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.

Originally Posted By Green0:
I was metering printed cans shorter and the same diameter and slightly lighter weight at ~137DBA ear on the same 11.5.

Originally Posted By Brahmzy:


The DL7AM and HRT5AM/HRT5KAM made instant paperweights of a ton of my (not so old) cans. I literally don’t have a desire to shoot the older cans anymore after running the new ones. The other positives were my printed 556 Velos LBP (not quite as good) and the 2 2026 printed KAC cans on the 2 new KS rifles. Those are the same performance caliber as the Griffin cans - go figure - all printed.

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.

Originally Posted By kel:


As Arete mentioned above,
Pew Science tested the M4-2000 on a MK18, and Thunder Beast Sound Summited the old(er?) AAC M4-2000 on a 16" AR.

You'll notice peak muzzle (all we really used to be asked for back in the day) of old cans and new cans are often pretty equal.
(AAC got a peak muzzle pressure of 144.00 dB at Summit / 144.3dB at PEW (and a shooter's ear metric of 135.57 dB on Summit's 16" gun.)

Look at what was held out as example modern printing progress like the PTR Vent... muzzle of 142.4 on a 14.5" M4. Only a couple dB difference in peak. Not enough that anyone would have fussed or made a purchasing decision based on waybackwhen.

Obviously, the dosage is what drives PEW rankings, or we'd have a ton of mostly-undifferentiated 5.56mm cans pretty much all doing 140-145.
However, for those that say "peak is dead, it's all about dosage"... Well, dosage is formulated from peaks over time. I think it's still a valid yardstick for some things.  :)



Mildly funny story: Twenty-something years ago, I got a phone call passed to me from a manufacturer I'd never heard of, looking to sell me silencer OEM components. I was free, took the call. Dude said his company made leather wipes for the silencer industry asking if we needed any? "Wait: you make WHAT?"
Kind of incredulous, I asked if he'd had any orders for, oh, the last century, and he sheepishly admitted this was a family leather shop that was hurting for business, he's the grandson that just took it over and was going through old invoices to drum up new/reawakened business. I took a sec to explain why no one has used leather replaceable wipes since, like, WWII (we were working under the legal no-no zeitgeist at that time), and wished him the best.




Just as an aside: it wasn't. :)  We really didn't buy competitor's cans often at all to compare against. I thought this was a disservice, but understood the academic honesty take. We didn't want to be accused of ripping off someone else's tech, so it was highest-road to just say "I've never seen what's in that can" than defend stealing it. I only bought reference cans for the company when the internet buzz for the new amazeballs thing got so great (Osprey, some AAC stuff comes to mind) that I had to check for ourselves what was going on and if we were really that far behind. Almost always we were disappointed when head-to-heading them. I'd be like "we spent $900 for... a 1.4 dB improvement over our old tired stuff... arg." I *wanted* to be blown away, but can't recall a single instance where we'd meter and be like, "Crap. We're in the dark ages over here."  

Total aside, but In retrospect, I used to chat now and then with OPS Phil Seberger, but never thought to ask him to send me on of his cans. Should have!

Anyway, in 5.56m, I recall Phil had a metering-baseline set of a Surefire, a KAC, and an AAC because those, OPS, and ours were the only ones that had National Stock Numbers and were the "standards" for our reference set. Very little else. I had to borrow a Maxim .22lr can from a museum last time I needed one: we didn't have any old stuff either. For some reason there was a neat 1980's African UZI cutaway can rolling around in the vault, though. Wonder where that ended up.

Edit to add: I would like to see the old G5 5.56mm tested by Summit / PEW with modern data points. While the first AAC was a clone of its Gemtech predecessor, both companies went in different directions eventually and improved / changed. But the thing I'd find interesting is that the bi-lock mount leaked more gas out the rear than I do after chili con carne, so would that show up as unintended venting / back pressure relief? "It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

Originally Posted By ECCO_Machine:


My intent was not to say that there haven't been improvements over the last 2+ decades.  Of course there have.   I only meant to convey that suppressors made using the "old tech" of machined baffles can and certainly do perform.  Doesn't mean the 3D printed ones don't.  There's a pretty evenly distributed mix of 3D printed and traditionally manufactured suppressors throughout the Summit spread sheets from best to worst in each metric.

