Thanks @TOOL1075. We appreciate your hard work.

Just wanted to link some cool info IMO.  

This review link could help people when deciding what to buy. I know the nomad is a popular silencer often discussed in this forum.

https://pewscience.com/sound-signature-reviews-free/sss-6-43-dead-air-nomad-30-savage-308

If I had the organs for it I would offer to bear Jay's children.   Awesome data.  The Nomad looks pretty good considering this is the old design and he is saying the new baffle design is quieter with less backpressure.    Seems to be hinting the subsonic data looks good too....

First of all, thank you both for the kind words.  I am incredibly pleased the effort I am pursuing in this industry is helping.

Second of all, I will state my comments below so I can give full context for this data release:


Review 6.43 - The Dead Air Nomad-30 (1st Gen) on supersonic .308 (20-in barrel, bolt action). This silencer is very ubiquitous. The Nomad-30 has undergone changes/improvements throughout its life; this silencer was released in 2018. The test and analysis I performed is on the 1st-Gen model. Since its release, multiple things have been improved in the Nomad-30, and the Nomad-Ti was released.

Users should note that this represents a lower bound of performance for this silencer on this host weapon and supersonic flow regime.

I am unable to discuss all of the differences between the 1st Gen Nomad-30 and the updated model(s). I have tested the Nomad-Ti, as stated in the article, and that data is forthcoming. The performance is different. Again, keep in mind the data shown is a lower bound.

This silencer is completely different than many rifle silencers; it is important for you to know that. There have been a lot of discussions over the past year from various parties with regard to what this silencer is, what else it looks like, how it works, etc. Few of those things seem to be true.

Take a look at the data and see for yourself. The silencer behaves efficiently with supersonic flow. And, frankly, that's not all. As we move into the subsonic flow regime and I also show you Ti data, it's gonna get wild.

I hope you folks find the data useful!

Here is a direct link to our reviews.

Here are the updated PEW Science Rankings.

Dead Air Nomad-30 (1st Gen) Supersonic .308 Sound Test Results

Thanks to all involved that made this test and data publication possible. Also, thank you to Dead Air; specifically, Todd Magee, Mike Pappas, Mikeith Green, and Ernie Beckwith, for taking the time to discuss the data and results with me; it was a pleasure to characterize the silencer.

Jay
PEW Science

I’m curious about when the design change occurred and how to tell what version someone has or is buying.

I’m sure old stock Gen 1 are being sold now. If I was in the market I’d like to know what version I’m buying.

I wonder if Deadair will upgrade a nomad Gen 1 for someone if they asked nicely and bribed them with a bottle or two

If I were a betting man, I would postulate the changes post-BPI have normalized.  I would further postulate that incremental changes have also normalized and silencers being sold are refined.

Jay
PEW Science

Double tap.

Very happy with my Nomad 30.   It sounds great on my 6.5 CM bolt gun and will most likely live on .308 Desert Tech MDRx whenever they ship my rifle.

Thanks for sharing your experience!  6.5 CM continues to really show itself as a neat suppressed platform.  I might just change my Fix barrel to 6.5.

Jay
PEW Science

@TOOL1075

Are you going to test the Nomad L/LT or the EA Lux?  I've been trying to decide between these for my bolt gun.

I have tested the Nomad-30, Nomad-Ti, Nomad-L, and Nomad-LT; all in multiple flow velocity regimes.  Results are forthcoming.

I have not evaluated the Lux silencer.  If I was forced to guess relative performance, I would not expect its performance to reach that of the Nomad-Ti, due to the way the Nomad technology works, and the way cone baffles in the EA silencer work.  I would also add that the chances of the Lux performance reaching that of the L/LT are very low (zero).

Jay
PEW Science

You are doing the lord’s work.

thanks for the kind words, sir.

Frankly, I'm just doing what I wanted done when I was me many years ago getting into silencers.  This is for the community and the largest undertaking of its kind in history.  I am excited to continue the effort.

Jay
PEW Science

What is difference between Gen  1/2/3?

Is this about the baffle orientation?

There is no official "Gen" designation; I came up with "Gen 1" myself after speaking with Dead Air so I could ensure I told consumers accurate information.

