Thread: Suppressor effectiveness - Think about this!

So recently some sound testing was carried out, I can't say much about the specifics but this is what happened:

Properly calibrated sound test equipment was set up by a qualified person 450 meters to the side of the firing point i.e. at right angles to the line of fire.

Shots were fired with a variety of rifles, a 7.62x51 target rifle, a 223 heavy barrel rifle and a 6.5 creedmoor suppressed rifle.

The loudest noise recorded from the shots was 52 decibels, what would you think the "quietest" shots registered at (bearing in mind decibels are a measure of power or intensity so its not a linear scale)??

450 metres?
Most suppressors would sound effective at that range.

3 oranges, reddish pink, and 65 cents?
at 450m away I couldn't care less

42

Originally Posted by Pengy

42

K?

Originally Posted by mikee

K?

42. the meaning of life, and everything

Originally Posted by Pengy

42

As in dB, or as in 'the answer to life, the universe and everything'?

I knew someone would try 42, but actually it was more than that . . .

50

Close - 48, I would have thought it would have been a good bit less than this, anyone care to offer an explanation of why the suppressor didn't make more difference?

Despite the suppressor taking a lot of the muzzle crack away, you are still left with the sonic crack of the bullet as it travels through the air.

And we aint in the movies

and like you said, dB is not a linear scale, so it becomes exponentially more difficult to reduce dB

Some one once asked how to quieten a 7mm Mag, Answer be 800 metres from the muzzle, Ask any NRA full bore shooter if you are in the butts marking targets you only hear the sonic crack as the bullet goes
overhead you barely hear the muzzle report 800 metres away if the shot falls short you don't hear anything if the wind is blowing toward the shooter,
So basically suppressors are a big con for long range only useful for subsonic loads where they work great