PrecisionRifleBlog.com A DATA-DRIVEN Approach to Precision Rifles, Optics & Gear
Related Articles
Recently, 33 suppressor manufacturers gathered to test almost 250 models of suppressors at one location, using the same high-end test equipment and professional setup. Altogether, they fired over 1700 rounds of live ammo over 5 days from almost 350 different suppressor/firearm combinations! They carefully recorded detailed data for every shot with professional-grade equipment and published it all publically!
Every suppressor manufacturer was invited to participate. While not everyone attended, nobody was intentionally left out. A few military research groups were also present at the event. They called the event the “2024 Suppressor Summit.” This was the second annual event of its kind. At the inaugural event in 2023, there was a long list of manufacturers involved – but the number of companies involved grew this year, and the tests were expanded, too.
First, I applaud all the companies that participated. I love that you wanted to collaborate with other manufacturers and see how your products stack up against the competition – knowing the data would be made public. This is the kind of thing that will advance the industry, so thank you for participating. My hope is even more companies will join in 2025. It’s sure easy to claim your suppressors are quiet, but let’s see which companies believe in their products enough that they want to prove it with hard data!
The Live-Fire Data
A friend who helped lead the summit forwarded me a link to the data after the event concluded a few days ago, and I found it extremely interesting! The Suppressor Summit tested 200+ suppressors on 20+ different firearms, from a rimfire 22 pistol to 9mm handguns, to rimfire rifles, AR-15s in 5.56, 300 Blackout, and other cartridges – and even some wild stuff like level-action rifles shooting 50 caliber subsonic rounds and 375 RUMs!
This article will focus on all of the data they’ve published for suppressors that were tested on a 308 Win bolt-action rifle, which includes 115 different suppressor models. That weapon most closely represented what we use to compete in PRS-style matches, so I figured it’d be what the majority of my readers would be interested to see. The exact weapon and ammo they used was a bolt-action Accuracy International AX rifle chambered in 308 Win with a 20” barrel using M118LR 175-grain MatchKing ammo. If you are using anything from a 6mm Dasher to a 6.5 Creedmoor to a 6.5 PRC or even up to a 300 Win Mag or 300 PRC, these are the suppressor models and test data that are most relevant to you.
All of the data is published in exhaustive detail by Thunder Beast Arms Corp, which was the host of the Suppressor Summit. You can even download all of the raw data files that were captured on each shot with their high-end equipment. Here is a link to the complete data:
Why Is It So Hard to Compare Suppressors?
Suppressors are incredibly hard to compare for a few reasons:
- Sound can be hard to measure in a way that is reliable and repeatable across different environments. You can’t just buy a sound meter off Amazon to get data that is accurate or comparable. It’s also almost impossible to compare your readings from your rifle/ammo/suppressor combo to someone else’s combo.
- Because they are heavily regulated (and expensive), it is hard for an independent party to even get their hands on all the different models – even if they had the right equipment.
That’s why having a large set of data that is directly comparable across a range of suppressor manufacturers and models is so rare – and a big reason for the Suppressor Summit. There simply isn’t another source of data that compares to this in terms of rich and reliable data that allows us to make apples-to-apples comparisons.
So What Are We Looking At?
The Suppressor Summit basically fired 5 rounds through each suppressor and rifle/ammo combination. They had multiple professional microphones at specific locations around the weapon, and the very high-resolution data was recorded for each shot using a $45,000 test setup.
To get the most value from the data, we need a quick crash course in testing sound:
dB vs. dBA
dB stands for decibels, and it measures the absolute sound pressure level without taking into account how humans hear. dBA are those same measurements with some adjustments to account for how humans hear. The summit data provides both, but I chose to focus on dBA.
Mic Position: Shooter’s Ear or Mil-Spec?
I originally wanted to analyze the values taken at a position they call “the Shooter’s Ear” because, as a shooter – that’s what I care about most. They gathered data for 75 suppressor models in 2024 and 60 models in 2023. A few manufacturers only came in 2023 or 2024 (not both years), and I was hoping we could compare them all. However, they made a slight refinement to the position of “the Shooter’s Ear” microphone and surroundings, making the data between years vary. So, unfortunately, it’s not apples-to-apples.
However, they had another microphone placed in the same EXACT location for both years, which is directly comparable. It’s what they call “Mil-Spec Left” or “ML” for short. The military has defined the exact position sound should be measured for some of their standardized tests, which is 1 meter to the left of the muzzle at a 90° angle and 1.6 meters off the ground. Data in both 2023 and 2024 were recorded in that exact location. In fact, they recorded a few of the same model suppressors for both years, and the results were virtually identical! That repeatability should give us a lot of confidence in the results.
Analyzing “Mil-Spec Left” mic position data allows us to see an apples-to-apples comparison in terms of how quiet 115 different suppressor models are in the same conditions from the same rifle/ammo combo, measured with the same $45,000 test equipment.
Peak Sound Level vs Total Sound Energy
Sound is complex and nuanced, but it’s sure convenient when we can sum up a whole bunch of data with a single number! We do stuff like that all the time. For example, Michael Jordan averaged 30.1 points per game over his career, or my rifle fired a 0.4 MOA group. Those are called descriptive statistics, which are very good at summing up a jumble of data, like 15 seasons of basketball or a 10-shot group, and boiling it down to a single number. They give us a manageable and meaningful summary of some underlying phenomenon. The bad news is any simplification invites abuse. Descriptive statistics can be like online dating profiles: technically accurate and yet pretty darn misleading! Descriptive statistics exist to simplify, which always implies some loss of detail or nuance. So here is an important point: An over-reliance on any descriptive statistic can lead to misleading conclusions.
