances of at least 500 yards.
Otherwise, honesly, this is total nonsense.
What the hell are you talking about. We make suppressors. If I know an empty gun running is 125dB then I know when I see a company claiming 115 dB at shooters ear we know its crap. It also gives a number to shoot for as far as suppression. 22 cans are pretty much there right now. Shooters ear numbers are right there with a dry fire and subs both being 114-115ish at shooters ear
Last edited:
Are you having a stroke?
Again, what is your point? What difference is any of this going to make out at 100 yards, 200, 300, 400, 500 yards?
Last edited:
He explained it perfectly.
Great test, I had no idea the bolt closings were that loud.
I guess this is a point that the bolt gun platforms have an advantage in depending on how you run them.
I suppose another thing would be that if you wanted to be all super quiet sneaky like, it might be a decent idea to have an adjustable gas block where you could totally turn off the gas (like you can on the FN-FAL) if you wanted to take a super quiet suppressed shot from your AR and not spook other close game or such.
I guess this is a point that the bolt gun platforms have an advantage in depending on how you run them.
I suppose another thing would be that if you wanted to be all super quiet sneaky like, it might be a decent idea to have an adjustable gas block where you could totally turn off the gas (like you can on the FN-FAL) if you wanted to take a super quiet suppressed shot from your AR and not spook other close game or such.
I've seen some amazingly stupid people on the internet, but they usually come by it honestly. This dude is literally working hard for his award.
TBACRAY, I've always wondered what those numbers would be, and I thank you for posting the video and the numbers.
TBACRAY, I've always wondered what those numbers would be, and I thank you for posting the video and the numbers.
Why not include the sound rating for each being fired to include in the test. I get what your doing but in these type of experiments the sound created by the rifle as it cycles when fired isn’t the same as what your test suggests.... probably close I’m sure but not the same, rendering the test not very useful? Not trying to talk shit just trying to understand what we are gaining
The assumption is that the sound of the action cycling is going to be basically the same as dropping the bolt.
Some of us have known for years on a 9mm submachine gun, the sound of the bolt cycling is louder than the suppressed firing.... and even the brass hitting a concrete floor can sometimes be louder than a suppressed shot.
One of the original "hush puppies" i shot had a slide lock to make the action noise go away.
Most people dont understand there can be a need for a quieter presentation, where in forward edge of battle the action noise of a semi auto is drowned out by other noise, but in a dead quiet place, it can be heard.
Back in dinosaur days when snipers only had bolt guns there wasnt a large amount of action cycling noise. And there was a perception that amount of quiet was neccessary. I was trained to that perception by several RVN vets who ran the in country sniper program back when dinosaurs were first evolving.
In an urban hide, if the instructor could hear you cycle the bolt from the next room through the open door, there were push-ups, runs, and other punishments.
I personally can see the noise claim experiment from a manufacturers standpoint.... to prove a point,
However, my suppressor company can claim my decibel reduction is 115.2 (on a bolt gun that has no action noise) and be very correct...
And not tell anybody we used a bolt gun to get those results, so, when Ray or Zac challenge me later in the bar, using the action noise argument that my can isnt 115.2, they just might have to buy the next round when I prove it is..... on the bolt gun.
Those arguments can get real silly sometimes...
Some if this is all advertising hype, to make one company look smarter than another.
In the real world, when we shoot ar variants at night, in the dead quiet, I can hear if the action cycles correctly or in the nasty cold front, and I didnt clean off the old grease and gunk, I can hear the failure to cycle, and know I only have that one shot I just fired. And it's much louder with one can I have than a couple others I have. Its different enough, my shooting partner can hear the malfunction and say, "you're down, clear it..." and I can hear his.
This might be useless trivia to some people, but it can be interesting to others.
Either way, it's a good experiment and just a bit more information that adds to the mix.
Some people will never understand things other people do.... it's all in the frame of reference each of us lives in, and how important some things are to each person.
I like being able to hear my shooting partners ar platform's malfunction in the pitch black darkness because it tells me what I have to cover while hes down.....
And, on the other end, my can may reduce to 115.2, and I dont give a shit the action noise is 125.2 (hypothetically), it doesnt really give tbaks a real argument point when another vendors can is quieter than action noise in reality.
Depends on the end users needs and mission requirements.
