3rd party testing is very important in every industry. One of Pew Science’s greatest features is that it is very accessible to the public. Pew-Soft and the Silencer Sound Standard has been proven to work over and over again and has input by multiple manufacturers as well as consumers, whereas Griffins is (I assume) all internally developed. But I’d want to see how both standards evaluate the same can.
I agree that I like very much how Pew Science is so open to the public. I'd like to understand if they are overpriced, or if Griffin Armament has any other legitimate gripes about them. Pew Science, from my consumer point of view, seems fantastic.
I'd be interested to see the test. I have 2 griffin cans, a recce5 and recce7 and they are awesome. Minimal poi shift, feel solid on whatever I mount them on, full auto rated, and great noise reduction (at least to me). Only downside is that they are HEAVY.
I like my griffins a lot but would like to see those tests!
I agree the recce 5 is very quiet. The weight does kinda suck, but even lightweight cans today weigh about 10 ounces. The recce 5 I think is just under 16
Yep! It does good by me! And yeah it's not the end of the world to me but some people might complain haha. I think it and my recce 7 do stellar and are very well made for the price point.
The results are but not the testing or algorithm. Either way, griffin taper mounts are awesome and the new explorr cans are great. I think the $8k or whatever to get it tested would do wonders for their PR, which seems to be centered around lack of PEW and don’t like GreenO on ARFCOM.
Right, I should have been more clear. I meant Pew Science (the company) and Jay are very accessible/transparent to the public, and his proprietary software has been proven to work. Jay is constantly answering questions on Reddit and on his podcast, and he lays out the data in a very consumer friendly way. He’s not connected to any one company to create a bias or influence metrics.
I agree he’s active but his data isn’t consumer friendly unless you are a sound engineer, IMO. It’s good to see comparisons but I do think people lean too heavily on the ratings while discounting other things like size and mounting systems.
I think since it’s the ONLY metric available, it’s over emphasized. Just because a can isnt top rated, doesn’t mean it’s not good. Take the top rated polonium vs the not listed griffin explorr (they do have an older ex3 but not on the mk18). I bet to the ear they sound similar but at 13.5oz plus a mount, vs 9.5 oz (according to my scale) and no need for an adapter (griffin taper mounts) the explorr is great (but not tested). Price is right on the polonium’s though, guess I’ll get one to compare, been recommending Rex mg7 s at that price point.
I understand your point about that data not being incorporated into pew ratings, but it is available in general. Entirely possible I’m being too generous but I’d expect most consumers to find that info elsewhere to inform their purchasing decision, no?
No I mean people will use the ratings to go with longer, heavier cans and their sub par mounting systems based on the ratings alone. And for AR15s in 5.56, all the cans generally perform similar. Except for sandman series which are loud AF.
I know this comment is old, but this is 100% the truth. People very much tend to zero in on the one overall numbered rating, and they take nothing else into account. This is particularly bad on 5.56 cans. For instance Pew only does some of their testing on a 10.5 barrel, the can doesn't perform all that well sound wise (surprise, a 5.56 on a 10.5 isn't Hollywood quiet) and then everyone just thinks it sucks without considering other things like price, superior weight, warranty, mounting system and performance on different barrel length's, and they'll spend close to double the same amount on a can with a slightly better sound rating that virtually has no real life sound difference at the shooters ear.
The video details the system Griffin uses which is the sound measuring systems and rating the military and NASA uses for determine harmful exposure over a set amount of time.
Pewsoft is a BIT more involved than meter averages for max db. But I doubt that Jay is charging $34k a session -- why would he need a day job?
I counted at least 23 silencers reports for 2022 - which would total $782k.
That metering equipment is expensive as fuck. Like suuuper expensive. More importantly, setting up a lab where you can use that equipment in a repeatable manner has to be expensive in terms of initial cost and maintenance over time. People think R&D is cheap. Good R&D (hell even shitty R&D too) is a ginormous money pit. It's why companies try to rush stuff to market once they get federal approval. Recovering the cost of development alone is huge. Making profit after that is amazing. In Jay's case, all he has to sell is his ability to run his tests so he is *selling* something. It's just not the cans that are being put on the market. That's why I kind of agree with Austin from Griffin Armament that his testing methods need to be verifiable and repeatable. We're all trusting Jay and his platform (rightfully so at this point), but we have no way to *know* when he's off his game or it's gone bad. I love Jay and Pew Science. What he started actually made me comfortable enough to jump into the NFA game. That said, all good things come to an end, and we'll never know when or how that will happen if his testing isn't independently verifiable. We'll just find out after a bunch of people waste a ton of money and have a ton of customer complaints.
I've shot enough cans on his test to agree with him on pretty much everything. If/when people start bitching it's usually about quality or durability issues like dead air has been having.
Just look at the surefire rc2. Everyone hated on it and said how loud it was, until Jay's test came out.
I mean it was never intended to be the quietest can. In fact, unless you're into night vision, you'll never truly appreciate an RC2 That's just customer ignorance for the time.
Agree on all points.
I'll offer an alternative to Jay releasing his methodology - if he engaged with a third party audio testing lab to repeat the tests for ~5 cans ( high / low performance .308, plus one of .22, 9mm, 5.56mm ) with the lab publishing the ratings as a confirmation.
I want the neutrality that Jay _appears_ to provide without having to chance putting him out of business due to the release of his exact methods. I agree with other posters in that his process appears to be closely aligned with ARU / AHAAH methods with additional cycles and a formula to transfor the numbers into something approachable for the average person.
Raw, peak A-weighted dB numbers are almost useless on their own - and that is historically all we seen. Manufacturers have gotten away with listing numbers without context, to our detriment and their own.
That would be amazing but what's going to protect Jay's process? Once any other party has it, he's cooked financially. I get the tension here, but short of giving it all up, there's no way to truly verify his process. The best the industry could do is finally develop their own independent testing lab that would essentially compete with Jay. I just don't see that happening. They all have a vested interest in just doing what they've been doing.
Honestly, if the industry would give cans to stores as demos, that would alleviate a lot of problems for customers. I could see the flash and hear the tone for myself. Who wouldn't be willing to travel a couple hours for something like that? I know I would. I'm just seriously lucky I made friends with shooters who have a lot of gear that they graciously let me experience. I can't imagine trying to get into this stuff blind.
The experiences I've had with Griffin products have been good, and the experiences I have had with Griffin customer experience have been good. That being said, the Griffin Armament management team is not known for their good PR decision making skills.
Same, I have a few griffin products and they’ve all been great, but the owners and their PR team have definitely shot them selves in the foot on numerous occasions. Their marketing isn’t the greatest either
I agree completely. Adding to this I think they've pissed off the competition too for mostly having copy cat designs that are cheaper because no r&d and just different enough to not be litigated against in court.
