-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Suppressors Trash panda or nomad
- Thread starter Oiange
- Start date
How does Sage rip 500 rounds through the Q causing it to glow in broad daylight, and it only suffers coating discoloration, and someone else puts a “few mags” through another one and melts the shit out of it? Wouldn’t that shooter have noticed something was wrong? Could he have been intentionally trying to kill it, and a “few mags” isn’t quite accurate? I know that wasn’t your post, but doesn’t that seem fishy to you?
Last edited:
Doesn’t really matter to me. Just letting you know what it looks like when you tell people your product is full auto rated with no barrel length restrictions. And they run outside and check.
I believe that Capitol Armory destroyed one of these cans pretty quick on a 7.62x39 pws Diablo. (7inch) IIRC it didn’t last long.
This is most likely that can. It looks like it to me anyway
Not sure if they sent it for warranty. Much different for them to do that than it is for you as an individual if this is form 4 to you.
I believe that Capitol Armory destroyed one of these cans pretty quick on a 7.62x39 pws Diablo. (7inch) IIRC it didn’t last long.
This is most likely that can. It looks like it to me anyway
Not sure if they sent it for warranty. Much different for them to do that than it is for you as an individual if this is form 4 to you.
I don't who that is. No silencer has negative 8 dB frp. The metering is incorrect.
This was a 5" 7.62 machine gun shot full-auto to failure by Capital Armory. It was a purposeful destruction test, shot to failure. Welds held up. They returned it, we cut the core off, welded a new one on to the serialized mount and returned it in short order, free of charge. This is the only commercial silencer that's been returned for a rebuild due to baffle failure. I can destroy any inconel or stellite silencer performing the same test.
"A few mags" and moderate" and false statements and intentionally misleading. Haters and wannabes. It was a destruction test. Shoot non-stop until failure. Can silencer can be destroyed doing it.
)))) guessing no one's ever bother to make memes about you... Thank you.
Perhaps the release date of the Q Stalker? Still haven't heard the caliber yet
I might wind up with something like a Turbo K eventually, the reports on it so far seem to be positive.
Thus far I've been quite happy quieting 5.56 rifles with .30 cal suppressors that can also be used on my other rifle chamberings, hence, when looking at new cans I'm interested to how they do on 5.56 in addition to 6.5, .308, etc.
New direct comparison video up that includes the Omega and Vox S as well. All performed surprisingly similarly, if I had to call an all around winner I'd say the Vox S, although they all look pretty good.
Huh... I thought for sure the Nomad would be 3-5 db louder than the TP. KB said it was! That's weird...
But we could have a 5in 308 machine gun?! At that rate how would it do with a 300 Norma mag 5in barrel?
/s
With enough heat and pressure I can make anything fail.
In case anyone is interested, I was playing around with Suppressed Nation's data a bit, here is a table that lists the cans in the video from quietest to loudest based on four different values: Minimum in the set, Maximum in the set, Mean and Median.
There is not a whole lot of significant difference between any of them, but it's something to look at I suppose.
There is not a whole lot of significant difference between any of them, but it's something to look at I suppose.
The median and the average aren't really meaningful because there isn't enough data. 5 shots really isn't telling the story. Some cans start off loud and get quite after a few shots. Some start quiet and then get loud after a few shots (like the VOX did). Some stay pretty consistent. 5 shot averages and medians blurs this. It isn't captured. 10 shots would probably capture it since the 2-3 shots for the can to settle down wouldn't dominate the average or the median.
5 shots are better than no shots. If you can do this test better, than by all means.
Mean and median usually can't stand alone and are most useful in conjunction with the data set, this situation is no different. Don't use them if you don't want to.
I find it interesting that at the extremes the omega is the quietest at the muzzle and the loudest at the ear and the inverse with the trash panda. Then the nomad and the Cox are the same swap situation but in the middle.
I’m guessing that is indicative of how much back pressure they make? Higher backpressure is loud at the ejection port. I wish a thunderbeast has been in there just for more data.
I’m guessing that is indicative of how much back pressure they make? Higher backpressure is loud at the ejection port. I wish a thunderbeast has been in there just for more data.
