AR15.Com Mobile
AIM DEL-TON MAGPUL CMMG SKD PK GEISSELE BROWNELLS LARUE RAINIER MI
RRA JT DSG VERIFORCE BRAVO DPMS SWFA BLUE FORCE GEAR STAG VORTEX FSI
» 0 Online
New SureFire SOCOM 556-RC and 762-RC blog article, pics and vids
Top_Secret  [Team Member]
Originally Posted By 1928A1:
Then in 2010 called AND emailed the Surefire suppressor division offering to buy the silencers to test and then I would resell them to recoup my investment. Surefire once again was not interested. To say the least Surefire does NOT WANT anyone to test their suppressor line for public release.


What exactly is stopping you from buying the silencers, testing, and reselling them like anyone else? Oh yeah. Nothing. Seems to me it's likely you wanted special pricing and didn't get it.
Paid Advertisement
Friendly_Crusader  [Team Member]
Originally Posted By Top_Secret:
Originally Posted By 1928A1:
Then in 2010 called AND emailed the Surefire suppressor division offering to buy the silencers to test and then I would resell them to recoup my investment. Surefire once again was not interested. To say the least Surefire does NOT WANT anyone to test their suppressor line for public release.


What exactly is stopping you from buying the silencers, testing, and reselling them like anyone else? Oh yeah. Nothing. Seems to me it's likely you wanted special pricing and didn't get it.


Exactly
m1garand30064  [Member]
Originally Posted By Lovelessk999:

Originally Posted By dmtsc:
Looks good and to think I just bought 5 Surefire cans(always something better out before your paperwork comes back)

Seriously.

Good thing I've been waiting on ps90 sbr paperwork for over a year now. Gives me plenty of time to file others...


A year!?! Wtf! Have you called to make sure everything is ok?
patriot_man  [Member]
So is this suppressor the one that was contracted to SOCOM back in 2011 and not the FH556-215A adapter & FA556-212-DE suppressor? I'm assuming that because of the name.
Papa51  [Team Member]
CTD – thank you for posting this preview and informative blog review. And as always, thank you Garin for the supplemental information shared in advance of the PR and marketing launch.

I was intending to order a 556 Mini and 762 Mini (if available) next week, but am impressed with the new SOCOMs. So with that said and without compromising yourself Garin as to garner the full-wrath of SureFire’s marketing department, are there any anticipated timelines you could share regarding:

1. When the PR with specs will be released?
2. Or, when the SOCOM’s will be added to SureFire’s website?
3. The current estimated date for dealer availability?

Candidly with NFA approval times now around 6 months combined with the November election rapidly approaching, I was in hopes of getting my suppressors ordered and paper work submitted sooner than later.

Thanks again for any additional information on timelines you may be able to provide…
Tim_AZ  [Team Member]
Well since I currently have more money than sense, I cancelled my order for the 762K and told the dealer to hold my deposit for the first 762-RC he can get his hands on. So much for having a suppressor this year.
SC-Texas  [Team Member]
Originally Posted By TCBA_Joe:
Originally Posted By Kudu22:
Hey GreenO…who did we not send current suppressor models to…let alone the SOCOM556-RC and SOCOM762-RC for “independent” testing? CRANE, Oak Ridge, USMC, ARMY or the vast other domestic and international government agencies? No we have done all of that. You are talking about a certain someone that had a testing site right? No we did not send cans to him. Since you do like to offer “your version” of information on my products to others when you do not have the correct information let me fill you in on the details so you now have the correct information. The reason we didn’t step in that situation is he wanted a sample of each model and then publicly came out saying after testing he was going to sell the cans (that he wanted for free from us) to the people that were members. And the kicker is…this was announced on the site before we were ever approached. So we were expected to send 10’s of thousands of dollars of product to a “independent” tester (for sound only) and close our eyes when the product was sold off and pocketed for a good chunk of change. Does that smell right… I will pass on that test data all day since I do know what went down and you didn’t but again you felt you had to chime in . I guess the testing (sound, flash, durability and accuracy) we have participated in has worked out for us after all.



