User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/20/2017 3:56:25 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is either the quietest centerfire supressor at the ear and muzzle on the market, a discrepancy of equipment/testing procedure, or a load of BS. Again you and any one that want's to can come out and test. SAS uses MIL-SPEC standard texting, and a BK2209 Meter can come out and try it. NOW as soon as possible I will get a metered Video from SAS and post it. Thank Steve RLTW 816-718-9489 [email protected] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2017 3:59:14 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is a BK 2209 MIL-SPEC meter. I have tested 22LR suppressed at the muzzle between 116 and 130 DB's with standard ammo. WE are doing it at the EAR. We were asked about the DB level at the ear. The at the muzzle was 130.8. Yes this is quiet. If your in doubt come out and test with us. There is a open invite to any one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The quietest numbers I've seen are for a silenced 10/22 metering at 119 dB with supersonic ammo and 115 dB with subsonic ammo. Your .223 AR with supersonic ammo is "well below" a 10/22 with supersonic ammo? So, as quiet as a subsonic .22 or what? Do you guys have the same meter as JJFU? WE are doing it at the EAR. We were asked about the DB level at the ear. The at the muzzle was 130.8. Yes this is quiet. If your in doubt come out and test with us. There is a open invite to any one. Sounds like an extremely impressive can, around the sound reduction of an SPR/M4 or Ops Inc. 12th. I would love to see another party do the sound test as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2017 4:10:08 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Gotcha, missed that was the ear location. Sounds like an extremely impressive can, around the sound reduction of an SPR/M4 or Ops Inc. 12th. I would love to see another party do the sound test as well. I know that this is a very low AT the EAR number. Tim has just finished the a batch of Claymores. He is sending one out to a independent review, and testing. We should have results soon. We realize that the performance the far exceeded even the owners exceptions, and knew it would be hard to believe unless your heard it in person. thanks Steve RTLW 816-718-9489 [email protected] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2017 4:13:03 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
SAS is using the MX baffle system. The over bore is the same for this product as it is for all the 556 suppressor. I am confused as to what your wanting to know, or your asking and why? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2017 6:02:17 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
SAS is one of the quietest cans on the market. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2017 6:20:52 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can get some lower suppression numbers by using a very tight bore at the expense of reliability (if you get a slightly wobbly bullet for example). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2017 7:57:30 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which also increases the back pressure and blowback causing a much louder at ear measurement on a semi-auto. That's why I think there is something wrong with the numbers. He was going to get a Vid done asap, of at SHOOTERS EAR. Once i get it ill post it. HOWEVER, I'm sure there will be some that complain about that as well. The independent testing will follow. If any of you are in the Reno area, Call TIM he would love to take you out and let you shoot the new Claymore for your self. Thanks Steve RLTW 816-718-9489 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2017 8:17:04 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Baffle bore is the same on the Claymore as the rest of the 556 MX suppressors. The new MX line was built to reduce blow back, and be the quietest can on the market. Tim at SAS has been building precision cans for a long time. He has continued to make improvements, and the result is the Claymore. He has taken years of building quality suppressors and put in to the New MX line, and The Claymore. He was going to get a Vid done asap, of at SHOOTERS EAR. Once i get it ill post it. HOWEVER, I'm sure there will be some that complain about that as well. The independent testing will follow. If any of you are in the Reno area, Call TIM he would love to take you out and let you shoot the new Claymore for your self. Thanks Steve RLTW 816-718-9489 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Which also increases the back pressure and blowback causing a much louder at ear measurement on a semi-auto. That's why I think there is something wrong with the numbers. He was going to get a Vid done asap, of at SHOOTERS EAR. Once i get it ill post it. HOWEVER, I'm sure there will be some that complain about that as well. The independent testing will follow. If any of you are in the Reno area, Call TIM he would love to take you out and let you shoot the new Claymore for your self. Thanks Steve RLTW 816-718-9489 
I always want to see third-party testing no matter what company is doing it. @MilitaryArms had the best testing I've seen to date with several 5.56 cans tested together, which set a great baseline comparison to be able to say 'x is quieter than y.' Doing the same test with two meter locations simultaneously would be a pain in the ass, but it would be awesome. But seriously the can has fantastic specs, thanks for all the info on it. Now that I have a handful of silencers, I wouldn't mind having a less universal, but better performing reflex can. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 8:56:46 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you can test at the ear that would be awesome, I'm very interested in reflex cans of any type but the only measurement that matters to me is at my ear. I believe that is part of the new military standard according to MAC and I think anybody who is metering a suppressor ought to take both measurements every time. Then the consumer can choose which number matters more for their application. 