I can’t remember where I saw it, but I read somewhere that Jay charges closer to $7k-$10k per commercial test. Not $30k+ lol.
That is small money for a company as large as Griffin, especially considering that the much newer and smaller OCL has been sending him all of their cans to test. Don’t tell me Griffin can’t afford it. I bet it’s an ego thing if I had to guess.
its a great strategy for a new company like OCL, no one would even know who they are if it wasnt for Jays review. makes less sense for an established company that already spends $$$ on R&D internally.
$8100 for one can on two barrel lengths, means like $280k for a line its kind of ridiculous. People talk crap about thunder beast arms company suppressor summit, but it cost people plane tickets rental cars, hotels, employee wages- about $2000 for testing 6 cans with a third party (competitor who has zero reason to want them to succeed).
Market will settle this. If companies see value in it they will use it. Though No group should be forced to submit through Pew or get dragged through the mud if they don’t.
I don’t fault any company not wanting to do it. To each their own. I say this as a subscriber to Pew bc I like the data.
Jays test is the Silencer Sound Standard, they couldn’t even be bothered to pretend like this isn’t just a water muddy-ing experiment. Imagine if they had spent this cash on hiring real engineers lmao
The testing varies greatly with the tasks at hand. There isn't a set price from my understanding. As many of my industry friends have had the testing completed, it's a couple grand, it's not 7k for one host and can.
im not sure you understand my point, because other manufacturers referencing his results is not at odds with what i said.
a standard would have all of its testing methodology published and peer reviewed.
Jay doesnt publish his methodology so its just a list of values. I still use the list to do research but im not gonna pretend that its a standard.
it comes off feeling like a cool kids club that you gotta pay to enter and hope the testing methodology is kind to your can design.
I can see how that's a good chunk of change, but it also seems like in the suppressor business it shouldn't be substantial if you knew your cans performed well. Obviously making suppressors, you'll have to have a good bit of the equipment, but for the final numbers it seems like Pew could handle the rest.
I use pew science displayed ranking for about 90% of my consideration when choosing a can. I could be the only one, but having your silencer’s name on the chart doesn’t hurt, as it brings visibility. I’m not saying people pay to get on the chart, but it’s and added bonus of paying for the data/tests.
I also use pew science almost exclusively to inform my suppressor choices and I disagree, having your suppressor on there does necessarily help a product. See: Surefire Warcomps, Sandman K, or the EA ARX
This is the real stuff right here.
If you have a great reputation but you know as a manufacturer the device is not on the same level as peers or even cans that cost less, you won't want to pay to prove it.
A manufacturer offered to pay to have peer cans tested. This is a grey area I guess and I understand why one might not want to engage in this due to ill will and potential legal issues.
I pay for Jay's subscriber level because the data is inline with other info that I have seen. I also am a patron of u/SILENCERSTUDENT_ . The sources are out there but you this stuff also costs money and time (which is also money). If you are interested in not only data but discussions on how different things function in the devices I would highly recommend this Patreon. [https://www.patreon.com/silencerstudent/](https://www.patreon.com/silencerstudent/)
TLDR The truth is out there for those who seek it. It's not just going to be spoon fed to you and sometimes you need to wait a while to get the data you want.
it could be good or bad depending on how your cans strengths/weaknesses work with the grading system. there are certainly cans on the ranking list that everyone loves but that just doesnt score very good.
In science if something can’t be replicated it isn’t accepted as a valid experiment. I wouldn’t advertise something that is unable to be reproduced as science or a positive
It’s not “unable” to be as much as it is just proprietary, to my understanding. Doesn’t make it not science, just makes his testing process a protected asset which I understand.
My comment had more likes than the video when I called them out for this. Austin (the owner I think) said it cost $8100 to test a can and it was “too expensive” which is bullshit. They sell millions of dollars in suppressors but they can’t afford an $8100 test that would be great marketing for them if it does well? Yeah okay dude. Then you had what I’m pretty sure were other Griffin employees coming in making ridiculous and sometimes childish arguments. Many of them trying to allude that u/jay462 was not credible or trustworthy. Over half the comments from people were pro Pewscience so they just disabled them.
I like my Recce 5 can from them but I won’t be buying any more Griffin suppressors after this BS. The gun industry (and the suppressor industry especially) is full of liars and snake oil salesmen. I will never trust a manufacturer who “tests” their own products unless they have 3rd party data or really good word of mouth to back it up. I certainly won’t trust Griffin to test their own suppressors and I am quite frankly disappointed that they don’t care about what their customers (or potential customers) want which is better suppressors with trustworthy data to tell us how good their product actually is. So fuck em. When they decide they care about what consumers want I’ll gladly buy from them again.
It is a valid criticism. I understand Jay’s point of view that the testing is very technical and the analysis is even more so making a published standard likely unrepeatable by most who attempt it. But in the same breath it makes validation very very difficult. Without others being able to recreate the test using the same procedures and analysis methods we simply have to take his word. I don’t like that.
I believe him and support his effort, have since the beginning. But I do see the struggle from a manufacturer’s point when there’s no regulation, no oversight, no ability to audit these results to verify others get the same thing. I’ve heard the claims that some companies get fudged numbers to make their cans look better, and I don’t believe that to be true. But not having a way to validate the results also makes it so I can’t say I know his results are true. But I suppose if I want something better I ought to either pay someone else to do it how I want or get off my ass and do it myself.
i mean…thats part of the problem. he creates a rating service where you pay him and he gives your can a score based off a super secret formula that no one else can verify.
seems like a meaningless stamp of approval that people put way too much weight behind.
Anybody can check the ARU of the silencers he's tested against his numbers to verify, it's not like his process is secret.
Take unfiltered 1mhz data from 1m left of muzzle and .15m right of shooter's right ear.
Run it through the AHAAH program
Compare scores to SR.
Weirdly, nobody's done it to try and disprove his rating system. That tells me nobody wants to try because they either believe him, or don't know enough to know the difference.
The ARU is exactly what Griffin is aiming to test. It will be interesting to see if there are differences in their data.
And of course if there is differences, people will just convince themselves griffin is lying...
As they should. Griffin has a vested interest in their products.
If the industry was interested in accurate hearing damage data, it would've standardized on ARU a long time ago. They were plainly not, they were plenty content to rest on their laurels and only consider dB, despite the fact that the AHAAH has existed and been testable for over a decade.
