User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 12:45:50 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Blanks won't cycle without a BFA and that data would be useless because the bolt carrier isn't cycling low pressure blanks. A better test would be to stick the barrel through an insulated wall... Low-pressure was a reference to the level needed to lock the bolt back being at it's absolute minimum. All of this is completely doable. Firing through an insulated wall, while a decent suggestion, would result in wave reflection and possibly skewing the results. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 1:39:04 PM EDT
[#2]
Why would you gather data on something that nobody has any desire to do?
The simple test is to fire it on a bolt action with the same length barrel and compare the muzzle numbers and ear numbers. These are relevant. If you want the noise level of the action cycling, measuring the dB of releasing the BCG and chambering a round would be close enough for government work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 2:42:11 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why would you gather data on something that nobody has any desire to do? You're already all setup, for testing, so how much more effort would it be to get the data? Very minimal! The simple test is to fire it on a bolt action with the same length barrel and compare the muzzle numbers and ear numbers. These are relevant. Yes, exactly why I suggested this in my previous post. If you want the noise level of the action cycling, measuring the dB of releasing the BCG and chambering a round would be close enough for government work. You know, for a fact, that a bolt unlocking, extracting a round, and a carrier moving rearward is quieter than one moving forward and locking a round into the chamber? How about factoring in the escaping gas used to extract the round and run the bolt back into battery? I think this is all pertinent information, especially when such dubious claims are in question. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 2:42:13 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Obviously you'd need a blank adapter for firing blanks. Being a technical forum, I found it moot to list this item. Low-pressure was a reference to the level needed to lock the bolt back being at it's absolute minimum. All of this is completely doable. Firing through an insulated wall, while a decent suggestion, would result in wave reflection and possibly skewing the results. ETA: I've had my experience with "cheating" sound meters, I've built a few tuned headers to squeak by sound check at 110DB at 11K RPM and still be very obviously more open on track and on the dyno than any other NA team... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 2:49:35 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So the directional blast of the BFA, and the comparatively low gas pressure escaping the bolt carrier vent ports and the chamber, along with the slower carrier velocity wouldn't skew the results? The whole point is to see the lowest metering of a BC during operation. So, no, the low pressure round wouldn't skew the test. If this meters around 120db "at the ear" (speculative for example purposes) and the Mfr claims a total signature of 118db, than there is very good reason to be suspicious. However, if the Mfr's silencer can get to near this number, you know their product is achieving near absolute attainable suppression levels. Reasonable deduction. ETA: That Kart is pretty sweet 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 2:59:02 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Signature from the BFA? Please, explain what you mean. The whole point is to see the lowest metering of a BC during operation. So, no, the low pressure round wouldn't skew the test. If this meters around 120db "at the ear" (speculative for example purposes) and the Mfr claims a total signature of 118db, than there is very good reason to be suspicious. However, if the Mfr's silencer can get to near this number, you know their product is achieving near absolute attainable suppression levels. Reasonable deduction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 3:02:48 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ETA: That Kart is pretty sweet We built a new one from scratch every year, Formula SAE. I've got the 06 rolling chassis in my shop waiting on some time and money to fix it back up and put it on the road with an unrestricted GSXR motor... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 3:54:12 PM EDT
[#8]
Since people seem to be doubting the meter numbers, how about running a back-to-back test with another well known commercially available suppressor during the same session to see what numbers you get and how it compares with the SAS?