Plenty of cans get below the 140 dB threshold at the shooter’s ear. Not smart to go full ham on mag dumps without ear pro regardless. But, a k can (that doesn’t get there) on a shorty rifle is a waste. (The YHM Turbo K rates below 140 at the shooters ear from a 16” AR rifle.)
There are few scenarios where a silencer has an advantage over a brake in a PRS/NRL event.
Brakes are shorter, lighter, and give less recoil. And they’re less expensive, and readily available on demand.
I do like a suppressed rifle in a run and gun event, as I can get away with just plugs- not doubled up with ear muffs.
A silencer that can get a supersonic cartridge down to below 140 at the shooters ear (and there are many) is great for the hunter, where s/he can afford the length penalty. A k can that stays above 140 has much less appeal, as ear pro may still be strongly recommended. ‘Taking the edge off’ is just lying to yourself about the hearing damage. Hell, taking OSHA guidelines as gospel probably is too, but I’ll take more suppression over less in this scenario.
I suppose signature is a concern for night hunters (NV flare) and operators (tactical considerations), but I’m neither.
I agree that ‘nerding out’ on dB ratings is wasted effort after a point. But, is sound suppression REALLY the last thing you consider in a silencer? Would you pay upwards of $1000, plus a 4 month to a year + wait, plus a $200 tax stamp, plus being ‘on the list,’ for a flash hider/linear compensator? Would you buy a silencer that eliminated ‘signature,’ was short and light and bomb proof, but increased the report by 4 fold?