When it comes to trying to quantify how quiet a suppressor is, people tend to focus on one of these two things:
- Peak Sound Level: What was the loudest or max level of the bang that was measured? Clearly, this is a direct reflection of how loud something is, and it’s an important metric. This is easiest to measure and understand, so it’s what you see people talk about most.
- Total Sound Energy or Impulse: It’s not just the peak that plays into us thinking something is loud. If you were shooting a 50 BMG with a suppressor that knocked the peak level down, it might still be punishing to shoot it all day because of the large concussion that isn’t necessarily the peak – but still has a lot of pressure and energy related to it.
Below are two real examples of raw sound data gathered on 8/20/2024 at the summit for individual shots from different suppressors.
You can see the peak for both shots is extremely similar, around 0.05 seconds. That first peak is from the sonic crack of the bullet leaving the muzzle. However, after that initial peak, the data couldn’t be more different. Significant sound pressure or energy continues to come from the suppressor on the right. If you were in the room, you would NOT say these two suppressors sounded the same. You’d say the one on the left is noticeably quieter. So, while the instantaneous peak is important, if we only focused on it, we’d miss a lot. That’s why we also need to look at some metrics that represent the total sound energy over time to get the full picture.
When it comes to quantifying sound energy over time, there are a few ways to do it (and academic debates may ensue) – but after a long conversation with the guy who led all this research, my analysis will use Leq(10ms) dBA as the sound energy metric. It basically takes a fluctuating curve of sound energy (like our charts above) and calculates a single, equivalent value in decibels. It is basically the average sound pressure level over 10 milliseconds.
Sound is a Logarithmic Scale
If I say the numbers 5, 50, and 500 – you have an intuitive understanding of what those represent. Each is 10 times bigger than the previous one, right? Well, throw that out of the window when it comes to sound!
The decibel scale is logarithmic, which most of us aren’t familiar with. A difference of 10 dB means the sound is 10 times more intense in terms of energy. Every 10 dB is an order of magnitude. If there is a 20 dB difference, that means it is 100 times more powerful (10×10), and a difference of 30 dB would be 1,000 times more intense (10×10×10)! To help you understand the decibel scale, here is a graphic with some common sounds along with some visualizations of their relative magnitude (courtesy of olegvolk.net).
Notice on the chart our baseline is normal speech at 60 dB (1x), then a dishwasher at 63 dB is twice as much (2x), and a vacuum cleaner at 70 dB is ten times as powerful (10x) as normal speech. So a difference of 3 dB can be thought of as twice as intense in terms of acoustic energy, and a difference of 10 dB is ten times as intense.
But that doesn’t mean 10 dB sounds 10 times louder. When we switch from talking about sound intensity to perceived loudness, we end up in a strange mix of science and psychology because loudness is a subjective feeling and can be perceived differently by individuals. For that reason, we actually can’t measure perceived loudness directly. However, psychoacousticians have done enough studies to know that, in general, when the sound level increases by 10 dB, a sound is perceived as twice as loud (source). Similarly, a 20 dB increase in the sound level is perceived as four times as loud by the normal human ear (2×2).
Clear as mud?! Here is a table showing how changes in measured sound level would apply to both measurements:
| Sound Level Change | Perceived Loudness | Sound Intensity |
| +10 dB | 2x (double) | 10x |
| +6 dB | 1.52x | 4x |
| +3 dB | 1.23x | 2x (double) |
| 0 db | 1x | 1x |
| -3 dB | 0.82x | 0.5x (half) |
| -6 dB | 0.66x | 0.25x |
| -10 dB | 0.5x (half) | 0.1x |
| -20 dB | 0.25x | 0.01x |
| -30 dB | 0.13x | 0.001x |
A difference of 1 dB is the just-noticeable difference (JND) for common sounds in the human ear (source), although that may be imperceptible by some people. For the gunshots, subject matter experts say it typically takes a difference of 2 dB to be noticeable, and a difference of 5 dB is clearly noticeable.
For context, both OSHA and MIL-STD-1474E require hearing protection if sound pressure levels are 140 dB or more for “impulse” noises like gunfire.
Enough already! On to the data! 😉
Suppressor Sound Performance Data Comparison
We all know that longer suppressors are quieter than shorter ones, at least in general. So first, I grouped the suppressors into categories based on what they measured the overall length of each one to be at the summit (which they provided in the data).
Often, as shooters, we try to balance sound suppression with how compact and maneuverable a suppressor is. So, I thought grouping the data by length was both relevant and made looking at data for 115 different suppressor models more manageable.
We’ll start with the shortest suppressors tested and progress to longer ones.
Finally, all the charts are sorted by the average total sound energy, but they also show the peak sound level for reference.
5” Suppressor Sound Data
The chart below shows the data for all suppressors where the measured overall length was 5.49 inches or less. That is a pretty small suppressor to use on a 30-caliber centerfire rifle, which is why there were only 5 suppressor models in this size. However, I bet the level of sound reduction they were able to achieve surprised more than a few people!
Keep in mind that the lower the numbers are, the quieter the suppressor is. Lower numbers are a good thing!
For context, they also measured the sound of the same exact 308 rifle/ammo combo with a bare muzzle, which were:
- Bare Muzzle Average Sound Energy = 148 dBA (ML Leq dBA)
- Bare Muzzle Peak Sound Level = 166 dBA (ML dBA)
That means some of these suppressors were taking the sound level down by around 20 dBA, and, according to our table above, the perceived loudness would be just 25% of what the bare muzzle sounded like!