I've tried to sympathize with his plight, but I honestly can't understand how he hasn't been banned for trolling and shilling.


Are you talking about kudo22?

Friendly_Crusader  [Team Member]
He's surely talking about green0
TCBA_Joe  [Team Member]
Originally Posted By Friendly_Crusader:
He's surely talking about green0


This
Green0  [Member]
Originally Posted By Kudu22:
Hey GreenO…who did we not send current suppressor models to…let alone the SOCOM556-RC and SOCOM762-RC for “independent” testing? CRANE, Oak Ridge, USMC, ARMY or the vast other domestic and international government agencies? No we have done all of that. You are talking about a certain someone that had a testing site right? No we did not send cans to him. Since you do like to offer “your version” of information on my products to others when you do not have the correct information let me fill you in on the details so you now have the correct information. The reason we didn’t step in that situation is he wanted a sample of each model and then publicly came out saying after testing he was going to sell the cans (that he wanted for free from us) to the people that were members. And the kicker is…this was announced on the site before we were ever approached. So we were expected to send 10’s of thousands of dollars of product to a “independent” tester (for sound only) and close our eyes when the product was sold off and pocketed for a good chunk of change. Does that smell right… I will pass on that test data all day since I do know what went down and you didn’t but again you felt you had to chime in . I guess the testing (sound, flash, durability and accuracy) we have participated in has worked out for us after all.



I remember a certain thread on silencer talk where Kevin (at that time of AAC) was talking about micro and mini cans. He was talking about 1M mil std muzzle test data they had derived from their testing. I believe the only reason he was talking was to justify to the community why his spec data on his companies mini products were louder than the community "felt" that surefire mini products were based on the Surefire rep data. Kevin was citing Surefire mini and micro 1M mil-std muzzle readings in the mid to upper 140's. The only Surefire model I ever heard was a 762SS (over the barrel model) on Todd Hodnett's 20" .308 GAP rifle at a demo day after a sniper competition and it was very loud to the extent it was making my ears ring (and several other snipers present) from ~10-15 yards at 90 degrees to the rifle. I don't like Kevin, and he doesn't like me, but I tend to believe him on this one. I get the feeling the 133DB ballpark figures that often get cited by Surefire reps are at the ear data. The company isn't very clear with regard to test data.

I know the guys at NFA talk wouldn't keep your suppressors. I also know that John didn't keep all of the cans we sent to testing (sometimes I donated cans, sometimes not), so the concept that you couldn't make an arrangement is kind of hard to believe given that most of his members wanted to see surefire test data. Obviously given John's response it sounds like Surefire didn't want cans to be tested (if John would buy them and Surefire wouldn't sell). I personally feel that Surefire had nothing to benefit from independent (SOUND) testing. Military testing is different in that durability, POI shift, weight, and length are sometimes weighed more heavily than sound performance. I just find it interesting that in a decade of sound suppressor industry involvement I haven't seen independent civilian sound testing of products from a company as large as Surefire. Call me crazy, but if the data would improve sales, I would expect Surefire to be involved in independent civilian sound testing.

Obviously a third option aside from transferring suppressors, for a company like yours would have been to just fly out with cans and do a test with someone and fly home. Major Malfunction AFAIK visited John and brought a lot of products to test.

Al Paulson doesn't often do work anymore, but he's another guy that not only sound tests a product, he seems to get magazine reviews for all his tests (free advertising). I once donated him 2 .22lr suppressors that I never saw again but I didn't get any review I'm aware of, so I'd lean toward trust in NFA talk people and formerly silencer research which was a reputable and honest source of testing. Currently Silencer Forum does some testing also, though I have no experience working with them.





