Jay dropped RC3 data this morning. Honestly not crazy impressive just looking at his data.

Pew Science RC3

Yeah, the email went out this morning…I noticed it wasn’t as enthusiastic as the ones about certain other cans, nor did it contain many expensive words/phrases.

Interesting.  I’m sure I’d be happy with one, but I’m glad I went with a 2nd RC2 vs waiting for the RC3.In hindsight I should have probably just stuck with 1 RC2.  Lol

I'm not surprised it is a bad review, Jay has not missed an opportunity to take swipes at the RC3 in his podcasts since it was announced and he has lamented multiple times on Reddit that it would have to be self funded because Surefire won't pay the king his tax. But counter to this Jay has stated several times in this Review post that there are worse than the RC3 and its not a bad can. Mixed bag. On one hand I doubt he is being dishonest but at the same time I wouldn't expect a positive result considering the preceding conversations regarding the RC3.

I'm also not surprised the muzzle readings are worse in the long run considering its a bit overboard, but the 'at ear' rating being one of the worst he has given out seems shocking. My ears must be really bad or my hearing protection is just that good, but I do not personally hear such a drastic difference as he is reporting.


Yah that first round on the RC3 seems killer but levels out pretty quick. My best guess is the RC3 appears to have a more open design and probably holds a lot more O2 to burn off.


I think what puzzles me is how both the RC3 and Velos have near identical cyclic increase according to those tests, but somehow the Velos got a near twice better pressure rating measurement and at ear rating according to Pew. I assume there is something here I don't understand, but it seems out of sync.

Overall I am second guessing the Mini3. Their delayed release of the 7.62 RC3 and the Mini3 makes me hope they are taking it back to the drawing board, though. This really does making getting a 2nd Flow or the Clown Tactical WB 713 sound like better options.

I'm not sure what specifically you mean by "swipes" but I think his experience and knowledge with suppressors gives him an intuition about how a design might perform. He may have already collected the raw data at the time as well. He doesn't have to be dishonest to have some accurate predictions. He's open about who funds the tests, "lamented" seems like your personal bias/animus based on everything I've heard him say and seen him type about it.

True, his reviews are not a "CAN BAD" or "CAN GOOD" determination. For anyone reading thinking there is some SureFire bias here, he has said many positive things about the RC2 and continues to. Personally, I was surprised by these results.


If there is one thing to take away from PEW, it's that there is more to hearing damage risk than peak dB numbers. People wanted more info/data and it turns out that it's a bit more complicated than some bargained for. Are you referring to the RC3 Warcomp only vs Velos ear Suppression Rating numbers? I'm not seeing anywhere else that the Velos comes close to doubling/halving in numbers.

Just browse his comments on reddit, you can easily find a few dozen times he mentions how Surefire hasn't coughed up for the test and he would have to fund it himself. He is not lying because Surefire isn't going to pony up, something he HAS to point out every time someone brings up the RC3 in what can be easily construed as a negative point against Surefire. Even if that is not the intentions, the cult will see it otherwise. I also don't think I accused Jay of being dishonest in my post.



Sorry the RC3's 15.4 vs the Velos' 28.7 at ear rating is only a difference of 86.8636363636363%, I forgot the subjective 'near twice' only applies in cases of 86.87% or greater difference. I'll make sure not to slip up on this in the future.
And yes to make it clear I was referring to the warcomp numbers, further proof Surefire needs to discontinue those stupid things. I don't know why, outside of government contract, they would continue to market something that is all negatives and no positives for their cans. It's like keying your own damn car.

I do browse Reddit a bit, may have seen you conversing with him today, but I'm sure I haven't seen every comment. I point this out because it's a perception thing, I don't count it as a negative point against SureFire at all that they aren't interested in third party testing, I respect that choice.



Ha, I just think it's important to clarify exactly what you meant and what PEW showed because someone reading this on a public forum could go off claiming that "PEW says the RC3 is half as good as the Velos, SCIENCE!," when that simply isn't accurate.

I’d rather have actual suppression numbers than someone’s rating. And in this class of can almost the last thing I’m looking for is high sound suppression numbers.

Bingo.

Looks like I will get one. It will be an upgrade from my RCs

Having surveyed his tests thus far, the RC3 produces the 2nd lowest % cyclic rate increase among the current crop of "flow" cans, less than 1% more than the Huxwrks.

This is the test I keep thinking of when I see Silencer Syndicate and Pew measurements of the RC3 flowrate.

I don’t understand why people are perceiving this review as bad. The can does exactly what it is designed to do.

Reddit is just on a hate train because of the price. It's funny because this time last year Surefire was the 2nd coming of Jesus of suppressor manufacturing on Reddit.

RC3 to me sounds about the same as the RC2 in my ears, Pew data kind of confirms my feelings. I don't regret it at all because it has made a couple of my guns feel so much better because of the lower pressure.
Now the Mini3 has me a little worried because I feel the design doesn't scale down well, probably why the release of the Mini3 has been delayed almost half a year. I hope Surefire pulls some magic out of a hat for it because I have always preferred the mini over the full size. If it looks bad I might just go with the Velos K