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 6:22:20 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since people seem to be doubting the meter numbers, how about running a back-to-back test with another well known commercially available suppressor during the same session to see what numbers you get and how it compares with the SAS? Im sorry but when claims of this level are being made it turns me off from spending $1100 on suppressor + stamp due to me doubting their marketing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 7:04:08 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even so, it's almost irrelevant unless you step into subsonics, as the crack is louder to bystanders than the cycling of the action. All the time, I hear ppl claim their AR is so quiet that all you can hear is the action. Well, how loud is the action? If this test can quantify the carrier noise, we will have a baseline for these claims. We'll also know if ~119db at the right ear is a plausible feat. Running a can that has been 3rd party tested, and verified, is a good suggestion. It puts some faith in the metering equipment's accuracy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 7:22:36 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is a very good idea and likely the only way to prove anything. Im sorry but when claims of this level are being made it turns me off from spending $1100 on suppressor + stamp due to me doubting their marketing. HOWEVER one of use would have to be there to ensure the efficacy of the test, and ensure it is done to standard, with proper a meter. This is the Quietest Can i have ever shot. We are working out getting other truly independent testing. It is not easy to find some one that doesn't have a agenda or getting some thing from some for the results they want. If i have said this once i have said it 10 times. Tim at SAS will allow any one to come out and test the suppressors. Meter them as well. This will show that testing procedures are 100% on the up and up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 7:49:32 PM EDT
[#12]
Weren't you the one saying that the SAS Reaper MX was 10 Db quieter than the TBAC Ultra 7?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 8:12:46 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Numbers are hard to believe. I know hey seem really low. They are accurate. Test 3 separate times with the same results. Tim and i are working out the details for MAC for them the test it. HOWEVER one of use would have to be there to ensure the efficacy of the test, and ensure it is done to standard, with proper a meter. This is the Quietest Can i have ever shot. We are working out getting other truly independent testing. It is not easy to find some one that doesn't have a agenda or getting some thing from some for the results they want. If i have said this once i have said it 10 times. Tim at SAS will allow any one to come out and test the suppressors. Meter them as well. This will show that testing procedures are 100% on the up and up. Most of us would jump at the chance to do some metering with SAS, but distance precludes most of us from participating in that activity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 8:38:58 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think my point is being overlooked. All the time, I hear ppl claim their AR is so quiet that all you can hear is the action. Well, how loud is the action? If this test can quantify the carrier noise, we will have a baseline for these claims. We'll also know if ~119db at the right ear is a plausible feat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 8:56:56 PM EDT
[#15]
Slap a competitor's (or 2-3) on with the exact same mic setup & then yours and leave the camera going. Watch the orders roll in!
I'm pullin' for ya! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 8:57:44 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think my point is being overlooked. All the time, I hear ppl claim their AR is so quiet that all you can hear is the action. Well, how loud is the action? Here is some work JT did for reference http://www.silencerresearch.com/decibel_reference_library.htm |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 9:18:39 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, how loud is the action? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 9:45:03 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe I'm missing something here... are you implying that a manual cycling of the action, as fast as possible, is not a good enough simulation of the bolt cycling? Or how about just locking the bolt back, inserting a loaded mag, and then hitting the bolt release? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe I'm missing something here... are you implying that a manual cycling of the action, as fast as possible, is not a good enough simulation of the bolt cycling? Or how about just locking the bolt back, inserting a loaded mag, and then hitting the bolt release? Might I compare the firing of a bullet to simply throwing one downrange? I wouldn't assume them to be at 2 ends of the spectrum, but I'm sorry for not being presumptive. After-all, we're discussing the measurement of gases rapidly expanding, from the muzzle of a firearm, and consequently causing a measurable sound pressure wave. How does this differ from the gases used to unlock the bolt and propel the carrier rearward? Would this not have an added, measurable, impact to the results? I would think so. Quoted:
This has been known for decades. Just ask someone who has been doing testing Titsworth, Dater, Paulson, etc. Here is some work JT did for reference http://www.silencerresearch.com/decibel_reference_library.htm I'm sorry for going a bit astray, but I don't see what everyone's hangup with gathering viable data is. I would very much enjoy spending a day with some new friends, all whilst shooting guns and running some suppressor tests. Alas, real life and about 2 thousand miles are in the way. Regardless. If the action noise comes out to be at or less than 120db and SAS's numbers are authentic, than we're all in for a win. Pushing the reduction numbers is what this game is all about. Especially to the point where the mechanic report is greater than the chemical. I, for one, love designing and building my Form 1's. To know that the feat being discussed can be attained is quite significant to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 10:23:57 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not to be crass, but are you implying that manually cycling the action is the same as the sudden expansion of gunpowder? Might I compare the firing of a bullet to simply throwing one downrange? I wouldn't assume them to be at 2 ends of the spectrum, but I'm sorry for not being presumptive. After-all, we're discussing the measurement of gases rapidly expanding, from the muzzle of a firearm, and consequently causing a measurable sound pressure wave. How does this differ from the gases used to unlock the bolt and propel the carrier rearward? Would this not have an added, measurable, impact to the results? I would think so. Thank you for the link, but nothing in it shows what an AR15 action, cycling from a discharged round, meters. I'm sorry for going a bit astray, but I don't see what everyone's hangup with gathering viable data is. I would very much enjoy spending a day with some new friends, all whilst shooting guns and running some suppressor tests. Alas, real life and about 2 thousand miles are in the way. Regardless. If the action noise comes out to be at or less than 120db and SAS's numbers are authentic, than we're all in for a win. Pushing the reduction numbers is what this game is all about. Especially to the point where the mechanic report is greater than the chemical. I, for one, love designing and building my Form 1's. To know that the feat being discussed can be attained is quite significant to me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Maybe I'm missing something here... are you implying that a manual cycling of the action, as fast as possible, is not a good enough simulation of the bolt cycling? Or how about just locking the bolt back, inserting a loaded mag, and then hitting the bolt release? Might I compare the firing of a bullet to simply throwing one downrange? I wouldn't assume them to be at 2 ends of the spectrum, but I'm sorry for not being presumptive. After-all, we're discussing the measurement of gases rapidly expanding, from the muzzle of a firearm, and consequently causing a measurable sound pressure wave. How does this differ from the gases used to unlock the bolt and propel the carrier rearward? Would this not have an added, measurable, impact to the results? I would think so. Quoted:
This has been known for decades. Just ask someone who has been doing testing Titsworth, Dater, Paulson, etc. Here is some work JT did for reference http://www.silencerresearch.com/decibel_reference_library.htm I'm sorry for going a bit astray, but I don't see what everyone's hangup with gathering viable data is. I would very much enjoy spending a day with some new friends, all whilst shooting guns and running some suppressor tests. Alas, real life and about 2 thousand miles are in the way. Regardless. If the action noise comes out to be at or less than 120db and SAS's numbers are authentic, than we're all in for a win. Pushing the reduction numbers is what this game is all about. Especially to the point where the mechanic report is greater than the chemical. I, for one, love designing and building my Form 1's. To know that the feat being discussed can be attained is quite significant to me. Who cares? The difficultly of even testing that shows you that it's impossible for it to ever even occur. If it won't ever occur, that's probably a good hint as to why nobody tests for it. To be clear: You want the isolated sound of an AR-15 firing, but ONLY the port noise from that, not the overall noise. Right? Nobody tests for that because they test for how their silencer performs. What you want is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 10:30:53 PM EDT
[#20]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 10:46:08 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I too want to know what the cycle noise is as the baseline minimum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 10:55:26 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is this not settled. I always heard an AR action was 118 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I too want to know what the cycle noise is as the baseline minimum. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2017 11:57:28 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Apparently action noise isn't useful, only the sound of the action when firing - but isolated from the actual sound of the gunshot, is a viable data point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 12:19:02 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Apparently action noise isn't useful, only the sound of the action when firing - but isolated from the actual sound of the gunshot, is a viable data point. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I too want to know what the cycle noise is as the baseline minimum. if it's that damn loud, (cycle noise) I'll still go with my bolt action. Not discounting or dogging this product on an AR at all, in fact, it would probably earn the praises that the long(er) folks might give but in a "different fashion." 
