Nice.  I think your most obvious competition in size and weight class would be a Sandman S.  It’s probably too much to expect that you’d have one of everything to compare it to.

Once again we see that multi-plate muzzle brakes hammer the ears of the shooter worse than the reference position at right angle down the firing line, even with 300 Blackout subsonic.  Yet the Instagramtards think they are being bad asses at the range bothering the fudds while the slowly destroy their hearing.  It’s even more pathetic to see many brakes that actually disturb the sight picture and shot recovery time worse than a flash hider. My shot timer, like your meter, doesn’t lie.

The OSS and Subsonic 300blk

I enjoyed the video and thought your testing method was great.  The Recce 7 is a definitely a very strong performer and it is on my buy list although I am contemplating the 30SDK as well.

Whats the action closing via bolt release and safety switching meter at?

Plans for the Paladin and Sportsman?

Curious about the Paladin myself, but assume it would be pretty close to the Recce 7.

MikeSmith would have an explanation

Interesting video, thanks for posting. I'd really like to see a comparison video like this with more mainstream/modern/general use cans.

Any chance of a Paladin vs. Explorr 300 vs. Vox S vs. Nomad vs. Ultra 7 type video with the pulse?

IIRC, in the Bushwhacker video, for some of the subcaliber tests, the Bushwhacker had a smaller .30 cal end cap installed while the Hybrid didn't, and the discrepancy didn't come out until later in a thread here. We're there any variances like that in these tests? Will inconsistencies like that be noted in future videos? I think that would help mightily with the acceptance of your tests, and the perception of fairness.

Kudos on the testing method! I'm so glad to see a test that actually does both ears and the muzzle. The muzzle is interesting but the ears are what matter to the shooter. So many tests neglect that. It's great information!

Good lord

I thought that was pretty interesting. I expected to see a larger difference between the left and right ear, but with most of the tests it was within ~2db. People complain about port pop but then say that a few db one way or the other doesn't matter, foolish to chase db's...so not sure what to think there.
Super happy that I don't own an OSS suppressor...

But, muh flow-through technology!  
Looking forward to more tests, thanks for the video.

Why wouldn't port pop drive levels at both right and left ears? If the port acts like a point source, and the impulse radiates out in a somewhat spherical shape, the area near the left ear is only a few inches further away straight line distance than the area near the right ear.

Of course the port noise would increase levels on both sides, I just expected the difference between sides to be larger. Given that with most tests the muzzle is significantly quieter than the shooters ear, I would have expected the right side to be at least 5 db louder than the left but that wasn't the case here.

With a multi-Mic set-up you can mike the muzzle at both locations.  To make the science project worthwhile you could run a given can with flat and flashier front caps.

Yeah, muzzle microphone is always supposed to be 1m left/right of the muzzle of the silencer, not the muzzle of the barrel unless doing unsuppressed metering for that string. That's the way everyone doing it correctly does it, including the military. The government has many different mic set ups but they all have one thing in common, the muzzle mics are always at the muzzle of the silencer.

The reason why people were doing it at the muzzle of the barrel instead of the muzzle of the silencer was to artificially make their metering numbers seem better than they really are, for the exact same reason that a weighting scale started getting used for metering back in the day, people just wanted to say that they had lower numbers without actually having lower numbers. Silencerco as an example is known for putting the microphone in the wrong place (muzzle of the barrel instead of muzzle of the silencer) along with cherry picking the best data on the most favorable host and ammo, and since they're a massive company they get away with it and people will believe the data they output, I see it all the time. Rugged's Obsidian 9 advertised numbers were achieved with Hush 165gr but it doesn't say that on their website, you have to dig through hundreds of Instagram posts and filter through thousands of comments to find that tidbit of information. As far as I know Rugged does metering the right way and has the correct metering system for it.

It makes companies doing metering correctly at the muzzle of the silencer seem to meter worse in comparison to companies doing metering at the muzzle of the barrel, especially since everyone knows consumers are comparing those manufacturer advertised numbers.

