Armory Sponsor
Silencer Summit Results 2026 (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 8/19/2026 4:36:10 PM EDT
|
https://thunderbeastarms.com/sound/summit2026/ Links to other years available at the top of the page. |
Not everyone gets to be an astronaut, the world needs pole dancers too. ~Observer
Husher of boomsticks
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
845
EE: 0% (0)
CO, USA
|
Originally Posted By NamLeets: Interesting, never heard of Wraith till today. Jesse and William have been working on this for a few years. Really good guys who nerd out on this stuff like many of us designers & manufacturers, I've consulted for them a bit and furnished a lot of mounts. They've put a great deal of time into playing with designs & configurations, and as you can see, the result is that they've done pretty well in the metrics this year. It's all 3D printed, and the overall design is a user-serviceable can that's almost infinitely reconfigurable with a few lengths and more interchangeable baffle designs than I care to count. The upside is that for somebody who likes to tinker, it's quite literally suppressor Legos. The detractor is that without a capable impulse meter, it's gonna be really difficult to know what you have or haven't accomplished with different configurations. As such, I believe their plan is to have some optimized base configurations for common hosts and calibers that people can default to rather than trying to figure out on their own what works best through trial and error with innumerable combinations of different parts, then play with unique variations from there. |
Suppress all the things!
Don't let the join date fool you... here since '97
Joined:
May 2014
Posts:
7374
EE: 100% (24)
VA, USA
We're hoping to post the long form video this week when we can get it approved by Thunder Beast. We didn't expect results to be posted till Friday.  Coming Soon - Behind the Scenes at the Thunder Beast Arms Co Silencer Summit |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
|
Originally Posted By ECCO_Machine: Jesse and William have been working on this for a few years. Really good guys who nerd out on this stuff like many of us designers & manufacturers, I've consulted for them a bit and furnished a lot of mounts. They've put a great deal of time into playing with designs & configurations, and as you can see, the result is that they've done pretty well in the metrics this year. It's all 3D printed, and the overall design is a user-serviceable can that's almost infinitely reconfigurable with a few lengths and more interchangeable baffle designs than I care to count. The upside is that for somebody who likes to tinker, it's quite literally suppressor Legos. The detractor is that without a capable impulse meter, it's gonna be really difficult to know what you have or haven't accomplished with different configurations. As such, I believe their plan is to have some optimized base configurations for common hosts and calibers that people can default to rather than trying to figure out on their own what works best through trial and error with innumerable combinations of different parts, then play with unique variations from there. Thats pretty interesting stuff, certainly appreciate the insight into it! Also saw your Accipiter did well in a couple categories |
Husher of boomsticks
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
847
EE: 0% (0)
CO, USA
|
Originally Posted By NamLeets: Thats pretty interesting stuff, certainly appreciate the insight into it! Also saw your Accipiter did well in a couple categories Yeah, they certainly hold their own, especially factoring size. And Five By Five 5.56 is still a very serious contender despite all the newcomers. This year did prove what I've been trying to tell some folks for awhile about the extra long version of Accipiter. We've made a handful of ten inchers because people asked for them, but it's past the point of diminishing returns in .30 caliber. The 9" performs as well or better in just about every metric for each cartridge tested. Different story with the .375 cal and especially .458, the extra length helps as bore size gets bigger, but it's just pretty pointless in .30. We did get some numbers on TLX45 w/.45 ACP, Caracal with .22 TCM and Cheetah on the Beretta 71, but I didn't take pictures, so I'm gonna have to ask Zak to send those to me, since this year all the oddball stuff was omitted from the published data to reduce clutter. We threw Caracal on the 5.56 AR and the .22 pistol as well just for shiggles and gits. It did better than I thought it would with 5.56 for a pretty diminutive can (1.24x6") |
Suppress all the things!
|
Originally Posted By Green0: We're hoping to post the long form video this week when we can get it approved by Thunder Beast. We didn't expect results to be posted till Friday.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaVM-_wLbz8Is there a way to mount that one on an HK 3 lug? |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Your Optimus 9 did well too, was that actually the Optimus 9 AM? Is there a way to mount that one on an HK 3 lug? That was the Optimus 9 AM. There is no way to 3-lug the can, but we are waiting on custom buttress thread tooling to take a stab at Cam lok 2.0 to put a secure quick mount capability in the can. We need to make a fixed barrel spacer also of course for it. Only R&D and testing will tell if the buttress thread makes the Cam lok perform identical to EZ in terms of being totally secure like a SMG capable mount. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
Husher of boomsticks
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
848
EE: 0% (0)
CO, USA
|
Originally Posted By bigtex84: What’s the important number to look at again?  I mean, they're all important, but shooter's ear dB and dBA are peak sound pressure values, while SE imp dB*ms and SE leq dBA are more representative of how they sound to human ears. I find SE imp db*ms to be the best metric for which cans seem subjectively louder/quieter. |
Suppress all the things!