This guy/company is trying to bring something to the marketplace. OUR marketplace. So what if he goes up against the WOAFPRB DB police. Let's say they come in 2nd or 3rd... Are you bitchin'? Let's say they come in 1st. You bitchin'? 8th? If the price point and the DB parameters/usage meet your needs? Welcome to the party, pal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 1:01:06 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not to be crass, but are you implying that manually cycling the action is the same as the sudden expansion of gunpowder? Might I compare the firing of a bullet to simply throwing one downrange? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 4:15:56 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was 131.8 at the Bore in accordance with Mil-spec testing using a BK2209 meter. 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. Best regards! Tuukka |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 6:33:11 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No matter whose suppressor is used, those levels simply are not right for the left or right ear with a suppressed 5.56 weapon. Best regards! Tuukka Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It was 131.8 at the Bore in accordance with Mil-spec testing using a BK2209 meter. 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. Best regards! Tuukka |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 7:23:30 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is this not settled. I always heard an AR action was 118
The point is anything close to the upper one teens is pretty remarkable. Ill stand by for more testing and verification. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 7:24:48 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It sounds like the real question you should be asking is whether the bolt speed is significantly different between firing a round and dropping the bolt over a loaded magazine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 7:31:37 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes. This is the real question regarding action noise. The bumper at the rear of the buffer rebounds off of the rear of the buffer tube and imparts forward momentum to the carrier as soon as it starts forwards. The exception would be an over-damped hydraulic buffer or a rifle that has been leaned down so far on gas as to barely lock back and not impact the rear of the buffer tube. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 7:53:18 AM EDT
[#31]
Here is a Vid from Craig Sawman Sawyer. He got to shoot a SAS can for the first time in Jan of 2017, and is now running them due to the reduced Blow back and great DB reduction.
 Failed To Load Title More to follow, video wise. If any one is in the Northeast and wants to try the Claymore First hand Contact me and we can set a date to meet as well. I am in New London, NH. People are always wanting quieter, lighter better suppressors. When something comes along that is just that, They want to call it a fraud, or BS. Tim or my self are willing to let anyone shoot and test this suppressor. You can come to Reno, or New Hampshire. If your close enough for us to come to you we will do the same. Tim is going to continue to test and evaluate the Claymore, and provide the data. I have been in the class III business for 10yrs, a lot of suppressors have come and gone. New tech and new materials have changed the industry. To date this is the quietest 556 can i have every shot. Come try it. You will be impressed. Thanks RLTW Steve 816-718-9489 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 7:58:00 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People are always wanting quieter, lighter better suppressors. When something comes along that is just that, They want to call it a fraud, or BS. ... To date this is the quietest 556 can i have every shot. Come try it. You will be impressed.
Not saying that is the case here by any means, but the best way to shut them up, short of flying everyone out there, would be a side by side test video with other popular cans. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 8:27:01 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If any one is in the Northeast and wants to try the Claymore First hand Contact me and we can set a date to meet as well. I am in New London, NH. If I could make it, I'd be very interested in this. You could try and contact YHM; I know they wanted some independent testing of their Nitro suppressor. The suggestions of a side-by-side comparison, using a popular silencer, is a great idea. Get together w/ some of the CTHTF guys and see if you could set something up at the Hartford Gun Club, or another area range. I'm sure plenty of guys in the Hometown forums are members and might be able to help you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 8:36:14 AM EDT
[#34]
Rangerwalker71 are you saying that if I come to NH or Reno I can test the can and see the results for myself? I kid I know you have said that at least 10+ times so far I don't envy you or suppressor mfg's.
