User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 2:04:34 PM EDT
The AAC SR5
William tests the AAC SR5 Silencer on an AR-15 and a Kel-Tec RDB.  Amazing AR15 Silencer - The AAC SR5 New videos from @bluefalcon and @10mm_ every Monday and Thursday. Check back for new threads or subscribe to our YouTube Channel. For those interested in ammo tests, Andrew has a thread for requests here. Recent Videos You May Have Missed  Dead Air Sandman K Review  Rebel Silencers SOS 22 Review |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 2:13:55 PM EDT
[#1]
In to answer questions
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 2:51:41 PM EDT
[#2]
It is not as quiet as he thinks.
The LXT meter is not spec, and can vary as much as 10db from a B&K or LD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 2:53:27 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is not as quiet as he thinks. The LXT meter is not spec, and can vary as much as 10db from a B&T or LD. It's quiet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 2:54:40 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's interesting since I actually heard it, and I own more than 15 cans. It's quiet. 123dB from a 5.56 ROFL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 2:55:36 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Test is side by side with a B&T or LD and report back. 123dB from a 5.56 ROFL. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's interesting since I actually heard it, and I own more than 15 cans. It's quiet. 123dB from a 5.56 ROFL. Meter numbers aside, it's a great sounding can. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 3:00:03 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You think the sound meter will make it quieter at my ear? Meter numbers aside, it's a great sounding can. Its performance is similar to previous AAC 5.56 cans. Nothing groundbreaking here. Folks know how AAC 5.56 cans perform, we have 20 years of experience. The real issue is the 90T mount, and to test that we need a longevity test. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 3:07:39 PM EDT
[#7]
Great vids!
Yeah, I have to agree on the sound meter. The LXT is not giving you accurate results. Low 120's with that suppressor is not realistic. Low to mid 130's is where it's at. The difference in sound is more the difference from first round pop (upper 130's realistically) or the difference at-ear because of host weapon. The RDB is actually really nice host for reducing backpressure. Oh, regarding the Sandman-K video, I left this comment on youtube: ...If I may, when mounting or removing the can, you don't need to loosen or tighten the collar. Just ensure it's in that start/stop position like you showed (before mounting), slip it on, and turn the main body. Same for removal, just turn the main body and it'll stop where it needs to and will be ready for mounting the next time too. In other words, direct manipulation of the collar is not needed during normal install/removal. Todd Magee Dead Air Alpha Nerd |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 3:07:50 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You might as well have used a iPhone app to measure the sound. Its performance is similar to previous AAC 5.56 cans. Nothing groundbreaking here. Folks know how AAC 5.56 cans perform, we have 20 years of experience. The real issue is the 90T mount, and to test that we need a longevity test. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You think the sound meter will make it quieter at my ear? Meter numbers aside, it's a great sounding can. Its performance is similar to previous AAC 5.56 cans. Nothing groundbreaking here. Folks know how AAC 5.56 cans perform, we have 20 years of experience. The real issue is the 90T mount, and to test that we need a longevity test. The LXT does fine for this type of informal testing, the rise time is not that far off of the Mil Spec which is of course, a Mil Spec. I know people like to claim it's an RNG but that's simply bullshit, it's plenty good enough to measure reduction. If you want an absolute value get it from a laboratory, not a guy in a field making YouTube videos. That should be pretty obvious but I know people don't pass up an opportunity to bitch about free information/testing. I don't remember saying it was groundbreaking, I remember saying it's a great 5.56 can and sounded amazing. Which is true. I have both 90T and 51T and haven't had an issue with either, but I have been told the 51T affects POI much more than the 90T. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 3:10:54 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Great vids! Yeah, I have to agree on the sound meter. The LXT is not giving you accurate results. Low 120's with that suppressor is not realistic. Low to mid 130's is where it's at. The difference in sound is more the difference from first round pop (upper 130's realistically) or the difference at-ear because of host weapon. The RDB is actually really nice host for reducing backpressure. Oh, regarding the Sandman-K video, I left this comment on youtube: ...If I may, when mounting or removing the can, you don't need to loosen or tighten the collar. Just ensure it's in that start/stop position like you showed (before mounting), slip it on, and turn the main body. Same for removal, just turn the main body and it'll stop where it needs to and will be ready for mounting the next time too. In other words, direct manipulation of the collar is not needed during normal install/removal. Todd Magee Dead Air Alpha Nerd As I stated above, the LXT is fine for measuring reduction. 158 is kinda low for an unsuppressed AR but if you look at reduction the numbers make sense. I skimmed the video (I filmed this awhile back) and it looks like I didn't include the unsuppressed numbers, that's an oversight on my part. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 3:15:26 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unsuppressed that gun metered about 158, AAC claims 34 dB reduction, so that should be about 124. I got 123.8 and 123.7. Not sure what there is to ROFL about a can performing exactly like the manufacturer claims. The LXT does fine for this type of informal testing, the rise time is not that far off of the Mil Spec which is of course, a Mil Spec. I know people like to claim it's an RNG but that's simply bullshit, it's plenty good enough to measure reduction. I explained it to you, Mageever explained it to you. Who else do you need? SilentMike? PHD? The meter/mic does not accurately measure gun shot sound. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 3:17:29 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
158 for 556 is off about 7-8 dB. As I said, it is off up to 10dB from tests I have seen. I explained it to you, Mageever explained it to you. Who else do you need? SilentMike? PHD? The meter/mic does not accurately measure gun shot sound. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Unsuppressed that gun metered about 158, AAC claims 34 dB reduction, so that should be about 124. I got 123.8 and 123.7. Not sure what there is to ROFL about a can performing exactly like the manufacturer claims. The LXT does fine for this type of informal testing, the rise time is not that far off of the Mil Spec which is of course, a Mil Spec. I know people like to claim it's an RNG but that's simply bullshit, it's plenty good enough to measure reduction. I explained it to you, Mageever explained it to you. Who else do you need? SilentMike? PHD? The meter/mic does not accurately measure gun shot sound. I've explained this twice, who else do you need? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 3:20:44 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
158 for 556 is off about 7-8 dB. As I said, it is off up to 10dB from tests I have seen. I explained it to you, Mageever explained it to you. Who else do you need? SilentMike? PHD? The meter/mic does not accurately measure gun shot sound. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Unsuppressed that gun metered about 158, AAC claims 34 dB reduction, so that should be about 124. I got 123.8 and 123.7. Not sure what there is to ROFL about a can performing exactly like the manufacturer claims. The LXT does fine for this type of informal testing, the rise time is not that far off of the Mil Spec which is of course, a Mil Spec. I know people like to claim it's an RNG but that's simply bullshit, it's plenty good enough to measure reduction. I explained it to you, Mageever explained it to you. Who else do you need? SilentMike? PHD? The meter/mic does not accurately measure gun shot sound. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 3:21:11 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It accurately measures reduction, which is what I used it for. I've explained this twice, who else do you need? Quote HistoryQuoted:
It accurately measures reduction, which is what I used it for. I've explained this twice, who else do you need? 30 seconds of google could have shown you the LXT is not accurate. By sticking to the belief the LXT correctly measures gun shots, you have completely discredited yourself. Out before you get dogpiled. eta Quoted:
It accurately measures reduction, which is what I used it for. Quoted:
It's more like 4-6 dB off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 3:30:07 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As McConnell says, There is no education in the second kick of a mule. 30 seconds of google could have shown you the LXT is not accurate. By sticking to the belief the LXT correctly measures gun shots, you have completely discredited yourself. Out before you get dogpiled. eta Now you are just contradicting yourself. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It accurately measures reduction, which is what I used it for. I've explained this twice, who else do you need? 30 seconds of google could have shown you the LXT is not accurate. By sticking to the belief the LXT correctly measures gun shots, you have completely discredited yourself. Out before you get dogpiled. eta Quoted:
It accurately measures reduction, which is what I used it for. Quoted:
It's more like 4-6 dB off. You should get out, you aren't reading what I'm saying. I already stated that the unsuppressed shots were low, that could be due to environmental factors, calibration, placement, etc. If those are consistent for the unsuppressed and suppresssed shots (which in this case they were) then the reduction will be accurate even if the absolute value is off by a few dB. Like I said if you want an accurate absolute number you should get it from a lab not a guy in a field making videos. It's really not complicated for those of us that perform testing with calibrated equipment on a regular basis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 3:51:44 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's really not complicated for those of us that perform testing with calibrated equipment on a regular basis. I have been doing it for decades. I have tested or assisted testing for hundreds of sessions involving thousands of cans. You have 15 cans and a Mickey Mouse Meter. You do not even have enough experience to know when something is obviously wrong. You are a clown with a YouTube account trying to pass yourself off as an SME. You do more harm to the community than good. I suggest you get Paulson's books, read everything by PHD (articles in addition to posts), and then check out what the Finish guys are doing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 4:03:08 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol. I have been doing it for decades. I have tested or assisted testing for hundreds of sessions involving thousands of cans. You have 15 cans and a Mickey Mouse Meter. You do not even have enough experience to know when something is obviously wrong. You are a clown with a YouTube account trying to pass yourself off as an SME. You do more harm to the community than good. I suggest you get Paulson's books, read everything by PHD (articles in addition to posts), and then check out what the Finish guys are doing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's really not complicated for those of us that perform testing with calibrated equipment on a regular basis. I have been doing it for decades. I have tested or assisted testing for hundreds of sessions involving thousands of cans. You have 15 cans and a Mickey Mouse Meter. You do not even have enough experience to know when something is obviously wrong. You are a clown with a YouTube account trying to pass yourself off as an SME. You do more harm to the community than good. I suggest you get Paulson's books, read everything by PHD (articles in addition to posts), and then check out what the Finish guys are doing. You should start being honest and say you just don't like it, not that it is useless. In fact you even agreed that the SR5 performs, you just wanted to pontificate about your knowledge of sound meters. I never said I was an SME, although I am a Mechanical Engineer who works in R&D and conducts lab testing in front of UL and CSA on a regular basis. I'm Six Sigma certified as well. (that involves statistics just a lil bit) Also in case you didn't pay attention this video isn't posted on my YouTube account. Oh and being in a tech forum you should keep personal attacks (name calling) out of your argument. It shows you have nothing substantive to say. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 4:16:23 PM EDT
[#17]
10mm,
Numbers are always a sore subject because of so many variables: environment, ammo, host weapon, sound equipment etc. I don't think you are purposefully trying to deceive anybody but the numbers are questionable. There was a thread a while back where bold low 120 claims were made on a 5.56 suppressor. People (including industry professionals) rightfully challenged the test methods and asked for another attempt with a few changes. The test was redone and the numbers were nowhere close to what originally claimed. I haven't heard this can being mentioned since then. Just food for thought. I appreciate your efforts in making content though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 4:17:42 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh and being in a tech forum you should keep personal attacks (name calling) out of your argument. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh and being in a tech forum you should keep personal attacks (name calling) out of your argument. Quoted:
It sounds more like you simply don't like the LXT and refuse to accept any test with it even the ones that have useful information. You should start being honest and say you just don't like it, not that it is useless. In my tests, there was no linearity to the error. One shot could be off 2dB, another 8dB, etc. The only consistency I saw was it tends to measure low, which is consistent with a mic that is slow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 4:19:08 PM EDT
[#19]
I knew this was going to be a trainwreck but didn't think it would happen this quickly.