Husher of boomsticks
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
849
EE: 0% (0)
CO, USA
|
Originally Posted By HOODYJ: The LayerX cans seem to do pretty well against everything. The Raster5K Ti didn’t even know they had look to perform extremely well for a short 556 can. Recommend looking at the 2024+ consolidated results. Cans don't get restested on the same hosts in subsequent years unless they've been changed. Out of 158 cans, the Raster 5k Ti, the better of the two Raster versions, is: -113th for SE dB -89th for SE dBA leq -94th for SE dBA -141st for SE imp db*ms Not really what I would call a strong showing. |
Suppress all the things!
|
Originally Posted By Green0: That was the Optimus 9 AM. There is no way to 3-lug the can, but we are waiting on custom buttress thread tooling to take a stab at Cam lok 2.0 to put a secure quick mount capability in the can. We need to make a fixed barrel spacer also of course for it. Only R&D and testing will tell if the buttress thread makes the Cam lok perform identical to EZ in terms of being totally secure like a SMG capable mount. |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Awesome showing @Greeno ! Last weekend I got time behind my new Griffin AM cans and they’re very impressive! That DL7AM and HRT5AM are freakin’ great. And guess what, the TBAC results (multiple years holistically) backed up exactly what my own experience is, just this past weekend with back to back testing. Confirmation feels good - especially when I have a lot of those other cans (Griffin/SiCo/KAC/ECCO/TBAC mainly). Folks need to keep in mind the dimensions and weights and how hard these manus worked to pull off numbers like this. Great job manu’s! And @ECCO_Machine Nick I’m going to be picking up a TLX 6.5 during your next sale (almost pulled the trigger during the last one and should’ve.) It continues to hold its own. Will I need a booster on my VP9s you think? My guess would be yes - that’s a lot of length tail-wagging out there. The weight I bet I’d be fine but the length… Never a single issue with my original Canine. |
Husher of boomsticks
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
850
EE: 0% (0)
CO, USA
|
Originally Posted By HOODYJ: When compared to every can sure. But when looking at it from a K can 5.25” or shorter (how it was tested but without a mount 5.02” from the LX website) its a strong showing. I wouldn’t expect it to be as quiet as say a full size 5.56 can or a L variant. While the top 2 positions jockey with cans over 7", the extra length isnt such a big advantage on a gas gun, especially with fixed factory gas as was tested. At 1.6x5", our Five By Five has basically identical dimensions to the Raster 5k without mount, and it is: -12th for SE dB -39th for SE dBA leq -5th for SE dBA -7th for SE imp db*ms 1.88x4.25 YHM Fat Cat is: -5th for SE dB -62nd for SE dBA leq -8th for SE dBA -82nd for SE imp db*ms 1.85x4.7 RR Weapons Ventus 5.56k is: -18th for SE dB -25th for SE dBA leq -11th for SE dBA -42nd for SE imp db*ms I don't have the patience right now to keep going for other short cans with having to count through each column each time, but I think this illustrates my point. |
Suppress all the things!
Husher of boomsticks
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
851
EE: 0% (0)
CO, USA
|
Originally Posted By Brahmzy: And @ECCO_Machine Nick I’m going to be picking up a TLX 6.5 during your next sale (almost pulled the trigger during the last one and should’ve.) It continues to hold its own. Will I need a booster on my VP9s you think? My guess would be yes - that’s a lot of length tail-wagging out there. The weight I bet I’d be fine but the length… Never a single issue with my original Canine. Length is certainly relevant in that mass cantilevered further out will increase friction between the barrel & slide, but it's still a fairly short can and still really light. I haven't tested it on a VP9, but my guess would be that it'll run fine with full power 47s and no optic, and good chance full power ammo will still cycle it with a lightweight optic. Where it gets more iffy is heavier optics and/or softer ammo. All of our striker fired guns except the S&W Shield 9 will run reliably with unboosted TLX using standard 950-1,000 FPS 147s. Most of them will cycle the milder Fiocchi 850 FPS 158 grainers without the mass of an optic. That includes our well used but box-stock G17 gen 4. With really soft stuff like Federal Syntech 150 gr. and Ammo Inc. Stelth 165 gr., things get more interesting. Some of our hammer fired guns don't even like that. |
Suppress all the things!
|
Originally Posted By Dale5150: I have been looking forward to seeing these numbers with some newer cans! I was hopong to see some Ridgeback and Exigent cane tested. If the company wants its stuff tested, they only have to contact TBAC and get an OK to show up, and send a rep to the event to bring their cans. It's not at all impossible to get it done. One of the obvious takeaways in crunching a lot of data is that there are a lot of strong competitors. Some classes are really tight, and others like .300 win mag had 13DB spreads top to bottom. Here is the data crunching on our end. The HRT5K basically beat, or tied nearly every performance metric of the Strategic SciencesMFMD 5.56 1.3 at a similar weight, for ~45% the street price of the MFMD. That was neat. 2.2 times the value if you don't consider a locking QD mount to bring that higher. The HRT5K had the top score for SE LEQ DBA for anything up to its volume - within 1.95DB of the leader for 2026. ---------------------------------------- The relatively handy Optimus 9 AM pistol suppressor was the top performer in 12 of 13 performance metrics if you don't count a 1.6"x8.7" .36 rifle can used on a pistol. In consolidated, it holds as most quiet 9mm pistol can fired on a pistol due to the banish suffering in DBZ performance, but the banish 9 gives it strong competition with its crazy 14 baffle stack and high performance micro-piston <no ez lok possible there. We have 7 baffles in our can. ---------------------------------------------- Griffin optimus .45 am in .45 on 9mm 1st place winner overall, all 13 rated categories It held 11 of those categories in consolidated if you call a 10.14x1.7" can, a rifle can that is being shot on a pistol. I personally consider 1.7"x10.14 to be totally ridiculous on a pistol. ---------------------------------------- If you take the Optimus 6 AM on 16" 5.56mm and compare it against the compiled 5.56mm 16" rifle category, the Optimus 6 is quietest can on 556 under 7" of length in mil dBA avg, MR dB, MR dBA, and MR Leq dBA. If I'm not mistaken, most