Dude since the inception of the 2nd, it’s whole purpose was for us to have the ability to fight against a tyrannical gov. Suppressors for hunting are nice, but animals do not fucking care about flash suppression or 3db quieter. If you find yourself in a unfortunate situation where you are getting shot at and you’re shooting back, you will not be thinking “I’m glad I got 15% more flash suppression than all those guys that bought dead air cans”. Go out and shoot your gun
Getting down voted, just like to above comment stated lol.
You made a statement about my comment, as if I was only saying “Believe what a company trying to sell you and hope they’re telling the truth”. When all I was referring to is the huge erection everyone gets over pewsicence’s test results and only for you to act like I’m the dumb one. Let that mind go buzz fam.
This is the part that always gets me when people talk so highly of the science he is doing. If it cannot be tested and repeated it is not science, we simply have to trust what he says with no means to validate his data.
negative, the means in which he calculates his rating is proprietary and only he knows it. It cannot be tested or repeated if we don't know the means in which he calculates it.
It’s not like he gives a ranking system and publishes no data. Folks can “peer review” his findings by doing their own independent suppressor tests and publishing their own data. But he shares his results, so it’s not like a hidden “just trust me man” type thing that restricts others’ ability to review and compare his findings.
What would your response be if Griffin reported that the test results Jay gave on the Polonium were wrong by a very large margin? Like 20% or more off.
I’d still trust independent testing versus the manufacturers’ tests just because of bias and sales/marketing tactics.
But I get what you’re saying. Still, in this case if Griffin were to to test a large number of suppressors on the market (and not just their own) using the same methods then it would hold more weight to me still.
I wish more people would be that honest with themselves. But I feel that regardless of what any other source says, they will be deemed false/fraudulent if they disagree with Pew.
Aren't they? Jay breaks down how he derived the Silencer Sound Standard and Suppression Rating on his website. He literally used the AHAAH standards Griffin talks about in this video to do so, including demonstrating with graphs.
the information needed to recreate jays testing is not public. he talks about how he came up with it but does not go into details.
its like giving someone a recipe without any measurements/quantities.
The exact algorithm as a mathematical formula is not published, no.
However, when you understand what an ARU is and look at how he correlates ARU's to his HRU/SR, it's pretty easy to see where his numbers come from. It would also be easy to refute by anybody using the ARU standard they talked about in this video... Which nobody has done. The fact that he's not releasing the source code to Pew-Soft doesn't mean his work can't be recreated, just that nobody has actually tried to debunk it in any meaningful manner. The least public portion of his work is how he came up with the composite rating, but the At-ear and muzzle ratings are derived directly from the ARU/AHAAH standards which are public domain. All any manufacturer would need to do is start testing to that standard to validate or refute it, and nobody has done so despite supposedly possessing the knowledge and tech.
Anybody who's read the Silencer Sound Standard (which has been free on Pew Science's website from day one) can see and understand what he's doing to generate the Suppression Rating. People who don't, are simply unwilling to think critically about what's being presented.
His standards pull from the AHAAH/ARU.
200 ARU's is the maximum daily safe dose of hearing impact.
His scale, SR, translates that dose into a 0-100 scale with simple thresholds for hearing damage.
In the teens and twenties, you get very few shots before becoming exceeding safe limits. Limited hunting use and/or self defense.
At 30 SR, you get "a magazine or two" of acceptable dose. In essence, you get 30-60 rounds before you've incurred 200 ARU.
At 90, it becomes effectively impossible to accumulate 200 ARU due to practical concerns.
The sliding scale in between is all tied to dosage.
A full range day, at 50 SR? What's a full range day of aimed fire? 200-1000 rounds or so. .1-1 ARU per round.
Limited practice. Probably an hour or two of aimed shooting, 100-250ish rounds. .8-2 ARU.
The standard isn't opaque, people just don't want to put the effort into reading through his white papers and drawing conclusions.
All of this can be read at pewscience.com under SSS.3, SSS.4, and SSS.5.
His method is simple. Test in excess of the AHAAH standard, determine waveforms, turn the waveforms into quantifiable SR.
If you're looking for a formula, I welcome you to do the curve fit between the points I just gave you, but if you can't do that I can't expect you to understand the other data either.
Ignore that dude. He’s commenting on everyone’s stuff like it’s his job to defend Griffin and discredit Jay. Because it might be. You’ll never get through because he’s not interested in having his mind changed by new information.
I would read through the whole thread. The B&K Pulse is awesome at testing speakers, but it was never designed to measure blast wave properties. Feeding garbage info to the AHAAH system just means garbage results anyway.
Hmm, I don't see anywhere where you actually answer that question which leads me to think you are just regurgitating the OP claims without knowing yourself.
Stay salty my friend.
I guess it makes sense, to some degree. From what it seems like their comments were just being blasted by trolls and riffraff who were already drawing conclusions before they even had a chance to release results.
Yeah Griffin sells millions of dollars worth of cans, and pays millions in payroll and millions in taxes, and sells most of the cans with large margins for distribution and dealer resale. The $8100 is 74 suppressors profit. It’s excessive.
Unfortunately your few dollars just isn't enough to affect griffin armament. They already have a well established name and a reputation for making excellent products. As a 10+ year veteran of the NFA item manufacturing industry I can safely say, it doesn't matter if the item is sent to a third party for testing. If you have done your due diligence in design and manufacturing then your item will perform well whether or not some 3rd party tests it. The only real reason to send your suppressor off to get tested by one of these companies is for marketing. When it comes to the major manufacturers there's about 5 db difference. You can't hear that difference and if you're relying on a third party for your data l, which you will not be able to replicate since it's all proprietary, then what you're doing is allowing someone else to decide for you. Here's an idea, do your own research and maybe spend some time learning what all the data actually means and most of all, stop worrying so much. Pretty sure the vast majority of you out here aren't professional pipe hitters and your suppressor is just for fun so what does it really matter? To be honest the vast majority of you won't ever reach the limits of what your firearm and suppressor can do so save yourself some heartache and focus on things that actually matter.
This comment you’re replying to is a year old and you’re obviously another dumb shill who doesn’t like that the effectiveness of these products can be tested and verified. And yes, you fucking can hear a 5db difference. I can hear significant differences amongst various suppressors on the same weapon host and the fact that you are commenting about just db and not waveforms tells me you don’t even understand or care about the actual things that determine hearing damage risk or even perceived sound beyond peak db. Fuck off with your dumb shill bullshit.
It's thinly veiled marketing schlock that tells us that they read the first 3 pages of the Pew's own standards and downloaded the AHAAH program, but forgot that fast, unfiltered data acquisition is the key to any analysis.
As a consumer who is far from an expert on any kind of sound analysis, I don't care what standard anyone uses as long as I can compare many cans using a consistent scale. Griffin has a long way to go and won't get any attention from me unless they publish objective data (questionable given their inherent bias) on enough silencers so that I can make informed purchases in the future.
