User Panel
Quoted:
I hate to say this, but I feel a little deceived about the Omega. I watched a video of a comparison Silencerco conducted between the Saker 5.56, Specwar 5.56 and the AAC sdn6 and they metered it from the end of the can. Why move the goal posts now? Because of the ASA? Come on.... Doesn't that negate all of their previous decibel results? That's a significant difference between metering from the end of the can and the end of the barrel. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So, a couple of questions: 1) When testing other cans, does SS typically meter from the end of the barrel, or the end of the can? If the industry-standard normal metering location is the end of the can, then metering from the end of the barrel seems like a disingenuous move on the part of SilencerCo to improve the metering results on the Omega. I truly hope that this isn't SilencerCo getting cute, because I think very highly of them as a company and tend to use their products as the basis for comparison for other suppressors (thus making them, for me, "the standard of the industry"). 2) Since they were released at a similar time, has SS gotten a chance to shoot/test the Thunderbeast Ultra series? Specifically, the Ultra 7? It seems that these two cans (Omega and Ultra) are pretty competitive with one another, and I would be interested to see some independent test results. 3) I, like others, am chomping at the bit to see a same-day, same-hosts, same ammo, same testing equipment head-to-head comparison between the Saker, Specwar, Harvester, and Omega, and just for gits and shiggles, maybe an SDN-6... We always measure from the end of the silencer. However the American Suppressor Association (ASA) is trying to get the industry to change to the end of the barrel. SilencerCo's numbers are using the end of the barrel instead of the end of the silencer. In the future we might change to metering per ASA. The ThunderBeast Ultra's have not been released yet. They announced them but they are not made yet. We expect them around May or June based on past experience with ThunderBeast. We are going to do a 5.56 and 7.62 shootout in the future. Just have to let things warm up before we can do the tests. I hate to say this, but I feel a little deceived about the Omega. I watched a video of a comparison Silencerco conducted between the Saker 5.56, Specwar 5.56 and the AAC sdn6 and they metered it from the end of the can. Why move the goal posts now? Because of the ASA? Come on.... Doesn't that negate all of their previous decibel results? That's a significant difference between metering from the end of the can and the end of the barrel. Same here, I'm not happy with Silencerco for VARY misleading DB numbers, I bought 2 Omegas from SS, I bought my last Silencerco products....... 223dude |
|
Quoted: Same here, I'm not happy with Silencerco for VARY misleading DB numbers, I bought 2 Omegas from SS, I bought my last Silencerco products....... 223dude View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So, a couple of questions: 1) When testing other cans, does SS typically meter from the end of the barrel, or the end of the can? If the industry-standard normal metering location is the end of the can, then metering from the end of the barrel seems like a disingenuous move on the part of SilencerCo to improve the metering results on the Omega. I truly hope that this isn't SilencerCo getting cute, because I think very highly of them as a company and tend to use their products as the basis for comparison for other suppressors (thus making them, for me, "the standard of the industry"). 2) Since they were released at a similar time, has SS gotten a chance to shoot/test the Thunderbeast Ultra series? Specifically, the Ultra 7? It seems that these two cans (Omega and Ultra) are pretty competitive with one another, and I would be interested to see some independent test results. 3) I, like others, am chomping at the bit to see a same-day, same-hosts, same ammo, same testing equipment head-to-head comparison between the Saker, Specwar, Harvester, and Omega, and just for gits and shiggles, maybe an SDN-6... We always measure from the end of the silencer. However the American Suppressor Association (ASA) is trying to get the industry to change to the end of the barrel. SilencerCo's numbers are using the end of the barrel instead of the end of the silencer. In the future we might change to metering per ASA. The ThunderBeast Ultra's have not been released yet. They announced them but they are not made yet. We expect them around May or June based on past experience with ThunderBeast. We