The Otter Creek Labs Hydrogen K suppressor was the top performer, followed closely by the Thunder Beast Magnus K suppressor, the Thunder Beast Ultra 5 suppressor, and the Aero Precision Lahar-30K.
I will add that the Abel Biscuit S 30 is only 4.87” long and the shortest suppressor in this test. I’d bet it’s designed to be more of a specialty product when the shortest length possible is the absolute highest priority. Some might call that more of a moderator than a suppressor (although the ATF would still say it’s a silencer).
However, the Otter Creek Labs Hydrogen K is only 5.0” long, which makes it even more impressive. At this short length, a difference of 5.0” to 5.45” (like the Magnus K) may seem small, but that is almost 10% longer.
Remember all this data was measured 1 meter directly to the side of the muzzle (mil-spec left). So, a peak of 143 dBA directly beside the rifle is not bad! Across all of this test data, it was about 8.9 dBA quieter at the shooter’s ear than mil-spec left. The top 4 suppressors on the chart measured to be 131-136 dBA at the shooter’s ear, although the Abel Biscuit S was 142 dBA at the shooter’s ear.
But, as we’ll see, some of the longer suppressors can offer a lot more sound suppression.
6” Suppressor Sound Data
The chart below shows all suppressors with an overall length between 5.50” and 6.49”.
The Thunder Beast Dominus CB (6.3”) takes the top spot in this group, with the Liberty Precision Anthem-K2 (5.7”) right on its heels. The Otter Creek Labs Polonium-30 (6.3”) also had a very respectable showing and was able to stay under that 140 dBA peak threshold.
Honestly, there are a ton of respectable performances among this group. A few even outperformed some of the 7” cans!
7” Suppressor Sound Data
The chart below shows all of the suppressors where the overall length measured between 6.50” and 7.49”.
There are 4 suppressors that stand out on this chart, with more than 2 dBA gap between them and the rest of the pack:
- Dead Air Nomad Ti XC
- Liberty Precision Anthem-S2
- Diligent Defense Enticer L-Ti
- Otter Creek Labs Hydrogen S 7.62
Even though those 4 suppressors are just 7”, they outperformed the majority of 8” suppressors and around half of the 9” suppressors! That is ridiculous! It is always so interesting to find outliers in the data. (I bet those 4 suppressors sell out constantly for the next couple of years after posting this! That data seems to speak pretty clearly about how good those designs are.)
8” Suppressor Sound Data
Here is all the data for suppressors with an overall length of 7.50” to 8.49”:
Again, there is a clear outlier on this chart: the Dead Air Nomad LT. The average sound energy is almost 4 dBA less than the rest, and the peak sound level is almost 3 dBA less. Those are definitely noticeable differences!
It’s interesting to see a pretty steady progression of values from 122 up to 130 dBA in this class of suppressors. 8 dBA seems like a ton of difference to see among suppressors that have fairly similar dimensions, but I guess that is why it’s important to test these things and look at the data – not just take the word of people on forums!
9”+ Suppressor Sound Data
Finally, here are the longest suppressors, which all had an overall length of 8.50” or more. A few of these were 10 or 11 inches long. The Allen Engineering M24 suppressor measured 12.25” long, and the B&T Monoblock 762 was the longest at 12.63”!
This class of suppressors represents the products where people are completely optimizing for comfort and sound reduction, regardless of weight or size. The average weight of these suppressors was 18 ounces, but some of them weighed almost 2 pounds!
Look at the variation among these suppressors! There is 10-14 dBA difference between some of the designs, meaning some of these have 10 times more sound energy and sound more than twice as loud! I wouldn’t have expected to see that much variation among products from different manufacturers, but it shows why this kind of data is so important when choosing a suppressor.
Also, notice the peak is around 132-134 dBA for many of these suppressors. That’s because they have effectively reduced the peak sound level down to the sonic crack of the bullet leaving the rifle. If you are firing supersonic ammo (bullet traveling over about 1100 fps), you’ll always have that sonic crack. That’s why it’s especially important with these longer suppressors to look at total sound energy over time because you wouldn’t be able to accurately differentiate between some of them otherwise.
It shouldn’t be surprising to see the longest suppressor at the top of the list! The 12.63” B&T Monoblock 762 had the best overall sound energy reduction of all 115 suppressors tested in the 2023 or 2024 Suppressor Summit. Now, this is a different model of “Monoblock” suppressor than the one they’ve been selling. Someone from B&T actually reached out to me to clarify that this one they tested was actually a model they developed using 3D printed titanium, and not through conventional machining like all of their previous suppressors. Luckily, the Suppressor Summit Data contains photos of all of the suppressors they actually tested, and you can see the B&T Monoblock 762 tested below and also at this link.
The story to me is that just barely behind it was the 9.1” PTR Vent 1 suppressor and the 9.3” Liberty Precision Anthem-L2. Those two were only a couple of decimal places behind the Monoblock, and I’d even say it was so small it’d likely be imperceptible to most people.
I hadn’t heard of PTR, so I looked them up: PTR Vent 1 suppressor on their website. PTR’s product description says, “Utilizing groundbreaking 3D-printed titanium and innovative Purposely Induced Porosity™, this suppressor is designed to surpass the benchmarks of strength, weight, and performance in the industry.” They also provided the graphic below, which seemed like a unique design concept that was worth sharing. It will be interesting to watch if/how 3D-printed titanium introduces new design options, like the PTR Vent 1.
