Best flow through suppressor
- Thread starter psharon78
- Start date
I bought three Silencerco Velos LBP, I started out wanting to buy one 7.62 Caliber can. At the time Silencer Central had a Bogo deal. Spend $1,100 dollar can and get the Silencerco Omega 300 for free. At the time the Velos had just came out. So bought that and got The other at the time $999 Omega 300 for free which is strictly used for hunting rifles. Once I shot the Velos I wont shoot any other can on a AR platform. Then they came out with the Velos K which I ordered for my 10.3" Mark 18. Then I had to buy the velos in 7.62 for my 6.5 Grendal and 6 Arc. The Velos Suppresors are full auto rated, no min barrel length and are bomb proof. Shot a huxwork and Surfire RC3. Better sound and flash suppression then Huxwork with same flow so almost no blow back. RC3 had allot more blow back then other two with minium sound difference plus much more money. For testing and wealth of knowledge on almost all supressors watch The Jay Situation At Pew Science. Here is link for Velos, hope it helps other people looking for I think best Flow Through can. At the time of this post they are out of stock for 7.62 Velos and 5.56 Velos K everywhere.
We The People
I bought three Silencerco Velos LBP, I started out wanting to buy one 7.62 Caliber can. At the time Silencer Central had a Bogo deal. Spend $1,100 dollar can and get the Silencerco Omega 300 for free. At the time the Velos had just came out. So bought that and got The other at the time $999 Omega 300 for free which is strictly used for hunting rifles. Once I shot the Velos I wont shoot any other can on a AR platform. Then they came out with the Velos K which I ordered for my 10.3" Mark 18. Then I had to buy the velos in 7.62 for my 6.5 Grendal and 6 Arc. The Velos Suppresors are full auto rated, no min barrel length and are bomb proof. Shot a huxwork and Surfire RC3. Better sound and flash suppression then Huxwork with same flow so almost no blow back. RC3 had allot more blow back then other two with minium sound difference plus much more money. For testing and wealth of knowledge on almost all supressors watch The Jay Situation At Pew Science. Here is link for Velos, hope it helps other people looking for I think best Flow Through can. At the time of this post they are out of stock for 7.62 Velos and 5.56 Velos K everywhere.
We The People
Alignment
Insert linkInsert imageMore options…
UndoMore options…
Preview
Text colorFont familyStrike-throughUnderlineInline codeInline spoiler
SmiliesMediaQuoteInsert tableInsert horizontal lineSpoilerCodeGallery embed
RedoRemove formattingToggle BB codeDrafts
Write your reply...
Post reply
Attach files
Radical Defense LS3 Ti on gas guns
2
Jun 22, 2024
[IMG alt="phlukefenny"]https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/data/avatars/s/218/218246.jpg?1705788073[/IMG]
Shooting 6mm ARC through a 6.5mm or 6mm Suppressor?
69
May 18, 2024
B
Best suppressor for 300WM gas gun
44
Apr 14, 2024
A
Suppressors Radical Defense LS3 Ti in the house
24
Jul 28, 2024
[IMG alt="carbonbased"]https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/data/avatars/s/125/125655.jpg?1573650098[/IMG]
Broken-down man wants gas+dB AR suppressor advice
41
Oct 9, 2023
Share:
FacebookX (Twitter)WhatsAppEmailLink
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts
We The People
We The People
Alignment
- Align left
- Align center
- Align right
- Justify text
Insert linkInsert imageMore options…
UndoMore options…
Preview
Text colorFont familyStrike-throughUnderlineInline codeInline spoiler
SmiliesMediaQuoteInsert tableInsert horizontal lineSpoilerCodeGallery embed
RedoRemove formattingToggle BB codeDrafts
Write your reply...
Post reply
Attach files
Similar threads
ARadical Defense LS3 Ti on gas guns
2
Jun 22, 2024
[IMG alt="phlukefenny"]https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/data/avatars/s/218/218246.jpg?1705788073[/IMG]
Shooting 6mm ARC through a 6.5mm or 6mm Suppressor?
69
May 18, 2024
B
Best suppressor for 300WM gas gun
44
Apr 14, 2024
A
Suppressors Radical Defense LS3 Ti in the house
24
Jul 28, 2024
[IMG alt="carbonbased"]https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/data/avatars/s/125/125655.jpg?1573650098[/IMG]
Broken-down man wants gas+dB AR suppressor advice
41
Oct 9, 2023
Share:
FacebookX (Twitter)WhatsAppEmailLink
- Forums
- The Hide Armory
- Semi-Automatic Rifles
- Realms: Sniper's Hide (Dark)
- Contact us
- Terms and rules
- Privacy policy
- Help
- Home
- RSS
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts
Sniper's Hide Forum would like your permission to enable push notifications.
