Mini-can 140 dB = still loud, but not instant hearing damage

[ChimeraPrecision]

This isn't exactly it but its a good noise mil standard reference for testing equipment and allowable levels etc

http://www.hf.faa.gov/docs/508/docs/milstd1474doc.pdf

[wacki]

Given how little sound dissipates over distance and how heavily traffic'd the local outdoor range is, I really think a de-barker makes sense. All I'm doing is suppressing to outdoor firing range background levels. I'm going to do this build. I'm wondering if I should buy a Ti-RANT 9S™ and pull the K baffles out one at a time and see how much reduction I get. Then do my build based off of those tests. I'd insert a spacer to keep everything stable of course. Not even sure if that's legal to do... :-p

Is there any way you can build training / replica suppressors? Kinda like they have replica guns that can only shoot blanks? This is dangerous legal territory I'm sure but I'd figure I'd ask. I'd love to be able to tinker and tune the thing before I finalize it with federal paperwork.



Also, I just sent SilencerCo this email:

Have you guys thought about making a "de-barker" suppressor? This is a completely new class of suppressors. The idea is to be small and nimble as possible while taking the big punch out of shooting noises. At the local shooting range people rarely shoot suppressed. So the huge reductions of a full sized suppressor is kind of pointless when the guy further down the range is making serious noise. According to the CDC, twelve feet of distance means 12 decibels of reduction.

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/noisehearingconservation/

A guy shooting 9mm the next lane or two down is exposing me to 140 - 148 dB of noise. So I’m going to wear 33 NRR ear muffs and 33 NRR ear plugs no matter what. My ear plug and ear muff combo will go a long way in protecting me from that noise. What my hearing protection won’t do a very good job of (according to NIOSH) is protect me from the 9mm pistol an arm’s length from my ears that creates 160 dB of noise. No ear muff is capable of bringing that into what NIOSH calls the safe zone. What I’d love to have something that brings down the 9mm noise levels to 152 dB (.22 LR) or better yet 140 dB (international impulse noise limit). My ear muffs and plugs will do the rest. This is the equivalent of being a lane or two away from another shooter anyway.

Now, here’s where things get interesting. What you lose in performance you can make up in size. You can make the de-barker very small. So small that it won’t interfere with the sights on any gun. So small you may not even notice it on your pistol during long shooting range trips. So small you could leave it on when your pistol is tucked away in the night stand or your pistol safe. This is a huge benefit to your ears if you have to use it indoors … on short notice in your own home. You could make it so small it may become popular with competitive shooters.

Anyway, I’m going to build my own with a form 1. Given that your company has a history of innovation with your eccentric Osprey, I thought you might like this practical idea and develop it farther than I ever could.

[Bendersquint]

Given how little sound dissipates over distance and how heavily traffic'd the local outdoor range is, I really think a de-barker makes sense. All I'm doing is suppressing to outdoor firing range background levels. I'm going to do this build. I'm wondering if I should buy a Ti-RANT 9S™ and pull the K baffles out one at a time and see how much reduction I get. Then do my build based off of those tests. I'd insert a spacer to keep everything stable of course. Not even sure if that's legal to do... :-p




Also, I just sent SilencerCo this email:

Have you guys thought about making a "de-barker" suppressor? This is a completely new class of suppressors. The idea is to be small and nimble as possible while taking the big punch out of shooting noises. At the local shooting range people rarely shoot suppressed. So the huge reductions of a full sized suppressor is kind of pointless when the guy further down the range is making serious noise. According to the CDC, twelve feet of distance means 12 decibels of reduction.

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/noisehearingconservation/

A guy shooting 9mm the next lane or two down is exposing me to 140 - 148 dB of noise. So I’m going to wear 33 NRR ear muffs and 33 NRR ear plugs no matter what. My ear plug and ear muff combo will go a long way in protecting me from that noise. What my hearing protection won’t do a very good job of (according to NIOSH) is protect me from the 9mm pistol an arm’s length from my ears that creates 160 dB of noise. No ear muff is capable of bringing that into what NIOSH calls the safe zone. What I’d love to have something that brings down the 9mm noise levels to 152 dB (.22 LR) or better yet 140 dB (international impulse noise limit). My ear muffs and plugs will do the rest. This is the equivalent of being a lane or two away from another shooter anyway.