categories it doesn't win, are won by the TBAC Spiro or the Dillon 556 can. ---------------------------------------- The PRC22 took second in consolidated (all time) Mil DBA overall, which is neat for a short can with a muzzle brake making a large amount of its length. ------------------------------------------ Prc 300 am 3rd place .308 MIL DBA below 1.6” diameter 2nd place .308 mr leq DBA below 1.6” diameter 2nd place .308 ml leq DBA below 1.6” diameter 1st place .300 win mag mil DBA below 1.6” diameter 3rd place .300 win mag mr leq DBA below 1.6” diameter 3rd place .300 win mag ml leq DBA below 1.6” diameter ----------------------------------------- Dual lok 5 am had the lowest shooter ear dba under 7” under 1.74” diameter. First place shooter ear average sound a weighted 10 ms (SE LEQ DBA) under 9” length, under 1.6” diameter 4th overall lowest shooter ear dba Top performing 5.56 can in ml leq DBA and mr leq dba at its volume or below. ----------------------------------------- HRT5 AM second place shooter ear average sound (SE LEQ DBA) under 9” length, under 1.6” diameter ------------------------------------------- Dual lok 7 accomplished: 2nd place .308 mil dba below 1.6” diameter 2nd place .308 SE LEQ DBA below 1.6" diameter 3rd place .308 mr leq DBA below 1.6” diameter 3rd place .308 ml leq DBA below 1.6” diameter 2nd place .300 win mag mr leq DBA below 1.6” diameter 2nd place .300 win mag ML Leq DBA below 1.6" diameter 3rd PLACE .300 WIN MAG SE LEQ DBA below 1.6" diameter 1st place 300 blk 16” mil DBA below 7.55” length 1st place 300 blk 16” se leq dba below 7.55” length. ----------------------------------------------- Checkmate hd am placed 1st in shooter ear dba on the .22lr pistol It was the smallest volume can tested in 5.56mm |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
Husher of boomsticks
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
852
EE: 0% (0)
CO, USA
|
Originally Posted By Dale5150: I have been looking forward to seeing these numbers with some newer cans! I was hopong to see some Ridgeback and Exigent cane tested. I was a bit surprised to not see at least one of those two, among other new outfits. Though it's a good idea to send a representative, the cans will be tested if you just send them to TBAC. Or at least that was the case in years past, and I didn't see anything about changing that for 2026. Of course, the problem with participating in the Summit is that the numbers and rankings are what they are. You can't cheat it, the data don't care about hypebeast marketing, YouTube reviewer opinions, bold claims or clever sophistry. |
Suppress all the things!
|
Originally Posted By ECCO_Machine: I was a bit surprised to not see at least one of those two, among other new outfits. Though it's a good idea to send a representative, the cans will be tested if you just send them to TBAC. Or at least that was the case in years past, and I didn't see anything about changing that for 2026. Of course, the problem with participating in the Summit is that the numbers and rankings are what they are. You can't cheat it, the data don't care about hypebeast marketing, YouTube reviewer opinions, bold claims or clever sophistry. I'm surprised they didn't show up. It's a good way to show a product has performance. I think they are likely to be at least somewhat competitive- unless everyone has lost their damn minds. One of our sales guys at least claims he ordered them all to come here for testing, so if whoever he ordered from gets them here, they will eventually get tested. Not to the exact same standard as the silencer summit, but on a similar pulse system. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
|
Originally Posted By ECCO_Machine: I was a bit surprised to not see at least one of those two, among other new outfits. Though it's a good idea to send a representative, the cans will be tested if you just send them to TBAC. Or at least that was the case in years past, and I didn't see anything about changing that for 2026. Of course, the problem with participating in the Summit is that the numbers and rankings are what they are. You can't cheat it, the data don't care about hypebeast marketing, YouTube reviewer opinions, bold claims or clever sophistry. Originally Posted By ECCO_Machine: Originally Posted By Dale5150: I have been looking forward to seeing these numbers with some newer cans! I was hopong to see some Ridgeback and Exigent cane tested. I was a bit surprised to not see at least one of those two, among other new outfits. Though it's a good idea to send a representative, the cans will be tested if you just send them to TBAC. Or at least that was the case in years past, and I didn't see anything about changing that for 2026. Of course, the problem with participating in the Summit is that the numbers and rankings are what they are. You can't cheat it, the data don't care about hypebeast marketing, YouTube reviewer opinions, bold claims or clever sophistry. The raw data without the reviewer’s opinions, claims, and no personal interpretation of the results is why I enjoy the Summit results so much. Being open to every manufacturer with no buy in needed is a bonus too. |
Not everyone gets to be an astronaut, the world needs pole dancers too. ~Observer
|
Thank You TBAC for putting this event on yet again! I only have one TBAC product, their .22 can, but I love it so. And their putting on the Summit was a factor in my decision to buy. Thank You to Ecco and Griffin for your participation in this sub forum, and for making great performing cans, as the results show. All the hard work is getting results. |
Joined:
Oct 2023
Posts:
193
EE: 100% (3)
OK, USA
|
Originally Posted By Dale5150: I have been looking forward to seeing these numbers with some newer cans! I was hopong to see some Ridgeback and Exigent cans tested. It's part of their counter culture shtick, "we don't need no damn testing, the labs are a sellout to the man!" They don't want testing, they have copied the Kardashian algorithm, they are selling as fast as they can make them to young guys who get all their information from influencers on Instagram. The cans are likely good, but I don't think they would risk even a solid 6th place score. If they came in 15th place, they would lose their counter culture edge and just become part of the pack. |
|
