CGS Group Kraken 9

[doubloon]

... a large space, pretty far from walls. Ie, very similar to identical results as outside. ....

Now you're just making stuff up as you go along. Previously you said the requirement for indoors was 25 yards by 100 yards.

Sound waves bouncing off a wall have to obey the same laws of physics as a rubber ball bouncing off the same wall.

No matter how hard you throw either of them at that wall they will have less energy on the return trip than they did going there at any point along the journey. 3 feet, 25 yards, 3 yard, 30 meters, it doesn't matter.

[a_canadian]

A factor regarding acoustical behaviours which seems not to be taken inter account in this debate is that of wave reinforcement, or constructive interference - the flip side of which is destructive interference. Now I'm no physicist, but based on my relatively casual study of such phenomena it would seem likely that one could dramatically reduce potential for amplifying or deadening effects which vary widely depending on relative geometries of two or more surfaces by reducing the nearby surfaces to 1; the ground. According to the newer European military specs, as I understand it, they're placing firearms 5 metres above the grass, along with the mic, in an effort to further reduce potential for reflected sound interfering with measurements. As calculating the interference patterns of reflected sounds from two surfaces presenting at angles to each other is rather more complexity than the average suppressor maker is willing or able to compute and then compensate for in their numbers, it seems a safe bet to go with the single proximal surface of grass of a certain length a certain distance from the muzzle.

Of course if a mic and meter are capable of measuring only the first impulse, isolating it from the milliseconds-later echo effect, then none of this should matter. But since it seems most devices are not quite that fast-responding, the safe bet again is to keep things as simple as possible. Which would obviously eliminate all but the largest indoor ranges for such testing to be considered reliable.

[SuthDet]

... a large space, pretty far from walls. Ie, very similar to identical results as outside. ....

Now you're just making stuff up as you go along. Previously you said the requirement for indoors was 25 yards by 100 yards.

Sound waves bouncing off a wall have to obey the same laws of physics as a rubber ball bouncing off the same wall.

No matter how hard you throw either of them at that wall they will have less energy on the return trip than they did going there at any point along the journey. 3 feet, 25 yards, 3 yard, 30 meters, it doesn't matter.

For a single Impulse I agree, but that is not the case.

Through some discussions, research, and testing, I've come to a much better explanation than I had earlier, and I can explain it much better as well.

First, there's a few points that have to be accepted to make it work.


1. "Sound waves" aren't really a thing. What you hear are pressure waves traveling in a certain frequency.

2. We're measuring the pressure (spl) and converting it to dB.

3. Air has mass.

4. Since it has mass, moving air has momentum.

5. Air is compressible, and when it compresses, the pressure increases.

6. The total event of gas leaving a centerfire suppressor is more than 500 milliseconds, an unsuppressed shot is much shorter (I forgot to look at how long it was).

7. Testing at the mil spec height, the data collected is the same over dirt on concrete.

So, in a small space, where the microphones are near a hard surface (wood, concrete, metal), I'm not 100% sure on the max distance for this to have a effect, and it will very depending on whether it is the distance in front of the muzzle, or to the sides, the muzzle gas and pressure waves will impact the wall. The gasses will try to bounce back (just like the rubber ball), but the gas will collide with the gasses still leaving the muzzle. The momentum of the gas will cause the gas to compress, causing the pressure to increase near the wall (the same as a cylinder filling after the piston has passed bottom dead center but the intake valve is still open). This high pressure area will then do 1 of two things (it gets a little fuzzy here, but I am going somewhere) it either envelopes the microphone in that high pressure zone (unlikely do to the pressures needed to create 130+db)or, it acts like a spring, sending off higher pressure waves than were entering it.

No changes in energy, just converting kinetic energy to potential energy, and then potential energy to kinetic. Energy still goes into the wall, but fewer, higher pressure, waves leave the wall, causing the increase in spl that we see.

Again, this isn't standard kinematics, we're dealing with high velocity and high pressure compressible fluids. Things act differently.

[0101silent]

...
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.

Doubloon, since you don't believe ECCO Machine, would you trust Silencerco testimony that their numbers are hokum?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNX49-AVRnc The numbers are quoted between 2:30 and 4:00.

The Silencerco Employee that runs the meter states that the short configuration meters 133db on a rifle, their spec sheet claims 125.8db
In medium configuration the Silencerco Employee that runs the meter states that it is mid 120s db on a rifle, their spec sheet claims 117.9db.