I bought three Silencerco Velos LBP, I started out wanting to buy one 7.62 Caliber can. At the time Silencer Central had a Bogo deal. Spend $1,100 dollar can and get the Silencerco Omega 300 for free. At the time the Velos had just came out. So bought that and got The other at the time $999 Omega 300 for free which is strictly used for hunting rifles. Once I shot the Velos I wont shoot any other can on a AR platform. Then they came out with the Velos K which I ordered for my 10.3" Mark 18. Then I had to buy the velos in 7.62 for my 6.5 Grendal and 6 Arc. The Velos Suppresors are full auto rated, no min barrel length and are bomb proof. Shot a huxwork and Surfire RC3. Better sound and flash suppression then Huxwork with same flow so almost no blow back. RC3 had allot more blow back then other two with minium sound difference plus much more money. For testing and wealth of knowledge on almost all supressors watch The Jay Situation At Pew Science. Here is link for Velos, hope it helps other people looking for I think best Flow Through can. At the time of this post they are out of stock for 7.62 Velos and 5.56 Velos K everywhere.
We The People
Without skimming the thread...
Anyone tested multiple flow through designs under NODs? What I have heard is that a bunch of them cause a lot of flash compared to traditional baffle stacks.
Anyone tested multiple flow through designs under NODs? What I have heard is that a bunch of them cause a lot of flash compared to traditional baffle stacks.
The new Knights PRG cans have incredibly low flash- the lowest I've seen in a suppressor
The HuxWrx Flow sparked pretty good under nods the one time I used it, I can't speak to others.
I would think about it as a type of suppressor. If you buy a 3D printed titanium can, it has been our experience that they spark or burp flash every couple of rounds initially. The one that immediately jumps out was our first Huxwrx flow. Having said that, we had shot it and after maybe a couple of hundred rounds it dropped off quite a bit. After the first cleaning (soak in clp) it went away completely.
This may be just me but if you start shooting under nods, the can will glow to the point you can see it with both nods and thermals. The glow is much more noticeable then the sparking.
I just got my cat wb 716 inconel and I am having the same issue as others have stated previously, it weighs 14.2 ounces with no mount installed. My dead air nomad even weighs less than the cat wb. Silencer shop still has the cat wb listed at 12.6 ounces. One of the reasons I bought the cat wb is because of the 12.6 advertised weight. I am thinking cat or silencer shop might need to give me and others a $100 refund per every ounce these wb 716 are weighing over the advertised weight.
*EDIT* I have decided to keep the heavier cat wb mil version I received after reading through the reddit forum where CAT addressed this.
Last edited:
FWIW my titanium cobalt scrambler weighs the stated 6.2oz, it feels insane in the hand, doesn’t feel like it can be a real suppressor. And it is not noticeable on the end of the weapon.
If you want quiet, for both the shooter & the audience, & if you believe the PEW data, the Hux 762 Ti & 556 Ti are right at the very top of the heap on AR's.
Small DB differences like 3-5 are nearly impossible to distinguish by ear, so it take instrumentation to be able to split the hairs.
PEW Sound Ratings
MM
Small DB differences like 3-5 are nearly impossible to distinguish by ear, so it take instrumentation to be able to split the hairs.
PEW Sound Ratings
MM
Folks that make suppressors and measure their performance have said on this forum numerous times that a 2-3db increase generally isn't noticable by most people. I don't know about 5 but I think that's probably where MM is coming from.
I have the hux flow 556k. I wouldn’t necessarily classify this can as “quiet” but it does what it’s promised in terms of low back pressure. My buddy has a velos k and says the same thing, and that is a newer and possibly better can from what I’ve read on the subject.
Both of our hosts are shorter barrel ARs, I believe mine is the same setup that was used at pewscience in the original hux short barrel tests, the dd mk18.
I wouldn’t say it’s fun to shoot even outdoors without ear pro, with regular range ammo.
Consequentially, I’ve heard from countless sources that the hux 7.62 suppresses 5.56 significantly better.
I just happened to be reading up on the UM reflex hunting can and saw this post. Seems like it clarifies some of this pretty well. I think technically 6DB is twice the sound pressure, but it doesn't mean it's twice as loud to a humans ear. And I think there's a ton of difference from person to person on what and how they perceive in "loudness" with tone being a factor in false perception.
A 3dBA difference is readily identifiable to human hearing. Really wont be the difference between "quiet" and "loud", but most people will identify a 3dBA higher suppressor as being "louder". It really does matter when you're getting into the safety aspect; 133dB at the ear is different than 130dB at the ear when it comes to exposures.
As far as what's "lost in the noise" (sorry for the pun): about 1.5dBA difference isn't worth getting panty-wadded.
