CGS Group Kraken 9

[John A.]

I just watched a fairly lengthy video about the CGS Group Kraken 9. I know it's hard to tell a lot about silencers in videos, but from what I heard, it sounded really good. I was just wondering what you guys could tell me about them since it was the first that I had heard of it.

Oh, here's the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iZ7bHCWlMo

[SuthDet]

Stupid quiet, and cheap. I think gunprodeals has them for sub $400.

If I had a threaded pistol, I probably would have ordered one last month.

[ECCO Machine]

Stupid quiet, and cheap. I think gunprodeals has them for sub $400.

This.

The Kraken is a game changer. I went up to Cheyenne to do some metering with Ray & Chad from TBAC, they were testing one on the pulse. While the numbers aren't as low as claimed by CGS, they's well under any other 9mm can.

With American Eagle 115 gr, 133.91 milspec average, 140.14 shooter's ear. With 165 gr. Hush, 121.5 milspec, 125.68 shooter's ear.

Comparatively, my Phoenix IX with the 115 was 138.66 milspec/140.17 SE and with 165 gr. Hush I got 132.22 milspec and 132.54 SE

As you can see, the Kraken is clearly optimized for subs.

Unfortunately, I forgot to bring a 1/2-28 piston, so the Kraken was tested on a G17, my Phoenix on my 92 FS. Of note is that the G17 wouldn't cycle the Hush ammo, the 92FS ran it without a problem. Nonetheless, that testing session caused me to come home and develop several new baffle stacks for my Phoenix. I've been able to knock another 2.7 dB off with 147 gr. subs since then, but still not good enough.

[John A.]

Even ~3db improvement is legitimate.

Looks like the outer portion of the baffles are cut back into baffle, creating a really deep spot to contain some of the gas. Kind of like a reverse reflex from a lack of better term.

[Historian]

Thank you, JohnA.

Most instructive and impressive.

As soon as HPA passes I am looking forward to attaching
one to pre-War Hi-Power with tangent sights.

With the new quiet 9 ammo.

Almost as quiet as .22 cans.

NFA guru is top notch.


Best.

[doubloon]

I just watched a fairly lengthy video ... wondering what you guys could tell me about them since it was the first that I had heard of it.

Oh, here's the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iZ7bHCWlMo

Yes, a lot of his videos are mind-numbing long.

As of Aug '17 independent testing ranks the Kraken with 165 HUSH on a Beretta M9A3 quieter at 1m than anything other combination tested, even integrals.

However, on the same day the same suppressor on the same host with 147gr AE comes in around 80 well behind all the top tier cans, even the ancient Gemtech Multimount.

And the integral was shooting 147gr AE not 165gr HUSH.

ETA: The numbers ECCO posted are in line with the independent data which makes it a below average performer with 147gr AE out of the 100+ configurations tested.

[paco ramirez]

This.

The Kraken is a game changer. I went up to Cheyenne to do some metering with Ray & Chad from TBAC, they were testing one on the pulse. While the numbers aren't as low as claimed by CGS, they's well under any other 9mm can.

With American Eagle 115 gr, 133.91 milspec average, 140.14 shooter's ear. With 165 gr. Hush, 121.5 milspec, 125.68 shooter's ear.

Comparatively, my Phoenix IX with the 115 was 138.66 milspec/140.17 SE and with 165 gr. Hush I got 132.22 milspec and 132.54 SE

As you can see, the Kraken is clearly optimized for subs.

Unfortunately, I forgot to bring a 1/2-28 piston, so the Kraken was tested on a G17, my Phoenix on my 92 FS. Of note is that the G17 wouldn't cycle the Hush ammo, the 92FS ran it without a problem. Nonetheless, that testing session caused me to come home and develop several new baffle stacks for my Phoenix. I've been able to knock another 2.7 dB off with 147 gr. subs since then, but still not good enough.

Don't forget that it was filmed inside and shot right next to a wall to get those numbers. It'll meter better outside. Hansohn Brothers tested the Kraken with AE 147gr and it was ~120dB on a CZ P07. Thanks for taking the time to meet up with Ray for the test. He said he was going to test it outside once the wind/weather gets better up there. You guys should come down our way sometime, we got 152,000 acres to shoot on.

Yes, a lot of his videos are mind-numbing long.

As of Aug '17 independent testing ranks the Kraken with 165 HUSH on a Beretta M9A3 quieter at 1m than anything other combination tested, even integrals.

However, on the same day the same suppressor on the same host with 147gr AE comes in around 80 well behind all the top tier cans, even the ancient Gemtech Multimount.

And the integral was shooting 147gr AE not 165gr HUSH.

ETA: The numbers ECCO posted are in line with the independent data which makes it a below average performer with 147gr AE out of the 100+ configurations tested.

Which data are you referring to? The Kraken wasn't released until October 2017 so you may be referencing a pre production model.

[doubloon]

...

Which data are you referring to? The Kraken wasn't released until October 2017 so you may be referencing a pre production model.

The data I'm referring to is from August of '17 and most likely shot in the wide open outdoors. Pre-production or not the numbers are identical to what Ecco posted.