are going to do a 5.56 and 7.62 shootout in the future. Just have to let things warm up before we can do the tests. I hate to say this, but I feel a little deceived about the Omega. I watched a video of a comparison Silencerco conducted between the Saker 5.56, Specwar 5.56 and the AAC sdn6 and they metered it from the end of the can. Why move the goal posts now? Because of the ASA? Come on.... Doesn't that negate all of their previous decibel results? That's a significant difference between metering from the end of the can and the end of the barrel. Same here, I'm not happy with Silencerco for VARY misleading DB numbers, I bought 2 Omegas from SS, I bought my last Silencerco products....... 223dude They really weren't that far off from Silencer Shop's numbers. 2 dB for .308 , less than 3 dB for .300 BLK. 5.56 is the biggest difference at 5dB but a good portion of that could be the ammo or end cap difference. |
|
Quoted:
Same here, I'm not happy with Silencerco for VARY misleading DB numbers, I bought 2 Omegas from SS, I bought my last Silencerco products....... 223dude View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So, a couple of questions: 1) When testing other cans, does SS typically meter from the end of the barrel, or the end of the can? If the industry-standard normal metering location is the end of the can, then metering from the end of the barrel seems like a disingenuous move on the part of SilencerCo to improve the metering results on the Omega. I truly hope that this isn't SilencerCo getting cute, because I think very highly of them as a company and tend to use their products as the basis for comparison for other suppressors (thus making them, for me, "the standard of the industry"). 2) Since they were released at a similar time, has SS gotten a chance to shoot/test the Thunderbeast Ultra series? Specifically, the Ultra 7? It seems that these two cans (Omega and Ultra) are pretty competitive with one another, and I would be interested to see some independent test results. 3) I, like others, am chomping at the bit to see a same-day, same-hosts, same ammo, same testing equipment head-to-head comparison between the Saker, Specwar, Harvester, and Omega, and just for gits and shiggles, maybe an SDN-6... We always measure from the end of the silencer. However the American Suppressor Association (ASA) is trying to get the industry to change to the end of the barrel. SilencerCo's numbers are using the end of the barrel instead of the end of the silencer. In the future we might change to metering per ASA. The ThunderBeast Ultra's have not been released yet. They announced them but they are not made yet. We expect them around May or June based on past experience with ThunderBeast. We are going to do a 5.56 and 7.62 shootout in the future. Just have to let things warm up before we can do the tests. I hate to say this, but I feel a little deceived about the Omega. I watched a video of a comparison Silencerco conducted between the Saker 5.56, Specwar 5.56 and the AAC sdn6 and they metered it from the end of the can. Why move the goal posts now? Because of the ASA? Come on.... Doesn't that negate all of their previous decibel results? That's a significant difference between metering from the end of the can and the end of the barrel. Same here, I'm not happy with Silencerco for VARY misleading DB numbers, I bought 2 Omegas from SS, I bought my last Silencerco products....... 223dude I doubt your resolve on the underlined portion, and if so you're only doing yourself a disservice. |
|
Quoted:
I doubt your resolve on the underlined portion, and if so you're only doing yourself a disservice. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So, a couple of questions: 1) When testing other cans, does SS typically meter from the end of the barrel, or the end of the can? If the industry-standard normal metering location is the end of the can, then metering from the end of the barrel seems like a disingenuous move on the part of SilencerCo to improve the metering results on the Omega. I truly hope that this isn't SilencerCo getting cute, because I think very highly of them as a company and tend to use their products as the basis for comparison for other suppressors (thus making them, for me, "the standard of the industry"). 2) Since they were released at a similar time, has SS gotten a chance to shoot/test the Thunderbeast Ultra series? Specifically, the Ultra 7? It seems that these two cans (Omega and Ultra) are pretty competitive with one another, and I would be interested to see some independent test results. 