And the one after those surprised me: Thunder Beast Magnus RR. That is basically the Thunder Beast Magnus with a brake on the end. But look where the TBAC Magnus is at! It is below it in the 8th spot! What?! The same suppressor with a brake on the end metered 1.7 dBA lower in terms of average sound energy, although the peak level of the Magnus RR with the brake was 0.3 dBA higher.
Honestly, I didn’t expect that, but the guys at TBAC said it’s because the brake ports on the Magnus RR are ported slightly rearward (toward the shooter). Remember, this is based on the “Mil-Spec Left” microphone data, which was directly 90° from the muzzle. The Magnus RR directs gas slightly back, so less sound is hitting the “Mil-Spec Left” microphone, but more sound travels toward the shooter’s ear.
Sure enough, if you look at the “Shooter’s Ear” microphone data, the Magnus had an average sound energy (SE Leq dBA) of 112.5, and the Magnus RR was at 120 dBA. So the Magnus RR is clearly louder at the shooter’s ear, and the switch here was just a result of how the brake ports were angled on that particular suppressor. Most other suppressor-mounted brakes were at 90° to the bore, meaning they wouldn’t have this same nuance with the “Mil-Spec Left” mic.
Summary: Top 25 Suppressors (Any Size)
Okay, unlike all the other charts above – this chart isn’t limited to a particular length or size of suppressor. This is basically the top 25 of all 115 suppressors the summit tested in 2023 and 2024.
Once again, the 12.63” long B&T Monoblock 762 is at the top of the list, followed very closely by the 9.1” PTR Vent 1 suppressor and the 9.3” Liberty Precision Anthem-L2. In fact, the top 5 spots are identical to the 9” Suppressor chart because all of them were 8.5” or more in length.
Here are photos of the top 5:
It shouldn’t be any surprise that the quietest suppressors were some of the longest ones. At some level, the more volume a can is able to hold, the more gas it can capture and slow down. But, several 7” or 8” suppressors still made the top 25, so I highlighted the length of each of those on the chart to make them more noticeable.
Coming in at 6th overall was the Dead Air Nomad LT. They measured the overall length of that suppressor to be just 7.8”, but it was quieter than even some of the 10” suppressors!
Suppressor Sound Reduction Per Inch
Okay, I admit I completely made this metric up – but it seems relevant and interesting to me. How much sound reduction do you get per inch of suppressor? If you think of length as a cost, then this chart shows which suppressors give you the most bang for your buck.
By this point, it’s no surprise to see the Dead Air Nomad LT, the PTR Vent 1, and the Liberty Precision Anthem-L2 at the top of the list. Those seemed to be consistently at the top of most of these charts! It is interesting to see that the other two Libery Precision suppressors, the Anthem-S2 and Anthem-K2, have virtually identical performance per inch as the L2 model. I’d suspect they have a very similar design inside, which apparently is very efficient and effective!
Behind those 5, we see the little 5.0” long Otter Creek Labs Hydrogen K! It’s interesting to see that this list contains all sizes of suppressors. There are efficient suppressor designs on the chart above that vary from 5.0” long up to 9.3”! The average of all 25 is 7.09”. Here is a quick look at the lengths represented on the chart above:
I admit that I’m a little surprised that there wasn’t a “sweet spot” of length that seemed to be most effective at managing the gases and sound for the 308 Win that they were firing, whether that was relatively short or long. But, you can see there are efficient designs at virtually every length. There doesn’t seem to be a point of diminishing returns in terms of length or a point where a suppressor is getting too short to do work as effectively.
It seems like the data pretty clearly shows that there are great options out there for whatever length of suppressor you want. Having the hard data to know which ones you should consider is certainly helpful!
Complete Data & Doing Your Own Custom Analysis
Remember, you can check out the complete data for all of the other 22 caliber, 9mm, 338 caliber, and other suppressors they tested at the Suppressor Summit. This article was limited to the 30-caliber suppressor data from 2023 and 2024, but they tested over 100 other suppressor models! Check out the complete data here:
Hey, and I’m sure some of my readers wish I would have analyzed some of the data a little differently or might have critiques about how I looked at it. Feel free to let me know in the comments – but you can also download the data and do your own ad-hoc analysis. That is part of the power of this all being published publicly! So feel free to poke around in the data yourself, and if you find anything interesting, please let me know in the comments!
Suppressor Models Represented In This 30-Caliber Suppressor Data
Below is a complete list of all of the suppressors that had test data included in the charts presented for a 308 Win bolt-action rifle. These were all tested at the Suppressor Summit either in 2023 or 2024, and the name reflects whatever they typed in when they recorded the data at the event.