Unless the obstruction is very close to the suppressor I don't believe it will make any meaningful difference in the measurements of a properly calibrated meter. A number of suppressor metering videos have been created indoors and the results from those indoor sessions have been replicated within 1dB in the great outdoors.

[paco ramirez]

...

Which data are you referring to? The Kraken wasn't released until October 2017 so you may be referencing a pre production model.

The data I'm referring to is from August of '17 and most likely shot in the wide open outdoors. Pre-production or not the numbers are identical to what Ecco posted.

Unless the obstruction is very close to the suppressor I don't believe it will make any meaningful difference in the measurements of a properly calibrated meter. A number of suppressor metering videos have been created indoors and the results from those indoor sessions have been replicated within 1dB in the great outdoors.

I'm not sure what data you're referencing then without an event name or source. It does make a meaningful difference. You're also supposed to be 30m from reflective surfaces when testing.

Here's the videos from the testing so you can see how close it is to a wall.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqwviTmAd9w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KjCe8dAK3w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWwrTL0Ix1I

[ECCO Machine]

Don't forget that it was filmed inside and shot right next to a wall to get those numbers. It'll meter better outside. Hansohn Brothers tested the Kraken with AE 147gr and it was ~120dB on a CZ P07. Thanks for taking the time to meet up with Ray for the test. He said he was going to test it outside once the wind/weather gets better up there.

Yeah, the disparity between CGS's advertised figures and what the Pulse said was a nearly identical difference between my B&K 2209 outdoor numbers on my Phoenix (124.7) vs. what Pulse read out. Most things do seem to meter higher on the Pulse than a 2209, but we'll have to wait for the outdoor test to find out by how much when we take away confinement and reflective surfaces.

For the record, SilencerCo Osprey .45 came in at 137.5 avg. with 230 gr. Remington ball that day. SiCo Advertises 131 dB.

You guys should come down our way sometime, we got 152,000 acres to shoot on.

Would love to! Maybe this spring or summer. Holidays are always busy, and we have 4 kids, one of which is not yet 3 months old.

[paco ramirez]

Yeah, the disparity between CGS's advertised figures and what the Pulse said was a nearly identical difference between my B&K 2209 outdoor numbers on my Phoenix (124.7) vs. what Pulse read out. Most things do seem to meter higher on the Pulse than a 2209, but we'll have to wait for the outdoor test to find out by how much when we take away confinement and reflective surfaces.

For the record, SilencerCo Osprey .45 came in at 137.5 avg. with 230 gr. Remington ball that day. SiCo Advertises 131 dB.

If I remember right the Pulse can record the higher peak reading better than a 2209. As for Silencerco, they put the meter in the wrong spot and only post the most favorable test session using the quietest host. I don't trust their numbers at all for anything whatsoever.

[ECCO Machine]

If I remember right the Pulse can record the higher peak reading better than a 2209.

I imagine so. The technology is a half century newer.

Does beg the question that if state of the art metering shows higher PSPL than what we've always "known", can our ears actually handle more? Does a can that meters below 140 on a 2209 or other meter and above on the Pulse suddenly become not hearing safe?

It does seem based on what I saw that day that the higher the PSPL, the more disparity between 2209 and Pulse readings. .22 cans, mine and theirs, metered pretty much the same as the 2209s show. Curiously, my bolt action integral .22, which is 10" ported barrel + 10" monocore that meters 104.9 on my 2209, and which is so quiet people just giggle when they shoot it, actually metered higher than the Takedown .22 and my Ocelot. But the PSPL times were weird compared to everything else, too, so I don't know what the variable was. When you actually shoot the thing, all you as the shooter hear with subs is the firing pin click.

[SuthDet]

A properly setup and calibrated 2209 and the pulse will measure within 1/2 DB. Averages will be even closer.

This was outside, with the microphones attached to one another, less than 1/4" apart.

The pulse is much better in any adverse conditions. Light wind or double taps, or port pop, can all be easily tested for.

Indoors testing will be louder in most cases, confirmed with the pulse system. The difference is normally less with quieter setups.

The kraken is quite impressive, but the short one is even better.

[doubloon]

... You're also supposed to be 30m from reflective surfaces when testing.
...

If the mic is required to be 30m away from a dirt embankment for accurate numbers then it should be 30m off the ground as well.

Just because the Mil Std says you "should" it doesn't mean there will actually be a measurable difference greater than the shot to shot variance of the ammo or even the suppressor.

I suggest you test it for yourself because there's nothing that can be said on an interweb forum that won't just end up in a he said, she said argument.

[ECCO Machine]

If the mic is required to be 30m away from a dirt embankment for accurate numbers then it should be 30m off the ground as well.

There's a substantial difference between a dirt bank and a plywood/OSB wall. It doesn't take a college education in acoustics to know that some surfaces or objects are more reflective or reverberative than others. There can be a significant difference in meter results in the exact same location, set up, host and ammunition from one day to the next simply due to changes in humidity, temperature and other environmental factors.

[doubloon]

... It doesn't take a college education in acoustics to know that some surfaces or objects are more reflective or reverberative than others. ...