This is the 3rd time we have done at the ear testing. Low side was 111, high was 113DB's. Monday I will have a vid showing everything. Also did some vids at, 100-500yrds and some directional stuff as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 9:06:18 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which also increases the back pressure and blowback causing a much louder at ear measurement on a semi-auto. That's why I think there is something wrong with the numbers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 9:18:15 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe they figured something out that's never been done before. But I still would like to know the bore size. I guess feel free to ask me questions doesn't count when Skillshot asks. The MX baffles are designed to reduce blow back, and over pressure you see with a lot of cans. Tim does a over that is large enough to accommodate a odd round or some minor thread issues. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 10:19:48 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here you go. These are a few Stills from today. http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x420/rangerwalker71/9669F148-6890-4130-B654-F37A60E20E8D.jpg http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x420/rangerwalker71/2D77FDD8-4261-47AF-A539-B5BFC1B96EEB.jpg http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x420/rangerwalker71/ACFEEC58-E8D0-40AD-B479-09040C0F2EED.png This is the 3rd time we have done at the ear testing. Low side was 111, high was 113DB's. Monday I will have a vid showing everything. Also did some vids at, 100-500yrds and some directional stuff as well. The "at ear" measurements everyone (SS, MAC, etc) is using is 6in off the shooters RIGHT EAR, (the side with the ejection port) where all the blowback and action noise is. Retest to those standards and we will have apples to apples comparison the everyone else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 10:35:42 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is the 3rd time we have done at the ear testing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 11:25:11 PM EDT
[#14]
Yes sir, I am using a B&K 2209 extension that allows more options in the setup. It was an attempt to get the meter, Mike location and shooter iview for the video. It in no way changes the numbers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 11:29:27 PM EDT
[#15]
Let me know exactly the setup you would like to see used and I will happily retest and video.
It would also be helpful when we have a third party verify. I want to acknowledge these numbers are very good, and this is the quietest 5.56 suppressor I have ever experienced by any manufacturer. I am excited to get these into the hands of outside sources ASAP. I will also add that the test at the muzzle was 131-132 Db on 14.5" XM-193 combo, video posted to our Facebook page: Anyone near Reno is very welcome to call and try it out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2017 12:48:41 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let me know exactly the setup you would like to see used and I will happily retest and video. It would also be helpful when we have a third party verify. I want to acknowledge these numbers are very good, and this is the quietest 5.56 suppressor I have ever experienced by any manufacturer. I am excited to get these into the hands of outside sources ASAP. I will also add that the test at the muzzle was 131-132 Db on 14.5" XM-193 combo, video posted to our Facebook page: Anyone near Reno is very welcome to call and try it out.  Gemtech Integra 5.56 integrally silenced AR15 upper |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2017 1:52:42 AM EDT
[#17]
This sounds great and all but the supersonic crack will still be the same and that's what irritates me more than the muzzle blast.