Now, here’s where things get interesting. What you lose in performance you can make up in size. You can make the de-barker very small. So small that it won’t interfere with the sights on any gun. So small you may not even notice it on your pistol during long shooting range trips. So small you could leave it on when your pistol is tucked away in the night stand or your pistol safe. This is a huge benefit to your ears if you have to use it indoors … on short notice in your own home. You could make it so small it may become popular with competitive shooters.

Anyway, I’m going to build my own with a form 1. Given that your company has a history of innovation with your eccentric Osprey, I thought you might like this practical idea and develop it farther than I ever could.

You do realize that this has already been done FOR YEARS right?

From a company standpoint if someone is going to have to pay the $200 transfer shouldn't they get an awesome can? It would be hard to get a pricepoint that much cheaper than a good can for a noise debarker. Put a Noveske type Flaming Pig on your weapons and call it a day, no regulation can have as many as you want and can be made for almost any caliber.

[Bendersquint]

Given how little sound dissipates over distance and how heavily traffic'd the local outdoor range is, I really think a de-barker makes sense. All I'm doing is suppressing to outdoor firing range background levels. I'm going to do this build. I'm wondering if I should buy a Ti-RANT 9S™ and pull the K baffles out one at a time and see how much reduction I get. Then do my build based off of those tests. I'd insert a spacer to keep everything stable of course. Not even sure if that's legal to do... :-p

Is there any way you can build training / replica suppressors? Kinda like they have replica guns that can only shoot blanks? This is dangerous legal territory I'm sure but I'd figure I'd ask. I'd love to be able to tinker and tune the thing before I finalize it with federal paperwork.

When you pull the baffles out one by one how do you suggest keeping the remaining baffles secured as to not damage the can?

You can not legally put a spacer in there, that would be a silencer part and since it wasn't in the can to begin with you made it equals illegal, besides when the spacer is in there you now have what the ATF would classify as extra parts(all the baffles you removed).

You can not build a training suppressor, its either a suppressor or not. You can build a fake silencer by boring a hole down the middle of solid barstock and threading it so it mounts to the weapon.

There is no tinkering or tuning before the paperwork. Paperwork gives you the ability to make 1(one) silencer, no extra parts or no replacing of parts. One time build, period.

You want to experiment either submit a ton of Form1's or get your FFL/SOT.

[wacki]

You do realize that this has already been done FOR YEARS right?

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

From a company standpoint if someone is going to have to pay the $200 transfer shouldn't they get an awesome can?

It fills a different niche. This is Marketing 101. Besides, an awesome can for me is one that silences to background levels at the shooting range (as described in my email to SilencerCo) and is small as possible. I don't want a big tube hanging off the end of my pistol.

Now for Finance 101. From a company standpoint your goal is to maximize shareholder value. If the way to make money means making something you think is stupid then you start producing stupid. If you can't do that then someone else will and you might lose your job. If the company has a board of directors and a lot of preferred stock with voting rights then you almost certainly will lose your job. Financial advisors have a bunch of terms for this. NPV, IRR, ROI.... etc.

Who knows, maybe after enough time and pressure a de-barker may get NFA free status as it's not a full suppressor. Baby steps to freedom. I can dream right?

It would be hard to get a pricepoint that much cheaper than a good can for a noise debarker.

I don't care. I'm at the range. I want it suppressed to background levels then kept as small as possible. The big ol .45 a lane or two away at my local range is still going to hit me with 140 dB of noise. So any suppression below that is suppressing to below background levels. I'm paying a premium for size not absolute noise suppression.

Put a Noveske type Flaming Pig on your weapons and call it a day, no regulation can have as many as you want and can be made for almost any caliber.

See that is actually a great idea. If you can find a way to make 3 stacked flash hiders suppress 10 dB then we may of just found a NFA loophole and a way to bring the 9mm pistol to near background levels. This is probably not possible (legally or performance wise) but I can dream....

[bakerjw]

I still don't get the whole concept of a "debarking" suppressor even with your "economics 101" lesson. I don't believe that any company could find a viable market for such a device for a shorter crappy suppressor.

If you're already at the range with ear plugs and muffs on, then why worry about knocking down your DBs?

[Capt. Link.]

I think this guy is one of the many that post and have no intention of listening to knowledge and reason.In boot camp there were Boots & Rocks let the rocks lay!