TCBA_Joe  [Team Member]
Silencer Forum is Maj Malfunction
BCV  [Team Member]
Originally Posted By Green0:
Originally Posted By Kudu22:
Hey GreenO…who did we not send current suppressor models to…let alone the SOCOM556-RC and SOCOM762-RC for “independent” testing? CRANE, Oak Ridge, USMC, ARMY or the vast other domestic and international government agencies? No we have done all of that. You are talking about a certain someone that had a testing site right? No we did not send cans to him. Since you do like to offer “your version” of information on my products to others when you do not have the correct information let me fill you in on the details so you now have the correct information. The reason we didn’t step in that situation is he wanted a sample of each model and then publicly came out saying after testing he was going to sell the cans (that he wanted for free from us) to the people that were members. And the kicker is…this was announced on the site before we were ever approached. So we were expected to send 10’s of thousands of dollars of product to a “independent” tester (for sound only) and close our eyes when the product was sold off and pocketed for a good chunk of change. Does that smell right… I will pass on that test data all day since I do know what went down and you didn’t but again you felt you had to chime in . I guess the testing (sound, flash, durability and accuracy) we have participated in has worked out for us after all.



I remember a certain thread on silencer talk where Kevin (at that time of AAC) was talking about micro and mini cans. He was talking about 1M mil std muzzle test data they had derived from their testing. I believe the only reason he was talking was to justify to the community why his spec data on his companies mini products were louder than the community "felt" that surefire mini products were based on the Surefire rep data. Kevin was citing Surefire mini and micro 1M mil-std muzzle readings in the mid to upper 140's. The only Surefire model I ever heard was a 762SS (over the barrel model) on Todd Hodnett's 20" .308 GAP rifle at a demo day after a sniper competition and it was very loud to the extent it was making my ears ring (and several other snipers present) from ~10-15 yards at 90 degrees to the rifle. I don't like Kevin, and he doesn't like me, but I tend to believe him on this one. I get the feeling the 133DB ballpark figures that often get cited by Surefire reps are at the ear data. The company isn't very clear with regard to test data.

I know the guys at NFA talk wouldn't keep your suppressors. I also know that John didn't keep all of the cans we sent to testing (sometimes I donated cans, sometimes not), so the concept that you couldn't make an arrangement is kind of hard to believe given that most of his members wanted to see surefire test data. Obviously given John's response it sounds like Surefire didn't want cans to be tested (if John would buy them and Surefire wouldn't sell). I personally feel that Surefire had nothing to benefit from independent (SOUND) testing. Military testing is different in that durability, POI shift, weight, and length are sometimes weighed more heavily than sound performance. I just find it interesting that in a decade of sound suppressor industry involvement I haven't seen independent civilian sound testing of products from a company as large as Surefire. Call me crazy, but if the data would improve sales, I would expect Surefire to be involved in independent civilian sound testing.

Obviously a third option aside from transferring suppressors, for a company like yours would have been to just fly out with cans and do a test with someone and fly home. Major Malfunction AFAIK visited John and brought a lot of products to test.

Al Paulson doesn't often do work anymore, but he's another guy that not only sound tests a product, he seems to get magazine reviews for all his tests (free advertising). I once donated him 2 .22lr suppressors that I never saw again but I didn't get any review I'm aware of, so I'd lean toward trust in NFA talk people and formerly silencer research which was a reputable and honest source of testing. Currently Silencer Forum does some testing also, though I have no experience working with them.







If you are so butt hurt about how quiet surefire cans are and independent testing, then whats stopping your from buying one and doing it? Oh I know why, its cause you will actually have to buy it and not be able to sell it for a profit.

Please stop thread hijacking and move on.
GeneralPurpose  [Team Member]
Originally Posted By BCV:
Originally Posted By Green0:
Originally Posted By Kudu22:
Hey GreenO…who did we not send current suppressor models to…let alone the SOCOM556-RC and SOCOM762-RC for “independent” testing? CRANE, Oak Ridge, USMC, ARMY or the vast other domestic and international government agencies? No we have done all of that. You are talking about a certain someone that had a testing site right? No we did not send cans to him. Since you do like to offer “your version” of information on my products to others when you do not have the correct information let me fill you in on the details so you now have the correct information. The reason we didn’t step in that situation is he wanted a sample of each model and then publicly came out saying after testing he was going to sell the cans (that he wanted for free from us) to the people that were members. And the kicker is…this was announced on the site before we were ever approached. So we were expected to send 10’s of thousands of dollars of product to a “independent” tester (for sound only) and close our eyes when the product was sold off and pocketed for a good chunk of change. Does that smell right… I will pass on that test data all day since I do know what went down and you didn’t but again you felt you had to chime in . I guess the testing (sound, flash, durability and accuracy) we have participated in has worked out for us after all.