Interested in an SR5 next to an M42k that should tell us everything we need to know |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 4:23:35 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
10mm, Numbers are always a sore subject because of so many variables: environment, ammo, host weapon, sound equipment etc. I don't think you are purposefully trying to deceive anybody but the numbers are questionable. There was a thread a while back where bold low 120 claims were made on a 5.56 suppressor. People (including industry professionals) rightfully challenged the test methods and asked for another attempt with a few changes. The test was redone and the numbers were nowhere close to what originally claimed. I haven't heard this can being mentioned since then. Just food for thought. I appreciate your efforts in making content though. I saw the thread you mentioned, I think. It was the claymore right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 4:25:46 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fair enough. The meter does not properly measure gunshot sound. How can it be useful if it cannot do that? I am sure it is great for rock concerts or something. You defend it, but have not tested it to make sure it works right, Have you? As I said, test it side by side with a B&K or LD and see for yourself instead of blindly defending it. Or read any one of several studies where others have done it. In my tests, there was no linearity to the error. One shot could be off 2dB, another 8dB, etc. The only consistency I saw was it tends to measure low, which is consistent with a mic that is slow. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Oh and being in a tech forum you should keep personal attacks (name calling) out of your argument. Quoted:
It sounds more like you simply don't like the LXT and refuse to accept any test with it even the ones that have useful information. You should start being honest and say you just don't like it, not that it is useless. In my tests, there was no linearity to the error. One shot could be off 2dB, another 8dB, etc. The only consistency I saw was it tends to measure low, which is consistent with a mic that is slow. The variance of 2 to 8 sounds reasonable for a slow mic, but not consistently low values. Unless your sample size is small. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 4:25:59 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agree. I don't think this can will meter an absolute value of 123.7, I think this can DOES have 34dB of reduction. Again, not including the unsuppressed numbers was an oversight I thought I had them in there. I did skim the video on mute at work so maybe I said it out loud and didn't show them on the screen. Either way I can add them to the description for clarification. I saw the thread you mentioned, I think. It was the claymore right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 4:27:11 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I knew this was going to be a trainwreck but didn't think it would happen this quickly. Interested in an SR5 next to an M42k that should tell us everything we need to know |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 4:27:55 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Correct. I think Thunder Beast's Ray even metered a bolt release at 120ish if I recall for reference. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Agree. I don't think this can will meter an absolute value of 123.7, I think this can DOES have 34dB of reduction. Again, not including the unsuppressed numbers was an oversight I thought I had them in there. I did skim the video on mute at work so maybe I said it out loud and didn't show them on the screen. Either way I can add them to the description for clarification. I saw the thread you mentioned, I think. It was the claymore right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 4:32:13 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think this can DOES have 34dB of reduction. the average for the bullpup was 133 which is 25dB. the average for all AR shots is 127 which is 31 dB and if you throw out the bogus shots below 125 the average is 130 which is 28dB. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 4:32:39 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It sounds more like you simply don't like the LXT and refuse to accept any test with it even the ones that have useful information. You should start being honest and say you just don't like it, not that it is useless. In fact you even agreed that the SR5 performs, you just wanted to pontificate about your knowledge of sound meters. I never said I was an SME, although I am a Mechanical Engineer who works in R&D and conducts lab testing in front of UL and CSA on a regular basis. I'm Six Sigma certified as well. (that involves statistics just a lil bit) Also in case you didn't pay attention this video isn't posted on my YouTube account. Oh and being in a tech forum you should keep personal attacks (name calling) out of your argument. It shows you have nothing substantive to say. It's not that we don't like the LXT, it's just that it is a meter that does not have the performance specifications to properly measure the phenomena in question not only in bandwidth (rise time) but also sampling rate. If you don't have good data to begin with, then your conclusions are also suspect. FWIW, I also participate in plenty of witnessed testing with CSA and other regulatory bodies but that's neither here nor there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 4:33:55 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But your own measurements (shown in video) do not support that. If unsuppressed is 158 as you stated, the average for the bullpup was 133 which is 25dB. the average for all AR shots is 127 which is 31 dB and if you throw out the bogus shots below 125 the average is 130 which is 28dB. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think this can DOES have 34dB of reduction. the average for the bullpup was 133 which is 25dB. the average for all AR shots is 127 which is 31 dB and if you throw out the bogus shots below 125 the average is 130 which is 28dB. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 4:37:33 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In my tests, there was no linearity to the error. One shot could be off 2dB, another 8dB, etc. The only consistency I saw was it tends to measure low, which is consistent with a mic that is slow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 4:38:39 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the rise time is slow and your sample size is big enough you should see a larger standard deviation and not across the board low values. Some of them should still land on the peak even if the rise is slow. The variance of 2 to 8 sounds reasonable for a slow mic, but not consistently low values. Unless your sample size is small. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 4:41:28 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL just throw shots out of the average for fun. Nice. Why not do 10 shots? Why not show the numbers, and the math? Do you know how many 556 silencers can achieve 34dB? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 4:45:34 PM EDT
[#31]
Unsuppressed .223 rifle – 165 db
Manufacturer Claim - 32-34db DB Level - 131-133db Still more realistic than your 123 claim  9mm/300blk territory
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 4:50:43 PM EDT
[#32]
I know a little bit about this and the LXT is useless for gunshots. Like others have stated the equipment simply doesn't meet the requirements needed to measure gunshots accurately. The rise time is to slow so it misses peak pressure and the sample rate is to low also so the curve gets jacked up with the wrong peak pressure anyway. I've tested cans and meters side by side many times. The LXT is useless not even good for comparing one can to another side by side. Guns and Ammo used one to test our 338 Ultra against a bunch of other 338 cans. They said we metered the loudest but sounded the best. I know for a fact that of the cans they metered nothing is within 6dB of 338 Ultra yet they said one metered 10dB better. The LXT is useless for gunshots.