As far as what's "lost in the noise" (sorry for the pun): about 1.5dBA difference isn't worth getting panty-wadded.
Last edited:
I swear I’ve read all of the above explanations and more on various “authoritative” sites on the net (not taking about anybody here or SH). Every time I turn around there’s another confusing dB explanation by some sound engineer or, god forbid, that Pew Science guy.
It’s like it’s beyond them to talk in non-gibberish.
Might as well throw another one into the fire. No idea who is right and my brain is a little tired rn.
Edit: I guess what I’m getting at is no one I’ve found cogently explains “sound pressure” and then draws a simply, easy to understand line to ear damage. For example, if 3dB is doubling the sound pressure, then is 130dB 2x as bad on your hearing than 127dB? If yes (or no), then why??
All the experts want to seem to do is get off on explaining the logarithmic scale over and over again and pasting in that damn chart of “60 dB is the sound of your quietest fart, and 140dB is your wife discovering a motor oil spill in her pantry at 50yds” etc etc.
I have heard that Pew guy talk about hearing damage being different if you’re ready for the sound vs. startled.
And then there’s dosing. Crikey!
I mean, yeah, this big amorphous cloud of dB lingo all sorta makes some sense, sometimes, but I get the vibe that really, not even the experts actually know wtf is going on with hearing damage.
It’s like it’s beyond them to talk in non-gibberish.
Might as well throw another one into the fire. No idea who is right and my brain is a little tired rn.
Edit: I guess what I’m getting at is no one I’ve found cogently explains “sound pressure” and then draws a simply, easy to understand line to ear damage. For example, if 3dB is doubling the sound pressure, then is 130dB 2x as bad on your hearing than 127dB? If yes (or no), then why??
All the experts want to seem to do is get off on explaining the logarithmic scale over and over again and pasting in that damn chart of “60 dB is the sound of your quietest fart, and 140dB is your wife discovering a motor oil spill in her pantry at 50yds” etc etc.
I have heard that Pew guy talk about hearing damage being different if you’re ready for the sound vs. startled.
And then there’s dosing. Crikey!
I mean, yeah, this big amorphous cloud of dB lingo all sorta makes some sense, sometimes, but I get the vibe that really, not even the experts actually know wtf is going on with hearing damage.
Last edited:
One of the surest signs of someone not knowing the topic they pretend to spout "expertise" on, is the inability to say things simply. I have never considered that "Pew Science" site as anything but reddit-styled pseudo-academia.
Skeptic's hat on, I say it sure seems crazy that 3d sinter "printing" objects can be made so damned cheaply (materials & labor) yet sold at such a high price. And the speed of adoption of these sinter-"print" objects outpaces the field results after years/decades in-use.
Sites like "Pew Science" strike me as adjacent marketing, more than anything else.
Skeptic's hat on, I say it sure seems crazy that 3d sinter "printing" objects can be made so damned cheaply (materials & labor) yet sold at such a high price. And the speed of adoption of these sinter-"print" objects outpaces the field results after years/decades in-use.
Sites like "Pew Science" strike me as adjacent marketing, more than anything else.
I think he’s an autistic that kinda doesn’t care that he is near-unintelligible to normal people. And he’s found both a fawning Reddit audience and apparently lucrative side-hustle (or main-hustle?) running paid tests for manufacturers.
Nothing inherently wrong with autistic folks. But Jay/Pew drives me a little insane.
You liked the link that I’m going to share. For others, it was my serious attempt to cut through Pew’s dense thicket of an explanation. With some humor.
Help me Comprehend Silencer Advice
You cared enough to waste your own time to post that you dont care. Thats such an odd way of demonstrating how much you dont care. The rest of us just ignore stuff like that. Congratulations. You cared enough NOT to ignore it.
www.snipershide.com
I dunno about autism, seems to me more like arrogant narcissism combined with inability to admit the limits of his "expertise." I did my ugrad in Bio and at my college, the "Pew Science" data, massaged for "science" pretense, would have been laughed out of the program in either Bio, Chem, or Physics.
I sorta want to ask little "Jay" if he would do some tests on my custom titanium canivoling pins or perhaps my 3d printed exhaust clamp/hanger.
I sorta want to ask little "Jay" if he would do some tests on my custom titanium canivoling pins or perhaps my 3d printed exhaust clamp/hanger.
If that statement was remotely true, a large portion of the industry would have already switched over from the skilled trades necessary for welding, and machine work, to just “3d printing” their inventory. It would be a lot easier to scale, from the labor side, if you just need to add more “printers”.
As it stands, the machine necessary to “3d print” them remain incredibly expensive.
It’s why companies like OCL can continue to make budget priced cans and sell based on volume. The older production method remains cheaper and simpler.