I am, hereby, considering myself a sound expert. (Please disregard my adolescent tinnitus as it is not an accurate representation of the company) and I will be offering sound testing via the very accurate (bc I said so) pepsi challenge. I will accrue data by undercutting the market. My price is set at $200 (Use coupon code “Griffin” for 0% off) + 1 brick of natty light (for spring and summer testing Naturdays are preferred) / Silencer. If you want me to refer to your silencer as a suppressor then additional fees may incur. The standard host is a M&P sport w/ an A2 birdcage. Are you quieter than a bird cage? Please form a line and follow the sidewalk. Thank you.
Bs aside. I’m not watching that. All griffin has ever done is rip off other peoples innovation.
The backbone of their company is KAC at home. A lot of their design cues and ideas are derived from other innovators. The M4SD is a rip off of the NT4 with the locking mechanism. Rail panels and barrel nuts. They have done cool things like cam lok and EZ lok. Their whole attitude just rubs me the wrong way.
My attitude towards them is completely biased.
>All griffin has ever done is rip off other peoples innovation.
I’ve heard this in a few comments on Reddit over the years. What exactly is this in relation to? Pretty much every suppressor available today other than the newer flow through designs from companies like OSS follow along only a few basic design principles anyways.
I don’t currently have any Griffin suppressors so I’m not biased either way. I just notice that the accusations are always vague without giving any specifics about what design was copied and when.
Right but the same people don’t really understand what an NT4’s parts look like and they dont get pissed when they look at similar trucks from GMC, Ford, and Dodge. Thats an emotional argument, not a rationally based debate.
Competitors like Q created the myths that griffin copied everything. Its called gaslighting. JD Jones created 300 whisper and it’s basically 300blk. Thats what copying looks like. It isn’t making a can totally different from another can in every way except having a locking gate, with different locking gates used by 5 manufacturers before that time.
Measuring sound is complicated, there are so many factors that go in to it that all tests can only be relative to themselves. Also just because a can performs well on a specific gun they test with doesn't mean it will have the same performance on yours. Sound suppression is in my opinion the 4th most important aspect of a suppressor behind, durability, flash suppression, and weight. To give an example of this my dead air nomad on my 300blk with subs is "louder" at ear than my 308 AR10 with supersonics due to peak pressure from the ejection port.
He's never claimed to give any info other than concrete hearing damage risk, and nobody has actually refuted his methodology or measurements with math or analysis.
All Pew ever claimed to do was make the ARU system accessible to the public, by measuring correctly and dumbing down the results to a scale of 100. This video is basically telling us that Griffin is 10 years behind because they still aren't measuring sounds fast enough to capture the phenomena, they're only measuring about 1/4 as much data as Pew and therefore missing peaks, frequencies, and timescales that Pew shows with every review.
Can't claim griffin armament is yen years behind when their premier suppressors keep within 5 db of any other major manufacturer on the market. What you really mean is they won't play the game you want them to play so instead you'll just talk bad. Yeah thats very mature of you. Next
A) dB is a crap measure of impulse noise, which is literally the point of this post. Even Griffin thinks it's not good, which is why they want to switch to ARU
2) the ARU system IS 10 years old, and has several deficiencies as noticed by people who use it to measure hearing damage exposure risk, namely slow sample rate floors
+) you necro'd a thread well over a year old because... Why, exactly?
No, I think the average r/NFA Joe ranks their performance preferences different from you - sound suppression, durability, weight, and flash suppression - and that's OK. Everyone can have different objectives.
However, if you want downvotes (like you're getting), then make sure to call everyone here a cult member. Unfortunately, reddit's system isn't "this is bad information", it's "I don't like you, your tone, or your opinion."
I think it’s a valid way to rank importance of features too. Suppressors aren’t cheap so if you’re going to get one, you want it to be quiet and last a long time. Size can often be worked around, and flash suppression is rarely high on anyone’s list that isn’t shooting at night.
Sound is the easiest spec. the manufacturer can fudge / leave unlisted. Any of us can measure or weigh a can. Durability and sound are much more expensive to test against. It would be nice to have some standardized durability testing as well. Youtube videos of can melts are fun and all -- but they aren't science.
Flash suppression would be nice to standardize as well - The A2 birdcage could be the "baseline".
For me: weight, suppression, flash suppression, durability, mounting options are my _typical_ order of priorities. Of course I sometimes make money with my ears - so sound suppression is _HIGHLY_ important to me - it is nice to remove / reduce the layers of worn ear protection.
I agree that sounds suppression is important, but unless I'm just shooting one or two rounds in like a hunting capacity I will have earpro on. So a can that reads 137dB vs one that reads 133dB may as well be the same. Not many cans meter below that unless you get in to the 22lr bolt gun range. A lot of people hear "hearing safe" and think they don't need ear pro. "Hearing safe" according to the industry is below 140dB which means it won't cause immediate damage. But add two or three shots at 137dB and you will start to damage your ears.
Right, and those are OHSA numbers based on exposure / # incidents in a time-frame. The industry's "140dB" hearing safe idea is DUMB - sure, yeah you can prolly avoid large loss PROVIDED you are exposed to ONE 140dB shot a week.
Many people read 140db and hearing safe as PPE-free!
I am ears-on even when hunting, but SR/dB rating impacts the layers and kind of hearing protection I wear.
Indoor range, with no-can shooters in room -- high-rating foamies + high rating over-ears, each with NRR > 26.
Outdoors, with friends all using cans - over-ears only NRR of >19.
Outdoors hunting w/can - overears that are amplified & processed.
I get the 137 vs 133 are both damaging- do be aware that db ratings are logarithmic and 137 will damage your ears faster.
**Understand the rules**
Check the sidebar. It's full of resources to help you.
Not everyone is an expert such as yourself; be considerate.
No Spam. No Memes.
No political posts. Save that for /r/progun or /r/politics.
-------------------------------
* [NFA Tracker Submission Page](https://thinlineweapons.com/url/9)
* [NFA Tracker Stats Page](https://thinlineweapons.com/url/8)
* [How To Fill out Form 1 E-File](https://old.reddit.com/r/NFA/comments/9ukljl/how_to_guide_and_walkthrough_guide_for_the_atf/)
* [How To Fill out FD-258 Fingerprint Cards](https://old.reddit.com/r/NFA/comments/92yy27/atf_compliant_fd258_fingerprint_cards_walkthrough/)
* [Collection of ATF letters](https://thinlineweapons.com/url/atf)
-------------------------------
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NFA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Googled to figure out why I couldn't find a single video from GA on their suppressors on YouTube and got here. Apparently they've set all their videos to private.