I remember a certain thread on silencer talk where Kevin (at that time of AAC) was talking about micro and mini cans. He was talking about 1M mil std muzzle test data they had derived from their testing. I believe the only reason he was talking was to justify to the community why his spec data on his companies mini products were louder than the community "felt" that surefire mini products were based on the Surefire rep data. Kevin was citing Surefire mini and micro 1M mil-std muzzle readings in the mid to upper 140's. The only Surefire model I ever heard was a 762SS (over the barrel model) on Todd Hodnett's 20" .308 GAP rifle at a demo day after a sniper competition and it was very loud to the extent it was making my ears ring (and several other snipers present) from ~10-15 yards at 90 degrees to the rifle. I don't like Kevin, and he doesn't like me, but I tend to believe him on this one. I get the feeling the 133DB ballpark figures that often get cited by Surefire reps are at the ear data. The company isn't very clear with regard to test data.

I know the guys at NFA talk wouldn't keep your suppressors. I also know that John didn't keep all of the cans we sent to testing (sometimes I donated cans, sometimes not), so the concept that you couldn't make an arrangement is kind of hard to believe given that most of his members wanted to see surefire test data. Obviously given John's response it sounds like Surefire didn't want cans to be tested (if John would buy them and Surefire wouldn't sell). I personally feel that Surefire had nothing to benefit from independent (SOUND) testing. Military testing is different in that durability, POI shift, weight, and length are sometimes weighed more heavily than sound performance. I just find it interesting that in a decade of sound suppressor industry involvement I haven't seen independent civilian sound testing of products from a company as large as Surefire. Call me crazy, but if the data would improve sales, I would expect Surefire to be involved in independent civilian sound testing.

Obviously a third option aside from transferring suppressors, for a company like yours would have been to just fly out with cans and do a test with someone and fly home. Major Malfunction AFAIK visited John and brought a lot of products to test.

Al Paulson doesn't often do work anymore, but he's another guy that not only sound tests a product, he seems to get magazine reviews for all his tests (free advertising). I once donated him 2 .22lr suppressors that I never saw again but I didn't get any review I'm aware of, so I'd lean toward trust in NFA talk people and formerly silencer research which was a reputable and honest source of testing. Currently Silencer Forum does some testing also, though I have no experience working with them.



If you are so butt hurt about how quiet surefire cans are and independent testing, then whats stopping your from buying one and doing it? Oh I know why, its cause you will actually have to buy it and not be able to sell it for a profit.

Please stop thread hijacking and move on.


Green0 = Griffin Armament. 1928A1 = Independent testing.

I would love to see independent numbers on the Surefire cans, and I've found the lack of testing of them to be very conspicuous. Silencer Forum (M3) has tested the other major manufacturers, including AAC, Gemtech, YHM, and SWR. I think it would really help Surefire if they would send their cans to M3 to test, even if the cans aren't the quietest. Buying a can with no data at all, or with only manufacturer data, is not something I want to do. And I'm not the only one.

ETA: I'm also curious what Surefire suppressors are made from. It seems like most manufacturers are pretty upfront about the material and alloy.
Friendly_Crusader  [Team Member]
While I agree about the lack of testing not being a great thing for the civilian market, it's absurd to say Surefire somehow needs to parade around, handing out product at below dealer to testers. They get all the free advertising they want, look at tens of thousands of pictures of Surefire suppressors on rifles in the hands of military units, police departments etc... I agree with the others, someone in this very hostile industry can just buy the damn suppressors at dealer cost and test them out.