- AAC Jager 30
- AAC MK13-SD
- AAC Ranger 7
- AAC Ranger 7 Mini
- AAC SDN-6
- AB Raptor 10
- Abel Biscuit 30
- Abel Biscuit S 30
- Abel Theorem
- Abel Theorem Vented Cap
- Abel Theorem-L
- Abel Theorem-S
- Aero Precision Lahar 30
- Aero Precision Lahar 30K
- Aero Precision Lahar 30L
- Allen Engineering AEM5 30K
- Allen Engineering AEM5 30
- Allen Engineering M24
- B&T Monoblock 762
- B&T SD-762Rotex
- B&T SD-762Rotex-C
- B&T SRBS762-DM
- B&T SRBS762TI-DM
- Banish 30 Full Length
- Banish 30 GOLD
- Banish Backcountry
- Banish Buck 30
- Bare Muzzle Bare Muzzle 308
- BOSS Chairman
- BOSS Chairman K
- CGS Hyperion
- CGS Hyperion K
- Daniel Defense Soundguard
- Daniel Defense Soundguard Ti
- Dead Air Nomad Keymo
- Dead Air Nomad L Ti XC
- Dead Air Nomad LT
- Dead Air Nomad LT E-Brake .375 endcap
- Dead Air Nomad Ti XC
- Dead Air Sandman S
- Dead Air Wolverine Keymo to Short FH
- Diligent Defense Enticer LTI
- Diligent Defense Enticer STI
- ECCO Accipiter 8in
- ECCO Accipiter 9in
- ECCO Aquilae
- ECCO Five By Five
- ECCO Furtivus
- ECCO Valkyrie
- Elite Iron Asset
- Elite Iron STFU Lite
- Elite Iron Thud Lite
- Elite Iron Thud Lite .30 with Brake
- Energetic Armament LUX 7.62
- Energetic Armament Peak 30
- Energetic Armament Peak 30 with Flash Hider
- Energetic Armament Vox S
- FPM Dirty Dachshund
- FPM Dirty Dachshund SS
- Griffin Dual-Lok 7.62mm
- Griffin Explorr 30
- Griffin GP7
- Griffin HRT 7.62
- Griffin Sportman Ultra light HD
- Gunwerks 6ix
- Gunwerks 8ight
- Huxwrx Flow 762 Ti
- Huxwrx HX-QD 7.62
- Innovative Arms Deception 7.62mm
- JK Armament RCX 30 Full
- JK Armament SBRX 30 Full
- Liberty Precision Anthem-K2
- Liberty Precision Anthem-L2
- Liberty Precision Anthem-S2
- Nosler SR-30 Ti
- Otter Creek Labs Hydrogen K
- Otter Creek Labs Hydrogen S 7.62
- Otter Creek Labs Hydrogen-L
- Otter Creek Labs Polonium-30
- PTR Vent 1 (PTR VSM1)
- Q Thunder Chicken
- Q Trash Panda
- Radical Defense BT-762GPS
- Radical Defense CS3TI
- Radical Defense LS3
- Radical Defense SASSTI
- Resilient Jolene
- Rugged Micro 30 Long
- Rugged Radiant
- Rugged Radiant 7.62mm Long
- Siege Strata 7.62
- Sig SLH 7.62
- Sig SLX 7.62
- SilencerCo Omega 300 with anchor brake
- SilencerCo Omega 300 with flat endcap
- StingerWorx 300 Venom
- StingerWorx EVO 30 HUB
- StingerWorx EVO 30 HUB with Flash Hider
- StingerWorx EVO 30 HUB With Mini Brake
- StingerWorx Hunter30
- Surefire Socom 7.62-rc2
- TBAC Dominus CB
- TBAC Magnus .30 CB
- TBAC Magnus K .30 CB
- TBAC Magnus K RR .30 CB
- TBAC Magnus RR .30 CB
- TBAC Magnus S .30 CB
- TBAC Magnus S RR .30 CB
- TBAC Ultra 5 .30
- TBAC Ultra 7 .30
- TBAC Ultra 9 .30
- TION Dragoon 7.62 CQB
- WTF Silencers The Jackalope
- YHM Resonator K
- YHM Resonator R2
- YHM Resonator R2 Phantom
It would be really interesting to see how the additively manufactured suppressors are doing against the traditionally manufactured ones. Obviously that technology is accelerating rapidly.
I 100% agree Scott. I think most of these guys are still doing traditional manufacturing, and I’m not sure how many are doing 3D printed (aka additively manufactured) … other than PTR, which I only looked up because after I saw that it was a top performer. I would expect to see more and more 3D printed titanium designs in future years of the suppressor summit, especially after manufacturers see these results. I think we’d need a larger sample size of 3D printed products to compare it like you’re suggesting, but I would be very interested to see the results of that myself!
I do agree the technology is accelerating rapidly. I expect it to be disruptive to the suppressor industry, but I’m talked to some subject matter experts that are more skeptical about the impact they’ll have. So I guess we’ll have to wait and see! Either way, it’s awesome to see the suppressor industry progress. There seems to be more advancement happening around suppressors lately than the previous 10-20 years, so that’s exciting for us as shooters.
Thanks,
Cal
Hi Cal
This is an excellent article with great data.
For those of us fighting to get suppressor ‘s approved for use in Canada this data will help prove our case.
Thanks
Paul
The B&T Monoblock tested, was a printed titanium one: https://thunderbeastarms.com/sound/summit2024/HTML/b4c14704e0d638ed4013bdad808e7c29.html
Thanks, Sebastian. I appreciate the heads up on the B&T Monoblock. I was a little confused by that. I’ll update the article to reflect that as soon as I get a moment to.
Thanks,
Cal
Printing does allow for more complex geometry without adding cost. It is no silver bullet but we see some enhancement. More interesting is, that materials like titanium and Inconel can be used. Both are not as easy to machine as aluminum or steels so they were not used extensively before printing was possible.
@Cal: Great summary!
One little correction: the B&T Monoblock tested in the TBAC Summit is a printed one. The one depicted in this post is an older conventionally machined one.
Thanks for sharing your expertise, Sebastian. I appreciate the heads up on the B&T Monoblock. I was a little confused by that. I’ll update the article to reflect that as soon as I get a moment to.
Thanks,
Cal
This is great. I wish the groups were recorded as well. I recognize more data and some additional work. But say two five shot groups, one without the suppressor and one with. Also get muzzle velocity data please.