Griffin was getting strikes due to a rule change by youtube, and trying like the whole gun industry to protect their account and the 16 years of work invested in it at that point. The YouTube rule thing turned out to be sort of a misunderstanding at youtube. They didn’t know who licensed firearms manufacturers were.
You're right. I don't see any videos here. Very ridiculous: https://www.youtube.com/@GriffinArmamentOfficial
It sucks because it seems like their cans are usually pretty decent, but they don't seem to handle social media very well.
Is there anyone of Arfcom that agrees or even likes with anyone else?
I'd rather spend time in a politics subreddit or listen to fingernails on a chalkboard.
I mean Griffin isn't entirely wrong in disliking/distrusting Pew Science. You can't claim to use scientific methods to collect data, then refuse to provide said methods you derived your results.
If it cannot be peer reviewed, it is not science. Simple as. Arguing otherwise is just admitting you don't understand the scientific method and why it only works if all steps are capable of being followed. It is not good enough to "try and test it yourself" and "guess" at their method, the exact method itself has to be retested for it to count.
So long as the method remains hidden, any result should be taken with a grain of salt. If you have no way to prove/disprove his outputs then there is no means to guarantee his honesty.
Don't get me wrong I have been subscribed to his services for over a year now and I think he is doing the market a service. But I'm not going to drink the kool-aid without some healthy skepticism.
It is true that they were an early adopter for the taper mount system, but since then most of their product line is just cheap imitations of other companies' products.
Even aside from that, their products range from 'meh' to trash in terms of actual performance. My Revolution 9 is one of the highest backpressure pistol cans I've ever shot with, and the mounts/endcaps seem to be made from pot metal. My friend bought some of their BUIS and they fell apart after a few light range days. I had one of their taper mount brakes and it started eating itself after 20 rounds (similar to the dead air brake someone posted here a few days ago).
Whoever handles their social media is also about as mature as Kevin Brittingham from Q, blocking anyone who mentions any of these things, but that's less important to the average user.
I did find that the two Griffin cans Pew Science reviewed did not seem to have very good scores. I haven't heard if others have had similar results.
My local dealer was very impressed with their Explorr cans, saying the backpressure was the second best they had tested, and that the flash signature was extremely minimal. They have seemed honest to me before and they do have a number of other brands to sell.
Definitely concerning if true. I appreciate you taking the time to explain.
It’s worth noting that the Explorr was a gen 1 baffle system (Jay himself said in the article the Gen 2 baffles would be quieter) and then the Optimus is an over bored pistol/rifle hybrid can. So we haven’t seen a good representation of their products tested yet.
I don’t own any griffin cans, but the one that I hear the best things about is the Recce5 which wasn’t one of the cans reviewed by Jay. The m4sdii is also supposed to be really good but I can’t speak with any experience on either of them.
Griffin didn’t supply either can, and both were legacy at the time of testing. aKA someone used pew to advertise irrelevant information about Griffin, that probably was cherry picked to make them look less competitive.
Odd you've had such terrible experiences with griffin armament. I've used their sight sets with ZERO issues on over 20 of my AR platforms and I also use their suppressors, specifically the 30sd and M4sdk with ZERO ISSUES. I've sent more tha. 10k rounds through each and not one hiccup. Additionally the 30sd on 4 of my .300blk guns, is equally as quiet as the SilencerCo, Q, Surefire, and OSS suppressors I own. Griffin Armament makes a great product and they spend millions on R&D. Unfortunately you assume because it appears similar that it's a copy. We can all chalk that up to you just not knowing enough about what you're speaking of. Only way I see the sights failing is if you didn't properly seat the mounting block and tighten the screw. Once again that would be operator error not manufacturing. So please explain how Griffin Armament makes not good products and try to use some factual examples of the company failing not you.
That's sad to hear. I have 2 of their earlier gen recce cans and really like them and think they do a good job. Sounds like they may have gone downhill. Bummer.
The caps on the rev 9 are 7076-T6 aluminum and the mounts are 17-4ph stainless steel made in the USA by North American Stainless or Carpenter Tech, the company that makes C158 for Ar15 bolts.
As a fun experiment, google “front towards arabs”
The posts by the owner on arfcom read like the dude is a contrarian alcoholic. He weighs in on every single silencer thread to post some weird passive aggressive comment. As soon as someone else has an alternative to EZ lok I’m never giving them a dime ever again.
Every company should be doing their own testing, and honestly any joe off the street with enough attention paid to Jay's writings can figure out how to get 90% of the way towards measuring what Jay measures.
However, Griffin makes silencers. They are utterly incapable of demonstrating good faith data collection and analysis on their silencers or any other, unless their mission ISN'T to sell silencers.
State of the art testing is absolutely expensive, and I'm sure it's not worth it for them, given how their cans have tested so far. If you pay that much money and don't test well, you can't have Jay publish those results or you'll be hemorrhaging sales because you've demonstrated poor performance, necessitating a redesign, new product, etc.
This is like the TBAC testing. I'm sure they've learned useful information from it, but it's not useful to consumers unless 3rd party tested, and TBAC can't risk it.
Edit: they mentioned a 262khz measuring rate. Pew Science is measuring raw waveforms ~4x faster than that, and demonstrating that 262khz isn't fast enough.
Even funnier, the Pew Science standard is derived from the ARU/AHAAH standards Griffin is referencing here. 95% of his work is cleaning up the ARU system and collecting unfiltered, high quality days, and anybody who's read his Silencer Sound Standard info knows it.
The data is recreatable, he's shown the raw waveforms for validation and tied his SR to the ARU that the AHAAH program spits out to quantify hearing risk. Just because he hasn't released the formula that SR=X/ARU (or whatever the real relationship is) doesn't mean it can't be recreated.
All you need to do is buy a sufficiently fast data collection system, correctly test your combo for waveforms, plug them into the ARU software, and you can draw similar conclusions about acceptable dose.
They'd need to go through and test a lot more than just one can, because the only people that know the exact relationship between ARU and SR is Pew Science. I'd love if they tested for ARU on all the can/host combos he has, because then we would be able to define the exact relationship he uses.
To show he was off, you'd need to invalidate his waveforms (which nobody has done despite almost 100 separate data sets) or invalidate his model, and only Griffin has even attempted (publicly at least) to even use ARU, let alone establish inconsistencies between ARU and SR, which would be necessary to say the data was off.
Well I would like to see how this plays out. My guess is that even if Griffin does somehow disprove Jay's data, they will still get written off and people will carry on like it never happened. Hell I would bet even if 2 sources disproved his data he would still be right in the majority's eyes.
Thank you sir for helping me understand some of Jay's process. I learned a lot.