[Bendersquint]

I still don't get the whole concept of a "debarking" suppressor even with your "economics 101" lesson. I don't believe that any company could find a viable market for such a device for a shorter crappy suppressor.

If you're already at the range with ear plugs and muffs on, then why worry about knocking down your DBs?

BOLD!

That's my point, may sell a few but when the market has to pay $200 per transfer they want quality.

Now as a custom shop we might make a few at a customers request but we definitely wouldn't make it a standard offering or probably ever make them again.

[Bendersquint]

I think this guy is one of the many that post and have no intention of listening to knowledge and reason.In boot camp there were Boots & Rocks let the rocks lay!

This is what I am thinking as well.

[wacki]

Guys, this conversation is quickly going off the deep end. In a world of hoplophobes, we are all on the same team. So let's please start acting like we are all on the same team (because we are) and dispense with the ad homonym attacks.

First of all I made ZERO comments about the market size. Formal methods of determining the size of an unexplored market is a complex and expensive process that is beyond my expertise. On market size and prediction, I will default to the expertise of those in the business. I made ZERO comments on the size of the NFA regulated de-barker market. If I must make a gut feeling prediction, I would predict that a NFA regulated debarker market would not be large enough to support mass production. The business concepts I did go into can be found in any entry level business book or MBA program. If I explained them in a way that offended others, I apologize. That was not my intent. My intent was to simply let others know these are universally accepted principles at major business institutions. Whether or not you respect those institutions is a different story. However, there are a lot of very very wealthy people that do.

Let it be clear that I have no intentions of telling anyone how to run their business. I only have the pipe-dream that one day the federal government may deregulate de-barkers.... and possibly suppressors. The reason I have even a tiny shred of almost certainly futile hope of this happening is because there is not a single ear muff in existence that can bring the 160 dB shockwave from a 9mm pistol down to a level that the CDC / NIOSH would consider safe. I have a tiny futile modicum of hope that there is a narrow band of suppression performance that would meet the minimum standards of the CDC / NIOSH hearing centers without scaring off the average "hunting is ok, tacti-cool is scary" voter. Why do I have this hope? Because I work with a bunch people that think exactly in that manner. I work with a bunch of people that think a de-barker is ok but full on suppression is for criminals. If de-barkers become popular, then maybe there is a tiny sliver chance in hell that de-barkers would become unregulated. As de-barkers become more accepted, maybe suppressors will too. From what I've read, suppressors are unregulated in Norway. If it can happen there, maybe it can happen in America. Baby steps to freedom. Please try to understand where I'm coming from. So I hope you can join me in grasping for this straw of freedom.

That said, I have one last question on this regard. Let's pretend the best ear muff and ear plug combo does 35 dB in reduction (not unrealistic). That brings the 160 dB 9mm pistol down to 125 dB. Now, lets say every major hearing loss facility on the planet says you really need to bring that 125 dB down to 120 to be safe. That's a 5 dB reduction. Remember, this is a hypothetical discussion that isn't that far off from reality.

Given the above assumption, is it wrong to make a small 5 dB suppressor? Or is the concept of suppressing to CDC / NIOSH standards and stopping there too hard for the members of this forum to stomach?

To be honest, the last question is my #1 motivation for this custom build.

[ChimeraPrecision]

Guys, this conversation is quickly going off the deep end. In a world of hoplophobes, we are all on the same team. So let's please start acting like we are all on the same team (because we are) and dispense with the ad homonym attacks.

First of all I made ZERO comments about the market size. Formal methods of determining the size of an unexplored market is a complex and expensive process that is beyond my expertise. On market size and prediction, I will default to the expertise of those in the business. I made ZERO comments on the size of the NFA regulated de-barker market. If I must make a gut feeling prediction, I would predict that a NFA regulated debarker market would not be large enough to support mass production. The business concepts I did go into can be found in any entry level business book or MBA program. If I explained then in a way that offended others, I apologize. That was not my intent. My intent was to simply let others know these are universally accepted principles at major business institutions. Whether or not you respect those institutions is a different story. However, there are a lot of very very wealthy people that do.