Originally Posted By BandaRides: It's part of their counter culture shtick, "we don't need no damn testing, the labs are a sellout to the man!" They don't want testing, they have copied the Kardashian algorithm, they are selling as fast as they can make them to young guys who get all their information from influencers on Instagram. The cans are likely good, but I don't think they would risk even a solid 6th place score. If they came in 15th place, they would lose their counter culture edge and just become part of the pack. I own 2 ridgeback cans and like them. However I believe this may be correct. I also feel like we are near the point of dimishing returns in general. There is a level where you cant get much quieter, period. I doubt you could hear much of a difference in a LOT of the cans tested. I have cans 20 plus years old that arent blown away by the newer ones. |
|
Originally Posted By Dale5150: I own 2 ridgeback cans and like them. However I believe this may be correct. I also feel like we are near the point of dimishing returns in general. There is a level that you cant get much quieter period. I doubt you could hear much of a difference in a LOT of the cans tested. I have cans 20 plus years old that arent blown away by the newer ones. Don't get me wrong, it's a very good can and I believe it would probably finish very strongly but I don't think the social media factor could survive anything but a #1 finish which is crazy. |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
Joined:
Oct 2023
Posts:
194
EE: 100% (3)
OK, USA
|
Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: I have a Rhodie 6k and I think there probably is some truth in there. Don't get me wrong, it's a very good can and I believe it would probably finish very strongly but I don't think the social media factor could survive anything but a #1 finish which is crazy. The race at the the top is crazy. CAT pays for testing with PEW. CAT ST couldn't beat Tisha on the 10.3" so they had Jay publish the 14.5" results where they scored #1. I think we could all agree ST would likely fall somewhere between 2 thru 6, but CAT wanted a #1 headline and I can understand that. |
|
The Ridgeback cans are VERY good performers. I have 3 of them. I also have 9 other centerfire rifle cans to compare them to, and I shoot with friends who have top performing cans from other companies, and we have compared them extensively. They are clearly putting out good products. It’s not just marketing. I do agree that the modern top performing cans sound a lot more similar than they do different. Looks like SAW and CAT were not at SS. SICO only had 1 new can at the SS. Was it SICO that brought it, or someone else? I’m thinking the latter. It seems to me that a lot of companies feel that participating in SS is not something they need to do. Most silencer owners, and most prospective owners, have not heard of it. |
|
Originally Posted By Arete: The Ridgeback cans are VERY good performers. I have 3 of them. I also have 9 other centerfire rifle cans to compare them to, and I shoot with friends who have top performing cans from other companies, and we have compared them extensively. They are clearly putting out good products. It's not just marketing. I do agree that the modern top performing cans sound a lot more similar than they do different. Looks like SAW and CAT were not at SS. SICO only had 1 new can at the SS. Was it SICO that brought it, or someone else? I'm thinking the latter. It seems to me that a lot of companies feel that participating in SS is not something they need to do. Most silencer owners, and most prospective owners, have not heard of it. Personally I don't think they should worry about a...#3 finish just as an example, but I suspect they don't want anything other than #1. You may be right though and just don't care enough to participate, which IMO is a bummer. |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
| I bought a RD LS5 based on the Summit's 2023 MK18 results. It's long, and heavy, but looked like the clear winner to me from the shooter's ear perspective and I use it on similar hosts. The Ridgeback Rhodie is obviously quieter. It's also much smaller and lighter too. I think it would do really well there if the Summit still used the MK18. I'm disappointed they don't. |
| I find it incredible just how many suppressors are sub-130 on the impulse rating. Lots of really great performing options out there, and the clustering of "duty" cans on the tail side of the top end seems to indicate that there is genuinely a performance metric that requires a sacrifice to sound suppression. Even then, they're still doing very well on sound. |
Husher of boomsticks
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
853
EE: 0% (0)
CO, USA
|
Originally Posted By Dale5150: I own 2 ridgeback cans and like them. However I believe this may be correct. I also feel like we are near the point of dimishing returns in general. There is a level that you cant get much quieter period. I doubt you could hear much of a difference in a LOT of the cans tested. I have cans 20 plus years old that arent blown away by the newer ones. Case in point, the old 18T AAC M4-2000 is still one of the top performers tested on 5.56 AR at the Summit. That design is what, 20+ years old? I don't even know what year the first M4-2000s rolled out. But I know we converted a helluva lot of them because the cans perform, just the OE mounting system sucks. I really cannot stand this contemporary mentality that has evolved in the silencer consumer market that if a thing is more than 2 or 3 years old and not made with additive manufacturing, it's outmoded and shouldn't be considered. These things aren't computers, and while some of the DMLS cans certainly do perform, they share the top spots with a lot of conventionally manufactured "old tech" suppressors. That says a lot in 2026 with many, perhaps even a majority, of the newer cans being 3D printed. I remain unconvinced that additive manufacturing is the game changer some believe. While it certainly allows crazy designs, in the real world that doesn't seem to manifest as substantial performance improvements. We also see cases of designers being unable to resist the temptation of creating non-machinable features which are of dubious benefit, and are also likely to end up being carbon and debris collection points that are extremely difficult to clean. What I can say for our company vision is that 3D printed cans likely aren't in it. Much of a silencer nerd as I am, I'm a machinist first and foremost. I like cutting metal and making pretty parts, and my brain works in tool paths. If the silencer consumer market reaches the point of refusing to buy machined part suppressors regardless of performance, we'll probably just find a different industry to manufacture for rather than mothball a bunch of big, expensive machines in favor of "growing" mechanical things with other big, expensive machines. |
Suppress all the things!