Don't get me wrong, for the right price and if these numbers are edit I'd probably be in on one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2017 8:12:42 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now we know why these numbers are so outside the norm! The "at ear" measurements everyone (SS, MAC, etc) is using is 6in off the shooters RIGHT EAR, (the side with the ejection port) where all the blowback and action noise is. Retest to those standards and we will have apples to apples comparison the everyone else. Hopefully can have something in the next day or two. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2017 11:57:42 AM EDT
[#19]
Welcome to the forum Tim
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2017 12:30:41 PM EDT
[#20]
Thank you Sir,
I was a member wayyyyy back under the name Frogkick (reference to my cave diving days) but have not been on any forums in a while. One of my first decent sales came from a group buy here, betweeen 2001-05' not sure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2017 9:31:43 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank you Sir, I was a member wayyyyy back under the name Frogkick (reference to my cave diving days) but have not been on any forums in a while. One of my first decent sales came from a group buy here, betweeen 2001-05' not sure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 7:43:46 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now we know why these numbers are so outside the norm! The "at ear" measurements everyone (SS, MAC, etc) is using is 6in off the shooters RIGHT EAR, (the side with the ejection port) where all the blowback and action noise is. Retest to those standards and we will have apples to apples comparison the everyone else. 6" away from shooter. 
Hopefully this will help clear up any questions of apples to apples testing. 10 shit average was 118.5. At shooters right ear. We have 2 vids coming next week that shows everything. Should have them ready by Monday or Tuesday. Thanks RLTW Steve |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 1:21:51 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here you go. Tim did this yesterday morning at right ear. 6" away from shooter. http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x420/rangerwalker71/07F3F59E-2C52-4FA5-A7E7-0D8E7CA83366.jpg http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x420/rangerwalker71/377F2519-7025-41D3-87BC-EEC22A33523A.jpg Hopefully this will help clear up any questions of apples to apples testing. 10 shit average was 118.5. At shooters right ear. We have 2 vids coming next week that shows everything. Should have them ready by Monday or Tuesday. Thanks RLTW Steve
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 1:40:54 PM EDT
[#24]
These seem to be some pretty astonishing numbers. Any way you can test at the ear and the muzzle on a 20" ar10 in 308? I'm curious how just a bigger aperture deals with the larger .308.
If it tests well this could be my next 308 can, assuming the muzzle device will fit over my proof research barrel |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 1:53:24 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here you go. Tim did this yesterday morning at right ear. 6" away from shooter. http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x420/rangerwalker71/07F3F59E-2C52-4FA5-A7E7-0D8E7CA83366.jpg http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x420/rangerwalker71/377F2519-7025-41D3-87BC-EEC22A33523A.jpg Hopefully this will help clear up any questions of apples to apples testing. 10 shit average was 118.5. At shooters right ear. We have 2 vids coming next week that shows everything. Should have them ready by Monday or Tuesday. Thanks RLTW Steve ARFcom experts is this even possible to meter that low? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 1:54:28 PM EDT
[#26]
Fascinating if true
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 3:37:38 PM EDT
[#27]
This is a 5.56mm suppressor. But the plan is to have a 6.5mm and a 7.62mm ready to test next weekend.
My test rifle is to be the Armamlite SASS for both calibers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 3:40:28 PM EDT
[#28]
I think next weekend I will set up a test where I shoot unsuppressed at the muzzle, then mount suppressor and step up and shoot at the ear in one continuos video. That should remove any doubt as to whether the meter is being manipulated??
What are thoughts on that set up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 4:04:06 PM EDT
[#29]
14.5" m-4, xm-193 federal 55 grain. Direct impingement gas system.
167.8 at muzzle unsuppressed 132.?? Muzzle suppressed 113.0 shooters left ear 119.(ish) 5-6" from ejection port. I need to do the math for exact average and have not sat down to edit video yet. Also please note these are 10 shot strings. Not 5. So you can be assured there was not an attempt to skew the numbers by adding a fluid. You can get away with that with 5 shots, but you will see SPL rise sharply after 5 shots as the liquid cooks out. Keep in mind that out EADROM has very minimal added back pressure. Tested equal or slightly less than the OSS that is almost 3 times larger. Quieter as well. https://www.facebook.com/suppressedarmamentsystems/posts/1492963650735078 https://www.facebook.com/suppressedarmamentsystems/videos/1490089411022502/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 5:27:30 PM EDT
[#30]
Just to be precise, you said 6" from the ejection port. Did you mean the proper 6" from the shooter's right ear?