Start on slide 32 https://www.slideshare.net/ZetecNDT/overview-principles-of-full-matrix-capture-fmc-and-total-focusing-method-tfm-in-ultrasonic-inspections |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 4:52:27 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unsuppressed .223 rifle 165 db Manufacturer Claim - 32-34db DB Level - 131-133db Still more realistic than your 123 claim 9mm/300blk territory
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 4:57:03 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It metered 158 unsuppressed, - 34 would be 124. I got as low as 123.7 Who is throwing out shots now? So in addition to myself, two industry experts who work for known silencer companies (DeadAir & ThunderBeast) have told you the meter/mic is no good and you continue to defend it and your numbers. Honestly, your numbers would be suspect even if you used a proper meter, as you only took 4 shots on the bullpup and 6 on the AR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 4:58:16 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It metered 158 unsuppressed, - 34 would be 124. I got as low as 123.7 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 5:01:14 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He's pointing out that 165 unsuppressed is typical performance and with the claimed decibel reduction it would put in the low 130s which would be expected for a top performing 5.56 can. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 5:02:33 PM EDT
[#37]
 Attached FileSo the manufacturer of the 800B says that the difference is not statistically significant. Hmm |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 5:07:05 PM EDT
[#38]
Let me know when Capitol Armory or Silencer Shop does a video on it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 5:17:39 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let me know when Capitol Armory or Silencer Shop does a video on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 5:32:25 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I knew this was going to be a trainwreck but didn't think it would happen this quickly. Interested in an SR5 next to an M42k that should tell us everything we need to know When you also test a well known competitor (who's performance has already been established by credible methods and sources), on the same weapon with the same meter during the same testing session, the data can be analyzed much better because there is a baseline to compare it to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 5:41:52 PM EDT
[#41]
I've never bought a can based off video's dubious audio capture or even based on some meter value but for many those numbers carry weight and currency. I'd like to suggest one or more resident experts here post a sticky in this sub forum where the accepted or disputed details of metering, weighting, environment, ammunition, etc. can be captured for posterity. And if LD is mis-representing the utility, capability, or precision of their instrument that would be a good place to start. Maybe include a list of who uses what meters.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 5:51:02 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/389530/Firearm_Sound_Suppression_-_Larson_Davis-445488.JPG So the manufacturer of the 800B says that the difference is not statistically significant. Hmm  That is a marketing fluff piece made to sell meters. Since this is a tech forum, information presented here should be as technically accurate as possible, especially with respect to db measurements where there is a known standard to follow.I have a standing invitation for any individual, dealer or manufacturer to send me silencers to measure according to MILSTD1474D. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 5:58:58 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They'd be wrong. That is a marketing fluff piece made to sell meters. Since this is a tech forum, information presented here should be as technically accurate as possible, especially with respect to db measurements where there is a known standard to follow.I have a standing invitation for any individual, dealer or manufacturer to send me silencers to measure according to MILSTD1474D. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 6:24:32 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd like to suggest one or more resident experts here post a sticky in this sub forum where the accepted or disputed details of metering, weighting, environment, ammunition, etc. can be captured for posterity. And if LD is mis-representing the utility, capability, or precision of their instrument that would be a good place to start. Maybe include a list of who uses what meters. MILSTD-1474D Test site - Equipment shall be tested in its exact operating location if the location is known and such testing is feasible. When this is not possible, the test site shall be a uniform flat grass surface, free of ice, snow, or vegetation over 15 cm tall; it shall be free of reflecting surfaces such as buildings, trees, or hillsides within 30 meters. Muzzle measurement - 