3) I, like others, am chomping at the bit to see a same-day, same-hosts, same ammo, same testing equipment head-to-head comparison between the Saker, Specwar, Harvester, and Omega, and just for gits and shiggles, maybe an SDN-6... We always measure from the end of the silencer. However the American Suppressor Association (ASA) is trying to get the industry to change to the end of the barrel. SilencerCo's numbers are using the end of the barrel instead of the end of the silencer. In the future we might change to metering per ASA. The ThunderBeast Ultra's have not been released yet. They announced them but they are not made yet. We expect them around May or June based on past experience with ThunderBeast. We are going to do a 5.56 and 7.62 shootout in the future. Just have to let things warm up before we can do the tests. I hate to say this, but I feel a little deceived about the Omega. I watched a video of a comparison Silencerco conducted between the Saker 5.56, Specwar 5.56 and the AAC sdn6 and they metered it from the end of the can. Why move the goal posts now? Because of the ASA? Come on.... Doesn't that negate all of their previous decibel results? That's a significant difference between metering from the end of the can and the end of the barrel. Same here, I'm not happy with Silencerco for VARY misleading DB numbers, I bought 2 Omegas from SS, I bought my last Silencerco products....... 223dude I doubt your resolve on the underlined portion, and if so you're only doing yourself a disservice. Silencerco makes some of the vary best suppressors on the market today, But they keep misleading/ fudging they numbers, Silencerco is a great company, I Just want real DB numbers no misleading or fudging, I think there marketing depot is doing them a great disservice, |
|
Quoted:
I doubt your resolve on the underlined portion, and if so you're only doing yourself a disservice. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So, a couple of questions: 1) When testing other cans, does SS typically meter from the end of the barrel, or the end of the can? If the industry-standard normal metering location is the end of the can, then metering from the end of the barrel seems like a disingenuous move on the part of SilencerCo to improve the metering results on the Omega. I truly hope that this isn't SilencerCo getting cute, because I think very highly of them as a company and tend to use their products as the basis for comparison for other suppressors (thus making them, for me, "the standard of the industry"). 2) Since they were released at a similar time, has SS gotten a chance to shoot/test the Thunderbeast Ultra series? Specifically, the Ultra 7? It seems that these two cans (Omega and Ultra) are pretty competitive with one another, and I would be interested to see some independent test results. 3) I, like others, am chomping at the bit to see a same-day, same-hosts, same ammo, same testing equipment head-to-head comparison between the Saker, Specwar, Harvester, and Omega, and just for gits and shiggles, maybe an SDN-6... We always measure from the end of the silencer. However the American Suppressor Association (ASA) is trying to get the industry to change to the end of the barrel. SilencerCo's numbers are using the end of the barrel instead of the end of the silencer. In the future we might change to metering per ASA. The ThunderBeast Ultra's have not been released yet. They announced them but they are not made yet. We expect them around May or June based on past experience with ThunderBeast. We are going to do a 5.56 and 7.62 shootout in the future. Just have to let things warm up before we can do the tests. I hate to say this, but I feel a little deceived about the Omega. I watched a video of a comparison Silencerco conducted between the Saker 5.56, Specwar 5.56 and the AAC sdn6 and they metered it from the end of the can. Why move the goal posts now? Because of the ASA? Come on.... Doesn't that negate all of their previous decibel results? That's a significant difference between metering from the end of the can and the end of the barrel. Same here, I'm not happy with Silencerco for VARY misleading DB numbers, I bought 2 Omegas from SS, I bought my last Silencerco products....... 223dude I doubt your resolve on the underlined portion, and if so you're only doing yourself a disservice. My resolve is strong, I just need a octane 45, and a saker k, I want anther Spectre II to, Damn, |
|
These tests, as has been pointed out here and elsewhere, mainly serve as internal comparisons rather than performance benchmarks. One can on one day with one ammo on one gun at density altitude with one microphone...