Consumers like to believe people/entities that have been in the industry for a long time and sometimes think they can automatically be trusted without question, that everything they say is correct and factual and without motive. For the same reason people use Silencer Shop metering videos as a way to compare silencers, they're viewed as a trusted, and in their case independent, source of what people believe to be accurate information and yet that's a terrible idea because their meter can't accurately measure gunshots so all their data is bad. But they did just pick up a new meter, I'm assuming a Pulse, so that'll be a lot better going forward. As long as they make sure to tell consumers that they can't compare new meter numbers to old meter numbers since the Pulse will generate higher numbers and most people won't know that and try to compare them when they shouldn't be comparing them in the first place.

Brittingham is a prime example of consumers believing someone that's been in the industry a long time. When KB didn't have the quietest silencer and the numbers shown below were proven to be BS, he had to move the goal post again and start telling people dB didn't matter anymore when the reality of the situation didn't suit him. They have a Larson Davis LXT QPR1 which is absolutely useless for metering gunshots. He tells people so much BS and outright lies and people just eat it up mostly without question, just like he's done for the majority of his career.

Example of BS numbers generated by Q, who claims not to put out numbers:



Then compare that to the 2009 AAC catalog:

Lol no, I understood very clearly. It's just some constructive criticism, you don't have to use it if you don't want to, no one's forcing you to do what you don't wanna do. You're just being encouraged to modify your "standard" very slightly and with good reason.

I didn't say your results were "bad" or that the meter was bad, I just agreed with Chris that the muzzle mic placement is incorrect based on the known and established standard muzzle mic placement that is in use by government/military entities and others in the industry that work with the government/military entities which is used for proper performance variance consistency and that it should be known that there will be slight discrepancies in the "The Griffin Armament Standard" test results at the muzzle due to the distance from the mic being set back from of the front end of the silencer at slightly different lengths each time depending on the silencer added length to the muzzle which can also be slightly more affected by front cap design. You can obviously change the mic location to be correct to your standard that you made up, but it should be known that the muzzle results of that current standard will be slightly off, especially when compared to most everyone else with a Pulse, due to the muzzle mic placement. And in your case it sounds like you use a different template than the others that have the Pulse? As I said, we all know that people will try to compare your results to someone else metering at the silencer muzzle even though they shouldn't, it happens all the time.

As an example I can make up the "Paco Standard" which puts the muzzle microphone 1m left of the gas block and never move it regardless of silencer added length, but that makes as much logical sense as putting the mic 1m left of the barrel muzzle and never moving it regardless of silencer added length. What about discrepancies when metering a silencer that adds 6" to OAL and one that adds 9" to OAL? Or is the plan there just never to test like that? Do you have a range of added lengths to the muzzle that you deem to be "okay" to be comparable with each other?  Like a 1" added length range where you say "okay guys that's close enough"? It's pretty simple to understand that the sound isn't going to come out of the same spot with an Optimus as it would with a GP5, so the mic not following the source of sound is going to favor the Optimus because the source of sound is further away. Which is very illustrative in your metering video because I could use the tiles in the back ground to see how far forward the muzzle of the Recce 7 was in comparison to the Chimera for example just by clicking around in different video segments. I'm glad you guys chose to use a measurable background and a tripod for the camera so the frame doesn't move for consistency. That's not to say the Recce 7 isn't quieter than the Chimera at the muzzle, just saying that the consistency in muzzle results and especially the dB variance average between silencers at the muzzle doesn't actually exist if the mic doesn't follow the silencer muzzle source of sound.

Speaking of discrepancies in sound testing, I was reading through the Griffin HEDP baffle patent documentation that you guys have which is publicly available online that anyone can look at freely and noticed that you convinced the patent office to issue the patent in large part by using the meter results from a couple of videos from Silencer Shop to show the USPTO that there was a sufficient enough performance increase with your HEDP  baffles by showing the dB difference between a Gemtech Halo and Recce 5, but a few things jumped out as odd. Just wondering what the deal is with that? I don't care either way, but it's something you should be aware of.

I then saw that Military Arms Channel did a video metering the Recce 5 with a proper meter and it averaged 133dB on a 16" AR15, still not bad.