1.6 meters from the ground and 1 meter left of the muzzle or exit of silencer. At ear measurement - At ear level, 15 cm from the right ear. If a wall or other reflective surface is closer than 3 cm from the operator's right ear, the microphone shall be positioned equidistant from the right ear and that surface. Rise-time - Rise time capability shall be less than 1/20 of the measured A- duration of the impulse and should be not more than 20 microseconds. Cables that cause an increase in measured rise time shall not be used. [The Larson LTX is greater than 30 microseconds.] Microphone orientation - Blunt cylinder shaped transducers shall be positioned with the sensing surface facing up if possible. Transducers shall be oriented with reference to the noise source so that the plane passing through the sensing surface includes the noise source. This orientation is defined as grazing incidence (90 degrees). This technique will tend to minimize the arrival of shock waves at transducer incidence angles between 0 and 90 degrees, which may cause ringing and overshoot. AAC: B&K Pulse AR15.com: Larson LXT ArevaloSOCOM (NFA Talk): B&K 2209 ASE UTRA: B&K Pulse Captiol Armory: CGS: B&K 2209 Dead Air: National Instruments Energetic Armament: B&K 2209 Gemtech: Griffin: B&K 2209 Hansohn Brothers: B&K 2209 KG Made: Larson LXT Military Arms Channel: B&K 2270 (had a B&K 2209 in early videos) Q: Larson LXT Rugged: National Instruments SilencerCo: National Instruments Silencer Shop: B&K 2270 SureFire: B&K Pulse Thunder Beast: B&K 2209 Green text denotes meter that meets MILSTD1474. Red text denotes meter that does not meet MILSTD1474. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 6:44:26 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fantastic idea! Below is just a quick list I compiled. @Tuukka please correct where needed. MILSTD-1474D 
There's also the "E" revision of MIL-STD-1474 which calls for 192 kHz sampling: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 7:10:54 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Silencer Shops meter is no good. When I sent them the first Ultras they called me saying they loved the weight but it metered louder than the previous model the 30P-1. The Ultra is not louder than a 30P-1 it is 5dB better. I don't know what Capitol uses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 7:33:00 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They'd be wrong. That is a marketing fluff piece made to sell meters. Since this is a tech forum, information presented here should be as technically accurate as possible, especially with respect to db measurements where there is a known standard to follow.I have a standing invitation for any individual, dealer or manufacturer to send me silencers to measure according to MILSTD1474D. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/389530/Firearm_Sound_Suppression_-_Larson_Davis-445488.JPG So the manufacturer of the 800B says that the difference is not statistically significant. Hmm That is a marketing fluff piece made to sell meters. Since this is a tech forum, information presented here should be as technically accurate as possible, especially with respect to db measurements where there is a known standard to follow.I have a standing invitation for any individual, dealer or manufacturer to send me silencers to measure according to MILSTD1474D. So don't trust the Larson Davis sound meter. And Don't trust Larson Davis to tell the truth. But trust the Larson Davis sound meter. Now it all makes sense lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 7:57:17 PM EDT
[#48]
That National Meter thing Rugged and Sico use does meet the Milspec as far as I know. I don't know if its something they made for them or what. The Rugged and Sico cans I've tested have matched their numbers. You could build a Milspec'd meter cheaper than the Pulse.
Look guys. There is an equipment standard set by the military for their testing needs for a reason. If a meter doesn't meet those standards the numbers are no good as far as the military is concerned. I have tested side by side many times and the results;ts were always the same. The LXT is a random number generator when it comes to gunshots. Look at the link I posted. I think it explains it well and simply. Start at slide 32. If you disagree then argue the science. You can't just say the the LXT is at least good for comparative numbers when you don't understand how the numbers are generated. The Guns & Ammo article is a perfect example of how the LXT is no good for gunshots at all. They even said our can sounded the best but was 10dB louder on the meter. 10dB thats a lot. Thats not a decent comparison test. When I tested the same suppressors the second place can was 6dB louder than the Ultra. CRANE tested them and got the same results. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 8:05:04 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Uh Ok. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2018 8:13:12 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Uh Ok. |
|
|
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.