|
Originally Posted By Arete: The Ridgeback cans are VERY good performers. I have 3 of them. I also have 9 other centerfire rifle cans to compare them to, and I shoot with friends who have top performing cans from other companies, and we have compared them extensively. They are clearly putting out good products. It’s not just marketing. I do agree that the modern top performing cans sound a lot more similar than they do different. Looks like SAW and CAT were not at SS. SICO only had 1 new can at the SS. Was it SICO that brought it, or someone else? I’m thinking the latter. It seems to me that a lot of companies feel that participating in SS is not something they need to do. Most silencer owners, and most prospective owners, have not heard of it. Which is a real shame. Generally, everyone always says their purchased suppressor sounds good to them. Some even say it’s the quietest. Silencer summit results provide controlled facts, not opinions. I refer to the silencer summit results when shopping for a suppressor. For me, I prioritize shooters ear levels and use those data sets to compare suppressors. I also factor in weight and length, which is included in the results tables. Once I have a few options picked out, I compare costs and go from there. I’m surprised the silencer summit results aren’t referenced here more. I was hoping to see the ridgeback and stealth additive works cans this year, since they seem to be referenced as the best frequently in this forum. |
|
Originally Posted By Arete: SICO only had 1 new can at the SS. Was it SICO that brought it, or someone else? I’m thinking the latter. It seems to me that a lot of companies feel that participating in SS is not something they need to do. Most silencer owners, and most prospective owners, have not heard of it. Silencer co had 3 cans there. The Scythe, the velos LBP 556 and 762. In 556 we had 6 cans outperform the Velos 556 in Mil DBA, MR LEQ DBA, ML LEQ DBA, and the Velos beat all but our optimus 6 AM in SE LEQ A, but we had 3 more models within 0.39DB of them so that win is pretty thin on those 3. Our 2 cans in 308 outperformed them in MIL DBA, MR LEQ DBA, ML LEQ DBA, and SE LEQ DBA, and in 300 win mag they did the same except for the PRC 300 not outperforming both of their cans in SE LEQ DBA. I think some of the companies especially the ones with good influence with PEW, probably don't want to risk damage to their good influence with PEW. There is another current independent testing startup - Silencer Metrics and that may be a very comprehensive set of metrics getting tested and it is hard to see how customers won't want to see recoil and muzzle flash and whatever other metrics are getting tested over there. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
|
Originally Posted By ECCO_Machine: Case in point, the old 18T AAC M4-2000 is still one of the top performers tested on 5.56 AR at the Summit. That design is what, 20+ years old? I don't even know what year the first M4-2000s rolled out. But I know we converted a helluva lot of them because the cans perform, just the OE mounting system sucks. I really cannot stand this contemporary mentality that has evolved in the silencer consumer market that if a thing is more than 2 or 3 years old and not made with additive manufacturing, it's outmoded and shouldn't be considered. These things aren't computers, and while some of the DMLS cans certainly do perform, they share the top spots with a lot of conventionally manufactured "old tech" suppressors. That says a lot in 2026 with many, perhaps even a majority, of the newer cans being 3D printed. I remain unconvinced that additive manufacturing is the game changer some believe. While it certainly allows crazy designs, in the real world that doesn't seem to manifest as substantial performance improvements. We also see cases of designers being unable to resist the temptation of creating non-machinable features which are of dubious benefit, and are also likely to end up being carbon and debris collection points that are extremely difficult to clean. What I can say for our company vision is that 3D printed cans likely aren't in it. Much of a silencer nerd as I am, I'm a machinist first and foremost. I like cutting metal and making pretty parts, and my brain works in tool paths. If the silencer consumer market reaches the point of refusing to buy machined part suppressors regardless of performance, we'll probably just find a different industry to manufacture for rather than mothball a bunch of big, expensive machines in favor of "growing" mechanical things with other big, expensive machines. The M4-2000 (I'm taking the better of 2 models here the 416SD a marine (waterborne) emphasis derivative of M4-2000 and saying that's what we're talking about) None of MIL DBA, ML LEQ DBA, MR LEQ DBA SE LEQ DBA, would put it in the top 16 of even just 2026. The can also would lose in first round flash performance because it had no flash hider, and the flash hider hurts muzzle sound performance, so integrating one requires the can to be better performing to float it. The M4-2000 has some similarity to printed cans- stamping gave it geometry that wouldn't work in conventional economically, and the 718 inconel baffles gave it the wear resistance more like additive of today. The Best platform for performance of the M4-2000 is the 16" barrel, whereas many of 2026 were likely designed for 11.5 or 12.5" as the objective performance platforms. I think if you took the shorter barrel for the comparison, the old AAC can would get lower rankings especially SE LEQ DBA side, but it was and is a pretty performing can. I think the ~ arrival date for the tech in the can was 2009 so around 17 years. The can is 7.08" tested length, which makes it longer than most of the cans in the tactical category today (like RC4/CRS PRT/RC2/NT4 PRG) which hover around 6.25-6.5" tested length. Give us all more length and we can add performance, but it won't sell as well, because people don't want that length. They want less length. There is a reality that Super-alloys are many times more wear resistant. That mostly matters for blast baffles in cans, which when worn out cost ~2DB of performance, some additional backpressure, but for really hard users it can effect multiple baffles in the stack (like 6, 30 round mags dumped in a test, 10 minutes cooling 10 times on a 10.5" barrel). There is another reality that printed cans need to be machined in conventional CNC machines to be useable. So CNC machines are not going away. Also muzzle devices and mounts need CNC. I don't actually see all the demand going to additive. We're having a struggle to get demand on additive cans personally - it's improving but it's been a bit sluggish and has required some education. I know they are obviously superior in durable life and sound and flash performance (everything that matters), but try convincing a customer who you won't personally be talking to, and who is a layperson? <good luck (rhetorical statement of the current market condition). |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