I tend to hear at the ear--and not at the muzzle.
Is everyone else holding their rifles differently?
Is everyone else holding their rifles differently?
They might be shooting different rifles... In that video they used an AR-10, so the at ear numbers will be correlated with the back pressure, that's why the Omega was quieter at the muzzle and louder at the ear, it's a quiet but relatively high back pressure can. If you're shooting a bolt gun though, the sound level at your ear will be a direct product of the sound level at the muzzle as there's no pressure venting though the action.
If you're only shooting bolt guns, you might be most interested in something like the Omega that maximizes performance at the muzzle. If you're only shooting autos, the TP looks the best, if you're shooting both, a can like the Vox or Nomad that is middle of the road at the muzzle and at the ear plus an AGB might be the best option.
All of those cans look pretty good though, and a AGB tuned for the system would bring all of them down at the ear. Given the similarities between them, it makes the most sense to call the performance a wash and make your selection based on features (mount options, weight, coatings, etc) and price.
Last edited:
Yeah, but I, the shooter, only hear at my ears. I don't hear at the muzzle. The sound at the muzzle has to come all the way back to my ears where we should be metering at in the first place.
Those numbers at the muzzle are pointless. They only do them because of outdated military standards. Keep in mind, the military is paying for everyone's ears so muzzle readings have merit to them. I only care about my ears. I'm only paying for my ears.
I see people arguing the same old ---this can is quieter than that can because of this reading. Often time they use at the muzzle readings when an at the ear comparison wouldn't fit their narrative. Just like in this thread...
Those numbers at the muzzle are pointless. They only do them because of outdated military standards. Keep in mind, the military is paying for everyone's ears so muzzle readings have merit to them. I only care about my ears. I'm only paying for my ears.
I see people arguing the same old ---this can is quieter than that can because of this reading. Often time they use at the muzzle readings when an at the ear comparison wouldn't fit their narrative. Just like in this thread...
The ear numbers on a semi-auto don't tell you which can would be quietest at the ear on a bolt gun. The muzzle numbers in that test aren't useless because they give you an idea of which can is going to be quietest at your ear on a bolt gun. I understand all about Mil-Specs and why the muzzle test is done the way it is, but bolt gun use is why I care about both the muzzle numbers and the ear numbers in that particular video. No conspiracy or narrative, just a little bit of logic.
Last edited:
Wouldnt you need to meter at the ear on a boltgun to know which is quieter at the ear on a boltgun? Cant be that easy can it?
Or are we guessing again and pretending to science...
Or are we guessing again and pretending to science...
Metering at the ear on a bolt gun would have been nice, but they didn't, so we don't have those numbers in a valid direct comparison do we?
I've done a little reading on DTIC about firearm noise and hearing damage, and from what I've read, the muzzle blast is usually modeled as traveling uniformly outwards in all directions from a point at the muzzle. If that model is correct, then, on the same bolt gun, louder at the muzzle = louder at the ear.
You seem pretty stuck on a certain narrative, did you not like the outcome of that test? I wouldn't get too bent out of shape, the Trash Panda still seems like a decent can, very similar in performance to the other three and pretty light.
Last edited:
My concern is all this false science which is just wishful thinking and guessing. It does a great disservice to those who are new and those trying to learn. If it didnt serve to help those pushing naratives and agendas we wouldnt see so much of it.
You cant infer anything from that test that isnt explicitly in those results.
A different ammo type, location, or a pile of things could influence the outcome of that test if they were to repeat it. Different hosts would skew those numbers as well.
Your theories based on your reading seem to be directly contradicted by the results of that test. Which one are we going to accept as valid?
You cant infer anything from that test that isnt explicitly in those results.
A different ammo type, location, or a pile of things could influence the outcome of that test if they were to repeat it. Different hosts would skew those numbers as well.
Your theories based on your reading seem to be directly contradicted by the results of that test. Which one are we going to accept as valid?
Ear numbers on bolt guns are almost directly proportional to muzzle numbers. Check out thunder Beasts videos on it. Beyond a certain point, ear numbers on semi autos are also dependent, ie 150+ at the muzzle will always be 150+ at the ear.