Spec sheet link. https://silencerco.com/silencers/switchback-22/

[gsyoung54]

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

I watched a video with the Kraken 9 on a Hudson 9 with sound meter readings... thought it was Silencer Shop but can't find it lately. I think between the two videos and the company specs it's a nice light can. There was a rumor at first that it didn't come apart but I don't believe that's true and it may not be rated for full auto fire as it's mostly aluminum... that's fine, my MP5 has a three lug Mystic X on it at all times.

I'm ordering a Kraken as soon as I get my next monthly old retired man check.. or I manage to sell a few guns at my small shop.

[doubloon]

...
The Silencerco Employee that runs the meter states that the short configuration meters 133db on a rifle, their spec sheet claims 125.8db
In medium configuration the Silencerco Employee that runs the meter states that it is mid 120s db on a rifle, their spec sheet claims 117.9db.

Spec sheet link. https://silencerco.com/silencers/switchback-22/

What is the specification of the firearm and ammo in each test?

This doesn't change basic physics.

[doubloon]

...
1. "Sound waves" aren't really a thing. What you hear are pressure waves traveling in a certain frequency.

2. We're measuring the pressure (spl) and converting it to dB.

3. Air has mass.

4. Since it has mass, moving air has momentum.

5. Air is compressible, and when it compresses, the pressure increases.

6. The total event of gas leaving a centerfire suppressor is more than 500 milliseconds, an unsuppressed shot is much shorter (I forgot to look at how long it was).

7. Testing at the mil spec height, the data collected is the same over dirt on concrete.

So, in a small space, where the microphones are near a hard surface (wood, concrete, metal), I'm not 100% sure on the max distance for this to have a effect, and it will very depending on whether it is the distance in front of the muzzle, or to the sides, the muzzle gas and pressure waves will impact the wall. The gasses will try to bounce back (just like the rubber ball), but the gas will collide with the gasses still leaving the muzzle. The momentum of the gas will cause the gas to compress, causing the pressure to increase near the wall (the same as a cylinder filling after the piston has passed bottom dead center but the intake valve is still open). This high pressure area will then do 1 of two things (it gets a little fuzzy here, but I am going somewhere) it either envelopes the microphone in that high pressure zone (unlikely do to the pressures needed to create 130+db)or, it acts like a spring, sending off higher pressure waves than were entering it.

No changes in energy, just converting kinetic energy to potential energy, and then potential energy to kinetic. Energy still goes into the wall, but fewer, higher pressure, waves leave the wall, causing the increase in spl that we see.

Again, this isn't standard kinematics, we're dealing with high velocity and high pressure compressible fluids. Things act differently.

SPL ... sound pressure level, yep everybody knows that one

SPL and frequency are two different things, most people understand the difference between frequency (tone) and volume.

Since we're trading videos here's one about how sound intensity (dB) decreases over distance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvDi8vbFis0

Yes, for suppressor testing measuring the peak impulse is the industry norm. A sound impulse traveling 1 meter to a mic then continuing on to a reflective surface 5 meters away from the source and bouncing back over the 4 meter distance back to the mic will have the same amount of energy left after the return trip from the reflective surface as it would if there was a second mic positioned 9 meters away from the original source. Energy dissipates over distance.

[ECCO Machine]

What is the specification of the firearm and ammo in each test?

This doesn't change basic physics.

Could you not be bothered to watch the video? That's all covered.

SPL and frequency are two different things, most people understand the difference between frequency (tone) and volume.

But do you understand how they are interrelated in terms of attenuation, refraction, diffraction, reflection? Wavelength affects those things tremendously; two sounds of the same intensity but different frequency will behave very differently through any medium or when encountering any surface.

Yes, for suppressor testing measuring the peak impulse is the industry norm. A sound impulse traveling 1 meter to a mic then continuing on to a reflective surface 5 meters away from the source and bouncing back over the 4 meter distance back to the mic will have the same amount of energy left after the return trip from the reflective surface as it would if there was a second mic positioned 9 meters away from the original source. Energy dissipates over distance.

You should find a way to witness sound metering on equipment like the Pulse first hand. You're obviously not going to believe any of us no matter what we tell you, but maybe seeing it with your own eyes in elapsed times with visual representations will convince you that we're not blowing smoke here.

[SuthDet]

I'm not talking about a 5m space. Look at the cgs video, nothing in that room is 5m. The wall is less than 1m. Looking at this the same as a low energy impulse is why people try to design suppressors like motorcycle mufflers. Same goal, very different situation, doesn't work the same, at all.

[0101silent]

...
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.(Emphasis Added)

Doubloon, since you don't believe ECCO Machine, would you trust Silencerco testimony that their numbers are hokum?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNX49-AVRnc The numbers are quoted between 2:30 and 4:00.