Is it possible that you’re asking to oversimplify the subject…?
This is like saying, “explain back pain to me, it’s so simple, why aren’t any of you experts on it?”, ignoring that even though its one of the largest sectors of our healthcare industry, the treatments remains some of the least successful, and maintain some of the worst re-injury and repeat operation rates.
It sure is a lot easier to criticize others attempting to decode a complex subject and educate the masses than to contribute anything worth reading of your own.
What is "hearing damage"?
Intense sound energy can injure the delicate structures of the inner ear (cochlea). At very high sound levels, mechanical trauma occurs: the violent vibration from an intense noise (such as an explosion or firecracker) can physically tear apart parts of the inner ear – the membranes of the sensory hair cells and their stereocilia (the “hair” projections) (https://medicine.umich.edu/dept/khr...ext=NIHL is caused by a,of the inner ear, the)
At more moderate (but still hazardous) noise levels, metabolic and chemical damage dominates: essentially, “overdriving” the ear with continuous or repeated loud sounds overwhelms the sensory hair cells, inducing excessive metabolic activity and oxidative stress inside the cochlea. https://medicine.umich.edu/dept/khr... firecracker,oxidative stress and reduced CBF
The human inner ear contains thousands of sensory hair cells that convert sound vibrations into nerve signals. Once these cells or their connecting nerve fibers are damaged and die due to noise, they do not regenerate or grow back in humans. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/no...Most NIHL is caused by,They are gone for good
Noise exposure typically first damages the outer hair cells (which amplify and tune sound) and can also damage inner hair cells or the auditory nerve connections. Early on, this may cause temporary threshold shifts (a reversible elevation of hearing thresholds), but with repeated or severe exposures the damage accumulates into permanent threshold shifts (permanent hearing loss). https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/noise-induced-hearing-loss#:~:text=can occur in one or,both ears
In some cases, an extremely loud burst can even rupture the eardrum or dislodge the tiny ossicle bones of the middle ear, causing immediate hearing loss and pain. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/no...also be caused,can be immediate and permanent
The key point is that loud sound, whether one-time or cumulative, injures the ear’s cells and structures in ways that the body cannot naturally repair, underscoring the importance of prevention.
Sound intensity is measured in decibels (dB), usually with A-weighting (dBA) to account for human ear sensitivity. The higher the decibel level, the louder the sound and the less exposure time is needed to cause harm. Researchers and regulators have identified certain thresholds above which the risk of hearing damage rises sharply.
Above 85 dB to ~100 dB(A) – At these moderately high levels, the safe exposure time becomes limited to hours or minutes. For example, NIOSH research indicates one can only safely endure ~94 dBA for 1 hour, or 97 dBA for 30 minutes, or 100 dBA for only 15 minutes per day
blogs.cdc.gov
[/b]These guidelines assume that the rest of the day is in quiet conditions to allow recovery[/b]
OSHA’s permissible times are longer due to a more lenient damage-risk formula, but both NIOSH and OSHA agree that as decibels rise, allowable exposure time drops rapidly.
OSHA permits longer times (e.g. ~2 hours at 100 dBA) but with higher risk.
110–120 dB(A) – These levels are extremely loud (e.g. rock concert, chainsaw, or siren at close range). Even short exposures can be harmful. At 110 dB, unprotected ears may reach the daily noise dose limit in just a minute or two. Sounds in this range are dangerous to hearing for any prolonged period – hearing protection (earplugs or earmuffs) is advised if one must be near such noise
Around 120–125 dB is roughly the threshold of pain for many individuals; exposure at this intensity causes immediate discomfort and can begin to damage the ear almost instantly.
130 dB(A) and above / Impulse Noise (~140+ dB peak) – Sounds at 130 dB or higher (jackhammers, jet takeoff at close range) are unsafe for any length of time without protection
Impulsive sounds (measured in dB peak, a slightly different metric) above about 140 dB peak – for example, gunshots, fireworks explosions – can cause instantaneous hearing injury
At these intensities, physical damage such as eardrum rupture or inner-ear cell destruction can occur in milliseconds. Indeed, OSHA regulations explicitly cap impulse noise exposure: no unprotected exposure above 140 dB peak is allowed in workplaces
In practice, any exposure to sounds >140 dB should be avoided or strictly controlled with hearing protection, as even a single unprotected blast can cause permanent hearing loss
Shooting Sports and Explosives: Firearms produce some of the loudest sounds encountered in recreational activities. Gunshot muzzle blasts range roughly from 140 dB for small-caliber rifles to over 170 dB for high-powered rifles or explosives.