No matter what you do there will always be people who don't believe you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 9:26:43 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote Historyhttps://youtu.be/xyGcaecIPaMQuoted:
Weren't you the one saying that the SAS Reaper MX was 10 Db quieter than the TBAC Ultra 7?  Thunder Beast Ultra 7 v SAS Reaper MX sound test. https://youtu.be/xyGcaecIPaM |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 9:26:52 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Rangerwalker71 are you saying that if I come to NH or Reno I can test the can and see the results for myself? I kid I know you have said that at least 10+ times so far I don't envy you or suppressor mfg's. No matter what you do there will always be people who don't believe you. Yes I am dead serious about the testing. If anybody wants to make a trip you can shoot and test under our supervision. As far as side by side testing, we can test anything you bring, plus what i have in the demo stock Which is: YHM 556, SICO Specwar 556, SAS cans, SF 556RC and RC2. I have Griffen Rec5 and a few others. If any one wants to schedule a date, call or text me @ 816-718-9489. Thanks Steve RLTW |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 9:29:24 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do a video in one continuous shot like this.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyGcaecIPaM
https://youtu.be/xyGcaecIPaM tim has one and will be getting it out this week. At the Bore, to show the 10 shot average below 132. and at shooters Right ear at the 118-119 level. thanks RLTW STEVE |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 9:36:20 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They like to do that because all too often it's just that. Were you around for the Jesse James magic potato thread? (below)
Not saying that is the case here by any means, but the best way to shut them up, short of flying everyone out there, would be a side by side test video with other popular cans. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/573353d1c2ea5168a24cd72c/573366427c65e4dd8e8703eb/5745bc663c44d8a75d551438/1464191587898/IMG_0189.JPG?format=1000w People should stick to what they are good at, Make bikes. Tim has a long history of great precision suppressors. He was a multitude of happy shooters using his suppressors dating back more then 15 yrs. This is just the latest precision suppressor he has come up with. Don't for get that a 762 and 6.5cal versions are on the way as well. Thanks Steve RTLW 816-718-9489 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 9:37:28 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From my testing, action noise averages 116db. Sound meter 1m left of muzzle and 1.6m from the ground. My meter does read between 1-2 db low however. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 9:45:22 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your in VA, If you every make a trip up north, Let me know and i'll put you on one for your self. That goes for any one!!! tim has one and will be getting it out this week. At the Bore, to show the 10 shot average below 132. and at shooters Right ear at the 118-119 level. thanks RLTW STEVE If possible please show: Mil-spec muzzle and right ear numbers of bare muzzle, Claymore and we'll regarded competition like a m4-2000, recce 5 ECT. I don't think I've ever seen bare muzzle numbers at right ear. Thanks. Edit to add. SWR and SilencerCo put out great videos of their silencers vs. the competitive a few years ago. Somthing like that would go a long way IMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 9:47:21 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm very interested in a titanium "reflex" silencer for a SPR type rifle. Can't wait for the video. If possible please show: Mil-spec muzzle and right ear numbers of bare muzzle, Claymore and we'll regarded competition like a m4-2000, recce 5 ECT. I don't think I've ever seen bare muzzle numbers of right ear. Thanks. Tim is going to do the bare muzzle numbers this weekend. I'll add that to the list to do the Right ear numbers as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 10:39:22 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What meter are you using?? Before the usual suspects come in with the "your meter doesn't meet the spec..."; I know. However, my results are consistent with AAC, Capitol Armory, MAC, SilencerCo, SilencerShop and TBAC +/- 2db which is good enough for me. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 10:51:03 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have a Larson QPR. Before the usual suspects come in with the "your meter doesn't meet the spec..."; I know. Dr Phil Dater says this meter is acceptable (pg51) so they can go argue with him 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 10:57:10 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What meter are you using?? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
From my testing, action noise averages 116db. Sound meter 1m left of muzzle and 1.6m from the ground. My meter does read between 1-2 db low however. Empty chamber would be a bit louder I would think |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 12:21:59 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank you for the link, but nothing in it shows what an AR15 action, cycling from a discharged round, meters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 12:29:35 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what your saying is, there will never be a suppressor built ever at any time that could possibly meter that low? That's pretty bold. So far, this thing looks promising and doesn't seem to have a conventional suppressor comparison as you stated earlier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 2:01:34 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Weren't you the one saying that the SAS Reaper MX was 10 Db quieter than the TBAC Ultra 7? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 2:47:31 PM EDT
[#48]
Here is the At right ear Meter test Video.
Hope this will clear up a few Questions. LINK to youtube. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 3:04:08 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here is the At right ear Meter test Video. Hope this will clear up a few Questions. LINK to youtube. Seeing this test by itself isn't super useful since there's no baseline. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 3:51:27 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The offer has been made a dozen times in this thread for people to fly across the country to test their can next to this one, but do you guys have a single other popular can to meter right next to this one? Then numbers can be compared between said can and an existing test? Seeing this test by itself isn't super useful since there's no baseline. |
|
|
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.
