would you believe the tests if they did?

I really only pay attention to dB readings when cans are compared using the same weapon and the same equipment and at the same time. Too much room for deviation otherwise imo.

So it seems like:

Surefire SOCOM:
- Less gassy
- Less POI shift
- 1oz lighter than the Saker
- Better mounting system
- 1/2" shorter than the Saker

Silencerco Saker:
- 8 db quieter than the SOCOM
- More mounting options
- Repeatable POI shift
- Less expensive

The difficult part is deciding which advantages are most important....

Is an 8db sound reduction significant on a rifle suppressor?
Is the Saker significantly gassier than the SOCOM?

Talking to someone who runs an SOT today, and owns both, he marked that the Saker was much more gassy than the Surefire. This was big for me as I recently bought a Surefire and was having second thoughts that perhaps I should have got a Saker, but blowback is a big deal for me.

You can use an AR Gas Vent to make a Saker less gassy, but you can't make a Surefire quieter.

They both seem like great cans, but if 8 dB is the difference, that's very significant. Our ears perceive 3 dB as being enough to tell a difference, 5 dB as significant, and 10 dB as twice as loud.

Between the two, I think I'd take neither and get a Saker K.

Until we get a side by side comparison of the saker and socom using the same equipment, it's pretty much futile to speculate what the db difference is between the two.

This is a comparison between griffin and the socom, which is one of a very few vids of it's kind out there on the SF cans.

You just have to decide whats best for you... Like me for example... 5.56 is loud... end of story, I wanted a suppressor that I felt best suited what I wanted to do and for me that was the Surefire. Surefire's claims of what their suppressor will do has been accurate and I'm ok with it and what I paid for it.

Different strokes for different folks

I know it's Griffins testing, but based on that vid and testing it looks like the Surefire is right in the pack of what other cans test at.  Maybe a little more at the muzzle, but less at the ear.  I'm assuming that's because of the lower gas blowback.  If a Saker is really 8db less, that would put it at less than 130db.  I find that hard to believe.

For the record I'll be buying a Saker 762 next month to go with my four Surefires.

It was in two different testing videos. The SOCOM showed to be at around 140db, while the Saker was around 132db

Ok, but in this vid the Surefire came in at 137 and change.  I'm betting with different ammo, on a different host, on a different day with different equipment the Saker would test higher than 132.

I'm sure the Saker is quieter than the Surefire.  Per Silencerco the Specwar is quieter than the Saker.  You've got to buy what you want for your reasons.

I agree, there are a lot of variables in testing. I have been leaning towards the Specwar 556, but I noticed its not rated for full auto, which makes me a little worried about durability in the long run.

Muzzle devices are also cheaper for the Saker. Both companies have great CS but Silencerco's CS is unbelievable. Its also debatable which has the better mount. I can't say for sure what one is better but hopefully I can do some side by side testing. If Silencerco ever improves their mount you can upgrade your Saker to the new system as well.

Also, a better comparison might be the Saker K and the Socom. They could be pretty close sound wise.

Where does it say that?

On Silencerco's website, it lists the Saker as full auto rated, but does not say it for the Specwar

At the ear, I bet the SOCOM meters similar or better.

I went with the Saker because of all the stories I have heard about SilencerCo's CS.  I have 2 Saker's, an Octane HD2, and a Spectre II pending right now...figured I would keep it all in one family.

I'm trying to go the opposite direction. My first can was AAC, got a SF pending, and fixing to buy an octane soon.

I can only speak from my experience with my Saker 5.56, but I notice very little to no shift when the can is mounted versus no can at all. Also, the gas is minimal and not overbearing at all. I'm running this on a piston operated AR (PWS 10.75"), so I'm not sure if that makes a difference or not.

As far the gas, the fact that that is a piston upper makes a huge difference in blowback.

I have a SOCOM556-RC.  Minimal blowback - which was one of my main points of focus, and it doesn't change POI much at all (if it does at all, I've never shot from a bench).  I'm impressed.