You get the idea. So if SilencerCo found a "better" way for them to do the testing (somehow with their background I doubt it was a marketing decision) I don't care as long as it is done consistently, and as long as when they do comparisons they try to minimize the aforementioned factors (or at least report them to some degree, like what host, what ammo, etc.). Big thanks to Silencer Shop for providing this service and I look forward to a comparison test video in the future! |
|
Quoted:
These tests, as has been pointed out here and elsewhere, mainly serve as internal comparisons rather than performance benchmarks. One can on one day with one ammo on one gun at density altitude with one microphone... You get the idea. So if SilencerCo found a "better" way for them to do the testing (somehow with their background I doubt it was a marketing decision) I don't care as long as it is done consistently, and as long as when they do comparisons they try to minimize the aforementioned factors (or at least report them to some degree, like what host, what ammo, etc.). Big thanks to Silencer Shop for providing this service and I look forward to a comparison test video in the future! View Quote One thing worth noting... if the testing that was done to generate the "official" numbers for the Omega differed from previous testing methods, then IMO SilencerCo should have disclosed that; there should be a known standard so that consumers know that they're comparing apples to apples when evaluating competing products. It doesn't really matter (in the grand scheme of things) what comprises the standard, so long as the standard is evenly applied across the industry. Based on what I have seen over the years, the .mil standard for testing suppressors seems to be the industry standard as well... so changing the testing method without disclosing the change in methodology is, IMO, somewhat underhanded. |
|
Quoted:
One thing worth noting... if the testing that was done to generate the "official" numbers for the Omega differed from previous testing methods, then IMO SilencerCo should have disclosed that; there should be a known standard so that consumers know that they're comparing apples to apples when evaluating competing products. It doesn't really matter (in the grand scheme of things) what comprises the standard, so long as the standard is evenly applied across the industry. Based on what I have seen over the years, the .mil standard for testing suppressors seems to be the industry standard as well... so changing the testing method without disclosing the change in methodology is, IMO, somewhat underhanded. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
These tests, as has been pointed out here and elsewhere, mainly serve as internal comparisons rather than performance benchmarks. One can on one day with one ammo on one gun at density altitude with one microphone... You get the idea. So if SilencerCo found a "better" way for them to do the testing (somehow with their background I doubt it was a marketing decision) I don't care as long as it is done consistently, and as long as when they do comparisons they try to minimize the aforementioned factors (or at least report them to some degree, like what host, what ammo, etc.). Big thanks to Silencer Shop for providing this service and I look forward to a comparison test video in the future! One thing worth noting... if the testing that was done to generate the "official" numbers for the Omega differed from previous testing methods, then IMO SilencerCo should have disclosed that; there should be a known standard so that consumers know that they're comparing apples to apples when evaluating competing products. It doesn't really matter (in the grand scheme of things) what comprises the standard, so long as the standard is evenly applied across the industry. Based on what I have seen over the years, the .mil standard for testing suppressors seems to be the industry standard as well... so changing the testing method without disclosing the change in methodology is, IMO, somewhat underhanded. This makes me wonder if the shooting .300blk subs through an Omega is really 118dB. |
|
Keep in mind that SilencerCo has, for a long time, used digital equipment for their measurements (not the specified analog microphone or something like that) that don't conform to the MIL STD. I remember this being seen as a big deal at the time.
I also most certainly agree that consumers need pricing indicators for the market to function; I think that is what they want to do with the ASA. It would be nice to move the testing technology along while keeping standard practices well known (and published with results). |
|
Quoted:
This makes me wonder if the shooting .300blk subs through an Omega is really 118dB. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
These tests, as has been pointed out here and elsewhere, mainly serve as internal comparisons rather than performance benchmarks. One can on one day with one ammo on one gun at density altitude with one microphone... You get the idea. So if SilencerCo found a "better" way for them to do the testing (somehow with their background I doubt it was a marketing decision) I don't care as long as it is done consistently, and as long as when they do comparisons they try to minimize the aforementioned factors (or at least report them to some degree, like what host, what ammo, etc.). Big thanks to Silencer Shop for providing this service and I look forward to a comparison test video in the future! One thing worth noting... if the testing that was done to generate the "official" numbers for the Omega differed from previous testing methods, then IMO SilencerCo should have disclosed that; there should be a known standard so that consumers know that they're comparing apples to apples when evaluating competing products. It doesn't really matter (in the grand scheme of things) what comprises the standard, so long as the standard is evenly applied across the industry. Based on what I have seen over the years, the .mil standard for testing suppressors seems to be the industry standard as well... so changing the testing method without disclosing the change in methodology is, IMO, somewhat underhanded. This makes me wonder if the shooting .300blk subs through an Omega is really 118dB. With probably a 12.5/16 inch barrel with their special 300blk ammo. |
|
When did they test at 118db?? I thought it was 119.5 from SiCo? I bought one for my 9" Blackout upper. I am fully prepared to be happy with it.
