Griffin Armory Silencer Testing Standard

[E. Bryant]

Introduction to Griffin Armament’s – Silencer Testing Standard™

Griffin Armament silencer testing overview

www.griffinarmament.com

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 already familiar: https://www.arl.army.mil/resources/ahaah/) @TBACRAY has previously pointed out that there is an opportunity for abuse with the tool published by the ARL, but hopefully any misuse or abuse can be minimized by the fact that this is an open standard which can be verified by anyone possessing the minimum equipment. So, not a perfect standard, but a solid step forward in the open and objective characterization of performance.

 

[longshot2000]

It is interesting that various suppressor companies have advocated for various standards. Be it Pulse or TBAC testing with Pulse or now AHAAH, all the while an independent standard has emerged from Pew Science. It is also interesting to see the shade cast upon Jay's testing at Pew Science.

I am not sure what model is best, but I personally like seeing all testing and measurements. Full disclosure, we are a corporate sponsor of Pew Science. I think Jay has pulled back the curtain a bit on what has been marking, hype and hyperbole in the suppressor business. I also think some companies have rushed to one or more standards as a me-too gesture to gain notoriety as the company who came in #2 to TBAC, or who was "certified" by Pew Science. Probably every measure has some validity, and what is fantastic to the buying public is more, and more, innovation is occurring in suppressors. Probably more change has happened in 3 years than the last 30. What is real impressive is the companies who use the scientific data to iterate in their designs and builds and make a better product, more than having a better test result.

 

[Zak Smith]

What we are doing with our videos is basically exactly from mil std 1474, using equipment that meets the specs and is known to be able to accurately measure the SPL.

 

[jzerfoss]

It is interesting that various suppressor companies have advocated for various standards. Be it Pulse or TBAC testing with Pulse or now AHAAH, all the while an independent standard has emerged from Pew Science. It is also interesting to see the shade cast upon Jay's testing at Pew Science.

On the flipside of that I find it interesting how many people "fanboy" over Pew Science and pretend that it's the gold standard of independent testing when he's really the only one doing independent testing. Also, it's marketed as publicly funded testing but at the same time is well know that he charges for testing/reviews which is looked down on in every other aspect of gun marketing. Most people don't go to "pay for review" writers to look for objective reviews on rifle, optics, stocks, etc yet look at pew science as infallible.

I'm not saying it not good information, but the Pew Science/OCL fanboys often openly attack anyone not willing to submit/pay for Pew Science testing when a lot of these companies have their own ability to test and market. I find the shooting "community" attacks its own somewhat often, but it's gotten really bad in the suppressor "community" since Pew Science and OCL became popular. I'm no expert but it seems TBAC does the best job of open objective testing by testing all the cans on the same platform with the same ammo on the same day under the same conditions all while filming it for a direct comparison of similar cans. Pew Science seems a little too like "I'm the expert, here's the data, don't worry about the specifics about how I got the data, I'm the expert". All that to say I hope there's more independent reviewers that do truly open data driven testing.

 

[kthomas]

I think way too much emphasize is placed on sound suppression, when it comes to suppressors.

 

[_Windrider_]

I think way too much emphasize is placed on sound suppression, when it comes to suppressors.

Almost any silencer in the same caliber size category are within 1-2 db of each other. I’m more interested in the signature or impulse and blowback. But, those are extre subjective which is why they focus on sound because it’s objective and measurable.

 

[kthomas]

Almost any silencer in the same caliber size category are within 1-2 db of each other. I’m more interested in the signature or impulse and blowback. But, those are extre subjective which is why they focus on sound because it’s objective and measurable.

Exactly.

To me it doesn't really matter if a suppressor suppresses to 138 or 141 dB. That's inconsequential in the real world.

I think there's other factors that are just as relevant if not more to suppressors, yet everyone just wants to talk dB ratings.

 

[Supersubes]

On the flipside of that I find it interesting how many people "fanboy" over Pew Science and pretend that it's the gold standard of independent testing when he's really the only one doing independent testing. Also, it's marketed as publicly funded testing but at the same time is well know that he charges for testing/reviews which is looked down on in every other aspect of gun marketing. Most people don't go to "pay for review" writers to look for objective reviews on rifle, optics, stocks, etc yet look at pew science as infallible.