Gemtech Halo on a 10.5" AR15: Link
Griffin Recce 5 on a 16" AR15: Link
Military Arms Channel Griffin Recce 5 on 16" AR15: Link

Helpful Note: The Recce 7 page on your site says the OAL is 7.6" and that the added length is 4.975" but that it comes with a Taper Mount Minimalist Brake which is 1.34" long, so from a bare muzzle assuming .6" long barrel threads the added length should be around 6-7" depending on if you measure from the end of the brake or end of the muzzle, right?

And Pro Tip: You selling more silencers than we do currently is irrelevant to all of this and it's weird to bring that up, but it's another great example of what I said earlier about people thinking they're somehow more relevant, important, or can't be questioned because they've been in business for a long time, thanks for proving my point again.

I love this forum.

Consumers dont care about this almost useless standard except companies going after govmint contracts.

Outside of SHTF shooters are concerned about at ear levels and levels on the shooting line. I suspect the difference in the mil standard against the "Griffin standard" is negligible. You should test it and find out.

Since I have a Q can in que I found your comments with regard to Q interesting. A quick tour of Youtube shows a half nelson doing 130 supersonic and 125 subs at the muzzle on a 300BLK tavor. Those numbers are below what's shown in your graphic, which you consider made up numbers. You should test it and find out.

Except they do care, and if they didn't care then people wouldn't even ask what the numbers were and would just buy whatever without knowing how well it actually does in comparison to something else. Which is also a pretty bad way to buy a car, or most anything else. We aren't talking about ear numbers here currently and either way those results are already built into the system like what Griffin was putting out above. The way Griffin does ear numbers is actually pretty good anyway as it eliminates the problem of brass hitting the mic at the 6" off ear location.

Government/military standards are the baseline protocol for metering because those standards are already established and used, and by using an actual standard and a minimum set of requirements for the meter equipment and mic locations that is adhered to by many you can generate real numbers that actually matter. And having actually tested with the mic in different locations including behind, in line with, and in front of the muzzle of the silencer and muzzle of the barrel I know very well that it isn't negligible and produces a bias the longer the silencer gets.

I don't "consider" Q's metering numbers to be made up, I know for a fact that they are because they didn't have a meter capable of accurately measuring gunshots when those numbers were published, they don't use the same weighting scale as everyone else, independent testing from many sources proves their advertised numbers are BS, and internal testing after we bought over $30,000 worth of Q products including at least one of every silencer they make has proven their numbers to be BS. I've tested Q silencers plenty.

A Half Nelson isn't going to do 130dB with supersonic Blackout ammo or 125dB with subsonic Blackout ammo, certainly not at the muzzle which is what those numbers I posted were from. Even Ethan Lessard told me that it won't. But I looked up the video you're referencing anyway and that guy is using the same terrible meter that Silencer Shop had in the past, which is absolutely useless for accurately measuring gunshots and is the exact reason why standards like military/government test protocol exist. People like that put out videos with bad equipment that can't do the job and people like yourself expect them to be a reliable source of information so you reference it expecting it to be correct and accurate, but it isn't. That's exactly what just happened here, and it's another great example of why adhering to established protocol and minimum requirements is important.

The video you're referencing he says the muzzle average for supersonic Blackout was 130.8dB and the muzzle average for subsonic Blackout was 125.2dB. The chart I posted above with numbers generated from Q's almost equally useless meter says it was 136.8dB with supersonic Blackout which is 6dB louder and 126.6dB with subsonic Blackout which is 1.4dB louder. The ear readings in the video you're referencing averaged 138dB for supersonic Blackout and 133dB at the ear, but it doesn't matter what that dude says because 100% of the data that was shown in the video is 100% useless because his meter is incapable of accurately measuring gunshots. I'm sure sure he either bought that meter because Silencer Shop was using it or because they told him it was good, it's not his fault he just didn't know probably. The BK 2209 he used to use for metering was a way better choice.

Compare the results Tim was putting up to Suppressed Nation using a BK 2209 (which can actually meter properly on a lesser scale than the new BK Pulse system) who metered the equivalent Q Trash Panda on a 16" AR15 which averaged 142.72dB at the muzzle and 148.54dB at the ear. Despite being a different platform and cartridge, while comparing supersonic data, the significant discrepancy in all three of those results (Q's, Tim's, Suppress Nation's) is exactly why standards and minimum requirements are important. Out of all of those the only one that matters is Suppressed Nations data because it was done right and the other silencers in their video were all compared on the same day with the same proper meter, same host, same ammo, same proper mic location, etc.

