Thread: Good lightweight suppressors?

Effective.

Lightweight

Cheap

Now choose any two. That is the rule of almost anything, and suppressors are no exception!

Hmmmm; I'm in the DPT or Maniatiis suppressor/s for the 223 and 308. And am no wiser ha ha

The maniatis alpine says it’s rated to 300win mag.

Anyone have any first hand experience with using it on a magnum.

I’m considering a 300wsm. Will only be shooting load development and then hunting volume of rounds.

I was going to brake it but weighing up options (pun intended)

Cheers

go the next model up i would say on gregs fb page he mentions 1000 rounds of win mag out of his own one, think wsm will have abit more pressure and powder

https://www.facebook.com/gunsmiths.co.nz

Originally Posted by ariki

Look at Dean Maiseys take on the suppressor test done In Rod and Rifle.
Also Maniatis suppressors are as good if not better than any opposition have
Hardy,DPT and ASE and they have same recoil, noise and are lighter.

@ariki where do I find his comments about it ?

I have seen comments on the forum that the test was actually done at Hardy - which R&R neglected to mention in their published test.

Originally Posted by 308mate

@ariki where do I find his comments about it ?

I have seen comments on the forum that the test was actually done at Hardy - which R&R neglected to mention in their published test.

It’s on Dean Maiseys suppressor page. I always thought the results looked a bit lop sided towards Hardy. As all suppressors in NZ are very similar in design.

Proper sound pressure level meters for testing gunshots are very expensive, and are not commonly available. The only sound level meters than can accurately and consistently measure gunshot peak sound pressure levels (in accordance with MIL-STD 1474D), must have a rise time of less than 20 micro-seconds (20uSec) and a sampling rate of 196,000 Hz or better (for digital meters). The only meters that are still currently accepted in the industry for this purpose are the older analogue type meters such as the legendary Bruel & Kjaer 2209 (which reads up to 170dB) or the old Larson Davis 800D (which reads up to about 140dB, but can be modified to go up to 160-170dB with add-on equipment). The only newer meters that meet the spec are the Bruel & Kjaer ‘PULSE’ system – which is a full laboratory-grade system that requires mains power to run (which limits it’s portability), or a similar system put out by National Instruments (though at the time of writing it is uncertain if that is still available or has been discontinued). These systems are VERY expensive to purchase, to set up and maintain, and often have annual licensing fees for the software as well. These significant costs ($40K plus, and $10k per year for licensing) certainly limit their use and availability to the industry.

(Note: In 2017 a NZ-based outdoors magazine published a ‘review’ on a large number of rifle suppressors, and that testing used a single hand-held digital sound level meter – a Larson Davis LXT. While being marketed as a sound meter that is supposed to be capable of measuring gunshots, this meter in fact does not meet the requirements of Mil-Std 1474D and is incapable of providing accurate, reliable, or consistent results for this purpose. This is largely due to the fact that it only has a rise time of 30uS at best (50% too slow) and a sample frequency of only 48,000 Hz (400% too slow). In recent years the Larson meter has been thoroughly discredited (by suppressor industry professionals) for use as a meter for accurate gunshot and suppressor testing. This is undoubtedly a contributing factor to the errors and spurious results published in that NZ magazine article (and also some other YouTuber suppressor reviews using the Larson Davis LXT meter in the last couple of years.) . The whole ‘review’ in the end could only be described politely as a complete shambles, and to go into the flaws and errors in that review would require a full article and investigation in itself. Particularly concerning was the fact that they were offered 2 separate mil-spec meters (by two of the invited suppressor companies) to run along side the Larson Davis meter, but refused to allow them. Why?? Or the fact that when some of the test results that they published were later proven to be inaccurate, they refused to publicly retract or amend/correct those results. Unbelievably, instead of being apologetic the ‘reviewer’ actually made thinly vailed threats of legal action against anyone disputing the results or challenging his ‘good name’, where in actual fact some of the results they published as supposedly being accurate, were in some cases a misrepresentation and defamatory to those manufacturers, while in other cases the performance level of some suppressors was over-stated. It is unfortunate that some people in the hunting and shooting industry are still using the results of these reviews tests as a reference or basis for comparisons between different brands of suppressors in the NZ market. Putting out bad data is worse than putting out no data at all, and flawed reviews with dodgy sound meters only do a disservice to the market, both for consumers, manufacturers, and re-sellers. Most hand-held sound level meters only have a peak rise time of 100uS at best, and phone-app for sound levels are even worse! These sort of amateur sound test measurements are completely worthless, and misleading. Beware of being mis-informed by any suppressor reviews that are using cheap or uncertifed equipment that is not fit for purpose. )



IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ACCURATE AND TRUTHFUL TEST RESULTS (with an actual mil-spec sound meter) in 2019 we purchased and set-up a full laboritory-calibrated B&K 2209 system (along with B&K 4136 1/4″ pressure mic and field-calibrators) to be able to add accurate field-test data to our existing test data, and to be able to experiment and re-test with minor improvements or design changes. Later in the year we added another two late-model B&K2209 meters that have proven to be good, accurate meters as well, and allow us to experiment with taking readings from multiple locations for each shot (i.e. ‘Mil-spec muzzle’ left and right (1.6m high, 1m to the side at 90 degrees), and ‘at the ear’ measurements simultaneously). And just now (March 2020) we have purchased a fourth late model B&K2209 meter to act as a back-up meter, or to measure sound pressure levels from a 4th location if required. This will be the best set-up in New Zealand for sound suppressor and gunshot testing (up to 170dB), and will finally be available to provide accurate data for consumers or honest product reviewers who require it.

@ariki really interesting, cheers for that. Kind of confirms what I suspected after shooting my ODL can next to a Hardy Gen V stealth then scratching my head when looking at the R&R article which placed the Hardy can at the top if I read it right (full disclosure the ODL can was on a short 16" barrel 30-30 next to a long barrel 308 with the Hardy, given the 308's power over a 30-30 that may account for some of the difference in perceptible sound/blast).

Originally Posted by ariki

Proper sound pressure level meters for testing gunshots are very expensive, and are not commonly available. The only sound level meters than can accurately and consistently measure gunshot peak sound pressure levels (in accordance with MIL-STD 1474D), must have a rise time of less than 20 micro-seconds (20uSec) and a sampling rate of 196,000 Hz or better (for digital meters). The only meters that are still currently accepted in the industry for this purpose are the older analogue type meters such as the legendary Bruel & Kjaer 2209 (which reads up to 170dB) or the old Larson Davis 800D (which reads up to about 140dB, but can be modified to go up to 160-170dB with add-on equipment). The only newer meters that meet the spec are the Bruel & Kjaer ‘PULSE’ system – which is a full laboratory-grade system that requires mains power to run (which limits it’s portability), or a similar system put out by National Instruments (though at the time of writing it is uncertain if that is still available or has been discontinued). These systems are VERY expensive to purchase, to set up and maintain, and often have annual licensing fees for the software as well. These significant costs ($40K plus, and $10k per year for licensing) certainly limit their use and availability to the industry.

(Note: In 2017 a NZ-based outdoors magazine published a ‘review’ on a large number of rifle suppressors, and that testing used a single hand-held digital sound level meter – a Larson Davis LXT. While being marketed as a sound meter that is supposed to be capable of measuring gunshots, this meter in fact does not meet the requirements of Mil-Std 1474D and is incapable of providing accurate, reliable, or consistent results for this purpose. This is largely due to the fact that it only has a rise time of 30uS at best (50% too slow) and a sample frequency of only 48,000 Hz (400% too slow). In recent years the Larson meter has been thoroughly discredited (by suppressor industry professionals) for use as a meter for accurate gunshot and suppressor testing. This is undoubtedly a contributing factor to the errors and spurious results published in that NZ magazine article (and also some other YouTuber suppressor reviews using the Larson Davis LXT meter in the last couple of years.) . The whole ‘review’ in the end could only be described politely as a complete shambles, and to go into the flaws and errors in that review would require a full article and investigation in itself. Particularly concerning was the fact that they were offered 2 separate mil-spec meters (by two of the invited suppressor companies) to run along side the Larson Davis meter, but refused to allow them. Why?? Or the fact that when some of the test results that they published were later proven to be inaccurate, they refused to publicly retract or amend/correct those results. Unbelievably, instead of being apologetic the ‘reviewer’ actually made thinly vailed threats of legal action against anyone disputing the results or challenging his ‘good name’, where in actual fact some of the results they published as supposedly being accurate, were in some cases a misrepresentation and defamatory to those manufacturers, while in other cases the performance level of some suppressors was over-stated. It is unfortunate that some people in the hunting and shooting industry are still using the results of these reviews tests as a reference or basis for comparisons between different brands of suppressors in the NZ market. Putting out bad data is worse than putting out no data at all, and flawed reviews with dodgy sound meters only do a disservice to the market, both for consumers, manufacturers, and re-sellers. Most hand-held sound level meters only have a peak rise time of 100uS at best, and phone-app for sound levels are even worse! These sort of amateur sound test measurements are completely worthless, and misleading. Beware of being mis-informed by any suppressor reviews that are using cheap or uncertifed equipment that is not fit for purpose. )



IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ACCURATE AND TRUTHFUL TEST RESULTS (with an actual mil-spec sound meter) in 2019 we purchased and set-up a full laboritory-calibrated B&K 2209 system (along with B&K 4136 1/4″ pressure mic and field-calibrators) to be able to add accurate field-test data to our existing test data, and to be able to experiment and re-test with minor improvements or design changes. Later in the year we added another two late-model B&K2209 meters that have proven to be good, accurate meters as well, and allow us to experiment with taking readings from multiple locations for each shot (i.e. ‘Mil-spec muzzle’ left and right (1.6m high, 1m to the side at 90 degrees), and ‘at the ear’ measurements simultaneously). And just now (March 2020) we have purchased a fourth late model B&K2209 meter to act as a back-up meter, or to measure sound pressure levels from a 4th location if required. This will be the best set-up in New Zealand for sound suppressor and gunshot testing (up to 170dB), and will finally be available to provide accurate data for consumers or honest product reviewers who require it.

To add to the confusion, some of the European manufacturers are now showing the decibel results from their suppressor measured at the ear. Which of course improved the numbers upward by a few dB. a 24" remington in 308 will give different results to the ear compared to a ruger 77 scout with its short barrel. That is where the US mil spec way of testing is better and starts everybody on the same foot.

Originally Posted by ariki

Proper sound pressure level meters for testing gunshots are very expensive, and are not commonly available. The only sound level meters than can accurately and consistently measure gunshot peak sound pressure levels (in accordance with MIL-STD 1474D), must have a rise time of less than 20 micro-seconds (20uSec) and a sampling rate of 196,000 Hz or better (for digital meters). The only meters that are still currently accepted in the industry for this purpose are the older analogue type meters such as the legendary Bruel & Kjaer 2209 (which reads up to 170dB) or the old Larson Davis 800D (which reads up to about 140dB, but can be modified to go up to 160-170dB with add-on equipment). The only newer meters that meet the spec are the Bruel & Kjaer ‘PULSE’ system – which is a full laboratory-grade system that requires mains power to run (which limits it’s portability), or a similar system put out by National Instruments (though at the time of writing it is uncertain if that is still available or has been discontinued). These systems are VERY expensive to purchase, to set up and maintain, and often have annual licensing fees for the software as well. These significant costs ($40K plus, and $10k per year for licensing) certainly limit their use and availability to the industry.

(Note: In 2017 a NZ-based outdoors magazine published a ‘review’ on a large number of rifle suppressors, and that testing used a single hand-held digital sound level meter – a Larson Davis LXT. While being marketed as a sound meter that is supposed to be capable of measuring gunshots, this meter in fact does not meet the requirements of Mil-Std 1474D and is incapable of providing accurate, reliable, or consistent results for this purpose. This is largely due to the fact that it only has a rise time of 30uS at best (50% too slow) and a sample frequency of only 48,000 Hz (400% too slow). In recent years the Larson meter has been thoroughly discredited (by suppressor industry professionals) for use as a meter for accurate gunshot and suppressor testing. This is undoubtedly a contributing factor to the errors and spurious results published in that NZ magazine article (and also some other YouTuber suppressor reviews using the Larson Davis LXT meter in the last couple of years.) . The whole ‘review’ in the end could only be described politely as a complete shambles, and to go into the flaws and errors in that review would require a full article and investigation in itself. Particularly concerning was the fact that they were offered 2 separate mil-spec meters (by two of the invited suppressor companies) to run along side the Larson Davis meter, but refused to allow them. Why?? Or the fact that when some of the test results that they published were later proven to be inaccurate, they refused to publicly retract or amend/correct those results. Unbelievably, instead of being apologetic the ‘reviewer’ actually made thinly vailed threats of legal action against anyone disputing the results or challenging his ‘good name’, where in actual fact some of the results they published as supposedly being accurate, were in some cases a misrepresentation and defamatory to those manufacturers, while in other cases the performance level of some suppressors was over-stated. It is unfortunate that some people in the hunting and shooting industry are still using the results of these reviews tests as a reference or basis for comparisons between different brands of suppressors in the NZ market. Putting out bad data is worse than putting out no data at all, and flawed reviews with dodgy sound meters only do a disservice to the market, both for consumers, manufacturers, and re-sellers. Most hand-held sound level meters only have a peak rise time of 100uS at best, and phone-app for sound levels are even worse! These sort of amateur sound test measurements are completely worthless, and misleading. Beware of being mis-informed by any suppressor reviews that are using cheap or uncertifed equipment that is not fit for purpose. )



IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ACCURATE AND TRUTHFUL TEST RESULTS (with an actual mil-spec sound meter) in 2019 we purchased and set-up a full laboritory-calibrated B&K 2209 system (along with B&K 4136 1/4″ pressure mic and field-calibrators) to be able to add accurate field-test data to our existing test data, and to be able to experiment and re-test with minor improvements or design changes. Later in the year we added another two late-model B&K2209 meters that have proven to be good, accurate meters as well, and allow us to experiment with taking readings from multiple locations for each shot (i.e. ‘Mil-spec muzzle’ left and right (1.6m high, 1m to the side at 90 degrees), and ‘at the ear’ measurements simultaneously). And just now (March 2020) we have purchased a fourth late model B&K2209 meter to act as a back-up meter, or to measure sound pressure levels from a 4th location if required. This will be the best set-up in New Zealand for sound suppressor and gunshot testing (up to 170dB), and will finally be available to provide accurate data for consumers or honest product reviewers who require it.

I look forward to seeing a NEW IMPROOVED review of as many different suppressors you can lay hands on....if indeed so many makers feel they have been villafied by origonal article....getting them to supply products and JOIN IN on testing should be piece of piss to arrange....
and just for grins n giggles chuck a couple of different brakes into test please....to once and for all let folks know just how plurry dangerous they are to naked ears.

Originally Posted by Friwi

To add to the confusion, some of the European manufacturers are now showing the decibel results from their suppressor measured at the ear. Which of course improved the numbers upward by a few dB. a 24" remington in 308 will give different results to the ear compared to a ruger 77 scout with its short barrel. That is where the US mil spec way of testing is better and starts everybody on the same foot.

so the only really fair test would be to use same rifle with same loads for all suppressors tested...say 3 rounds with each....to get the first round POP as well.....I believe a taped muzzle reduces that somewhat,but happy to be corrected.

I'm looking for a new suppressor for a 6.5 PRC I have two ODL I prefer to call the company "OCD" based on the owner, he's closed his business completely to public now and won't take calls even for basic questions so for me that's a fail and Im looking for another manufacturer in NZ, I do have a magnum 338 racket lock and a 30cal alpine hunter ill be selling, just don't want to support a company that won't even talk to his buyers, and then there's the price increases now the you have to go through retailers like broncos.

I love reading these ,2017 was a good wake up to where I was but 2022 I’m about to launch Gen 6 of my silencers:
Kevlar stealths

I look back and noone else has changed a thing from what I’ve seen to this day except try and stop there silencers from blowing up , I’ve never had that problem

No disclaimer
No compromise



Ps Back of the cupboard is always where the good stuff is kept

Originally Posted by maniatisgunsmiths

I love reading these ,2017 was a good wake up to where I was but 2022 I’m about to launch Gen 6 of my silencers:
Kevlar stealths

I look back and noone else has changed a thing from what I’ve seen to this day except try and stop there silencers from blowing up , I’ve never had that problem

No disclaimer
No compromise



Ps Back of the cupboard is always where the good stuff is kept

Originally Posted by maniatisgunsmiths

I love reading these ,2017 was a good wake up to where I was but 2022 I’m about to launch Gen 6 of my silencers:
Kevlar stealths

I look back and noone else has changed a thing from what I’ve seen to this day except try and stop there silencers from blowing up , I’ve never had that problem

No disclaimer
No compromise



Ps Back of the cupboard is always where the good stuff is kept

Your also an arrogant fucking ass hole whos business model is bagging out the opposition at every point the amount of poor taste comments from you across Facebook is unreal, now some might argue this is in poor taste and that’s fair enough but I’m not selling anything just calling you out let your product speak for its self if it’s good you shouldn’t have to put down the opposition or make digs at peoples rifles for not having your suppressor. I tried to buy one of yours and got tired of you making it difficult trying to up sell me . Iv got two friends who got yours couldn’t get their rifles to shoot to save themselves one went back to a hardy and the other to a dpt and problem solved . Competition is good and drives innovation keep your slanderous tongue in your mouth and let your product do the walking bud