3D printed stuff doesn't have a monopoly on light weight, either.  My whole mission was never to be the absolute quietest out there, but to match the performance of larger and heavier cans with something significantly smaller and lighter.  And I have done pretty well there.   Several other manufacturers now make smaller and very lightweight pistol cans, but our TLX was among the first to get sub-5 ounces including mount.  I really can't think of any before it aside from some aluminum things that need wipes and/or ablative and certainly weren't anywhere close to the performance of TLX, not to mention being able to handle powerful magnum pistol rounds and even some rifle rounds.

In summary, my gripe is that some people (more than a few) do seem to have the mentality that additive manufacturing has made conventional machined and welded or tube-type suppressors obsolete.  The Summit results demonstrate that this clearly isn't the case, but some just won't hear it.   I'm not suggesting the industry shouldn't use DMLS, either.   I personally am not interested, but for sure some pretty cool things have been done with it.

Originally Posted By kel:


As Arete mentioned above,
Pew Science tested the M4-2000 on a MK18, and Thunder Beast Sound Summited the old(er?) AAC M4-2000 on a 16" AR.

You'll notice peak muzzle (all we really used to be asked for back in the day) of old cans and new cans are often pretty equal.
(AAC got a peak muzzle pressure of 144.00 dB at Summit / 144.3dB at PEW (and a shooter's ear metric of 135.57 dB on Summit's 16" gun.)

Look at what was held out as example modern printing progress like the PTR Vent... muzzle of 142.4 on a 14.5" M4. Only a couple dB difference in peak. Not enough that anyone would have fussed or made a purchasing decision based on waybackwhen.

Obviously, the dosage is what drives PEW rankings, or we'd have a ton of mostly-undifferentiated 5.56mm cans pretty much all doing 140-145.
However, for those that say "peak is dead, it's all about dosage"... Well, dosage is formulated from peaks over time. I think it's still a valid yardstick for some things.  :)



Mildly funny story: Twenty-something years ago, I got a phone call passed to me from a manufacturer I'd never heard of, looking to sell me silencer OEM components. I was free, took the call. Dude said his company made leather wipes for the silencer industry asking if we needed any? "Wait: you make WHAT?"
Kind of incredulous, I asked if he'd had any orders for, oh, the last century, and he sheepishly admitted this was a family leather shop that was hurting for business, he's the grandson that just took it over and was going through old invoices to drum up new/reawakened business. I took a sec to explain why no one has used leather replaceable wipes since, like, WWII (we were working under the legal no-no zeitgeist at that time), and wished him the best.




Just as an aside: it wasn't. :)  We really didn't buy competitor's cans often at all to compare against. I thought this was a disservice, but understood the academic honesty take. We didn't want to be accused of ripping off someone else's tech, so it was highest-road to just say "I've never seen what's in that can" than defend stealing it. I only bought reference cans for the company when the internet buzz for the new amazeballs thing got so great (Osprey, some AAC stuff comes to mind) that I had to check for ourselves what was going on and if we were really that far behind. Almost always we were disappointed when head-to-heading them. I'd be like "we spent $900 for... a 1.4 dB improvement over our old tired stuff... arg." I *wanted* to be blown away, but can't recall a single instance where we'd meter and be like, "Crap. We're in the dark ages over here."  

Total aside, but In retrospect, I used to chat now and then with OPS Phil Seberger, but never thought to ask him to send me on of his cans. Should have!

Anyway, in 5.56m, I recall Phil had a metering-baseline set of a Surefire, a KAC, and an AAC because those, OPS, and ours were the only ones that had National Stock Numbers and were the "standards" for our reference set. Very little else. I had to borrow a Maxim .22lr can from a museum last time I needed one: we didn't have any old stuff either. For some reason there was a neat 1980's African UZI cutaway can rolling around in the vault, though. Wonder where that ended up.

Edit to add: I would like to see the old G5 5.56mm tested by Summit / PEW with modern data points. While the first AAC was a clone of its Gemtech predecessor, both companies went in different directions eventually and improved / changed. But the thing I'd find interesting is that the bi-lock mount leaked more gas out the rear than I do after chili con carne, so would that show up as unintended venting / back pressure relief? "It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

Originally Posted By MAUMAU:


Thank you @Gtscotty for taking the time and effort to create your very useful app.

I especially like how you included results back to 2024, as it includes some of the ‘No Shows’ at the 2026 summit.