These peak levels far exceed safe limits – even a single unprotected gunshot can cause permanent hearing damage
Hunters, target shooters, and military personnel are well-documented to suffer NIHL and tinnitus (often asymmetrically, e.g. worse in the ear closer to the gun muzzle). In fact, impulse noises like gunshots or fireworks are so damaging that double hearing protection (earplugs and earmuffs together) is often recommended. Impulse noise is particularly insidious because the ear’s reflexes (the stapedius muscle reflex that dampens loud sounds) cannot react fast enough to protect against sudden blasts
The Intensity-Time Trade-off: The relationship between sound level and exposure time in causing damage is often described by an equal-energy principle. Essentially, a given total sound energy dose (sound intensity × time) can produce a similar hearing loss effect whether that dose is accumulated as a lower level for a long time or a higher level for a shorter time.
blogs.cdc.gov
This principle underlies the “exchange rate” rules in noise standards. For example, NIOSH uses a 3 dB exchange rate: every increase of 3 dB represents a doubling of sound energy, so allowable exposure time must halve to keep the total energy constant.
blogs.cdc.gov
In practical terms, 8 hours at 85 dB is considered roughly equivalent (in damage risk) to 4 hours at 88 dB, or 2 hours at 91 dB, and so on.
blogs.cdc.gov
blogs.cdc.gov
It shows that as sound intensity rises, the permissible exposure duration plummets exponentially.
Extremely high peak noises may have disproportionately damaging effects beyond the equal-energy model. Very loud impulse events (explosions, gunshots) can physically traumatize ear structures in ways that continuous noise of equal energy might not.
Next time dont say the research isnt there. Just say you're too lazy to do the work in finding and understanding it, and its easier to whine and bitch online instead.
Intense sound energy can injure the delicate structures of the inner ear (cochlea). At very high sound levels, mechanical trauma occurs: the violent vibration from an intense noise (such as an explosion or firecracker) can physically tear apart parts of the inner ear – the membranes of the sensory hair cells and their stereocilia (the “hair” projections) (https://medicine.umich.edu/dept/khr...ext=NIHL is caused by a,of the inner ear, the)
At more moderate (but still hazardous) noise levels, metabolic and chemical damage dominates: essentially, “overdriving” the ear with continuous or repeated loud sounds overwhelms the sensory hair cells, inducing excessive metabolic activity and oxidative stress inside the cochlea. https://medicine.umich.edu/dept/khr... firecracker,oxidative stress and reduced CBF
The human inner ear contains thousands of sensory hair cells that convert sound vibrations into nerve signals. Once these cells or their connecting nerve fibers are damaged and die due to noise, they do not regenerate or grow back in humans. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/no...Most NIHL is caused by,They are gone for good
Noise exposure typically first damages the outer hair cells (which amplify and tune sound) and can also damage inner hair cells or the auditory nerve connections. Early on, this may cause temporary threshold shifts (a reversible elevation of hearing thresholds), but with repeated or severe exposures the damage accumulates into permanent threshold shifts (permanent hearing loss). https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/noise-induced-hearing-loss#:~:text=can occur in one or,both ears
In some cases, an extremely loud burst can even rupture the eardrum or dislodge the tiny ossicle bones of the middle ear, causing immediate hearing loss and pain. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/no...also be caused,can be immediate and permanent
The key point is that loud sound, whether one-time or cumulative, injures the ear’s cells and structures in ways that the body cannot naturally repair, underscoring the importance of prevention.
Sound intensity is measured in decibels (dB), usually with A-weighting (dBA) to account for human ear sensitivity. The higher the decibel level, the louder the sound and the less exposure time is needed to cause harm. Researchers and regulators have identified certain thresholds above which the risk of hearing damage rises sharply.
Above 85 dB to ~100 dB(A) – At these moderately high levels, the safe exposure time becomes limited to hours or minutes. For example, NIOSH research indicates one can only safely endure ~94 dBA for 1 hour, or 97 dBA for 30 minutes, or 100 dBA for only 15 minutes per day
Understanding Noise Exposure Limits: Occupational vs. General Environmental Noise | Blogs | CDC
CDC - Blogs - NIOSH Science Blog – Understanding Noise Exposure Limits: Occupational vs. General Environmental Noise -
blogs.cdc.gov
[/b]These guidelines assume that the rest of the day is in quiet conditions to allow recovery[/b]
OSHA’s permissible times are longer due to a more lenient damage-risk formula, but both NIOSH and OSHA agree that as decibels rise, allowable exposure time drops rapidly.
OSHA permits longer times (e.g. ~2 hours at 100 dBA) but with higher risk.