The mount designs are different, but I would not say either one is better than the other.  I have both Sakers, 5.56 and 7.62, and there is not very much gas blowback at all.  I have not shot a SF can, so I don't have a frame of reference for comparison, but gas is definitely not an issue for me with the Sakers.  Since I am left handed and my face is right in front of the ejection port, it is important that there be as little blow back as possible and the Sakers do a great job at that.

Actually, it was a piston system that caused AAC to open up the bores of the m4-2000 because the backpressure and faster cycling that resulted tore the guns up. Gas in your face is the least obnoxious result of increased backpressure.

Poi shift is weapon dependent. I have run my SF on multiple platforms and on some there was very marked shift and on others there was not. Surefire was happy to pull my file and email me the qa qc test target. Bang on.

Judge for yourself.  Important to note that in this 5 round test, the SF first round pop distorts the average.

(screenshots courtesy of Silencer Shop Youtube videos)

Just a note,
In these tests first one is 18" barrel vs 16" in the second one.

Would that be more in favor of the Surefire? Since its barrel is shorter?

Yes.
The 18" barrel should be 1-2 dB quieter then a 16".

Few companies do. I'd be more interested in backpressure testing.

Backpressure testing would require the same weapon be used.

I will say that I flat-out love my SOCOM Mini due to its minimal impact on cycling and similar sound to my ears as a full-size suppressor (I can tell more boom goes downrange, but it insults my ears about the same as my fullsize SF, which multiple sources have metered in the mid 130's, from SF, to their competitors, to an independent source on another forum, to even AAC (got 138.2dB on a 14.5" barrel and 140.3dB on a 10.3" barrel 1M  90* from the muzzle. This was with an older Surefire, and is louder than every other test I have seen, even from other SF competitors, but it's still not bad at all, and if AAC published it, I promise you it isn't a shill for Surefire.).

Now, as to backpressure, I now run a Vltor A5 setup, and it's virtually immune to suppressors when it comes to ejection pattern. However, I did test the SOCOM MINI and the 556-212 fullsize legacy suppressor before I went to the A5. I was using a Blue Sprinco spring and H Buffer on a 16.1" midlength gun. The Fullsize ejected to about 2 o'clock. The Mini, to about 3-3:15 o clock, and unsuppressed to about 4-4:30ish with the same ammo (MK318).

Also, I had that Noveske, which cycled great unsuppressed and on "unsuppressed" switchblock setting, but when placed on "suppressed" and with my fullsize SF suppressor attached, was VERY soft cycling, and had a few issues with return to battery even using M193.  It cycled softer than intended, I believe, and when I inquired about it, I learned that the M4-2000 was what AAC used to determine their "Suppressed" port-size in the Switchblocks at that time. To me, that indicated that most likely the SF had a significantly smaller backpressure impact on the system.

Anyway, I really REALLY like the SOCOM Mini, and the time I spent with the AAC Mini4 was positive as well. I bought the Surefire because of my past experience with SF as a company/their awesome CS, and barring that, would have still bought the SOCOM MINI for the mount. It is worlds better than AAC's setup.

I agree.

I want my silencer to make me invisible, not silent.

Unfortunately most people chase DBs, not overall performance.

I think that's likely due to the nature of the beast. Silencers are primarily for sound attenuation, so sound attenuation tends to be high on the priorities list.

Decibels, ounces and inches are easy to quantify. Mounting system and gas blowback are more difficult to begin with.

I'm using an H3 combined with a "Red" Sprinco buffer spring on my PWS 10.75". When on the suppressor gas setting (setting 4 of 4) and using my Saker I'm still getting 1-2 o'clock ejection and sometimes the brass does fly very far forward, but so far it's been 100% reliable. I've tried an H2 with the normal carbine buffer springs as well and the ejection pattern is the same. I kept the H3/red spring combo because it's so soft shooting. I've been told by a few folks not to get hung up on ejection pattern. True? What cause different ejection patterns anyways? Does brass always bounce off the brass defector?

I put little stock in ejection patterns.

As long as the case consistently clears the ejection port and lands in a similar location each time. Function and consistency are what you need. Not some clock face orientation.

That said, once a baseline is established, the clock face can be used for that weapon to quantify change in lieu of rate of fire or other methods of measure, as a rough guesstimate of what is occurring.

It's definitely consistent and the recoil is pretty much non-existent.