Let it be clear that I have no intentions of telling anyone how to run their business. I only have the pipe-dream that one day the federal government may deregulate de-barkers.... and possibly suppressors. The reason I have even a tiny shred of almost certainly futile hope of this happening is because there is not a single ear muff in existence that can bring the 160 dB shockwave from a 9mm pistol down to a level that the CDC / NIOSH would consider safe. I have a tiny futile modicum of hope that there is a narrow band of suppression performance that would meet the minimum standards of the CDC / NIOSH hearing centers without scaring off the average "hunting is ok, tacti-cool is scary" voter. Why do I have this hope? Because I work with a bunch people that think exactly in that manner. I work with a bunch of people that think a de-barker is ok but full on suppression is for criminals. If de-barkers become popular, then maybe there is a tiny sliver chance in hell that de-barkers would become unregulated. As de-barkers become more accepted, maybe suppressors will too. From what I've read, suppressors are unregulated in Norway. If it can happen there, maybe it can happen in America. Baby steps to freedom. Please try to understand where I'm coming from. So I hope you can join me in grasping for this straw of freedom.

That said, I have one last question on this regard. Let's pretend the best ear muff and ear plug combo does 35 dB in reduction (not unrealistic). That brings the 160 dB 9mm pistol down to 125 dB. Now, lets say every major hearing loss facility on the planet says you really need to bring that 125 dB down to 120 to be safe. That's a 5 dB reduction. Remember, this is a hypothetical discussion that isn't that far off from reality.

Given the above assumption, is it wrong to make a small 5 dB suppressor? Or is the concept of suppressing to CDC / NIOSH standards and stopping there too hard for the members of this forum to stomach?

To be honest, the last question is my #1 motivation for this custom build.

You may have to enter this territory alone, most people here want cans as quiet as possible. Thiking of expending all that energy for something less than mediocre seems kind of strange.

If you choose to pursue this please let us know how it goes and if it meets your specifications/expectations.

[Bendersquint]

Most people want suppressors as quiet as possible, not just taking the edge off. I don't think(as part of this industry) that a debarker would not have a wide following in the community, it would not sell well at all. I would be willing to bet if we did a limited run of 50 of the debarkers that they would barely sell and a majority of those that did sell would be more for the limited edition collector value than to actually be used.

Do you seriously think the government cares about your hearing? Easiest solution for them if they did would be to ban firearms not deregulate silencers, no guns and they don't have to worry about that aspect of hearing loss! They would kill a bunch of birds for them with one big stone, is that far fetched yes but it makes the point that the .gov doesn't care about how loud guns are and whether or not it hurts people ears or not.

Make you a deal if you want a debarker give me the requirements and I will make it for you, the offer has been made.

[wacki]

You may have to enter this territory alone,

That is what form 1 is for. But a little friendly advise on how to make this experiment go smoothly is always appreciated.

most people here want cans as quiet as possible. Thiking of expending all that energy for something less than mediocre seems kind of strange.

The most successful ideas often appear strange at the start. Just ask any titan of business. The industry joke about FedEx was that the idea got a C in business school when it was first proposed. Bill Gates is super rich because everyone at IBM thought he was nuts to care about software.

The purpose of a de-barker is to enable ear muffs to meet CDC criteria. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't think that's strange. I talked to a few medical doctors recently about the idea and they didn't think it was strange either.

If you choose to pursue this please let us know how it goes and if it meets your specifications/expectations.

I will and more. I will let you know how others react to my silencers vs. the de-barker. I have a strong feeling that even my own father (an avid skeet / trap shooter) will be far more accepting of a de-barker.

[wacki]

Do you seriously think the government cares about your hearing?

Few things are black and white. There are 3 million Federal employees and 15 million state employees:

http://www.census.gov/govs/apes/

Many of them do care. Many of them are very safety oriented.... even the pro-gun ones. How do you think I know so much about the CDC and NIOSH ?

That said, I used the words similar to "pipe-dream" many times for a reason.

Make you a deal if you want a debarker give me the requirements and I will make it for you, the offer has been made.

I sincerely appreciate the offer. I think I'm going to make the first one myself. If it goes well I'll invest in an upgrade and pay someone a premium to make something that is beyond my skill set. So I may accept your offer, but not now. Round 1 always has to be a relatively inexpensive pilot project. Plus it will be fun.

[Bendersquint]

Make you a deal if you want a debarker give me the requirements and I will make it for you, the offer has been made.