The Silencerco Employee that runs the meter states that the short configuration meters 133db on a rifle, their spec sheet claims 125.8db
In medium configuration the Silencerco Employee that runs the meter states that it is mid 120s db on a rifle, their spec sheet claims 117.9db.

Spec sheet link. https://silencerco.com/silencers/switchback-22/

[doubloon]

...
The Silencerco Employee that runs the meter states that the short configuration meters 133db on a rifle, their spec sheet claims 125.8db
In medium configuration the Silencerco Employee that runs the meter states that it is mid 120s db on a rifle, their spec sheet claims 117.9db.
...

OMG!

A guy made some comment in a video that doesn't match the actual test results?!?!

Say it isn't so!

Random comments in videos don't change the laws of physics.

[doubloon]

A factor regarding acoustical behaviours which seems not to be taken inter account in this debate is that of wave reinforcement, or constructive interference - the flip side of which is destructive interference. Now I'm no physicist, but based on my relatively casual study of such phenomena it would seem likely that one could dramatically reduce potential for amplifying or deadening effects which vary widely depending on relative geometries of two or more surfaces by reducing the nearby surfaces to 1; the ground. According to the newer European military specs, as I understand it, they're placing firearms 5 metres above the grass, along with the mic, in an effort to further reduce potential for reflected sound interfering with measurements. As calculating the interference patterns of reflected sounds from two surfaces presenting at angles to each other is rather more complexity than the average suppressor maker is willing or able to compute and then compensate for in their numbers, it seems a safe bet to go with the single proximal surface of grass of a certain length a certain distance from the muzzle.

Of course if a mic and meter are capable of measuring only the first impulse, isolating it from the milliseconds-later echo effect, then none of this should matter. But since it seems most devices are not quite that fast-responding, the safe bet again is to keep things as simple as possible. Which would obviously eliminate all but the largest indoor ranges for such testing to be considered reliable.

A voice of reason amid the noise.

The only thing you left out is decay over distance for the milliseconds-later echo effect. An echo that bounces off a barrier 3 meters after passing a mic will have approximately the same SPL (slightly lower) as the original impulse at 6 meters past the mic. The echo will be below the peak of the original impulse.

[a_canadian]

Don't think I left that out. Rather I was attempting to address the possibility of wave reinforcement via constructive interference, where two wave fronts meet at the microphone from different angles and effectively 'amplify' the signal being picked up. I first recall experiencing such a phenomenon when in high school in the 70's, as I walked towards the school across a soccer field. There were two megaphones mounted high on the school wall, perhaps 60 metres ahead of me. As I came onto the field I heard the voice of the principal suddenly jump from a low mumble to a huge presence, from one step to the next. It was as though he were right in front of me, a couple of metres away. I froze, then stepped backwards, and heard his voice fall away, becoming so distant I could barely make out the words. Stepping forward again, there he was, clear as though he were almost within contact range. I proceeded across the field and noted 3 further brief intervals where the voice would suddenly jump 10-fold in volume, then just as quickly drop away, though all the way across there was also the steadily building background volume as I came closer to one of the megaphones than to the other. When getting within about 30 metres the effect had faded and it was just one speaker dominating my hearing.

I learned later that year in a physics class about destructive and constructive interference patterns in acoustics and in the behaviour or light, radio, and other manifestations of radiating energy. The object lesson I had experienced while crossing that field came back to me and made the classroom lesson one which I had actually felt and could easily comprehend.

So it seems to me that vector is definitely an important factor in comparing circumstances for suppressed gunfire sound pressure - velocity and direction of sound emission and reflection being factors we ought to consider. That is, if the meter is not capable of shutting off reception of a very slightly delayed but louder secondary impulse. If these meters are 'smart' in some way and able to compensate for such (potentially) reinforced wave fronts, then there's no problem. Similarly if one is looking at a graph and is able to pick out the initial impulse and ignore a second, louder reading, then the point is moot. But if the speed of the system is inadequate to isolate the initial from a closely following and potentially louder secondary signal, then it would seem obvious that no metering in anything but identical mil-spec surroundings has any weight whatsoever.

For my part, in my own testing of various suppressors on PCP airguns and .22lr weapons, I've found both cheaply metered and ear-compared results to be dramatically different depending on the nature of the room, or the outdoor proximity to structures. Only sessions in thoroughly open outdoor environments and over grass have seemed at all consistent and therefore usable in testing for improvements from one design to the next. Testing in my workshop and then in our bedroom, I obtain absurdly different results, though both rooms are approximately the same size. They're differently shaped acoustical spaces with different material densities, resulting in radical variation in reflected sound properties. Perhaps a state of the art meter and mic would render such differences moot... but I have to doubt that, as if such were the case there would seem no need at all for mil-spec rules about suppressor testing in the first place.