One of the easiest ways to quiet the skeptics would be to get one of these in the hands of Tim at Military Arms Channel as soon as possible. He tries to be very precise with his test setup so it would provide a good baseline comparison to others he has done with the same methodology on the same guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 6:49:05 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just to be precise, you said 6" from the ejection port. Did you mean the proper 6" from the shooter's right ear? One of the easiest ways to quiet the skeptics would be to get one of these in the hands of Tim at Military Arms Channel as soon as possible. He tries to be very precise with his test setup so it would provide a good baseline comparison to others he has done with the same methodology on the same guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 7:20:12 PM EDT
[#32]
Very cool, I have a sas vengeance for my 338 lapua and it is just tits, especially on a 308. SAS is solid.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 9:51:00 PM EDT
[#33]
Yes right ear.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 12:16:25 AM EDT
[#34]
This is quite impressive. I have an M47 in jail. How does the M47 compare to the Eardom, Sentinel and Claymore? Should I expect similar results? I am more interested in at the ear DB results, low gas-in-the-face and back pressure due to the host rifle (KAC SR-15 E3 Mod2).
Thanks! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 12:34:34 PM EDT
[#35]
Welcome Tim. I will be keeping an eye out for future testing of your Claymore suppressor. I currently possess a Sentinel and Reaper and I'm very impressed with their performance. Your new Claymore might be just the ticket on my DMR'ish clone rifle. Keep up the good work.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 1:54:28 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is quite impressive. I have an M47 in jail. How does the M47 compare to the Eardom, Sentinel and Claymore? Should I expect similar results? I am more interested in at the ear DB results, low gas-in-the-face and back pressure due to the host rifle (KAC SR-15 E3 Mod2). Thanks! The Eadrom MX is 5.5" and 9ozs, compared to 7" and 18ozs for the M47. The Claymore is quite then either, and slightly heavier then the Eadrom MX. Claymore weighs in at 12.2ozs. Feel free to ring or Text me if you have any other questions. Thanks Steve RTLW 816-718-9489 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 1:56:52 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Welcome Tim. I will be keeping an eye out for future testing of your Claymore suppressor. I currently possess a Sentinel and Reaper and I'm very impressed with their performance. Your new Claymore might be just the ticket on my DMR'ish clone rifle. Keep up the good work. We should also have the 6.5 and 762 prototypes going this week as well. Can't wait to blow up the conventional suppressor world once they hit the market. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 2:13:25 PM EDT
[#38]
I may have missed it, but what's the shortest barrel that the Claymore is rated for? 8" like the Eadrom?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 2:22:05 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The M47 is the bigger brother, to the Eadrom MX. It is made of SS, slightly longer by 1.5". They are going to be almost the same reduction due to the MX line having a different baffle design that preforms about 25% better then the Standard line. Shooting them side by side you would not be able to tell the difference unless you have a meter. The Eadrom MX is 5.5" and 9ozs, compared to 7" and 18ozs for the M47. The Claymore is quite then either, and slightly heavier then the Eadrom MX. Claymore weighs in at 12.2ozs. Feel free to ring or Text me if you have any other questions. Thanks Steve RTLW 816-718-9489 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 2:47:43 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you know if there are any plans to make an updated M47 or M455 using the MX baffles? An Eadrom/M455 hybrid (Eadrom built in stainless vice titanium) would have me extremely interested. Call me and i can give you more specific information on that. Thanks Steve RLTW 816-718-9489 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 3:10:01 PM EDT
[#41]
That's pretty cool
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 9:22:40 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
14.5" m-4, xm-193 federal 55 grain. Direct impingement gas system. 167.8 at muzzle unsuppressed 132.?? Muzzle suppressed 113.0 shooters left ear 119.(ish) 5-6" from ejection port. I need to do the math for exact average and have not sat down to edit video yet. Also please note these are 10 shot strings. Not 5. So you can be assured there was not an attempt to skew the numbers by adding a fluid. You can get away with that with 5 shots, but you will see SPL rise sharply after 5 shots as the liquid cooks out. / |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 10:28:53 PM EDT
[#43]
Damn, great numbers. If confirmed by a third party (like MAC) you will sold at least one .30cal to me.