|
Originally Posted By Green0: The M4-2000 (I'm taking the better of 2 models here the 416SD A marine emphasis derivative of M4-2000 and saying that's what we're talking about) None of MIL DBA, ML LEQ DBA, MR LEQ DBA SE LEQ DBA, would put it in the top 16 of even just 2026. The can also would lose in first round flash performance because it had no flash hider, and the flash hider hurts muzzle sound performance, so integrating one requires the can to be better performing to float it. The M4-2000 has some similarity to printed cans- stamping gave it geometry that wouldn't work in conventional economically, and the 718 inconel baffles gave it the wear resistance more like additive of today. The Best platform for performance of the M4-2000 is the 16" barrel, whereas many of 2026 were likely designed for 11.5 or 12.5" as the objective performance platforms. I think if you took the shorter barrel for the comparison, the old AAC can would get lower rankings especially SE LEQ DBA side, but it was and is a pretty performing can. I think the ~ arrival date for the tech in the can was 2009 so around 17 years. The can is 7.08" tested length, which makes it longer than most of the cans in the tactical category today (like RC4/CRS PRT/RC2/NT4 PRG) which hover around 6.25-6.5" tested length. Give us all more length and we can add performance, but it won't sell as well, because people don't want that length. They want less length. There is a reality that Super-alloys are many times more wear resistant. That mostly matters for blast baffles in cans, which when worn out cost ~2DB of performance, but for really hard users it can effect multiple baffles in the stack (like 6, 30 round mags dumped in a test, 10 minutes cooling 10 times on a 10.5" barrel). There is another reality that printed cans need to be machined in conventional CNC machines to be useable. I don't actually see all the demand going to additive. We're having a struggle to get demand on additive cans personally - it's improving but it's been a bit sluggish and has required some education. I know they are obviously superior in durable life and sound and flash performance (everything that matters), but try convincing a customer who you won't personally be talking to, and who is a layperson? <good luck (rhetorical statement of the current market condition). I think the big driver for additive will be cost and innovation. You can only re-configure K baffles in so many ways to get novel designs, and having a machine run 24/7 (probably not literally lol) is much better than having to pay someone to weld baffles together, even if you use a laser welder. It'll take a little while since it is still relatively new tech and suppressors are in the early days of breaking from the enthusiast-only niche appeal. Most of the new suppressor startups or doing third-party DMLS for example. What is most interesting to me is that most additive companies so far have taken the approach of trying to match traditional baffle performance with reduced back-pressure. I don't think it will take long for us to see the opposite side of that approach: trying to maximize sound suppression while keeping similar back-pressure to "low-flow" cans. How much quieter can you make an NT4/RC2 if you leverage more complex internal geometries? Alternatively, how much lighter can you make the suppressor without reducing performance or durability? I believe this is where there is still the most potential for excitement as civilian customers. |
|
Originally Posted By Dale5150: I own 2 ridgeback cans and like them. However I believe this may be correct. I also feel like we are near the point of dimishing returns in general. There is a level where you cant get much quieter, period. I doubt you could hear much of a difference in a LOT of the cans tested. I have cans 20 plus years old that arent blown away by the newer ones. Originally Posted By Dale5150: Originally Posted By BandaRides: It's part of their counter culture shtick, "we don't need no damn testing, the labs are a sellout to the man!" They don't want testing, they have copied the Kardashian algorithm, they are selling as fast as they can make them to young guys who get all their information from influencers on Instagram. The cans are likely good, but I don't think they would risk even a solid 6th place score. If they came in 15th place, they would lose their counter culture edge and just become part of the pack. I own 2 ridgeback cans and like them. However I believe this may be correct. I also feel like we are near the point of dimishing returns in general. There is a level where you cant get much quieter, period. I doubt you could hear much of a difference in a LOT of the cans tested. I have cans 20 plus years old that arent blown away by the newer ones. I agree regarding the point of diminishing returns. I think we hot that on 22 cans a couple years back. I feel were almost there on 556/762 cans etc... My first can I was DB chasing (Mask), then realized that 6+ o on the end of the barrel was too much for a lightweight 22. My second through 10th? can is was all about weight balanced with performance.' Now? Weight, performance, size, TONE. I'll always be wearing ear protection so DBs on a a 556 aren't the main factor, on 22/9 maybe it is so I can go w/o ears. Now I'll give up a few Db for better/lower tone. Per ECCO Machine, I don't care how it's made and would probably prefer machined if it's the same performance, but printing is here to stay. As much as I try, I still can't understand how DB, DBa, LEQ, and DB-ms affects. I was perusing the data and looking at an ECCO can for instance, it was a very good performer (Caracal) always in the top 5(?) but in one category fell down more than a few spaces. DB-total peak reading DBa - weighted based on human sensitivity in certain ranges (but designed for under 40db per google) LEQ - total DB over time DB*ms- DB for a certain amount of time Am I kind of correct? So a can that has a hi DB meaning a sharp peak, may perform better (worse??) than one of the other measurements like LEQ, or as the Same 120 LEQ, the best DB can is better because it's for a very short period of time. Maybe a DBa can would be the loudest at 120 because were not measuring certain sound levels even though there are still there. Anyway, congrats to Griffin, ECCO, and thanks and congrats to TBAC. It was neat to see the Griffin cans as they recently had a very good review on Silencer Anaytics and this backs it up. At ECCO and Green0 - is there any way to measure or quantify tone, maybe measuring the hertz. I'm guessing the can that hos the lower hz and the longer impulse will be the better sounding can even if it's a slightly higher DB?? @Green0 when you get the Rhodie cans can you test them against one of yours that way maybe we can extrapolate the data from the SS. It's all so tiresome jpeg. |