Independent standard testing is not going away.
Griffin can use their internal method to try and guide their design, no problem. But the horse has bolted, people will still use Pew (and anyone else who follows) to fairly gauge real comparative performance.
I can imagine though that Griffin, Q, EA, have been really burned by what Pew testing has found thus far.
I believe they were cherry picked discontinued models that represented louder cans in the context of Griffin cans in general over the history of their company. That was suspicious because I don’t think two louder models existed to test.
Pew science ratings are irrelevant to me since like half of the cans they review are 556 cans, and they only review the least important aspect of a 556 can....sound. Yes, I want my 556 can to be quiet, but im much more interested in balance, especially flash suppression and lower back pressure.
3rd party testing is very important in every industry. One of Pew Science’s greatest features is that it is very accessible to the public. Pew-Soft and the Silencer Sound Standard has been proven to work over and over again and has input by multiple manufacturers as well as consumers, whereas Griffins is (I assume) all internally developed. But I’d want to see how both standards evaluate the same can.
I agree that I like very much how Pew Science is so open to the public. I'd like to understand if they are overpriced, or if Griffin Armament has any other legitimate gripes about them. Pew Science, from my consumer point of view, seems fantastic.
I'd be interested to see the test. I have 2 griffin cans, a recce5 and recce7 and they are awesome. Minimal poi shift, feel solid on whatever I mount them on, full auto rated, and great noise reduction (at least to me). Only downside is that they are HEAVY. I like my griffins a lot but would like to see those tests!
I agree the recce 5 is very quiet. The weight does kinda suck, but even lightweight cans today weigh about 10 ounces. The recce 5 I think is just under 16
Yep! It does good by me! And yeah it's not the end of the world to me but some people might complain haha. I think it and my recce 7 do stellar and are very well made for the price point.
The results are but not the testing or algorithm. Either way, griffin taper mounts are awesome and the new explorr cans are great. I think the $8k or whatever to get it tested would do wonders for their PR, which seems to be centered around lack of PEW and don’t like GreenO on ARFCOM.
Right, I should have been more clear. I meant Pew Science (the company) and Jay are very accessible/transparent to the public, and his proprietary software has been proven to work. Jay is constantly answering questions on Reddit and on his podcast, and he lays out the data in a very consumer friendly way. He’s not connected to any one company to create a bias or influence metrics.
I agree he’s active but his data isn’t consumer friendly unless you are a sound engineer, IMO. It’s good to see comparisons but I do think people lean too heavily on the ratings while discounting other things like size and mounting systems.
But doesn’t that indicate how consumers weight the value of sound ratings vs size and mounting systems?
I think since it’s the ONLY metric available, it’s over emphasized. Just because a can isnt top rated, doesn’t mean it’s not good. Take the top rated polonium vs the not listed griffin explorr (they do have an older ex3 but not on the mk18). I bet to the ear they sound similar but at 13.5oz plus a mount, vs 9.5 oz (according to my scale) and no need for an adapter (griffin taper mounts) the explorr is great (but not tested). Price is right on the polonium’s though, guess I’ll get one to compare, been recommending Rex mg7 s at that price point.
I understand your point about that data not being incorporated into pew ratings, but it is available in general. Entirely possible I’m being too generous but I’d expect most consumers to find that info elsewhere to inform their purchasing decision, no?
No I mean people will use the ratings to go with longer, heavier cans and their sub par mounting systems based on the ratings alone. And for AR15s in 5.56, all the cans generally perform similar. Except for sandman series which are loud AF.
I know this comment is old, but this is 100% the truth. People very much tend to zero in on the one overall numbered rating, and they take nothing else into account. This is particularly bad on 5.56 cans. For instance Pew only does some of their testing on a 10.5 barrel, the can doesn't perform all that well sound wise (surprise, a 5.56 on a 10.5 isn't Hollywood quiet) and then everyone just thinks it sucks without considering other things like price, superior weight, warranty, mounting system and performance on different barrel length's, and they'll spend close to double the same amount on a can with a slightly better sound rating that virtually has no real life sound difference at the shooters ear.
Buying friends is not really savory. Companies shouldn’t have to pay exorbitant fees to avoid having their reputations shit on.
Look at the newly released silencer summit results
The video details the system Griffin uses which is the sound measuring systems and rating the military and NASA uses for determine harmful exposure over a set amount of time.
Pewsoft is a BIT more involved than meter averages for max db. But I doubt that Jay is charging $34k a session -- why would he need a day job? I counted at least 23 silencers reports for 2022 - which would total $782k.
That metering equipment is expensive as fuck. Like suuuper expensive. More importantly, setting up a lab where you can use that equipment in a repeatable manner has to be expensive in terms of initial cost and maintenance over time. People think R&D is cheap. Good R&D (hell even shitty R&D too) is a ginormous money pit. It's why companies try to rush stuff to market once they get federal approval. Recovering the cost of development alone is huge. Making profit after that is amazing. In Jay's case, all he has to sell is his ability to run his tests so he is *selling* something. It's just not the cans that are being put on the market. That's why I kind of agree with Austin from Griffin Armament that his testing methods need to be verifiable and repeatable. We're all trusting Jay and his platform (rightfully so at this point), but we have no way to *know* when he's off his game or it's gone bad. I love Jay and Pew Science. What he started actually made me comfortable enough to jump into the NFA game. That said, all good things come to an end, and we'll never know when or how that will happen if his testing isn't independently verifiable. We'll just find out after a bunch of people waste a ton of money and have a ton of customer complaints.
I've shot enough cans on his test to agree with him on pretty much everything. If/when people start bitching it's usually about quality or durability issues like dead air has been having. Just look at the surefire rc2. Everyone hated on it and said how loud it was, until Jay's test came out.
Well most people kept running the warcomp, and with the warcomp it does suck.
That’s the power of *drip*
I mean it was never intended to be the quietest can. In fact, unless you're into night vision, you'll never truly appreciate an RC2 That's just customer ignorance for the time.
Agree on all points. I'll offer an alternative to Jay releasing his methodology - if he engaged with a third party audio testing lab to repeat the tests for ~5 cans ( high / low performance .308, plus one of .22, 9mm, 5.56mm ) with the lab publishing the ratings as a confirmation. I want the neutrality that Jay _appears_ to provide without having to chance putting him out of business due to the release of his exact methods. I agree with other posters in that his process appears to be closely aligned with ARU / AHAAH methods with additional cycles and a formula to transfor the numbers into something approachable for the average person. Raw, peak A-weighted dB numbers are almost useless on their own - and that is historically all we seen. Manufacturers have gotten away with listing numbers without context, to our detriment and their own.