I'm not saying it not good information, but the Pew Science/OCL fanboys often openly attack anyone not willing to submit/pay for Pew Science testing when a lot of these companies have their own ability to test and market. I find the shooting "community" attacks its own somewhat often, but it's gotten really bad in the suppressor "community" since Pew Science and OCL became popular. I'm no expert but it seems TBAC does the best job of open objective testing by testing all the cans on the same platform with the same ammo on the same day under the same conditions all while filming it for a direct comparison of similar cans. Pew Science seems a little too like "I'm the expert, here's the data, don't worry about the specifics about how I got the data, I'm the expert". All that to say I hope there's more independent reviewers that do truly open data driven testing.

I haven't searched, but is the “pay” arrangement on the website? I ask because I offered him a certain Tbac out of my inventory I wanted him to test, just for giggles, but got no response. I like reading his reports, and find them interesting. Seems weird that the only Tbac he’s tested in the U9, and that was a while ago.

 

[jzerfoss]

I haven't searched, but is the “pay” arrangement on the website? I ask because I offered him a certain Tbac out of my inventory I wanted him to test, just for giggles, but got no response. I like reading his reports, and find them interesting. Seems weird that the only Tbac he’s tested in the U9, and that was a while ago.

That privilege will cost you $100 a month(according to the website) and I don't think that guarantees that he will actually test your can. According to GA for him to test 1 suppressor it cost as much or more than the pulse system itself lol.

 

[Bacarrat]

I think way too much emphasize is placed on sound suppression, when it comes to suppressors.

At this point, sound suppression is way down on my list when buying suppressors. Materials, quality, customer support, aesthetics, company and suppressor reputation ect. I have shot a lot of suppressors and own a lot of suppressors and not once did some Tom Dick or Harry even care about 1-2db at the range. That's a marketing tool and bragging rights on the webs.

 

[Cascade Hemi]

I think way too much emphasize is placed on sound suppression, when it comes to suppressors.

My interests in silencers often run counter to what "experts" think. PS rewards large, unwieldy, silencers in it's ranking comparisons. I have very little interest in more 9" silencers. I would be much more interested in a 5" silencer that outperforms class leading 7" silencers. Sound suppression is important but only within the context of performance or specific metrics. Unless someone comes up with supersonic ammunition that doesn't create a sonic boom, I'll continue to place suppression below length and weight in importance.

 

[sinister]

I know nothing about Pew Science.

I do know testing by independent labs for things like body armor and ammunition go by generally repeatable protocols, usually a National Institute of Justice, OSHA, or Department of Defense (Army) Military Standard (MIL-STD). Results are generally unclassified and publicly posted so any consumer can see pass-fail results, and independently duplicate and challenge (that "Scientific Method" thing).

Of course a manufacturer pays for testing -- a lab should give you and return impartial and objective results.

 

[E. Bryant]

This has been an expensive week.

 

[jzerfoss]

This has been an expensive week.

View attachment 8032968

What did you get?

 

[carbonbased]

This has been an expensive week.

View attachment 8032968

I’m sorta guessing some acoustic testing equipment?

Or a spy satellite. Yeah, def a satellite.

 

[Cascade Hemi]

This has been an expensive week.

View attachment 8032968

Someone is about to find out, definitively, what the hearing safe dosing level of the day after Taco Tuesday is.

 

[GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT]

That privilege will cost you $100 a month(according to the website) and I don't think that guarantees that he will actually test your can. According to GA for him to test 1 suppressor it cost as much or more than the pulse system itself lol.

We never said that the cost of testing one suppressor was more than the pulse itself. It was a phenomenal amount of money. Our line would have cost ~$260,000 to comprehensively test with them- each suppressor on two hosts. We were quoted 240% more money than some other people, and realized that other companies got up to 4 times as much free testing. Two sources each had different amounts of free work and different quoted prices. Our price was the highest price.

A Pulse system last I looked cost ~$35,000.

We simply realized that it was a better spend to improve our testing standard. We did some flash testing- we probably won't always do flash testing, but our recent testing involved flash testing and some POI shift testing, so we were testing some different metrics. We have compared weight, length, also added the waveforms and AHAAH data. That addition required a serious enhancement to our testing methods, to capture A peak, Z peak, and Z waveforms simultaneously for the required processing.

I do know that comparison testing has several times resulted in us conducting significant work to improve designs as a result of something we learn about what is possible. I am happy when a suppressor challenges us, because it provides an incentive to improve our products.

There are many metrics to compare in sound suppressors- weight, length, mounting system, flash, sound, price (honestly because things twice as expensive as other things should be better), mount support, mount variety, warranty support, POI shift, durability, etc. There are a lot of metrics.