|
|
|
Just like GemTech learned a long time ago, Silcencerco will never publish their #s again. Just watch review videos from silencer shop or Joe down the street, the #s always fluctuate quite a bit between the 5 shots. There are too many variables involved in it.
I do commend Silencer shop for being truthfull so I will always continue doing business with just them. |
|
Quoted:
Here are some pictures with the flat end cap I screenshotted from their mounting video. http://i882.photobucket.com/albums/ac21/mosesjg/omega1_zps33x9omfd.jpg http://i882.photobucket.com/albums/ac21/mosesjg/omega3_zpspb8qvhxg.jpg View Quote Hell yeah. Looks like a winner to me. Can't wait until mine comes in. |
|
FYI for anyone interested we are going to shoot every silencer that we have over a 4 day time span. So one day will be all 5.56 on the same gun with the same ammo, next day will be the same with 308, then 45 and 9mm, and finishing with .22 silencers. This will provide a baseline with everything being equal for a true comparison.
|
|
Quoted:
FYI for anyone interested we are going to shoot every silencer that we have over a 4 day time span. So one day will be all 5.56 on the same gun with the same ammo, next day will be the same with 308, then 45 and 9mm, and finishing with .22 silencers. This will provide a baseline with everything being equal for a true comparison. View Quote Can't wait |
|
Quoted:
FYI for anyone interested we are going to shoot every silencer that we have over a 4 day time span. So one day will be all 5.56 on the same gun with the same ammo, next day will be the same with 308, then 45 and 9mm, and finishing with .22 silencers. This will provide a baseline with everything being equal for a true comparison. View Quote When will this begin? I'm on the fence, and really need to see something like this. |
|
Quoted:
When will this begin? I'm on the fence, and really need to see something like this. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
FYI for anyone interested we are going to shoot every silencer that we have over a 4 day time span. So one day will be all 5.56 on the same gun with the same ammo, next day will be the same with 308, then 45 and 9mm, and finishing with .22 silencers. This will provide a baseline with everything being equal for a true comparison. When will this begin? I'm on the fence, and really need to see something like this. +1 between Saker and Omega. Might even pick up a Specwar K depending on results. Once again thank you SS for doing this as I'm sure it will help out us in this thread, along with many others wanting to research different suppressors. |
|
Quoted:
FYI for anyone interested we are going to shoot every silencer that we have over a 4 day time span. So one day will be all 5.56 on the same gun with the same ammo, next day will be the same with 308, then 45 and 9mm, and finishing with .22 silencers. This will provide a baseline with everything being equal for a true comparison. View Quote Fantastic news guys. Thanks again for the all the work you put into testing. Will you be conducting the tests at the end of the barrel or at the end of the silencers? |
|
Quoted:
Fantastic news guys. Thanks again for the all the work you put into testing. Will you be conducting the tests at the end of the barrel or at the end of the silencers? View Quote We plan on doing this in about 2 weeks. It will take a few weeks for the videos to be created after that. As far as the testing method it is not yet determined. |
|
Quoted:
Fantastic news guys. Thanks again for the all the work you put into testing. Will you be conducting the tests at the end of the barrel or at the end of the silencers? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
FYI for anyone interested we are going to shoot every silencer that we have over a 4 day time span. So one day will be all 5.56 on the same gun with the same ammo, next day will be the same with 308, then 45 and 9mm, and finishing with .22 silencers. This will provide a baseline with everything being equal for a true comparison. Fantastic news guys. Thanks again for the all the work you put into testing. Will you be conducting the tests at the end of the barrel or at the end of the silencers? +1 cannot wait and will help me finalize the Omega go or no go for me. Thanks |