Green0  [Member]
Originally Posted By Friendly_Crusader:
While I agree about the lack of testing not being a great thing for the civilian market, it's absurd to say Surefire somehow needs to parade around, handing out product at below dealer to testers. They get all the free advertising they want, look at tens of thousands of pictures of Surefire suppressors on rifles in the hands of military units, police departments etc... I agree with the others, someone in this very hostile industry can just buy the damn suppressors at dealer cost and test them out.




John didn't imply he was requesting to buy below dealer cost. He said buy. I would take that to mean at dealer cost. He is an FFL/SOT dealer. Dealer pricing is not some magical thing- the dealer gets a discount because he's got to pay operating cost, and licensing fees. Everybody does dealer discounts, because there is no incentive for a dealer to sell the product without a margin, and NFA items require out of state dealer participation in order to be sold legally to civilians.

I'm not butt hurt. I'm just pointing out facts. Surefire has a lot of money. This isn't a money issue. If Surefire wanted to have an independent test of their product, it would have happened at some point in the last ten years.
Friendly_Crusader  [Team Member]
Originally Posted By Green0:
Originally Posted By Friendly_Crusader:
While I agree about the lack of testing not being a great thing for the civilian market, it's absurd to say Surefire somehow needs to parade around, handing out product at below dealer to testers. They get all the free advertising they want, look at tens of thousands of pictures of Surefire suppressors on rifles in the hands of military units, police departments etc... I agree with the others, someone in this very hostile industry can just buy the damn suppressors at dealer cost and test them out.




John didn't imply he was requesting to buy below dealer cost. He said buy. I would take that to mean at dealer cost. He is an FFL/SOT dealer. Dealer pricing is not some magical thing- the dealer gets a discount because he's got to pay operating cost, and licensing fees. Everybody does dealer discounts, because there is no incentive for a dealer to sell the product without a margin, and NFA items require out of state dealer participation in order to be sold legally to civilians.

I'm not butt hurt. I'm just pointing out facts. Surefire has a lot of money. This isn't a money issue. If Surefire wanted to have an independent test of their product, it would have happened at some point in the last ten years.



I know that's how dealer cost works, are you saying Surefire denied service and refused to sell a dealer suppressors at dealer cost? I also know how test units and gun rag writer demos work, and i know they get even bigger discounts at times, should they choose to keep the unit. What's stopping a friend of a friend of a friend during one of the dozens of get togethers from bringing their personally owned surefire to test? Why hasn't that happened in ten years? I don't think Surefire is against independent testing, I just think they don't see a need for it, and they are selling tons of them without testing based on their record in service.
Green0  [Member]
Originally Posted By Friendly_Crusader:
What's stopping a friend of a friend of a friend during one of the dozens of get togethers from bringing their personally owned surefire to test? Why hasn't that happened in ten years? I don't think Surefire is against independent testing, I just think they don't see a need for it, and they are selling tons of them without testing based on their record in service.


That's a good point but it might be hard to find a civilian Surefire suppressor owner in rural Arkansas where John lives. Around here in Wisconsin most of my civilian customers have wanted to buy items for less than $400. I've only seen that one surefire suppressor fired despite 6 years in business and in 9 years in the military and I saw a lot of suppressors in the military mostly KAC, Ops, AAC, and Gemtech in that order. Surefire in the early years did a lot of business with the Marines, and only now are working with SOCOM on the Army side on a broad scale. I shot an e-mail a few months back on the WI hometown forum asking for anyone with a Surefire 212 to come shoot with us during a comparison sound test (I think I was offering $100 for their participation) and no one replied. My experiences lead me to believe the majority of Surefire business is Military or Law enforcement.

The only test data on Surefire products that I've seen that is remotely believable has been from Robert @ AAC. The Vimeo video comparison sound test was done to a standard and is probably good data. The data below is probably from Robert and is likely accurate. Kevin's information is more suspect but probably based in reality.

http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=24884&p=244230&hilit=144.1#p244230

Mic position one meter to left of muzzle. A-weighted.

M1A: Factory Flash Hider, 168.2 dB

AAC 762SD, 138.3 dB, +.8 dB FRP, 29.9 dB NSR
Surefire FA762K, 140.7 dB - +4.5 dB FRP, 27.5 dB NSR


Rem 700, 19.5" M80 ammo, 167.4 dB.