Thanks, Patrick! You and I must be a lot alike. I always wish an experiment would have gathered one or two more things. I agree the group data would have added additional value to this, but having personally done several research projects that are on this kind of scale, I immediately start thinking about what all you’d have to do to pull that off. It would add a ton of additional complexity to the project. Controlling for groups is more difficult than it sounds (I did it in this field test and personally built a 100 yard underground range so I could do it more easily in the future), and even your suggestion of two 5-shot groups would have doubled the amount of rounds they would have needed to fire. I heard they were basically firing rounds for 5 straight days, which totaled 1700 rounds at the 2024 Suppressor Summit. That was at 5 rounds for each suppressor/firearm/ammo combo, so if you did two 5-shot groups that would double the round count to 3400 rounds and might take 2 weeks instead of 1. And honestly, should we trust groups out of 1 rifle – or would they need to fire groups from more than 1 rifle? Should it just be one kind of ammo? Ideally it might be a few kinds of ammo from multiple rifles, right? Two 5-shot groups from 2 rifles with 2 different types of ammo x 250 suppressors = 10,000 rounds! It might take up to 6 weeks to get through all that!
The velocity data would also be interesting, but I’d expect the shot-to-shot velocity variation of M118LR military ammo would also make it where you’d have to fire more than 5 rounds to have any data that is repeatable. So again, you’d be at least doubling the amount of time, ammo, barrel wear, etc. for the research.
I only say all that because I’m like you, and would always like to collect a few more things. And hey, if someone else is doing it – that’d be great! I get the data, and they do the work! 😉 But, that’s why my research projects have often started simple and then I look up and my project has ballooned to firing 2,000+ rounds through 20 different variations of something! That was true on my barrel test, muzzle brake test, and factory ammo test. Almost everything you want to measure has a multiplication effect to an experiment.
So while I agree group data and velocities would have added an extra layer of interest to the data, I just wonder if it would be feasible.
I do appreciate you sharing your thoughts! Like I said, we probably think a lot alike!
Thanks,
Cal
It would not have been possible for two reasons, the first is that the setup to isolate the gun from the shooter for the sound measurements would not be possible, and second, that it would slow down the throughput by at least a factor of 10. We are literally firing these as fast as the PULSE software can cycle to the next shot. And remember, the 308 bolt gun was just one of 5 “standard” hosts that we shot.
Thanks for the context, Zak!
For those who may not know, Zak Smith is the guy who led all this research and organized the Suppressor Summit. So if there is anyone to thank for all of this rich research data and the fact that it was all published publically and not simply distributed to the companies that participated – Zak would be the one to thank!
Thanks, Zak!!!
Cal
Thank you for your efforts. I would love to see the same for .223 and .22lr biased toward shooters ear.
Kind regards
Kent
Thanks, Kent. The good news is you can go look at that data right now! It’s all up and honestly, once you understand how the data is organized, it’s pretty simple to go to the place where Thunder Beast has posted all of it and do some ad-hoc sorting of the data tables and gain some insight.
The analysis in this article took me 40 hours, so I don’t plan to do the same type of analysis for those at this point. But, it’s all out there for you guys to look through.
Thanks,
Cal
Love these reports . The thunder beast guys are great ! Pew science is good but there not upfront about there testing procedures while these guys are as transparent as you could be . I love reading what the pro’s use
Thanks, David. I totally agree!
Pewscience publishes all their data and you are able to draw the same conclusions that are in this article based on the published waveforms. I would rather have some additional proprietary data from a trustworthy source than not have it at all, not to mention the pewscience testing methodology is also public. Based on all the raw data presented, pewscience publishes more of it than what is presented in this article. Trying to claim it’s not upfront is disingenuous at best. Their methodology is viewable here: https://pewscience.com/silencer-sound-standard
Thanks for sharing your view, Hayden. I certainly wasn’t trying to downplay what PEW Science publishes.
And I certainly didn’t publish everything in this article that the Suppressor Summit published. What I published was a VERY small subset of the data they provided.
Explaining all this stuff and presenting it in a way that is easy to take is can be very hard work. I’m sure the guys at PEW Science would agree with me there! So tried to boil it down to the parts that I felt like made sense to most shooters and present those, and simply link to the full dataset for anyone to do their own ad hoc analysis.
At the very least, it’s sure nice to have multiple sources of data to make informed decisions from.
Thanks,
Cal
This is really neat to see! Thanks for putting the time in to do this! I didn’t see KGM on this list?
Thanks, Cory. Glad you found this interesting! Honestly, when Zak forwarded me the link to the data, I was sucked in. I even took my laptop with me on vacation that weekend, because I wanted to spend the time on the plane analyzing the data. I guess that is just how nerdy I am! 😉
The way I understand it, KGM was invited – but I guess they chose to not participate. Zak said they tried to invite every single manufacturer, and nobody was intentionally left out. Part of my motivation to invest the time to publish this stuff was to try to make sure the shooting community was aware of it (because it’s helpful), but also to try to encourage more manufacturers to participate. It’s sure easy to claim your suppressors are quiet or “best in class”, but let’s see which companies believe in their products enough that they want to prove it with hard data!
The truth is, I’m not sure where KGM would rank. There were manufacturers like Surefire that did participate, and I’d say the majority of the market would say they expected them to compare well … but they didn’t. You can see the Surefire SOCOM 7.62-RC2 was ranked in my 8″ suppressor chart, and they were in the bottom half in terms of sound suppression. They were 10 dBA behind the leader in that same size, which means the Surefire suppressor sounded at least twice as loud! That’s nuts, isn’t it?! That is why its so enlightening when we test this kind of stuff head-to-head and can make direct comparisons. The truth is, I doubt even the staff at KGM know how they’d compare. But, maybe if they (and the list of other manufacturers who have yet to participate) have enough confidence in their product, they’ll show up at the 2025 Suppressor Summit.