Ymmv a lot, vr
I wrote this b4 a couple of edits, and the claim the reduction at shooters ear is xxx.x when action noise is louder..... didnt catch "at the shooters ear"...
But, what does the shooter hear first, the exit noise, which does occur first, or the action noise, which occurs after the bullet has left the muzzle... a millisecond % later, which noise does the shooters ear perceive first.
Technobabology...
One of the original "hush puppies" i shot had a slide lock to make the action noise go away.
Most people dont understand there can be a need for a quieter presentation, where in forward edge of battle the action noise of a semi auto is drowned out by other noise, but in a dead quiet place, it can be heard.
Back in dinosaur days when snipers only had bolt guns there wasnt a large amount of action cycling noise. And there was a perception that amount of quiet was neccessary. I was trained to that perception by several RVN vets who ran the in country sniper program back when dinosaurs were first evolving.
In an urban hide, if the instructor could hear you cycle the bolt from the next room through the open door, there were push-ups, runs, and other punishments.
I personally can see the noise claim experiment from a manufacturers standpoint.... to prove a point,
However, my suppressor company can claim my decibel reduction is 115.2 (on a bolt gun that has no action noise) and be very correct...
And not tell anybody we used a bolt gun to get those results, so, when Ray or Zac challenge me later in the bar, using the action noise argument that my can isnt 115.2, they just might have to buy the next round when I prove it is..... on the bolt gun.
Those arguments can get real silly sometimes...
Some if this is all advertising hype, to make one company look smarter than another.
In the real world, when we shoot ar variants at night, in the dead quiet, I can hear if the action cycles correctly or in the nasty cold front, and I didnt clean off the old grease and gunk, I can hear the failure to cycle, and know I only have that one shot I just fired. And it's much louder with one can I have than a couple others I have. Its different enough, my shooting partner can hear the malfunction and say, "you're down, clear it..." and I can hear his.
This might be useless trivia to some people, but it can be interesting to others.
Either way, it's a good experiment and just a bit more information that adds to the mix.
Some people will never understand things other people do.... it's all in the frame of reference each of us lives in, and how important some things are to each person.
I like being able to hear my shooting partners ar platform's malfunction in the pitch black darkness because it tells me what I have to cover while hes down.....
And, on the other end, my can may reduce to 115.2, and I dont give a shit the action noise is 125.2 (hypothetically), it doesnt really give tbaks a real argument point when another vendors can is quieter than action noise in reality.
Depends on the end users needs and mission requirements.
Ymmv a lot, vr
I wrote this b4 a couple of edits, and the claim the reduction at shooters ear is xxx.x when action noise is louder..... didnt catch "at the shooters ear"...
But, what does the shooter hear first, the exit noise, which does occur first, or the action noise, which occurs after the bullet has left the muzzle... a millisecond % later, which noise does the shooters ear perceive first.
Technobabology...
Last edited:
Not wanting to get into an argument because the data speaks for itself, but a few small points
Well, it kinda does if someone quotes less than the known action noise on the same semi-auto rifle.
You put a PULSE mic at the shooter's ear, you have the shooter's ear number-- period.
"Most people don't understand there can be a need for a quieter presentation, where in forward edge of battle the action noise of a semi auto is drowned out by other noise, but in a dead quiet place, it can be heard."
I'm completely aware of this reality, but shooting a 5.56 rifle (most usually a SBR for that matter), suppressed, in a quite space where a person would be close enough to notice the bolt dropping will still be making noise and so I don't know what difference the bolt dropping will make, and double the concern for 7.62 in such a quiet space. I would not regard a suppressed 5.56 or 7.62 in an interior space to "quiet" ... the shot will be heard over the bolt cycling in both instances, even with the best suppression.
Handguns? Now there's another story...for instance, an integrally suppressed .22LR, etc.
Hence my questions and confusion about the "why" of this "test"
I'm completely aware of this reality, but shooting a 5.56 rifle (most usually a SBR for that matter), suppressed, in a quite space where a person would be close enough to notice the bolt dropping will still be making noise and so I don't know what difference the bolt dropping will make, and double the concern for 7.62 in such a quiet space. I would not regard a suppressed 5.56 or 7.62 in an interior space to "quiet" ... the shot will be heard over the bolt cycling in both instances, even with the best suppression.
Handguns? Now there's another story...for instance, an integrally suppressed .22LR, etc.