[gsyoung54]

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.

AE 147 is the crappiest and loudest subsonic ammo I have ever shot and because of it's shorter overall length it
is the only ammo that has ever caused feeding problems in my 30+ year old MP5, in semi or full. Oh I forgot... for awhile I was seeing AE 124 subs for sale and they were even worse than the 147's, sometimes even going supersonic in carbines or in the cold.
Plenty of good 158's out there now and the Hush 165's, when I can get them... New reloading bench is under construction as I have moved...

[doubloon]

Don't think I left that out. Rather I was attempting to address the possibility of wave reinforcement via constructive interference, where two wave fronts meet at the microphone from different angles and effectively 'amplify' the signal being picked up. I first recall experiencing such a phenomenon when in high school in the 70's, as I walked towards the school across a soccer field. There were two megaphones mounted high on the school wall, perhaps 60 metres ahead of me. As I came onto the field I heard the voice of the principal

...

I've found both cheaply metered and ear-compared results to be dramatically different depending on the nature of the room, ...

I've experienced this phenomenon myself on a curved street lined with buildings or houses where a speaker in the right location sounds amplified to a listener in the right location. It's the same effect as the whispering arch in grand central station or the dome in the U.S. capital building http://mentalfloss.com/article/93018/7- ... -can-visit

But these are relatively uncommon geometric features where your ear listening to conversation or a relatively constant sound source, not a calibrated meter measuring impulses. For constructive wave interference to exist there has to be a series of waves and as we heard earlier '"Sound waves"" aren't really a thing.'. I would agree when it comes to muzzle blasts and explosions we're not talking about a 'frequency' of sound we're talking about an impulse from the initial expansion.

Also this constructive wave interference phenomenon works on all sound not just some sounds like the like the magic 30 caliber rifle bullet source previously mentioned where 30 caliber pistol bullets might meter "normally" but rifle bullets "fill the room" before the meter has a chance to measure the impulse. If there exists a situation where the impulse from one firearm configuration will be consistently measured inaccurately then in that situation all firearm impulses will be consistently measured inaccurately. Impulses do not travel faster for one type of firearm vs another.

I agree it's easy to fool the ears and cheap or poorly calibrated equipment but with adequate and properly calibrated equipment I believe it's the exception and not the rule.

[doubloon]

...
AE 147 is the crappiest and loudest subsonic ammo I have ever shot and because of it's shorter overall length it
is the only ammo that has ever caused feeding problems in my 30+ year old MP5, in semi or full. Oh I forgot... for awhile I was seeing AE 124 subs for sale and they were even worse than the 147's, sometimes even going supersonic in carbines or in the cold.
Plenty of good 158's out there now and the Hush 165's, when I can get them... New reloading bench is under construction as I have moved...

I don't have any great love for AE myself. I consider it to be as good as Georgia Arms Canned Heat was in 147gr. Seemed like one of those would go super on me every couple magazines as well. But it was cheap.

[doubloon]

...
Could you not be bothered to watch the video? That's all covered.
...

I watched the video, it didn't change physics.

...
But do you understand how they are interrelated in terms of attenuation, refraction, diffraction, reflection? Wavelength affects those things tremendously; t
...

This flies in the face of previous testimony that contends sound waves aren't really a thing. Also, I believe we're talking about impulse peaks from a muzzle blast and not a regular wave source like a tuning fork or a speaker. While I do not generally subscribe to the idea that sound waves are not a thing I do believe there is a difference between an sound impulse and a tone generator.

...
You should find a way to witness sound metering on equipment like the Pulse first hand. You're obviously not going to believe any of us no matter what we tell you, but maybe seeing it with your own eyes in elapsed times with visual representations will convince you that we're not blowing smoke here.

Videos count well enough as first hand for me. I believe there is a difference between properly calibrated equipment measuring peak values from an impulse such as an explosion or a muzzle blast and the perception of amplitude from a wave source in an environment conducive to constructive, or even destructive, wave interference.

So far the testimony from those who would have everyone believe metering indoors is severely flawed is heavily biased (like 100%) toward constructive wave interference and no testimony of the destructive. The stars and the moon and the walls and the meters are, for some magic reason, always perfectly aligned to only produce larger measurements from constructive interference. But, again, interference, either constructive or destructive, depends on multiple wave sources of the same amplitude and not a single impulse echoed off a wall at a different amplitude.