110–120 dB(A) – These levels are extremely loud (e.g. rock concert, chainsaw, or siren at close range). Even short exposures can be harmful. At 110 dB, unprotected ears may reach the daily noise dose limit in just a minute or two. Sounds in this range are dangerous to hearing for any prolonged period – hearing protection (earplugs or earmuffs) is advised if one must be near such noise
Around 120–125 dB is roughly the threshold of pain for many individuals; exposure at this intensity causes immediate discomfort and can begin to damage the ear almost instantly.
130 dB(A) and above / Impulse Noise (~140+ dB peak) – Sounds at 130 dB or higher (jackhammers, jet takeoff at close range) are unsafe for any length of time without protection
Impulsive sounds (measured in dB peak, a slightly different metric) above about 140 dB peak – for example, gunshots, fireworks explosions – can cause instantaneous hearing injury
At these intensities, physical damage such as eardrum rupture or inner-ear cell destruction can occur in milliseconds. Indeed, OSHA regulations explicitly cap impulse noise exposure: no unprotected exposure above 140 dB peak is allowed in workplaces
In practice, any exposure to sounds >140 dB should be avoided or strictly controlled with hearing protection, as even a single unprotected blast can cause permanent hearing loss
Gunfire Noise Level Reference Chart (dB) For Shotgun, Rifle, Pistol - EAR Customized Hearing Protection
Expert gunshot noise decibel chart for various types of rifle, shotgun, and pistol, based on research by Dr. Krammer. Gunfire noise can reach levels well over the threshold of pain. Even a single shot can expose your ears to more than 150 dB, enough to cause permanent hearing loss.
earinc.com
Shooting Sports and Explosives: Firearms produce some of the loudest sounds encountered in recreational activities. Gunshot muzzle blasts range roughly from 140 dB for small-caliber rifles to over 170 dB for high-powered rifles or explosives.
Gunfire Noise Level Reference Chart (dB) For Shotgun, Rifle, Pistol - EAR Customized Hearing Protection
Expert gunshot noise decibel chart for various types of rifle, shotgun, and pistol, based on research by Dr. Krammer. Gunfire noise can reach levels well over the threshold of pain. Even a single shot can expose your ears to more than 150 dB, enough to cause permanent hearing loss.
earinc.com
These peak levels far exceed safe limits – even a single unprotected gunshot can cause permanent hearing damage
Gunfire Noise Level Reference Chart (dB) For Shotgun, Rifle, Pistol - EAR Customized Hearing Protection
Expert gunshot noise decibel chart for various types of rifle, shotgun, and pistol, based on research by Dr. Krammer. Gunfire noise can reach levels well over the threshold of pain. Even a single shot can expose your ears to more than 150 dB, enough to cause permanent hearing loss.
earinc.com
Hunters, target shooters, and military personnel are well-documented to suffer NIHL and tinnitus (often asymmetrically, e.g. worse in the ear closer to the gun muzzle). In fact, impulse noises like gunshots or fireworks are so damaging that double hearing protection (earplugs and earmuffs together) is often recommended. Impulse noise is particularly insidious because the ear’s reflexes (the stapedius muscle reflex that dampens loud sounds) cannot react fast enough to protect against sudden blasts
The Intensity-Time Trade-off: The relationship between sound level and exposure time in causing damage is often described by an equal-energy principle. Essentially, a given total sound energy dose (sound intensity × time) can produce a similar hearing loss effect whether that dose is accumulated as a lower level for a long time or a higher level for a shorter time.
Understanding Noise Exposure Limits: Occupational vs. General Environmental Noise | Blogs | CDC
CDC - Blogs - NIOSH Science Blog – Understanding Noise Exposure Limits: Occupational vs. General Environmental Noise -
blogs.cdc.gov
This principle underlies the “exchange rate” rules in noise standards. For example, NIOSH uses a 3 dB exchange rate: every increase of 3 dB represents a doubling of sound energy, so allowable exposure time must halve to keep the total energy constant.
Understanding Noise Exposure Limits: Occupational vs. General Environmental Noise | Blogs | CDC
CDC - Blogs - NIOSH Science Blog – Understanding Noise Exposure Limits: Occupational vs. General Environmental Noise -
blogs.cdc.gov
In practical terms, 8 hours at 85 dB is considered roughly equivalent (in damage risk) to 4 hours at 88 dB, or 2 hours at 91 dB, and so on.
Understanding Noise Exposure Limits: Occupational vs. General Environmental Noise | Blogs | CDC
CDC - Blogs - NIOSH Science Blog – Understanding Noise Exposure Limits: Occupational vs. General Environmental Noise -
blogs.cdc.gov
Understanding Noise Exposure Limits: Occupational vs. General Environmental Noise | Blogs | CDC
CDC - Blogs - NIOSH Science Blog – Understanding Noise Exposure Limits: Occupational vs. General Environmental Noise -
blogs.cdc.gov
It shows that as sound intensity rises, the permissible exposure duration plummets exponentially.