Suppressed Nation 16" AR15 Metering Vid: Link

Maybe one of the other Pulse pioneers can run a test with 3 mics, the mil standard position in line with the muzzle, and one back 6”, and one back 9” on a flat front cap, “reference” suppressor set-up.  Perhaps with a bolt action so port pop isn’t a factor.  Perhaps duplicate with subsonics so that hypersonic crack impact can be assessed for trend impact as well.

I appreciate all the info, these threads are always learning opportunities.

All those cans were within 3.5db of each other at ear at unsafe levels on a 16 inch 5.56. The Q coming in last.

I also noted on some cans it appeared they didn't use the native mounting system (turbo k and Rex) and used an adapter, is this correct?

Dead Air Nomad, Energetic Armament Vox S/Vox K, Silencerco Omega, Rex Silentium Viribus 338/556, and YHM Turbo K all have a Q Cherry Bomb/Plan B mount installed. The Dead Air Sandman K has a KeyMo mount by default. The Griffin Explorr 224 has a Taper Mount Tactical Compensator by default. The Trash Panda has a Cherry Bomb mount by default. The YHM Turbo uses a YHM QD Brake mount by default.

Take a look at the ear and muzzle numbers for the Dead Air Sandman K compared to the Dead Air Nomad.

Sandman K -
Muzzle: 148.34dB
Ear: 147.56dB

Nomad -
Muzzle: 135.78dB
Ear: 146.46dB

The ear numbers are only separated by only 1.1dB while the muzzle numbers have a variance of 12.56dB. Which one do you think is actually going to sound better in person, especially when shooting near reflective surfaces?

Why do you need to test his can for his point about the science to be valid?

@Green0

I love my Optimus Micro and am considering a Paladin 300.  Can you please comment on how the Paladin 300 compares, sound-wise, to the Recce 7?  Also, the majority of the shooting will be under NVD, do you find there is much of an issue w/ sparking from the distal titanium baffles?

Also, any word on a flash hider end cap for the Optimus Micro?  Sorry, I had to ask

Thanks for the response, I'm definitely looking forward to more videos and even the possibility of a flash hider endcap for the OPM.

I’d like to see you make “thread protectors” for your minimalist brakes that add a flash hider feature out in front when threaded on the brake.  3-Prong or bird cage.   This would be a good option for states where flash hiders are banned. Allows compliant person to have a convertible muzzle device.

I know in California it is legal to have a threaded muzzle as well as an attached, non-flash hiding brake.  For me in AZ my featureless, CA-legal, travel rifle just has a 1/2-28 thread protector (along with a fin-grip and a fixed stock).   A short brake that you can thread a longer FH onto seems useful. If it gets dark, or you cross state boundaries you adapt and the taper mount means no crush washers to maintain torque. Just an idea. Your mini brakes seems ideal for this niche product and it seems like a simple fabrication.

Excellent, your OPM is an incredible can.  I'm not a door kicker nor a mag dumper, but holy shit if that can doesn't strike the perfect balance for me.  For shooting under NV, a little more flash suppression would just be icing on the cake.  Had the OPM been a reality in 2006, I would have saved a LOT of $$ and probably only own three or four cans.  Thanks for a great product!

Nice numbers on that Lux.  People who only shoot short semi-autos don’t know what they’re missing.

So 2.5-3 dB louder is enough to play marketing claims games with.

Big difference on the first shot, which for this statistically small group it makes 2.5-3 dB difference within inter-group variability.  But the offset is consistent.   I’m a little surprised a 6” set back (about 9 degrees back) had that much of an effect.  One lesson is two observers standing side by side might hear a different tone/level when auditioning a silencer.

I’ve seen at least one prior 360 response plot but I don’t recall how spikey it was or the angular discrete steps, but it had your typical “cardiod” shape with lowest value at 180 degrees behind the muzzle.

Thanks again.