AAC 762SD, 139.2dB, 28.2dB NSR ––––––––––––––- $28 per dB.
Surefire FA762K, 144.7dB, 22.7dB NSR ––––––––––––––- $79 per dB.


At Ear, Rem 700 18" M80 ammo, A-weighted:

AAC 762SD, 133.0 dB
Surefire FA762SS, 135.0 dB
Surefire FA762K, 135.7 dB


http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=66745&start=50

This quote is Kevin. I believe he's comparing Mil-standard left ear data for the AAC product and 1M Mil-std Muzzle data for the Surefire suppressors- because in my experience, those figures at the ear are not likely on a 14.5" barrel. So he was being misleading probably, but did probably use 1M muzzle numbers for the Surefire products (notice he's not saying where the meter was located for any of the data). Kudu 22 is on the previous page citing 138DB for the 11.5" barrel and M855 with the mini, which is equal to AAC's data for the 1 meter Mil-Std Muzzle 6" 212 / 14.5" barrel M855 combo in the Vimeo test, so this is likely ear data for the mini (maybe mil-std Left ear because right ear on just about any suppressed AR is going to average in the low to mid 140's). If you take the 22DB reduction listed on AAC's site and subtract it from 166DB (~14.5" barrel), you get 144DB which is approximately the number for AAC that should appear in this set of numbers. Major Malfunction did test the Mini4 on a 16" barrel and it averaged 142.6DB 1m mil-std, and ~142DB at the not comparable right ear location.

14.5” M4, XM 193

Surefire Micro – 151.2 dB
Surefire Mini- 146.1 dB
AAC Mini4 – 139.2


I just don't see the point of leaving customers to have to try to find the truth in the data, when independent testers actually compare products in a fair test in which all data is comparable to data derived from other tested models. Before anyone complains, I'm not suggesting all this data is scientifically comparable. I'm just saying that due to the lack of useful data provided, this information is a synopsis of how I feel these products would actually compare in reality, were they tested to the same standards at the same place and time.


14.5” M4, XM 193 1M mil STD muzzle data adjusted to the tune of my theory explained above

Surefire Micro – 151.2 dB
Surefire Mini- 146.1 dB
AAC Mini4 – 144 DB <Adjusted for comparable 1M Mil-std muzzle location per my theory that it was left ear data, supported by MM's M855 16" 1M muzzle 142.6DB figure


Postal0311  [Life Member]
Funny that you say you don't see Surefire cans in WI, they are popular here in FL.
wreckdiver  [Member]
Originally Posted By CheaperThanDirt:
We were pleased to meet the SureFire crew at the Silencers Are Legal Shoot, and they showed us their latest, the 556-RC and 762-RC. We were very impressed, and I just finished writing a blog article about these new cans.

Here is the blog article:

http://bit.ly/JQKyQD


A couple of pics from the article:

http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Surefire-Lever-Big.jpg

http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Surefire-Tongue-Big.jpg



Awesome vid. Quick question. What kind of watch is that ?
... and video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bjFQmkECIo&list=UUhp_H1sf6F4lhbVult3_CTw&feature=plcp


BCV  [Team Member]
Originally Posted By Postal0311:
Funny that you say you don't see Surefire cans in WI, they are popular here in FL.


The first can I ever shot with was a surefire!
Green0  [Member]
Originally Posted By Postal0311:
Funny that you say you don't see Surefire cans in WI, they are popular here in FL.


Wisconsin is the land of the $350 deer rifle. Some people are high end, but 99.9% are hunting with a Marlin 336 or a Remington 742. Which is interesting because it's a pretty progressive state with regard to NFA, rights to hunt with cans, to own full autos and SBR's etc.

Kudu22  [Member]
To answer a few questions we are going to have the SOCOM series suppressors released for orders in 60 days (ish). It is not a issue with building the suppressors but I need to make sure we have adapters ready to ship at the same time cans are clearing ATF.