A few quick questions: 1.) Is the can FA rated? 2.) Expected life of blast baffle on 11.5in 5.56? 3.) Minimum barrel length on .308 and .300wm? Thanks! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 7:39:23 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First off, I have an original Sentinel can that absolutely kicks ass in all aspects on my bolt action .223, and if this can uses the updated MX baffle stack PLUS the extra volume, no doubt it will be one of the top tier cans (if not the top) for 5.56 gas guns. Secondly, who in the hell would use fluid in a CF rifle can????? I certainly hope no mfg or rep is pulling that shit for meter vids, because if they did that and were exposed it would be the kind of VERY FAKE NEWS that would be tough to come back from. I Just find it odd Tim that you mentioned it out of the blue. A 10 shot shootout (fluid free) at the ear with similar designed as well as other high end 5.56 cans is definitely in order. Once we have a date set i will put it out. Any one that wants to join in the fun is welcome. thanks Steve RLTW 816-718-9489 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 7:43:03 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Damn, great numbers. If confirmed by a third party (like MAC) you will sold at least one .30cal to me. A few quick questions: 1.) Is the can FA rated? 2.) Expected life of blast baffle on 11.5in 5.56? 3.) Minimum barrel length on .308 and .300wm? Thanks! 2.) Between 15K and 18K. 3.) 308 16" and 300WM 18" Fell free to call me if you have any further questions. Thanks Steve RLTW 816-718-9489 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 7:51:53 AM EDT
[#46]
Hi,
Just to confirm, you are claiming sub 120 dB at shooters left or right ear with super sonic 5.56? That is simply not possible. With basically any current quality suppressor you will be c. 132-138 dB at the shooters left ear on a DI operated AR type rifle. c. 139-143 dB then on the right ear / ejection port side. Best Regards! Tuukka Jokinen Ase Utra sound suppressors |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 10:18:58 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hi, Just to confirm, you are claiming sub 120 dB at shooters left or right ear with super sonic 5.56? That is simply not possible. With basically any current quality suppressor you will be c. 132-138 dB at the shooters left ear on a DI operated AR type rifle. c. 139-143 dB then on the right ear / ejection port side. Best Regards! Tuukka Jokinen Ase Utra sound suppressors At the shooters Right ear was 118.5 At shooters Left ear was 113. This is a 10 shot average. NOT 5. Tim at SAS will be releasing a Video that shows the entire test unedited. The New MX line in 308 at the Bore has been getting 133DB's with a 22" barrel FGMM 168 gr ammo, Tim at SAS has been building Precision suppressor for more then 15yrs. He has taken his skills and experience and passed it on to AR suppressors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 11:40:22 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tim and i are working on a date to do testing for several brands. I have SICO, Griffin, and TBAC 223 suppressors to check. I am hoping to get a few others so we can do a ton of testing all side by side. Same gun, Same ammo, same time of day. Once we have a date set i will put it out. Any one that wants to join in the fun is welcome. thanks Steve RLTW 816-718-9489 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 12:22:37 PM EDT
[#49]
If you can get someone to work-up some low-pressure blank rounds (just enough to lock a bolt carrier open), you'd be able to test absolute minimal db metering of a carrier cycling (at the shooter's ear).
I think it might be worthwhile to bring a bolt rifle, chambered in 5.56/.223, for some objective testing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 12:28:49 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you can get someone to work-up some low-pressure blank rounds (just enough to lock a bolt carrier open), you'd be able to test absolute minimal db metering of a carrier cycling (at the shooter's ear). I think it might be worthwhile to bring a bolt rifle, chambered in 5.56/.223, for some objective testing. A better test would be to stick the barrel through an insulated wall... |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
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.