Extremely high peak noises may have disproportionately damaging effects beyond the equal-energy model. Very loud impulse events (explosions, gunshots) can physically traumatize ear structures in ways that continuous noise of equal energy might not.
Next time dont say the research isnt there. Just say you're too lazy to do the work in finding and understanding it, and its easier to whine and bitch online instead.
Before you get all cocky, little Aleks, notice I did not say anything was an absolute mechanical truth. So your strawman attack is futile.
I do not believe sinter"printing" is the equal of forging or casting/machining despite the present faddishness of the process.
Perhaps you didn't catch sarcasm in your humor learning.
I see that you are replying to Mr. Suave. Perhaps that is Jay from Pew?
Regardless, I’m ignoring that fine fellow and have been for quite some time. Therefore I won’t be rebutting anything from him.
Thanks for putting that together. I think with this information it’s pretty easy to say that a 3-6 dB difference is substantial in both exposure time allowed and the human ear’s ability to notice a difference.
I don’t really get the hate on the pew science guy. When I’ve read his stuff it is rather technical, but it should be because it is a technical analysis. I do understand flogsal’s point a good technical expert should know it well enough to put it simply. But that’s not every technical expert’s strong suit.
If wearing ear pro while shooting suppressed (which is probably the norm), a 3-6 dB suppression performance increase is probably not making or breaking anything from a hearing damage or discomfort POV since ear pro takes off 25-30 dB on top of the suppressor taking off 20-35 dB. While it doesn’t affect damage or comfort, that doesn’t mean it isn’t noticeable. From a military application perspective I think a 3-6 dB decrease in sound is also beneficial from a detectability standpoint. A -6 dB delta is like being twice as far away from the gunshot.
If I was not wearing ear pro, I think anywhere from 3-6 dB is substantial as far as discomfort/pain and injury. The guys who say otherwise are probably too deaf already to care!
Yes I recall your petulant, talks-above-his-station attitude, in which you project your shortcomings onto others, and run away like a brat.
I notice you think yourself a scientist, simply because you measure things.
Funny little boy.
The hate on Jay seems to be a mix of tribalism and odd envy that he’s profitable from his venture.
Tribalism specifically here because he doesn’t unconditionally worship the TBAC guys the way that many hide members do..and they’ve sided with TBAC who has more or less taken an industry-centric approach in the debate.
I don’t think Jay or his data is perfect by any means but outside of silencer sound summit (which by and large is a result of their disagreements with pew science) , I don’t see anyone else rushing to test anything at scale.
It’s also odd as a trend to keep calling out someone for being an “autist” In place of just admitting that they’re incapable of understanding a complex subject.
We’re not all experts in everything yet the amount of people who confidently opine otherwise is extremely strange.
Are you still upset that your boyfriend ran off with an “autist”?
It’s odd to take that out on others here.
Maybe go play with those tumbling pins you keep wanting Jay to test?
Last edited:
A year later, carbonbased is still accusing anyone of disagreeing with him of being Jay, and flogxal is still mad at anyone under the age of 50 for having an opinion.
I couldn’t imagine spending over a year of my life being upset that someone on the internet is making money off their work, while I give them free publicity by constantly bringing them up in discussion.
www.snipershide.com
I couldn’t imagine spending over a year of my life being upset that someone on the internet is making money off their work, while I give them free publicity by constantly bringing them up in discussion.
Help me Comprehend Silencer Advice
You cared enough to waste your own time to post that you dont care. Thats such an odd way of demonstrating how much you dont care. The rest of us just ignore stuff like that. Congratulations. You cared enough NOT to ignore it.
www.snipershide.com
Child, this is not reddit and you are of insufficient character and intellect to be taken seriously.
You may want to check out the B&T SRBS762 or 556. I've run the SRBS762 Ti on 7.75-16" 5.56 barrels. My only nit is the sparkle show. Definitely lower backpressure than the SiCo 36M.
Keith
I’ve been looking to add a couple suppressors for a while and have bounced around. Fortunately the vendor was understanding when I cancelled my initial order. I finally decided tonight on a new can and I bought 2.
First I needed a can for my girls setups in 6.5 Grendel and 556. I had considered the B&T SRBS 762, another HUXWRX Flow 762, CAT ODB 718, and SilencerCo Velos LBP 762. The free stamps helped me move now and not wait until the $200 stamps were officially ended.
I also wanted a second can for my rifles.
Up to this point I’ve used the Flow 762 on my SCAR 17, two 6.5 Grendel’s, and my 14.5” AR. I’m rebuilding my 300blk out with more premium parts and intend to use it for Night Vision shoots likely with subs. For that reason the Flow was simply not an option. I’ve got a 46M that stays with my MRAD, but the videos I watched didn’t show the best suppression.