On the testing deal I didn't mention anyone’s name or business nor will I. I do know that free product has been asked for by more than one individual. M3 never has because his testing is over a long period of time and he feels the data would be looked upon with skepticism. The reason he has not had a chance to test Surefire is every suppressor he has bought for himself he has had to sell due to his pending orders. He has agreed to let me bring suppressors up but he stated he will retest with his personal suppressors. Both of us would expect nothing less. I plan to take him up on that offer.


Green O I can promise you I have a ton of data on other companies suppressors that we have tested and continue to test. Stuff that would make some heads spin with lab tests on material claimed to be 7075 and is actually 6061 or compaines claimed 100% inconel but has SS tube and spacers. We don’t do marketing games. We spend a good amount of money testing and yes I pay full retail price as well. I don’t care if you want to believe someone else’s data on my product or not since you have not “actually tested” it outside of being near someone while they shot. I give out true data on the weapon, barrel length ammo and the actual dB average (not a reduction reading) that occurred over a period of time on (3 round) 10 shots. . I don’t think I have the data saved from my BK Pulse system…I know I do. If you want to call me out on our data and attempt to distort it against what a competitor came up with you should also point out the data was obtained on a different weapon, barrel length, ammo , altitude and atmospheric conditions…being the expert you are you would know those account for different readings even if they were obtained by a competitor. Yes you should know that.

Green0  [Member]
Originally Posted By Kudu22:
Green O I can promise you I have a ton of data on other companies suppressors that we have tested and continue to test. Stuff that would make some heads spin with lab tests on material claimed to be 7075 and is actually 6061 or compaines claimed 100% inconel but has SS tube and spacers. We don’t do marketing games. We spend a good amount of money testing and yes I pay full retail price as well. I don’t care if you want to believe someone else’s data on my product or not since you have not “actually tested” it outside of being near someone while they shot. I give out true data on the weapon, barrel length ammo and the actual dB average (not a reduction reading) that occurred over a period of time on (3 round) 10 shots. . I don’t think I have the data saved from my BK Pulse system…I know I do. If you want to call me out on our data and attempt to distort it against what a competitor came up with you should also point out the data was obtained on a different weapon, barrel length, ammo , altitude and atmospheric conditions…being the expert you are you would know those account for different readings even if they were obtained by a competitor. Yes you should know that.



The problem I have is not with the B&K Pulse system Surefire has. It is with statements like "762SS24" M40A3/M118LR133 dB133 dB
16" MWS/M118LR133 dB133 dB"

They fail to mention where the meter was in relation to the firearm, so the data is totally meaningless. I would hope you wouldn't have to be an expert to understand why. I could similarly state 114DB for an unsuppressed TRG42 in .338LM by moving the meter the appropriate distance and direction.

I think you guys would have a lot of credibility to gain with the informed suppressor community as a result of independent testing. Until then, simply stating exactly where the meter's microphone was located when specifying a sound measurement would help. So if that is Mil-Std LEFT EAR, that would let people know that they can compare that figure with MIL-STD Left ear data.

If that's 96 feet downrange or 1 meter left and rear of the muzzle (or shooter) or some other odd proprietary format, then everyone knows not to bother comparing it to anything that wasn't similar in format.
Kudu22  [Member]
GreenO we do not have a credibility issue with the suppressor community. We are not dB chasers and we do not participate in guerilla tactics of attempting to elevate our suppressors performance by claiming the “other” companies data/product is not on par. We are more than willing to stand behind our products that are built for the world war fighters and LE professionals and concern ourselves with a lot more than just a dB rating. When we do those things if benefits the commercial market more than they would expect.

You have again and again made attempts to discredit SureFire and other companies products to make your product look good…you honestly think you should be giving advice on what our company or any other company should do to gain credibility? I have asked you before and will do it again. Do not comment on our products with your advice or “expertise”. You need to stay focused on your product only.

SC-Texas  [Team Member]
I was trying to figure out how Kudo22 or surefire has any credibility issues in the community.

Simply, they do not.

They have always stated that they do not chase decibels.




Paid Advertisement