Hence my questions and confusion about the "why" of this "test"
Because:
1. the mechanical sound of the action when shot is at least as loud as the sound of dropping the bolt;
2. silencers do not reduce the mechanical sound of the action;
3. therefor, we can conclude that the total sound signature when suppressed cannot be quieter than the sound of just dropping the bolt (from step 1)
1. the mechanical sound of the action when shot is at least as loud as the sound of dropping the bolt;
2. silencers do not reduce the mechanical sound of the action;
3. therefor, we can conclude that the total sound signature when suppressed cannot be quieter than the sound of just dropping the bolt (from step 1)
And the practical application of this would be...what? I'm trying to think of a situation where you would be entering a house/room, with a suppressed AR that has not been made hot, so a shot is taken, suppressed, and the next, etc. etc.
I did not know anyone actually was unaware that suppressors do not suppress the mechanical action of the rifle.
For that matter, I'd find the test more interesting if the sound meter was placed twenty yards or so downrange, not right next to the shooter.
I did not know anyone actually was unaware that suppressors do not suppress the mechanical action of the rifle.
For that matter, I'd find the test more interesting if the sound meter was placed twenty yards or so downrange, not right next to the shooter.
The experiment gives data useful for R&D, of general interest to suppressor geeks, and that helps call out when "impossible data" is posted to the internet. Just like Ray said,
Obviously it is a baseline test, obviously a suppressor does not do anything about the mechanical noise of a rifle, centuriator I think does get all that but where y’all lose me is... post all those recorded base lines except the actual one you are specifically trying to address (the level of sound created by the rifle cycling the shot.)
yes I can see they are still useful and one can logically assume you can sub that for the missing variable (sound of rifle cycling).
It just seems to throw all the data away by just turning around and saying well we know it has to be at least as loud as that so there, case closed or proven but it’s not.
Full disclosure I’ve been running TBAC cans for 9 years and am waiting on a new one now. Y’all make the best precision rifle silencer on the market but I’m not the guy to just automatically drink anybody’s cool Aid if it doesn’t make sense to me.
anyways I’m driving and typing so I can’t do the best job of laying out my thoughts but carry on
yes I can see they are still useful and one can logically assume you can sub that for the missing variable (sound of rifle cycling).
It just seems to throw all the data away by just turning around and saying well we know it has to be at least as loud as that so there, case closed or proven but it’s not.
Full disclosure I’ve been running TBAC cans for 9 years and am waiting on a new one now. Y’all make the best precision rifle silencer on the market but I’m not the guy to just automatically drink anybody’s cool Aid if it doesn’t make sense to me.
anyways I’m driving and typing so I can’t do the best job of laying out my thoughts but carry on
Maybe showing an additional test of shooting suppressed on that rifle several times with the gas turned of and then on so it can cycle would give it more validation than what there is now?
I would thinkif you had that you could basically throw everything out that you started this with as relatively useless data if the purpose of the test is what you state it is
I would thinkif you had that you could basically throw everything out that you started this with as relatively useless data if the purpose of the test is what you state it is
Last edited:
Shooter's ear testing is the quantified measurement of the shooter's experience, not the goat hearder's down range or Shitty McShittum's while getting zapped in his kitchen. If the action noise is 125db then the suppressed gunshot will be at least that loud to the shooter. The silencer world has a lot of shysters in it's orbit so publishing baseline tests help to both educate end users as well as dispell erroneous claims. If you find autos icky or you need Phil's tests from 35 years ago reproduced maybe this isnt the thread for you.
Last edited:
Well, you cannot magically erase the pressure-related noise (the shot firing noise) and just measure the mechanism sound, and to produce that "ideal baseline" you have to actually fire a shot. At least, not in a way that is easily and clearly demonstrable and not arguable.
Shooting the gun with the gas turned on and off tells us nothing about the mechanical sound because it is drowned out by the muzzle report.
On the PULSE, we can actually identify in the waveform both the muzzle report and the port noise; however, distilling a partial waveform down to a single dB number like we can for an entire "firing event" would be "open to interpretation" (hence the comments about being clearly demonstrable and inarguable). The bottom line is that the action noise is no quieter than these numbers, so be it mil-spec left/right or shooter's ear, if you see a number lower than that quoted on an AR platform, it should raise a lot of question marks.
Similar threads