I planned on the FDE Flow for my girls setups, but unfortunately the tax stamp deal was done on those. The others (except the Velos) were HUB and would require a $190 HUB to HUXWRX mount and more very expensive HUXWRX mounts. It seemed like a pretty obvious choice. I purchased 2 Velos LBP 762. I thought it would be cool to compare the HUXWRX to the Velos on my 556, but closest I have available is a buddy with a 16” AR and Flow 762. I’m seriously considering the 556 endcap for the Velos to showcase “best case” for each system. The 556 endcap is only $95.
I’ve been very pleased with the Charlie system on my MRAD so I’m not terribly upset about having my rifles split between HUXWRW and Charlie.
I WILL be able to compare my 13.9” Grendel with the Flow 762 to my girls 14.5” Grendel with the Velos LBP 762 as soon as they arrive. Unfortunately, again, it won’t be apples to apples. My 13.9” is DI while her 14.5” is piston. Hopefully PEW science comes out with some definitive numbers soon. I shoot at an indoor range so my subjective opinion may be vastly different than someone shooting outside.
First I needed a can for my girls setups in 6.5 Grendel and 556. I had considered the B&T SRBS 762, another HUXWRX Flow 762, CAT ODB 718, and SilencerCo Velos LBP 762. The free stamps helped me move now and not wait until the $200 stamps were officially ended.
I also wanted a second can for my rifles.
Up to this point I’ve used the Flow 762 on my SCAR 17, two 6.5 Grendel’s, and my 14.5” AR. I’m rebuilding my 300blk out with more premium parts and intend to use it for Night Vision shoots likely with subs. For that reason the Flow was simply not an option. I’ve got a 46M that stays with my MRAD, but the videos I watched didn’t show the best suppression.
I planned on the FDE Flow for my girls setups, but unfortunately the tax stamp deal was done on those. The others (except the Velos) were HUB and would require a $190 HUB to HUXWRX mount and more very expensive HUXWRX mounts. It seemed like a pretty obvious choice. I purchased 2 Velos LBP 762. I thought it would be cool to compare the HUXWRX to the Velos on my 556, but closest I have available is a buddy with a 16” AR and Flow 762. I’m seriously considering the 556 endcap for the Velos to showcase “best case” for each system. The 556 endcap is only $95.
I’ve been very pleased with the Charlie system on my MRAD so I’m not terribly upset about having my rifles split between HUXWRW and Charlie.
I WILL be able to compare my 13.9” Grendel with the Flow 762 to my girls 14.5” Grendel with the Velos LBP 762 as soon as they arrive. Unfortunately, again, it won’t be apples to apples. My 13.9” is DI while her 14.5” is piston. Hopefully PEW science comes out with some definitive numbers soon. I shoot at an indoor range so my subjective opinion may be vastly different than someone shooting outside.
No matter what decision you make, you will end up with a box full of unused adapters and mounts. Just accept it.
Pew Science is 100% marketing. PS charges for "testing" and is the launching point for new companies. There's a reason large established companies do their own testing and skip PS.
Marketing isn’t bad though if there is real data and performance testing behind it.
It’s also nice to have testing that is using the same setup each time. When a given company measures the data for themselves, that’s all good and fine. But the consumer doesn’t know if there are slight variations in test setups from company to company. Whereas if you have something like PS doing the same setup for each suppressor, you can have the data normalized to a given test setup and standard.
This is exactly what my wife does for a living. She has a PHD in Microbiology with a background in clinical research. She now works for a medical device company that makes stints and drug coated balloons. Her role is to work with physicians who pioneer new procedures with her company's products to help them write papers and get them published in medical journals. It's the best advertising they can get.
I will say Jay could tone it down...a lot. It's obvious he's trying to show off and french it up considering who his audience is. A professional would tailor the delivery to the audience unless he's trying to create a shtick.
What it sounds like to read one of his articles
PS is training wheels for n00bs that need to be spoon fed pseudo science. The dude made up his own ranking system and refuses to tell anyone how it works. It's good marketing though.
You have to add some “boy howdy’s” in there and foaming spittle in the corners of the mouth.
Plus a box of unused rear bags. And wrong height scope rings. Etc.
Hah hah hah hah the merchant's spokeman is here! Buy my overpriced stuff so Jay can get paid!
Is your expectation that the market place should be full of small companies, who usually can’t afford to do this testing themselves (equipment cost), that make claims about their product performance but the consumer can’t really know what a given suppressor's sound performance is? So the consumer is left with no objective point of reference and stuck with “yeah so and so on the internet said xyz about how the can sounded” when making their purchase?