The first Nomads produced had random baffle orientation.  Through successive design and manufacturing iteration, the Nomad-30 units now produced have aligned baffle notches and small geometric changes to the baffles, here and there, to improve performance and/or manufacturing.

I do not know the specific timeline of changes, serial number ranges, or any of that information.  In fact, I am not even sure that anyone has that timeline.

I think a safe bet is if the baffle notches are aligned, it is an updated (and quieter) iteration.  There are technical reasons for this, in the Nomad baffle design.

Jay
PEW Science

thx

I just remember the thread where the different orientation was first discussed. I never saw an SN cutoff or anything like that.

copy that.  On Reddit, folks have indicated serial numbers in the 15xx range still have random baffle orientation.

The unit I tested is 06XX.  

BPI to KGM might be a cutoff.  I really don't know.

Regardless - big picture, the Nomads after that are quieter and the Nomad-Ti should be representative of that.  

Jay
PEW Science

Advantage to the Procrastinator!

My Nomad-30 with a 59xx serial number has baffles that are lined up. I bought it last July and picked it up in March. I wouldn’t worry about getting an old generation if I were looking to purchase one today.

Jay, great fan of your work.  I know you have a lot of data on the paid PS Site, and I certainly would encourage anyone to join.  But, can you help me understand you comments above.  I have a Nomad, and like it.  I have a few other cans and like them.  I have never attempted anything more than the shoot at the range and ask myself and friends, "whaddyathink?"  You have meters and scopes and sensors behind sensors, so I am coming at this totally subjectively, and you of course, the opposite.  But what do you mean by "This silencer is different from many rifle silencers," and "few of those things seem to be true."  Without putting anyone on the spot in the industry or the user community, what are you really saying?

I've been looking forward to the Nomad-L data. I have one in jail, along with a Surge. Keep up the good work!!!!

I have one in jail from December 2020 with a 105XX serial number.

Thanks for the kind words.

The Nomad series is different because it uses an advanced porting geometry and outer baffle volume, like a Hyperion, old Omega baffle, etc. These silencers aren't typical cone baffles you see in most rifle silencers.

There are certain steps of progress in high pressure silencer design. Many silencers are still trying to optimize primitive designs and have hit limits.

When you understand how to manage gas flow better and reduce high pressure stagnation, you can do great things. When you can make the same design work with low pressure too, it's even better.

I was alluding to various people remarking that because a silencer is a certain diameter or length, it is similar to another silencer with a similar exterior envelope. Diameter alone has nothing to do with silencer performance. The internal design is what controls performance. Some people have, for example, compared the Nomad to the Trash Panda. I have explained in the article why that comparison doesn't really make any sense.

Jay
PEW Science

A good example of this is the smaller 1.5” x 6” cans such as the Vox-S and the Omega-300.  On .308 the Omega is rated quite close to the Nomad and Hyperion K, but the Vox is considerably louder, even with a superficially similar single clipped conical baffle (but only 5 vs the Omega’s 9) . I will be curious to see how those two measure on 11.5” 5.56.  I’d expect they be closer in performance on that host with the edge still going to the Omega.  Somewhat surprised the Nomad didn’t rank higher but I anticipate the units with aligned clips will show an improvement.

I’m really glad the nomad series is getting the pew science treatment. It’s a review I know a lot of us have been waiting to see.

I hope the newer KG made and the titanium / L models also make the list at some point.

I find these write ups fascinating. I can only image all the time it takes to be so meticulous.

I’m a big fan of the plan b and cherry bombs (CB). I have Q silencers and dead air. All are using CB. As a consumer, I like the move where manufacturers have interchangeable mounting options. When you spend as much money and effort for a NFA item it’s nice to feel like you won’t be searching for mounts in the future.

My first silencer was a “legacy” Surefire 556 around 2005. As soon as the socom came out, finding mounts was a pain in the....

I also acknowledge the mounting versatility may come at a price.

I know it’s a huge task, but I think examining different mounts effect on the same silencer (like a nomad) is also very helpful to a consumer.

You the man Jay!