Thanks,
Cal
Awesome article, thank you! I’m going to read the link and hope to find some 6.5 creedmoor suppressor data.
Hey, Brandon. Glad you found this helpful. Honestly, the data in this article is the test data that is most relevant to a 6.5 Creedmoor suppressor. A 308 Win case and a 6.5 Creedmoor are virtual identical sizes, so if they would have tested a 6.5 Creedmoor bolt action it would likely be almost identical to the data in this article.
The rest of the test data was mostly for AR’s, rimfire rifles, and larger magnums like 338 Lapua, or 375s. So feel free to check it out, but I think you’ll find this is the test data most related to the 6.5 Creedmoor or any mid-sized cartridge like 6mm Dasher, 6mm Creedmoor, 6.5 Creedmoor, or even up to a 6.5 PRC or mid-size 7mm or 30-caliber.
Thanks,
Cal
You need to add effectiveness per inch and ounce ,graph as ultimately folks choices when buying are most often down the form factor and cost,everything else is unreliable tall tales manufacturers sell.
Hey, Mr. T. The article has the effectiveness per inch, but not by weight. I guess I could have done that, but I guess I’m typically looking at titanium suppressors – so if they are shorter, they are usually also lighter. And I probably also come from a PRS shooter mindset, where weight is seen as a good thing.
The good news is all the data is public, and it wouldn’t be too hard to do your own ad-hoc analysis and slice the data any way you’d like. I was just trying to do it the way I thought most of my readers would want to see it, or how I personally thought was relevant.
Thanks,
Cal
Of course , I meant db per inch /ounce , but yes can do that on my own . Here in Europe 3d printed suppressors are all the rage for Hunting, extremely light even in stainless or Inconel. Definitely the future of suppresors, its just extremely expensive machines and relatively low productivity of said machines that limits wider use ,but that is changing fast .
length = (suppressor time/kinda like barrel time) how long the hole with hot and fast gases is somewhat sealed =mayor effect
weight besides material choice is often closely correlated to can volume , also mayor factor
What is missing here for me is any specification, data or even commentary on the impact of suppressor diameters. Is there some thing I am missing as to diameters relevance?
On the surface total suppressor volume or cross section would also seem to be relevant.
Would it be correct that the further distance an expanding gas must travel to exit there would be a correlation with sound reduction.
Thanks and by the way I much appreciate the diligence and professionalism seen in your projects. They are interesting, intelligent and thought provoking. Best regards
Hey, Charles. That is a good point. They did measure the max diameter of every suppressor they tested and that is in the data they published. In fact, when I was analyzing the data I looked it it both ways, ranking them based on suppressor volume and length. Ultimately what made me go with length was because when I’m trying to decide on what suppressor to buy, I usually have a length in mind for a particular application. Whether the suppressor is 1.5″ diameter or 1.75″ diameter really doesn’t matter to me – at all. I think that’s why we are seeing most suppressor manufacturers move to larger diameter cans. Consumers don’t mind larger diameter cans, and it is a way to add volume to a suppressor without adding length. And lots of performance is correlated to the volume of a suppressor. For 20 years, virtually all of the suppressors were 1.5″ – but almost all of the high-end suppressors for these mid-size cartridges that were designed in the past 5 years are 1.75″ to 1.8″. I actually pointed that out in a recent article about what suppressors the top 200 ranked shooters in the PRS use.
The guys at the Suppressor Summit did measure the max diameter for every suppressor tested and even calculated the volume of each one. So that data is included in what they published. I looked it briefly both ways (efficiency by length or volume) and the ones who ended up on top were similar are both. In fact, that approach would lend itself to give the smaller diameter cans an advantage. So it might basically be biased towards 1.5″ diameter cans slightly, even though I’ve never heard someone say having a 1.75″ can had a downside. That’s why I thought length was a better metric. I’ve just never heard someone say, “I don’t want to use that can because it is a little too fat.” But I have heard people say a suppressor was too long. So I thought length would be more relevant to most people.
And that is a great question about the further the distance the bigger correlation to sound reduction. You must be a very sharp guy, Charles. The short answer is yes. Here is an excerpt from another article I wrote on sound:
And I appreciate the kind words. I do put a lot of effort into this, and I realize that the readers I’ve attracted are very intelligent and professional. That’s why I don’t gloss over the more technical aspects, and why I put so much effort into this. I try to make it something I’d enjoy reading, too. To me this was truly fascinating. I couldn’t stop looking at the data and seeing new little nuggets. I tried to mostly just present the data here and let people draw their own conclusions, but I saw so many little nuanced things in the data that surprised me. It really is one of the richest data sets I think I’ve come across in the wild. Outside of military research projects you just don’t see this level of diligence much. Zak Smith is a kindred soul in that way, too.
I appreciate the thoughtful questions and comments. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks,
Cal
Cal thank you for all the great articles over the years. Have you ever thought about covering Quantified Performance or (more) NRL hunter? I’ve only competed in gas gun matches because they are pretty cheap to shoot and I’d love coverage of that. Thanks again
Hey, Travis. I appreciate you sharing that you’ve enjoyed the articles. I’ll be honest, I haven’t heard of Quantified Performance. Is that more of a gas gun competition?
Really, I typically write about whatever I’m learning and passionate about at the time. Over the past 18 months I’ve had a renewed passion for PRS-style shooting, and I’ve actually climbed to pro-level status in that time. That was my big goal for 2024.