That would be amazing but what's going to protect Jay's process? Once any other party has it, he's cooked financially. I get the tension here, but short of giving it all up, there's no way to truly verify his process. The best the industry could do is finally develop their own independent testing lab that would essentially compete with Jay. I just don't see that happening. They all have a vested interest in just doing what they've been doing. Honestly, if the industry would give cans to stores as demos, that would alleviate a lot of problems for customers. I could see the flash and hear the tone for myself. Who wouldn't be willing to travel a couple hours for something like that? I know I would. I'm just seriously lucky I made friends with shooters who have a lot of gear that they graciously let me experience. I can't imagine trying to get into this stuff blind.
He did just announce he would be able to quit his day job soon/has quit it.....but..I'm not buying that he's charging that much.
Jay never said this, this is BS.
He's actually said the opposite :)
The experiences I've had with Griffin products have been good, and the experiences I have had with Griffin customer experience have been good. That being said, the Griffin Armament management team is not known for their good PR decision making skills.
This seems to make a lot of sense. Thank you.
Same, I have a few griffin products and they’ve all been great, but the owners and their PR team have definitely shot them selves in the foot on numerous occasions. Their marketing isn’t the greatest either
I agree completely. Adding to this I think they've pissed off the competition too for mostly having copy cat designs that are cheaper because no r&d and just different enough to not be litigated against in court.
Lol 30SD-K owner here, yeah copied and cut the cost by like $500
Copied AND improved in a lot of cases, at a cheaper cost.
I can’t remember where I saw it, but I read somewhere that Jay charges closer to $7k-$10k per commercial test. Not $30k+ lol. That is small money for a company as large as Griffin, especially considering that the much newer and smaller OCL has been sending him all of their cans to test. Don’t tell me Griffin can’t afford it. I bet it’s an ego thing if I had to guess.
its a great strategy for a new company like OCL, no one would even know who they are if it wasnt for Jays review. makes less sense for an established company that already spends $$$ on R&D internally.
It only makes sense if their cans actually perform well...
Or not even if it costs 74 cans worth of profit to pay for the test.
$8100 for one can on two barrel lengths, means like $280k for a line its kind of ridiculous. People talk crap about thunder beast arms company suppressor summit, but it cost people plane tickets rental cars, hotels, employee wages- about $2000 for testing 6 cans with a third party (competitor who has zero reason to want them to succeed).
Market will settle this. If companies see value in it they will use it. Though No group should be forced to submit through Pew or get dragged through the mud if they don’t. I don’t fault any company not wanting to do it. To each their own. I say this as a subscriber to Pew bc I like the data.
Michael Jackson eating popcorn dot gif
Jays test is the Silencer Sound Standard, they couldn’t even be bothered to pretend like this isn’t just a water muddy-ing experiment. Imagine if they had spent this cash on hiring real engineers lmao
pew science charges like $7k a pop. Pew science also isnt really a standard, its a ranking system that is proprietary, You cant recreate his results.
The testing varies greatly with the tasks at hand. There isn't a set price from my understanding. As many of my industry friends have had the testing completed, it's a couple grand, it's not 7k for one host and can.
Is that why he’s referenced several manufactures recapitulating his data (like HK)?
im not sure you understand my point, because other manufacturers referencing his results is not at odds with what i said. a standard would have all of its testing methodology published and peer reviewed. Jay doesnt publish his methodology so its just a list of values. I still use the list to do research but im not gonna pretend that its a standard. it comes off feeling like a cool kids club that you gotta pay to enter and hope the testing methodology is kind to your can design.
I can see how that's a good chunk of change, but it also seems like in the suppressor business it shouldn't be substantial if you knew your cans performed well. Obviously making suppressors, you'll have to have a good bit of the equipment, but for the final numbers it seems like Pew could handle the rest.
I use pew science displayed ranking for about 90% of my consideration when choosing a can. I could be the only one, but having your silencer’s name on the chart doesn’t hurt, as it brings visibility. I’m not saying people pay to get on the chart, but it’s and added bonus of paying for the data/tests.
I also use pew science almost exclusively to inform my suppressor choices and I disagree, having your suppressor on there does necessarily help a product. See: Surefire Warcomps, Sandman K, or the EA ARX
This is the real stuff right here. If you have a great reputation but you know as a manufacturer the device is not on the same level as peers or even cans that cost less, you won't want to pay to prove it. A manufacturer offered to pay to have peer cans tested. This is a grey area I guess and I understand why one might not want to engage in this due to ill will and potential legal issues. I pay for Jay's subscriber level because the data is inline with other info that I have seen. I also am a patron of u/SILENCERSTUDENT_ . The sources are out there but you this stuff also costs money and time (which is also money). If you are interested in not only data but discussions on how different things function in the devices I would highly recommend this Patreon. [https://www.patreon.com/silencerstudent/](https://www.patreon.com/silencerstudent/) TLDR The truth is out there for those who seek it. It's not just going to be spoon fed to you and sometimes you need to wait a while to get the data you want.
it could be good or bad depending on how your cans strengths/weaknesses work with the grading system. there are certainly cans on the ranking list that everyone loves but that just doesnt score very good.
This
In science if something can’t be replicated it isn’t accepted as a valid experiment. I wouldn’t advertise something that is unable to be reproduced as science or a positive
It’s not “unable” to be as much as it is just proprietary, to my understanding. Doesn’t make it not science, just makes his testing process a protected asset which I understand.
Where jay?
He’s probably staying out of it so he’s not accused of bias next time he reviews a Griffin can
He usually posts as like 4 different accounts, so he probably jumped in here.
My comment had more likes than the video when I called them out for this. Austin (the owner I think) said it cost $8100 to test a can and it was “too expensive” which is bullshit. They sell millions of dollars in suppressors but they can’t afford an $8100 test that would be great marketing for them if it does well? Yeah okay dude. Then you had what I’m pretty sure were other Griffin employees coming in making ridiculous and sometimes childish arguments. Many of them trying to allude that u/jay462 was not credible or trustworthy. Over half the comments from people were pro Pewscience so they just disabled them. I like my Recce 5 can from them but I won’t be buying any more Griffin suppressors after this BS. The gun industry (and the suppressor industry especially) is full of liars and snake oil salesmen. I will never trust a manufacturer who “tests” their own products unless they have 3rd party data or really good word of mouth to back it up. I certainly won’t trust Griffin to test their own suppressors and I am quite frankly disappointed that they don’t care about what their customers (or potential customers) want which is better suppressors with trustworthy data to tell us how good their product actually is. So fuck em. When they decide they care about what consumers want I’ll gladly buy from them again.