That is an excellent example. Yes, the cone baffles in the Vox are very simple. In subsonic flow, they may be able to do ok for the size of the silencer, and using thin(er) wall thickness with a tubeless design can get you a little more volume, sure, but they aren't using enough baffles to really make that worth while for subsonic flow; to really take advantage of that design method. So, the silencer gas trap is too short and therefore loud. You can add a wipe, but it really doesn't help much and accuracy is severely influenced. Then, you move to supersonic flow and their design envelope pressurizes early, has nowhere to put gas off the bore line, and aggressively jets high velocity flow out the front because the flow literally trips over itself. And, because they aren't purposely jetting, and tried to make the silencer as quiet as the could for subsonic with that baffle type, the back pressure is higher than it should be too. This is the definition of a simple design. It it not optimized for gas flow.

Yes, the changes to the Nomad-30 since the original Gen 1 unit in this test are significant. Or, rather, the effective performance increase from the combination of all of the changes, is significant.

It is interesting to note that even with non-aligned baffles, the design philosophy of the Nomad baffle works extremely well in high and low pressure flow. Again, this is due to stagnation relief and a very optimized baffle geometry.

When you move to short barrel 5.56; silencers that manage high pressure flow better are in their element. If you feed a true Omega baffle (not the SilencerCo Omega 300, but an actual Omega baffle) super high pressure, it will grin and ask for more. Same with a Nomad baffle or a Hyperion. Give any of those silencers super high pressure and they will laugh at you and ask for more. 300 win mag, 338 LM, 50 BMG. High pressure, if you know what to do with it, isn't a problem. But a straight cone baffle gets in over its head pretty quickly, and unless you completely change the design envelope, will be inferior.

Managing back pressure (flow restriction) and then still doing everything above... Well, that's where some special sauce comes in. Very few do this extremely well. I have an article on that, which you have probably seen.




The rest of the Nomads have been tested. KGM will be tested too.

Thanks, glad you enjoy them. Analysis does take time, yes.  My slow descent into insanity can be witnessed on the weekly podcast. Hahahahha

Jay
PEW Science

Thanks for developing and posting the data. I have an earlier Nomad 30 in the high 16xx's with non-aligned baffle clips, and a Ti with aligned baffle clips that's still in jail, so I'll be curious to see how your data for the early 30 and Ti compare. I use my Nomad with the GA Plan-A taper system, which takes up blast chamber volume, and I assume would reduce performance relative to your DT mount data.

I'm surprised that the backpressure result of the Nomad-30 looks a lot higher than the Sandman S result. From what we were told, it should be close to (not better) than the Sandman S's. Very interesting.

It will be neat to show you the Ti data!

The performance with mounting schemes other than direct thread is something I plan to investigate. On the podcast I mentioned that I was going to compare Plan B but had a Cherry Bomb thread issue. Bummer!




The back pressure is higher because the bore is smaller and the silencer also traps more gas with its baffle design.

Later Nomads have a larger bore and baffle alignment can somewhat change mass flow rate too.

I think you will find the backpressure metric of the Ti interesting.

It will not hit the level of the Sandman-S. It can't. It most certainly can't be lower.




Ha! You aren't the first person to poke fun at my vernacular hahahahha

Jay
PEW Science

I’ve got a Nomad-30 in hand, and another in jail. I also have a Nomad Ti in jail. I’ll be curious to see how they all compare subjectively, once I have them all.

Jay you’ve probably answered this question before, but does mounting method make a difference in things like sound suppression, flow restriction, etc? I feel like it would have to, because it can change the way gases are directed, but not sure if it is significant.

I’d like to see you test the Omega-300 direct thread. With titanium DT mount and front cap it appears to be one of the best performing cans for size and weight if you don’t care about backpressure (bolt action, sub-caliber, or tuned semi) and don’t want to go all titanium.  I suspect the muzzle brake increases back pressure , but given different mount lengths and muzzle brake lengths that’s probably a variable of unknown sensitivity.

Mounts can completely change silencer behavior or the change can be minimal. It depends on the mount and the silencer design.  The Surefire XXX-RC2 can change from good to leaky to high back pressure with 3 different mounts with the same silencer! A Cherry Bomb can do great things or terrible things! So many permutations.

Somewhere along the way, people figured out they could make a lot of money selling universal mounts. They didn't even know how to tell consumers how to tune hosts for silencers let alone how to match mounting types to silencers. Lawlessness results in chaos sometimes. The consumers are forced to figure it out themselves. That's literally what has occured in this industry. Wild, right?




I kinda have to, now. I will.