I’d be interested to compete in NRL Hunter matches, but I’ve just filled my schedule with PRS matches this year since my 2024 goal was to qualify to the season finale as one of the top-ranked shooters in the open division.
In future years, I’d probably like to cover more NRL hunter gear, because it is a different approach … but also very similar to the style of shooting I’m into.
I’ll have to look up the Quantified Performance stuff. I’m just not familiar with it, but I’ll check it out.
Thanks for the suggestion!
Cal
One thing that could be helpful to some of us is a calibration round that we all know. A 20” (ish) 22lr bolt gun, subsonic,no muzzle device, with the same microphone distances might help for a no ear protection reference that we all have access to.
Hey, Michael. They tested some 22 caliber rimfire suppressors, too … so I just went to that page with all the data and looked at what firearms they tested that were similar to what you suggested. They don’t have 20″ 22lr bolt gun, but they did have this: 16.5″ bolt-action .22LR rifle Volquartsen Summit shooting CCI Std Vel.
Here is the bare muzzle data for that setup, measured exactly like all of this other data I presented. It is all mil-spec left mic data.
Peak: 141.03 dBA (ML dBA)
Avg Sound Energy: 118.99 dBA (ML Leq dBA)
Hope that is helpful.
Thanks,
Cal
Nice writeup Cal! It kinda wrapped my thinking on buy a Dead Air can in the future as that seems really competitive. Also interesting the Aero had a decent can, and they are far from being a specialized manufacturer.
I shoot both bolt and semi auto platforms. An interesting thing to see but would probably be almost impossible to test, would be how much back pressure is created by the can. On a bolt action? It really doesn’t matter. On a semi? It can be huge on how comfortable the rifle is to shoot. Getting gassed out really sucks.
Thanks Cal, As always awesome information and coverage. With that said here is my rant.
I feel like the only company actually on the right track was area 419 with the mavrick. granted boss and tb with the rr and a few are atleast seeing a dim light i feel in general its missed. Not a single person i know cares about the sound. The only thing most care about is something that is barley if even hearing safe and reduces the most recoil. light hunting rifles in standard and magnums or prs shooters will all reap the rewards when the industry as a whole understands what the consumers actually want which is safe recoil reduction. To this day area 419 is the only company i know of that set out to accomplish this however with prs being such a small spec in the firearms world i feel most dont even know of the mavrick and worse yet most individuals dont even know what it is they want do to lack of exposure.
Steve, I couldn’t agree more. That is my personal outlook right now, too. The only suppressors I’ve bought in the past 5 years are the 3 I ordered earlier this year: Area 419 Maverick, TBAC Magnus-K (the 5″ one), TBAC Magnus-K-RR (the 5″ one + the brake). I have a bunch of 7″ and 9″ suppressors that I don’t use much. I have been using brakes on my PRS competition and hunting rifles, but I’m hoping some of those new ones might be just what you described. I’m pretty excited to try those out. I’m not sure if I’ll switch over to running one of those in matches, but I do bet I run them on my hunting rifles at the very least.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Cal
Isn’t an indoor sound test subject to reflection? I’m no scientist, but I’ve shot at indoor ranges as well as outdoors, and indoor ranges are a hellscape of audio torture compared to outdoors. I’m surprised this can be a valid test environment without lots of acoustic tiles on the walls or whatever. Someone explain why I’m wrong please.
Hey, Kevin. Yes, indoor sound tests are subject to reflection. They cover that in detail in the introduction to the data on the summit page, but basically they have enough time to record the noise signature from the firearm report before the sound can travel to the wall and back to the microphones (around 75 milliseconds). They tested some suppressors both indoors and outdoors to ensure the readings were consistent, and they were.
Here is one of the charts where they record for an extended period of time to show the exact spot where the sound reflects off the walls back and back to the microphones. You can see the noise event was over before the sound reflected from the walls makes it back.
I hope that gives you context.
Thanks,
Cal
Thanks Cal!
Cal, as always great information. Naturally the sound reduction is paramount but was anything tested as far as accuracy in shooting the different silencers?
Hey, Les! They didn’t record any data on groups or precision. Zak Smith from TBAC led the research and here is what he said about that:
Basically they were firing shots for 5 days straight, and firing groups would have extended that to 5-6 weeks. So it just wasn’t feasible.
Thanks,
Cal
For how old SilencerCo’s Omega is she’s still works well against the new kids on the block. Still using my Omega from 2015/16. Just added a Diligent Defense Enticer LTi to the stable too.
I thought the same thing! Very impressive that an older design still compares so favorably! It’s a good one! I also have noticed how so many other suppressors seem to be integrating a brake design, but that was one of the early designs with that feature, too.
And I wasn’t familiar with Diligent Defense before this, but clearly they know what they’re doing.
Always fun to look at objective side-by-side comparisons like this!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Cal
Hi Cal,
thanks for this nice post! Your data visualisation is great as always.
I just recently came across this conference paper from a Swiss acoustics experts explaining why the sound energy is a better metric than the peak sound pressure level. I think it is a good addition to your post.
https://www.conforg.fr/euronoise2015/proceedings/data/articles/000024.pdf
The LAE or SEL (equal to Leq for 1 second duration) correlate well with hearing loss data collected by the Swiss army insurance. The LAE also correlates realy well with the US military’s AHAAH.
Thanks again for making good data accessible to the masses!
Very cool! That paper looks very interesting. The fact that they found it to correlate to hearing loss is fascinating. That makes sense in my head, but it’s always cool to see those kinds of things in hard data.
Thanks for sharing!
Cal