|
Quoted: FYI for anyone interested we are going to shoot every silencer that we have over a 4 day time span. So one day will be all 5.56 on the same gun with the same ammo, next day will be the same with 308, then 45 and 9mm, and finishing with .22 silencers. This will provide a baseline with everything being equal for a true comparison. View Quote This is a great idea and will go a long way in helping folks make a decision. Although this will require more work I suggest testing multiple calibers in the applicable cans (.30 cal rifle and .45 pistol etc) for folks looking for some versatility. |
|
It was asked in another thread - can anyone with a depth gauge check how far the rear of the toothed ring flange on the ASR flash hider or muzzle brake is in past the rearmost portion of the ASR mount in the Omega when mounted and locked? It is about 0.23" from the rear face of the flash hider I have here to the rear of the toothed ring flange, and to know if a rail will fit, we need to know what to subtract from that 0.23" to get our final clearance from the thread shoulder on the barrel to the front face of a given rail.
Thanks in advance! |
|
Quoted:
We plan on doing this in about 2 weeks. It will take a few weeks for the videos to be created after that. As far as the testing method it is not yet determined. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Fantastic news guys. Thanks again for the all the work you put into testing. Will you be conducting the tests at the end of the barrel or at the end of the silencers? We plan on doing this in about 2 weeks. It will take a few weeks for the videos to be created after that. As far as the testing method it is not yet determined. MILSTD + Ear |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fantastic news guys. Thanks again for the all the work you put into testing. Will you be conducting the tests at the end of the barrel or at the end of the silencers? We plan on doing this in about 2 weeks. It will take a few weeks for the videos to be created after that. As far as the testing method it is not yet determined. MILSTD + Ear More than likely. |
|
Quoted:
It was asked in another thread - can anyone with a depth gauge check how far the rear of the toothed ring flange on the ASR flash hider or muzzle brake is in past the rearmost portion of the ASR mount in the Omega when mounted and locked? It is about 0.23" from the rear face of the flash hider I have here to the rear of the toothed ring flange, and to know if a rail will fit, we need to know what to subtract from that 0.23" to get our final clearance from the thread shoulder on the barrel to the front face of a given rail. Thanks in advance! View Quote Form the end of the silencer to the end of the flash hider is .178" |
|
My apologies if already answered but how does the Omega sound compared to the specwar 7.62 across the board (11.5"-16" AR, 20" 308) ?
|
|
We haven't tested it with all of those barrel lengths. It compares very favorable with the Specwar but it is shorter and lighter.
|
|
Quoted:
Any status on the 7.62 decibel testing? View Quote I called to inquiry on an order and spoke with Tyler who has been on the videos as of late. From my conversation and understanding they are still getting ready for the new vids with all cans across the board. The weather here in Texas has not been great for a long range days since the year started to be honest. I would give it a 2-3 more weeks before the ideal weather is a constant. |
|
|
Sorry, I should've clarified. I was referring to the across the board 7.62 testing comparing all of the cans.
|
|
Those are EXCELLENT numbers. Mine is on it's way.
View Quote |
|
That video gave me a chub. I've prob only got 3 weeks to go till I can come get my Omega from you guys. Thanks for the video.
|
|
|
Any updates on the back-to-back(-to-back-to-back-to...) multi-can test?
|
|
We've been super busy trying to get videos out and other stuff. Right now I don't know when it will be but it is still on the list. I have about 15 videos that are being edited right now so lots of new tests and numbers coming soon.
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.