The Omega 300 does perform well for its size but it also has higher backpressure than it needs to. The bore is tight and the construction has superfluous features too. But yeah, popular silencer and good performance in general.

I don't see anything new coming from that product lineage, so I suppose further characterizing that particular silencer is prudent, particularly due to its wide proliferation in the market.

Jay
PEW Science

The Omega-36 isn’t exactly new technology but deserves a comparison to both Radiant and Surge, and probably a few other 9mm bore centerfire cans.

TOOL1075, any plans to test some of the Rex MG series of suppressors?

Any comments on their baffle construction and how they compare to Nomad or Omega .300 baffles?

It most certainly does; the larger bore is going to be interesting!



I have let those slip due to market size and higher priority tests. I am definitely going to test them though!

Frankly, a nuanced part of it is that their designs are not really a mystery to the industry; they are already well understood. Like many before them, they took a curved cone without coaxial features and made the slope more extreme, welded it, and used trial and error with consumers to figure out they needed to make it thicker so it wouldn't collapse on itself after losing strength in the midst of heat cycles.

There isn't anything we need to learn right now about that type of silencer that hasn't already been learned. If it was more popular in the market, and I got more requests for it, I might test it sooner. They also have never contacted me for private testing services, so I haven't really needed to interface with them. Not really on my radar really; they are in my periphery though. This market is also super busy! They are probably so busy making silencers that they don't really need to think about R&D (or at least that's what a lot of folks think). That's what this market does. I hear they are super nice folks (folk).

I'm sure I will test them regardless, for completeness. I think one of the reasons it gets mentioned a lot is due to low cost; not necessarily high performance. This is not saying it is a bad silencer; it is just the reality of the design type.

Your question about how they compare to Nomad / SilencerCo Omega - they are less complex than a Nomad or true Omega and about the same as what SilencerCo calls Omega. Roughly.

Jay
PEW Science

Yeah I would like to see the 36M, YHM N2O, and Dead Air Wolfman head to head.

Pew Science so far doesn’t really do head-to-head comparisons as such.  Potentially that could step on toes (probably not a concern) or drive off business, though that also doesn’t seem to be the thrust of things.  

So if you are trying to map the surface of current commercial offerings in terms of the ear dosing metric or gas retention metric, it might feel kind of like groping the elephant until more data points fill in.  

I was surprised to see the Resonator K in lieu of the more common full length Resonator.  Likewise, the few large bore universal cans have yet to make an appearance, nor subgun cans, or any 5.56 data.  

Metering cans has always been a monumental task, so many combinations of calibers, hosts, barrel lengths, etc.   Hopefully the Pew Science effort can be sustained or some competition or parallel processing develops.  Some of my favorite cans probably don’t meter near the top, for what it’s worth.  If you shoot on a public range with ear PPE needed, or give high weighting to size and weight, any can beats a naked muzzle unless space is really tight.

Interesting observations. Also, PEW Science absolutely does head-to-head comparisons. Everything is head to head in every way, in sound signature. It is up to the user to use the data in a way that is appropriate. Members have seen in-depth FRP and signature comparisons, for example. The most recent back pressure optimized article is an example.

Frankly, the reason the Resonator K was tested was because of a test sample availability. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The reason for no published subgun or 5.56 yet is time and other priorities.

In the dataset, there is actually a method to the madness. In addition to just testing a silencer, we are actively learning and discovering things.

Behind the scenes, what the public isn't seeing, is that the R&D clients of PEW Science, and the corporate members, are learning things about their products and systems they didn't completely understand previously or needed third party validation to further understand.

This is why PEW Science is not only a consumer-facing effort to help all of you, but a public research cooperative.

I am running this like a joint industry project with both consumers and manufactures/vendors. Traditionally, in other industries, this is never done with vendors or consumers; it is almost always done with higher level companies as members.

I decided to do it differently. This is one of the reasons some parties in the industry are very nervous about what I am doing. Because it is new.

This is the primary difference between what I am doing with PEW Science and what other folks have done in the past when "testing silencers."

Jay
PEW Science

Yeah, I get it and understand your constraints.  You’ve stated you don’t care what people buy, so the consumer’s idea of head-to-head, and yours are probably different.  Hopefully people get that your ratings are very much host specific (although your starting with bolt action .308 is useful as a more generizable test case).   It’s a great effort and commendable, but eventually your circumstance of being one-deep could become self limiting.   You probably don’t have time to set up a franchise, but at some point it would be nice to see manufacturers put out something like “Pew Science Certified” test results. Then we could bug them for data on a particular use case with market incentives.

