Armory Sponsor
Posted: 3/15/2007 8:26:05 PM EDT
|
I started making this chart to help me choose a suppressor. Can you guys suggest any other suppressors I should consider? Any suggestion on info columns i should add or delete? Any corrections that need to be made? Thanks! *Edited* 
|
Hmm... Good questions. I pulled these numbers off various websites. They don't specify. I believe this is compared to the alternative A2 FH. Add another 1.5 inches for actual added length from muzzle??? I don't believe the QD mounts are included in the weights for any of them. |
Thanks for the tip! I haven't done much research yet, but I'm in contact with a local class III dealer who is talking me through all the steps. I'm setting up a trust. |
Oh...I see your point. All the data listed for a single brand came from the manufacturer. If we can assume the manufacturer tested all his products in the same manner, we can compare within a brand. Comparing across brands would be more difficult. I'm not sure how to address the subjective aspect. 'twould be nice to try out several. |
I always see the YHM 556 and 30 cal cans quoted as being nearly the same weight, with maybe 1 oz difference. I have both of them in front of me, and when I put them on a kitchen scale there's a good 3 oz difference without the mounts (23 and 26 oz on my scale, though I doubt it's extremely precise). With the mounts I think the difference would increase, since the 762 mount is a good deal longer than the 556 mount. Just a thought in regards to net length -- it should probably be measured both in OAL AND in relation to what you'll have on the gun when the can isn't on it. I.e. a thread-on can for an AR would be measured with the can on, then compared to the length with an A2 flash hider. A QD can would be measured with the can on, then with the can off and the QD mount on. My YHM 556 can adds ~4.65" compared to the gun with the QD flash hider. Of course the flash hider is about 7/8" longer than an A2 flash hider, so that is a factor in OAL, but I don't ever swap back to the A2 FH when the can comes off. Both are important factors to consider when choosing a suppressor. |
|
Don't forget to compare the metals used in construction, the finishes, and overall look of the suppressor if that matters to you. If you are building an SPR clone, then you need the right can to match. If you are building a short barrel rifle, you don't want a full size suppresor which defeats the purpose for building an SBR. |
Oh...I see your point. All the data listed for a single brand came from the manufacturer. If we can assume the manufacturer tested all his products in the same manner, we can compare within a brand. Comparing across brands would be more difficult. I'm not sure how to address the subjective aspect. 'twould be nice to try out several.[/quote] This is the only way. I went with Gemtech, sight unseen, for their most outstanding customer service reputation. That is priceless!!! |
OPS INC tests with the meter placed something like 90 feet downrange. This is absurd. |
Why? In the real world suppresson is more important from the target perspective than the shooters. Cans are built for work & not pleasure. Most civies like the idea of a suppressor becuse how it sounds to them, the professional cares what his suppressor sounds to what he is shooting at. Its all about masking position. I do not know if what you say is true, but if it is 90 feet, again, who cares. OPS Inc make some of the best cans in the world. |
| I believe his point is that Mil-STD testing is what is normally quoted by most suppressor manufacturers. This will give some basis of comparison even though it is not able to be directly related between different ambient conditions that the test were conducted under. Test 90 ft down range and quoting a number does nothing but give a nice low reading that can't be compared to any other std. testing method currently used. Since it is not commonly known that Ops has their own testing method it gives an impression of far better suppression capability than other similarly quiet suppressors. |
Exactly. |
In addition to what has already been said. it also depends upon which real world you live in. For almost all the civilians, and many police, real world sound reduction to the shooters ear is what is important, not 96 feet down range. |
|
I've made up my mind.... I ended up choosing a 10.5" SBR in 6.8 That severely limited my suppressor choices. For weight/length purposes, I decided against any .308 can. I picked AAC M4-2000 Mod 07. I was leaning toward that anyway.  If I ever come across the info to complete this chart, I'll fill it in for reference purposes for others. Thanks to everyone that helped out. |
Which MIL-spec is it? Since attenuation over distance is relatively easy to calculate*, the figures should be able to be normalized. *given STP. etc. |
It is Mil Std 1474D. And sound attenuation over distance is extremely complicated by other factors which I'm sure were not recorded like grass or concrete or dirt? any reflecting surfaces, temperature and humidity as well as air pressure/altitude. Link to Mil STD 1474D |
Thank you for the link. Reading through it it appears that the military has defined attenuation not only over distance, but also broken into 1/3 octave bands (Table 2-1). This section is deals with level of detectability, and site considerations are defined (5.2.1) with the option of an anechoic chamber mentioned. In the sections related to impulse noise (Requirement 4, beginning on p35) it is clear that the concern is damage to hearing of operators. Thus it would seem that if one is interested in the ability of a suppressor to protect from hearing damage, the latter section should be used, while if one is interested in evaluating the ability to suppress a source signature, that the former method has merit. Ideally, both methods would be tested by silencer vendors, and data (both linear recordings and FFT spectral data) might provide some meaningful comparison. I find SPL ratings without spectral context meaningless. |
Am looking at the OP's chart & this chart and notice a couple of discrepancies, with your & OP's permission, would like to merge the two into a bigger chart & maybe throw in some other info. I think a chart of verified specs (dimensions, weights, etc) of different cans would be useful - also would like to see how actual measurements stack up against mfg. claims. |
Armory Sponsor