ARFCOM’s CHO
Joined:
Aug 2022
Posts:
5264
EE: 100% (1)
FL, USA
Husher of boomsticks
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
854
EE: 0% (0)
CO, USA
|
Originally Posted By sparkles: Which is a real shame. Generally, everyone always says their purchased suppressor sounds good to them. Some even say it’s the quietest. Silencer summit results provide controlled facts, not opinions. I refer to the silencer summit results when shopping for a suppressor. For me, I prioritize shooters ear levels and use those data sets to compare suppressors. I also factor in weight and length, which is included in the results tables. Once I have a few options picked out, I compare costs and go from there. I’m surprised the silencer summit results aren’t referenced here more. I was hoping to see the ridgeback and stealth additive works cans this year, since they seem to be referenced as the best frequently in this forum. I would recommend using dimensional information provided by the manufacturers, especially for cans with removable mounts. While the diameters on the Summit tables are accurate, length and weight will depend on the specific mounting system used, and muzzle devices are required to be pre-installed in the cans for testing, so a medium length titanium can around 8 ouunces with ASR or Keymo will show roughly double it's no mount weight. Looking through the photos, you can see that some of these suppressors are tested with very light and extremely low profile direct thread mounts, while others have taper mount or QD systems installed that may add several ounces and a fair amount of length. Weight can also be affected by build up in the cans; some have seen considerable round counts. |
Suppress all the things!
|
Originally Posted By PacificNic: I think the big driver for additive will be cost and innovation. You can only re-configure K baffles in so many ways to get novel designs, and having a machine run 24/7 (probably not literally lol) is much better than having to pay someone to weld baffles together, even if you use a laser welder. It'll take a little while since it is still relatively new tech and suppressors are in the early days of breaking from the enthusiast-only niche appeal. Most of the new suppressor startups or doing third-party DMLS for example. What is most interesting to me is that most additive companies so far have taken the approach of trying to match traditional baffle performance with reduced back-pressure. I don't think it will take long for us to see the opposite side of that approach: trying to maximize sound suppression while keeping similar back-pressure to "low-flow" cans. How much quieter can you make an NT4/RC2 if you leverage more complex internal geometries? Alternatively, how much lighter can you make the suppressor without reducing performance or durability? I believe this is where there is still the most potential for excitement as civilian customers. Originally Posted By PacificNic: I think the big driver for additive will be cost and innovation. You can only re-configure K baffles in so many ways to get novel designs, and having a machine run 24/7 (probably not literally lol) is much better than having to pay someone to weld baffles together, even if you use a laser welder. It'll take a little while since it is still relatively new tech and suppressors are in the early days of breaking from the enthusiast-only niche appeal. Most of the new suppressor startups or doing third-party DMLS for example. What is most interesting to me is that most additive companies so far have taken the approach of trying to match traditional baffle performance with reduced back-pressure. I don't think it will take long for us to see the opposite side of that approach: trying to maximize sound suppression while keeping similar back-pressure to "low-flow" cans. How much quieter can you make an NT4/RC2 if you leverage more complex internal geometries? Alternatively, how much lighter can you make the suppressor without reducing performance or durability? I believe this is where there is still the most potential for excitement as civilian customers. One of the negatives of using nickel alloys is they are very heavy. So there are limits to how much geometry you can have in a given weight product short of making the can out of foil, and then the can is potentially very compromised for strength. I think we're seeing similar or better peak sound, and better average sound - so the dosing is better on the developed additive product. I think you just described doing the same thing two different ways. (making a quiet can that has a high flow rate). <It doesn't matter which description you use, the task is the same task. LEQ - total DB over time DB*ms- DB for a certain amount of time LEQ DBA is average sound in the summit case over 10 ms of time in DBA. <This metric is good for understanding loudness. The lower number is a better performance overall. This plays to dosing somewhat. A can with lower peak and lower LEAQ <this is what industry calls average sound in A. LEQ is average sound in Z, but in the summit testing they are relating LEAQ as LEQ DBA. I can't really help you with the DB*MS I can't find a definition for that, but I understand it was not seen as a great metric for understanding a suppressors performance/ not as good an indicator of performance as a look at peak and LEAQ. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
|