Of course there are lots of variables at play, that's why Suppressed Nation did that testing with the same ammo, host, on the same day to minimize variance.
Illuminate me, where is the contradiction between what I said about at ear SPL on a bolt gun, and what you saw at ear with the AR-10 in the video. You do realize the difference between what's going on at the ear with a DI auto vs a bolt gun right?
Illuminate me, where is the contradiction between what I said about at ear SPL on a bolt gun, and what you saw at ear with the AR-10 in the video. You do realize the difference between what's going on at the ear with a DI auto vs a bolt gun right?
What is that ‘certain point’ where ear and muzzle numbers are equal on a semi auto?
Is that ‘certain point’ barrel length or action type specific? Or better yet applicable to this discussion and occuring in the band of possible results of an average suppressed rifle?
On a bolt gun they are proportional. Muzzle and ear. Not disagreeing there.
I am disagreeing that the results of one metering session of 5 rnds on a random semi auto will tell us how a random bolt gun would meter at the ear if it was used instead.
Is that ‘certain point’ barrel length or action type specific? Or better yet applicable to this discussion and occuring in the band of possible results of an average suppressed rifle?
On a bolt gun they are proportional. Muzzle and ear. Not disagreeing there.
I am disagreeing that the results of one metering session of 5 rnds on a random semi auto will tell us how a random bolt gun would meter at the ear if it was used instead.
Is this the part where I ask if you’ve been paid to meter suppressors by a suppressor manufacturer?
I have.
I keep trying to tell you these numbers dont prove anything, nor are they really representative of anything other than a historical accounting of 5 rnds.
I have.
I keep trying to tell you these numbers dont prove anything, nor are they really representative of anything other than a historical accounting of 5 rnds.
I can't remember the details now, but I remember being surprised at some results when ear levels were measured on a bolt gun. It's not always what you expect, it's almost as if some designs do a better job at sending the sound downrange than others...
Of course in general anything good at the muzzle will be good at the ear on a bolt gun, but you don't really know for sure how they compare until it's measured.
Of course in general anything good at the muzzle will be good at the ear on a bolt gun, but you don't really know for sure how they compare until it's measured.
Lol, I guess this is that part. No I have not, but I'd love to hear more about your experience. Were you paid for this testing by one of the manufacturers being discussed here? If so which one? What equipment did you use for this testing?
Do you have better numbers that you can bring into the discussion? These seem to be the best and most relevant meter results available.
If you really believe these numbers are useless and aren't representative of anything, then what was the point of posting this.
The ear numbers are only a historical accounting of 5 shots as well right?
I found the test results I was remembering:
Some had a bigger spread between the muzzle and ear than others, and the Omega was actually louder at the ear...?
Some had a bigger spread between the muzzle and ear than others, and the Omega was actually louder at the ear...?
The Omega is the only one on there that's louder at the ear than the muzzle. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say they probably metered it with the brake end cap in place, which increased the sound level at the shooters ear. The 7.13" length they list would seem to support the brake being attached, I believe it's shorter than that with the flat end cap.
It is, the Omega is ~6in with the flat cap.
Also, muzzle is almost directly proportional to ear on bolt guns.
And the above testing chart data, keep in mind certain designs perform differently with various pressures as well. .300blk subs are very low pressure, so results in the chart may change when stepping up to 5.56, .308, 6.5CM, etc.
Also, muzzle is almost directly proportional to ear on bolt guns.
And the above testing chart data, keep in mind certain designs perform differently with various pressures as well. .300blk subs are very low pressure, so results in the chart may change when stepping up to 5.56, .308, 6.5CM, etc.
@bachelorjack Do you have any responses or numbers to show? I'm genuinely intrigued by you being paid to meter suppressors and what data points or conclusions you can give us from a more scientific standpoint. We've all seen that guy that says he's done things before and never shows up when the time comes, that's not you though, your cool.
I won't pretend to be an expert but my guess is it's port blowback since the platform used for testing was semi-auto. Gases escaping the ejection port are loud.