I sincerely appreciate the offer. I think I'm going to make the first one myself. If it goes well I'll invest in an upgrade and pay someone a premium to make something that is beyond my skill set. So I may accept your offer, but not now. Round 1 always has to be a relatively inexpensive pilot project. Plus it will be fun.

Noone said it had to cost $1,000.

[BLAKE2131]

people want quiet cans not some niche market bs sorry

[troublemaker]

Hmmm, so, who thinks the mini4, mini7 will sell?

On another tangent, for some, $200 is not a lot of money. We spend thousands on firearms, hundreds if not thousands on ammo a year, thousands on optics, hundreds more on tacticool accessories and then I often hear people cite a 200 stamp like it's their life savings.
If one wants to drop 200 to make what they desire - rock on.

[Bendersquint]

Hmmm, so, who thinks the mini4, mini7 will sell?

On another tangent, for some, $200 is not a lot of money. We spend thousands on firearms, hundreds if not thousands on ammo a year, thousands on optics, hundreds more on tacticool accessories and then I often hear people cite a 200 stamp like it's their life savings.
If one wants to drop 200 to make what they desire - rock on.

The Mini4 and Mini7 suppress alot more than 5dB(over 3 times the suppression the OP was looking for). Of course they would sell.

[troublemaker]

I think they will sell too. However, the sdn6 provides twice the suppression. Why in the world would one settle and spend 200 for half the suppression? Lol It's all a sliding scale. Is there a magic number where it is acceptable? 16 for the mini is ok. How about 12 or 10 or 7? Btw, we don't know yet what his micro suppressor will do.

[jaredr]

I have shot IDPA and IPSC with a full sized suppressed pistol that was quiet enough that no ears were needed, speed wasn't affected at all, actually I was faster. i shoot all my matches suppressed and hasn't slowed me down at all, and this is with full sized suppressors.

what are you using for sights/optics?
pics or it didn't happen

[Bendersquint]

I have shot IDPA and IPSC with a full sized suppressed pistol that was quiet enough that no ears were needed, speed wasn't affected at all, actually I was faster. i shoot all my matches suppressed and hasn't slowed me down at all, and this is with full sized suppressors.

what are you using for sights/optics?
pics or it didn't happen

Raised Ameriglo sights for the Sig P226, stock sights on the Glock19 and Beretta. Depending on how I felt determined what suppressor I used.

[jaredr]

Raised Ameriglo sights for the Sig P226, stock sights on the Glock19 and Beretta. Depending on how I felt determined what suppressor I used.

Stock sights on my G17 & S&W M&P 9mm won't clear any of the 9mm cans i've tried, but i'm getting a decent sight picture just looking over the top of the suppressor.

do the stock G19 sights actually clear your suppressor or do you just get a sufficient sight picture over the top?

[Bendersquint]

Raised Ameriglo sights for the Sig P226, stock sights on the Glock19 and Beretta. Depending on how I felt determined what suppressor I used.

Stock sights on my G17 & S&W M&P 9mm won't clear any of the 9mm cans i've tried, but i'm getting a decent sight picture just looking over the top of the suppressor.

do the stock G19 sights actually clear your suppressor or do you just get a sufficient sight picture over the top?

Only handguns that I have that can see OVER the silencer are the Sig P220 and P226 with Ameriglo sights.

The Beretta, M&P9, G19 sights are obscured but if you shoot enough you can sight through it no problem, just gotta learn how to adjust for it.

[jaredr]

The Beretta, M&P9, G19 sights are obscured but if you shoot enough you can sight through it no problem, just gotta learn how to adjust for it.

thread drift

ah, ok - that's what I've ended up doing since I have not installed raised sights on any of my suppressor-capable handguns. find i'm shooting rimfire more than anything else out of handguns these days - just put an inexpensive T1 clone on the factory weaver rail of my riger MKIII and no worries about iron sights.

will probably (eventually) mill out the slide of my M&P and put on an trijicon RMR, but other things (e.g. pre-sample M1A1) keep getting in the way

[LavaRed]

Suppressors do make one way faster because they counteract muzzle rise a lot. And they also train one to literally point-shoot with precision, so that one does not waste time aligning sights at short range (within 25 metres or so). In this way one ends up developing excellent hand-eye coordination, which makes one faster to aim and shoot.
The added weight and lever momentum of the suppressor is something that one quickly learns to adjust to.