MIL-STD-1474E also includes "trees" but doesn't specify the type, size or number. Be sure to keep a safe distance from that grove of bonsai juniper or all your data will be compromised. Technically dirt embankments are probably OK since the standard specifies "hillsides" and hills are naturally raised areas not as high as a mountain ... so I guess mountainsides are OK too.

It's interesting how an agency can supply 100+ pages of "standard" and still be so lacking in actual detail.

The standard also allows hemi-anechoic chambers, concrete floors are fine.

Opinions are nice, data is better.

[SuthDet]

Indoor vs outdoor testing.

Indoors has been roughly 4.5db louder using the same rifle, ammo (even the lot), and suppressor. Over roughly 12 sessions, averages of 5-10rd strings.

A large enough indoor space (100 x 25 yard indoor range) doesn't see the increase. The mil Std is more on the safe side of the spectrum.

Enough data for you?

Ecco has seen this, and Paco (if he hasn't also seen it) understands it.

[doubloon]

Do tell?

That Osprey must be a hella good can outdoors then, at ~120dB it would be quieter than most 22lr cans.

[ECCO Machine]

Do tell?

That Osprey must be a hella good can outdoors then, at ~120dB it would be quieter than most 22lr cans.

SilencerCo's numbers are a whole other topic in themselves.

As for .22 cans, around 120 is pistol SPL for most decent ones. Any respectable .22 LR can will be hovering closer to 115 on a rifle. The TBAC Takedown 22 went 114.41 avg. at the mil spec mic on a 16" rifle with AE 45 gr. subs, and my Ocelot standard was 114.49. This was on the Pulse, same day we were testing the Kraken.

[SuthDet]

Do tell?

That Osprey must be a hella good can outdoors then, at ~120dB it would be quieter than most 22lr cans.

My bad, the difference is cartridge dependant.

About 4-5 with 308, closer to 6 with 338 lapua.

I've only played with pistol cans once, so I can't comment. Metering is much more of a science than most people want to think.

[doubloon]

...

My bad, the difference is cartridge dependant.

About 4-5 with 308, closer to 6 with 338 lapua.

I've only played with pistol cans once, so I can't comment. Metering is much more of a science than most people want to think.

Ah, I see, so it doesn't apply to regular bullets.

Are we to believe sound travels faster when generated by a 30 cal rifle bullet than it does for any 30 cal non-rifle bullet on the face of the earth?

Perhaps the laws of physics cease to exist for 30 cal rifle bullets. Did you buy those bullets from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans?

[doubloon]

...
SilencerCo's numbers are a whole other topic in themselves.
...

So you can supply proof their numbers are hokum?

I mean, not just off by 1-2 dB which could be fluctuation attributed to atmospheric or ammunition differences between tests ... I want to see some real evidence of unreliability.

[SuthDet]

...

My bad, the difference is cartridge dependant.

About 4-5 with 308, closer to 6 with 338 lapua.

I've only played with pistol cans once, so I can't comment. Metering is much more of a science than most people want to think.

Ah, I see, so it doesn't apply to regular bullets.

Are we to believe sound travels faster when generated by a 30 cal rifle bullet than it does for any 30 cal non-rifle bullet on the face of the earth?

Perhaps the laws of physics cease to exist for 30 cal rifle bullets. Did you buy those bullets from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans?

It dsoe (gas velocity is higher than projectile velocity, been known for a long time), but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how gas at supersonic speeds and high pressures, and the pressure waves they create act very differently than the general public think. Compressible fluids don't follow the same rules at high speed as non compressible ones. No rules of physics broken. Unless you're trying to suggest that every cfd program, lab sound meter, scientist dealing with sound, and numbers of other experts are wrong and don't understand basic physics.

Basic physics and fluid dynamics cover 99% of cases, welcome to the 1%.

[SuthDet]

The sico test also looks like an indoor range, so a large space, pretty far from walls. Ie, very similar to identical results as outside. But the kraken video is less than 3 feet from a wall. Very different case.

[ECCO Machine]

...

So you can supply proof their numbers are hokum?

I mean, not just off by 1-2 dB which could be fluctuation attributed to atmospheric or ammunition differences between tests ... I want to see some real evidence of unreliability.

5-8 dB on pistol & rifle cans. Rimfire numbers have been pretty close.

If you're wanting video, gonna have to wait until I get a new preamplifier for my 2209/4135 combo, or until the next time I go up to Cheyenne. Or you can send your SiCo stuff to Ray @ TBAC to test on the Pulse.

As PACO mentioned, they make sure to use the quietest hosts, quietest ammo, have the mic set back too far. As well, the advertised figures seem to reflect the lowest number they've ever registered, not an average. If I played that game, I'd also be advertising numbers lower than any real world average. I've recorded shots on my Ocelot as low as 111 dB, but the average is 114-115 on a 16" rifle.

A lot of SilencerCo's stuff is decent, but the SPL numbers simply aren't honest. Even your own ears should tell you that. Ever put rounds through an Osprey in real life? A Hybrid?