[0101silent]

So we AGREE that Silencerco numbers are Unreliable Hokum?

...
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.(Emphasis Added)

Doubloon, since you don't believe ECCO Machine, would you trust Silencerco testimony that their numbers are hokum?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNX49-AVRnc The numbers are quoted between 2:30 and 4:00.

The Silencerco Employee that runs the meter states that the short configuration meters 133db on a rifle, their spec sheet claims 125.8db
In medium configuration the Silencerco Employee that runs the meter states that it is mid 120s db on a rifle, their spec sheet claims 117.9db.

Spec sheet link. https://silencerco.com/silencers/switchback-22/

OMG!

A guy made some comment in a video that doesn't match the actual test results?!?!(Emphasis Added)

Say it isn't so!

Random comments in videos don't change the laws of physics.

So we AGREE that Silencerco numbers are Unreliable Hokum?

[SuthDet]

...
Could you not be bothered to watch the video? That's all covered.
...

I watched the video, it didn't change physics.

...
But do you understand how they are interrelated in terms of attenuation, refraction, diffraction, reflection? Wavelength affects those things tremendously; t
...

This flies in the face of previous testimony that contends sound waves aren't really a thing. Also, I believe we're talking about impulse peaks from a muzzle blast and not a regular wave source like a tuning fork or a speaker. While I do not generally subscribe to the idea that sound waves are not a thing I do believe there is a difference between an sound impulse and a tone generator.

...
You should find a way to witness sound metering on equipment like the Pulse first hand. You're obviously not going to believe any of us no matter what we tell you, but maybe seeing it with your own eyes in elapsed times with visual representations will convince you that we're not blowing smoke here.

Videos count well enough as first hand for me. I believe there is a difference between properly calibrated equipment measuring peak values from an impulse such as an explosion or a muzzle blast and the perception of amplitude from a wave source in an environment conducive to constructive, or even destructive, wave interference.

So far the testimony from those who would have everyone believe metering indoors is severely flawed is heavily biased (like 100%) toward constructive wave interference and no testimony of the destructive. The stars and the moon and the walls and the meters are, for some magic reason, always perfectly aligned to only produce larger measurements from constructive interference. But, again, interference, either constructive or destructive, depends on multiple wave sources of the same amplitude and not a single impulse echoed off a wall at a different amplitude.

So, we have 2 people who have seen this and agree it's a thing, and your only argument is "it can't be, physics doesn't allow it", but you offer nothing beyond constructive interference (very specific) or crappy meter (2209 and pulse). Hmmm, I have to ask, have you ever done any suppressor sound testing?

[doubloon]

[...
So, we have 2 people who have seen this and agree it's a thing, ...

A lot of people have seen Bigfoot, some were even sober.

... I have to ask, have you ever done any suppressor sound testing?

More than you know.

[doubloon]

...
So we AGREE that Silencerco numbers are Unreliable Hokum?[/b]

We agree that comments in a video about the recollection of metering number that may or may not have happened is unreliable.

[gsyoung54]

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

Talked to the CGS group this morning as I'm having a hard time finding a Kraken. Lady told me that the Kraken and their impressive .22 cans are undergoing a little face lift, will still be the same supressor and to expect the Kraken back on the market as "the Mod4" in March or April. RSR is high on their list to get a bunch.

[paco ramirez]

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

Talked to the CGS group this morning as I'm having a hard time finding a Kraken. Lady told me that the Kraken and their impressive .22 cans are undergoing a little face lift, will still be the same supressor and to expect the Kraken back on the market as "the Mod4" in March or April. RSR is high on their list to get a bunch.

MOD 9, not Mod 4.

[gsyoung54]

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.

No human should ever consider AE 147gr as subsonic ammo... it may be subsonic but it totally sucks in a couple of regards - it's f'ing LOUD!, the loudest subsonic 9 I have ever shot and I have them all. The only sub 9 ammo it is better than is the AE 124 subsonic which sucked so bad I don't even see it on the market. The AE 147 is noticeably shorter in overall length even compared to similar tipped projectiles. It will not feed consistently in my German MP5 and has feeding problems in the Sig P226, something that is almost unheard of even in a dirty 226.

So lets all be together on this and not even use AE 147 in our tests. For over a year all I had was four cases of AE 147, it was the only sub 9mm I could get in Alaska back then. Now I'm lucky to be able to get IMI, PPU and Fiocchi 158 grain subs with the PPU and the IMI being the quietest by a hair and the PPU being the least expensive. Never had a misfire with it and it functions every full and compact 9 I own with or without a suppressor on it.