I wish there was a way to compare the older Gemtech, SRT, AAC vs modern “new & improved” that same day vs older studies. It would be interesting to hear progress as well as POA/POI shifts. ETA: once upon a time….back in the days of wipes, ablatives & packing, silencer makers discovered that flat washer-esque baffles could be made more effective as conical, then K, M or omega baffles…and the spiral diffusers valves came & went….then rubber & leather & felt oiled wipes went away…then came back as assorted polymers….and ablatives went away, then returned. And I’ve always wondered how Maxim’s original compares to WW2 tech to modern days. 3D printing might make the grommets & wire mesh packing to absorb heat & cause turbulence easier, but this is why I mention comparing the older designs (Maxim’s originals, the M3 Grease gun Bell mesh .45 & High Standard .22 OSS come to mind) vs modern. Someone smarter than I am might also be able to shift the pressure/sound waves via destructive interference, theoretically, at least. I think the late Doc Dater’s silencer collection (or similar?) would have been awesome. The sad part of “tech” evolution (at least in my experience in science, medicine & surgery) is what’s been noted that the “how we got here” isn’t always appreciated due to the frenetic frenzy of finance for fame & profit. |
|
Why not AM print LBP removable monocores? Easy to drop the whole core into a cleaning solution. I know the weight goes up but the outer wall of the monocore can be thinner. I have 2 approved form 1's for 22lr where I plan to make aluminum tunes threaded for common mount adapters like alpha and 3d print the core from PETG or suitable material. When to core fails or gets clogged, throw it out. Print another. |
Husher of boomsticks
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
855
EE: 0% (0)
CO, USA
|
Originally Posted By bmarshall1: As much as I try, I still can't understand how DB, DBa, LEQ, and DB-ms affects. I was perusing the data and looking at an ECCO can for instance, it was a very good performer (Caracal) always in the top 5(?) but in one category fell down more than a few spaces. DB-total peak reading DBa - weighted based on human sensitivity in certain ranges (but designed for under 40db per google) LEQ - total DB over time DB*ms- DB for a certain amount of time Am I kind of correct? So a can that has a hi DB meaning a sharp peak, may perform better (worse??) than one of the other measurements like LEQ, or as the Same 120 LEQ, the best DB can is better because it's for a very short period of time. Maybe a DBa can would be the loudest at 120 because were not measuring certain sound levels even though there are still there. So, yeah, correct on dB and dBA. LEQ is the A-weighted average over 10 milliseconds, capturing the highest peaks from the event start at 50 ms to the 60ms mark. Impulse db*ms is the unweighted average of the high pressure impulse event starting at about 50 ms and ending at 75 ms. Zak or someone else correct me if I'm mistaken here, but that is how I understand it. The peak pressure levels, both raw and A-weighted, are impulses generally too fast for our ears and brains to register in their entirety, but still represent hearing damage potential. The dBA LEQ and impulse db*ms are a better representation of how they sound to us. In my experience, the impulse db*ms is usually the best comparative metric for what we hear, but none of the pressure metrics account for frequency. Since higher frequencies can be detected by our ears at shorter durations, the lower the "tone", the quieter it will seem, regardless of peak or time-averaged pressure. As for Caracal, that's not the one hanging out near the top on 5.56 for SE. Five By Five is the one that's up there. We did put Caracal on the 5.56 this year because we do rate it for that with slow fire and longer barrels, but it's definitely not meant for 5.56 and so is pretty far down the list in most metrics. It's a 5.7x28 and .22 TCM suppressor that's barely bigger than a typical rimfire can. It did do fairly well at muzzle, so it'd be an alright super-light choice for a bolt gun, but the small blast chamber kills it on backpressure for SE figures with autoloaders. The oddball tests are not published in the Summit results, but Caracal was tested on our Rock Island .22 TCM with the standard Armscor 40 gr. ammo, and I believe it did pretty good in the numbers, but I didn't snap a photo and didn't commit it to memory, so I need to get the data from the TBAC crew. We also tried to get some hammer fired host numbers for TLX to compare with the striker host, but the SAR CM6 I had just wasn't playing nice with the fixture and the soft 165 gr. Stelth ammo, stovepiping every shot, and that kills SE figures. Same thing happened last year trying to get numbers for Caoga on the .50 Beowulf with 700 gr subs. Frustrating. Next year we'll bring one of the Berettas or S&W 3rd gens, just have to hold them since there's no rail to clamp into the fixture on ours. |
Suppress all the things!
|
I always love the Silencer Summit data drops, but wanted a better way to compare the different cans. Tried my hand at AI vibe coding a little web app that will let you sort by stuff like bore size, length, weight, etc and compare more easily. This should have all the data from 2024-2026. https://silencersummit.netlify.app/ The TiTrex 300 and 360 look really impressive for their size and weight, especially the 360 for a medium bore. |
|
Originally Posted By NamLeets: Interesting, never heard of Wraith till today. I hadn't either, and I was interested in checking out their products until I saw the Lego approach. I wish they would just make one complete product that didn't come with all of the other gadgets and doodads. |
|
Originally Posted By Green0: That was the Optimus 9 AM. There is no way to 3-lug the can, but we are waiting on custom buttress thread tooling to take a stab at Cam lok 2.0 to put a secure quick mount capability in the can. We need to make a fixed barrel spacer also of course for it. Only R&D and testing will tell if the buttress thread makes the Cam lok perform identical to EZ in terms of being totally secure like a SMG capable mount. Since you went there, how will Cam lok 2.0 compare to EZ lok? |
|
Originally Posted By 32ACP: I wish there was a way to compare the older Gemtech, SRT, AAC vs modern “new & improved” that same day vs older studies.. Indeed. One of the things about cans is that typically you own them for life, and that classic can gets replaced by a modern cans, it sits in the proverbial barn (back of the safe) and gathers dust, much like a classic muscle car that get forgotten and later on rediscovered. I have several (cans, not muscle cars, alas). There have been multiple examples of test of “classic” cans compared to modern cans. Silencer Summit has quite a few of them included in prior years. Griffin tested a M4-2000 (and other classic cans) vs one (two?) of their cans, and Jay has tested a M4-2000 and other “classic” cans. The classic cans can perform quite well if you tune the host. But they are usually heavy, might have a not so good mounting system (which can be updated if you are willing to pay) and are high on backpressure compared to the new hawtness. |
Silencer Summit Results 2026 (Page 1 of 2)
Armory Sponsor