Concur.

Scaling is possible and your thought process has merit :)

Jay
PEW Science

When I took physics in college, I never worked so hard for a B and a C in my life (got A’s in almost everything else… no big deal). It does seem intuitive that the way the gas flow is altered by the mount, and that could affect the way the suppressor performs in a variety of ways. Do you think this is something manufacturers take into account enough when designing their cans and mounts? Thanks for the info.

I really couldn't tell you, sir.

Some manufacturers certainly do, while others just might go with what works. There is most likely a spectrum.

An immediate thought that comes to mind is the Q Cherry Bomb, developed partially to be a diffusing element for semi-auto firing schedules in their Trash Panda / Thunder Chicken. Super cheap and simple to make silencers, and the steel brake is multifunctional for that. An excellent example of super simple engineering to scale and sell. Not the best, not the worst. But efficient for the job.

Then you look at dual-purpose suppressed/unsuppressed stuff, like Surefire, which is actually one of the most ubiquitous cases of suppressed/unsuppressed functionality. You have crazy compensators that work well (WARCOMP) with highly effective and overbuilt flash hiders (3 prong) and good brakes. But each of those makes the silencers perform radically different; yet still "work" - for their military applications, maybe it was "good enough" to have the silencer work on all "good enough."

Then you have silencers that are less sensitive in general, because of the way they work, like Rugged, Dead Air Sandmen, etc. Predictable silencers with predictable blast chamber interaction.

Stuff can get suuuuuuper weird when you start mixing and matching. Like, WTF happens when you put a Plan B with Cherry Bomb in a Resonator K? People report weird stuff happens, like increased back pressure. What happens when you use a QD mount of any type with a Vox? Who knows.

Mounts should, ideally, be system-specific (not all the time, but many times). By not engineering both, together, unpredictable results can occur.

The short answer to your question is: probably sometimes.

Jay
PEW Science

Shots fired

I have a feeling the more we separate truth and proof from poof certain brands will show that the pretty girl has a penis

Did I say through out load?  I know I have been disappointed a few times with the tranny hooker ?????

I’m really glad the nomad series is getting the pew science treatment. It’s a review I know a lot of us have been waiting to see.

I hope the newer KG made and the titanium / L models also make the list at some point.

I find these write ups fascinating. I can only image all the time it takes to be so meticulous.

I’m a big fan of the plan b and cherry bombs (CB). I have Q silencers and dead air. All are using CB. As a consumer, I like the recent move where manufacturers have interchangeable mounting options. When you spend as much money and effort for a NFA item it’s nice to feel like you won’t be searching for phased out mounts from one manufacturer in the future.

My first silencer was a “legacy” Surefire 556 around 2005. As soon as the socom came out, finding mounts became a pain in the....

I also acknowledge the mounting versatility may come at a price.

I know it’s a huge task, but I think examining different mounts effect on the same silencer (like a nomad) is also very helpful to a consumer.

You the man Jay!

Awesome write up, thanks! I'm super interested to see how the Nomad L performs compared to the Nomad 30... I've had the Nomad L sitting in my silencershop cart debating whether or not to order it for use on a 7" 300 Blk.

Is it safe to assume any Nomad ordered today will be the "Gen 2" style? Or are only the titanium Nomads the newer design?

My Nomad-L has the newer aligned baffle design.

I don’t think it’s a new development in the design. If you look at the CAD rendering at around 22 seconds into this video from 2018 the model shows the clips aligned.  I think there have been other more important baffle refinements since this model,  and those wouldn’t be visible without cross sectioning the stack.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW1YOnjVfGk

This is an interesting set of plots of all of Pew Science data (I assume for 20” .308 host). I’d expect the Nomad L to sit close to the Ultra 9.  

https://imgur.com/a/8dEomDD

I am not here to pee in anyone's cheerios, I promise.  But I thought this review was a total waste of time, both Jay's and ours.  

"Here, let me review a product you cannot buy anymore unless you stumble across old stock, and oh by the way the newest iteration performs differently."

Just test the new version.