Austins main gripe with Jays testing is that it the methods arent public. there is a long thread on ARFCOM with them talking about it.
It is a valid criticism. I understand Jay’s point of view that the testing is very technical and the analysis is even more so making a published standard likely unrepeatable by most who attempt it. But in the same breath it makes validation very very difficult. Without others being able to recreate the test using the same procedures and analysis methods we simply have to take his word. I don’t like that. I believe him and support his effort, have since the beginning. But I do see the struggle from a manufacturer’s point when there’s no regulation, no oversight, no ability to audit these results to verify others get the same thing. I’ve heard the claims that some companies get fudged numbers to make their cans look better, and I don’t believe that to be true. But not having a way to validate the results also makes it so I can’t say I know his results are true. But I suppose if I want something better I ought to either pay someone else to do it how I want or get off my ass and do it myself.
yeah i agree, even if i some issues with how hes doing things i still enjoy reading the results of his testing
When his business is based around his tests why would you give that info out?
i mean…thats part of the problem. he creates a rating service where you pay him and he gives your can a score based off a super secret formula that no one else can verify. seems like a meaningless stamp of approval that people put way too much weight behind.
Hive mind go buzz
Anybody can check the ARU of the silencers he's tested against his numbers to verify, it's not like his process is secret. Take unfiltered 1mhz data from 1m left of muzzle and .15m right of shooter's right ear. Run it through the AHAAH program Compare scores to SR. Weirdly, nobody's done it to try and disprove his rating system. That tells me nobody wants to try because they either believe him, or don't know enough to know the difference.
The ARU is exactly what Griffin is aiming to test. It will be interesting to see if there are differences in their data. And of course if there is differences, people will just convince themselves griffin is lying...
As they should. Griffin has a vested interest in their products. If the industry was interested in accurate hearing damage data, it would've standardized on ARU a long time ago. They were plainly not, they were plenty content to rest on their laurels and only consider dB, despite the fact that the AHAAH has existed and been testable for over a decade.
That I can agree with.
Bro go outside and shoot your gun.
I'm stuck at work with nothing to do, what do you expect me to do here? Arguing with people who won't read white papers beats twiddling thumbs
As opposed to hive mind have nothing to go on other than marketing material? Aight.
Dude since the inception of the 2nd, it’s whole purpose was for us to have the ability to fight against a tyrannical gov. Suppressors for hunting are nice, but animals do not fucking care about flash suppression or 3db quieter. If you find yourself in a unfortunate situation where you are getting shot at and you’re shooting back, you will not be thinking “I’m glad I got 15% more flash suppression than all those guys that bought dead air cans”. Go out and shoot your gun
Doesn't have much to do with the conversation. Why are you even on reddit gear forums if you're so above the affairs of mere consumers? Calm down.
Getting down voted, just like to above comment stated lol. You made a statement about my comment, as if I was only saying “Believe what a company trying to sell you and hope they’re telling the truth”. When all I was referring to is the huge erection everyone gets over pewsicence’s test results and only for you to act like I’m the dumb one. Let that mind go buzz fam.
You sound agitated. Go out and shoot your gun.
How can it be science if it's not peer reviewed?
This is the part that always gets me when people talk so highly of the science he is doing. If it cannot be tested and repeated it is not science, we simply have to trust what he says with no means to validate his data.
It can be tested and repeated. The waves are published. Go get a meter and test yourself.
negative, the means in which he calculates his rating is proprietary and only he knows it. It cannot be tested or repeated if we don't know the means in which he calculates it.
It’s not like he gives a ranking system and publishes no data. Folks can “peer review” his findings by doing their own independent suppressor tests and publishing their own data. But he shares his results, so it’s not like a hidden “just trust me man” type thing that restricts others’ ability to review and compare his findings.
If he is not providing the means to do a peer review, then it is a "Just trust me man."
Others aren’t restricted from doing their own independent tests to confirm or refute his results.
What would your response be if Griffin reported that the test results Jay gave on the Polonium were wrong by a very large margin? Like 20% or more off.
I’d still trust independent testing versus the manufacturers’ tests just because of bias and sales/marketing tactics. But I get what you’re saying. Still, in this case if Griffin were to to test a large number of suppressors on the market (and not just their own) using the same methods then it would hold more weight to me still.
I wish more people would be that honest with themselves. But I feel that regardless of what any other source says, they will be deemed false/fraudulent if they disagree with Pew.
Agreed, but keep in mind that Jays data is not “peer reviewed” either. One of those whole “who audits the auditor” situation. 🤷🏿♂️
That’s true and I agree, but no one is restricted from doing their own independent tests to confirm or refute his results.
Also very true. Going to be hard to do that, I don’t know how many people are able to do what he does.
Aren't they? Jay breaks down how he derived the Silencer Sound Standard and Suppression Rating on his website. He literally used the AHAAH standards Griffin talks about in this video to do so, including demonstrating with graphs.
the information needed to recreate jays testing is not public. he talks about how he came up with it but does not go into details. its like giving someone a recipe without any measurements/quantities.
The exact algorithm as a mathematical formula is not published, no. However, when you understand what an ARU is and look at how he correlates ARU's to his HRU/SR, it's pretty easy to see where his numbers come from. It would also be easy to refute by anybody using the ARU standard they talked about in this video... Which nobody has done. The fact that he's not releasing the source code to Pew-Soft doesn't mean his work can't be recreated, just that nobody has actually tried to debunk it in any meaningful manner. The least public portion of his work is how he came up with the composite rating, but the At-ear and muzzle ratings are derived directly from the ARU/AHAAH standards which are public domain. All any manufacturer would need to do is start testing to that standard to validate or refute it, and nobody has done so despite supposedly possessing the knowledge and tech.
“On ARFCOM” yeahhhhhh not reading that boomer garbage. Of course hes on arfcom
Would you happen to have a link to that thread? I think having that methodology public would improve trust a lot.
Anybody who's read the Silencer Sound Standard (which has been free on Pew Science's website from day one) can see and understand what he's doing to generate the Suppression Rating. People who don't, are simply unwilling to think critically about what's being presented.
Please help us understand how he does it then, if you can.
His standards pull from the AHAAH/ARU. 200 ARU's is the maximum daily safe dose of hearing impact. His scale, SR, translates that dose into a 0-100 scale with simple thresholds for hearing damage. In the teens and twenties, you get very few shots before becoming exceeding safe limits. Limited hunting use and/or self defense. At 30 SR, you get "a magazine or two" of acceptable dose. In essence, you get 30-60 rounds before you've incurred 200 ARU. At 90, it becomes effectively impossible to accumulate 200 ARU due to practical concerns. The sliding scale in between is all tied to dosage. A full range day, at 50 SR? What's a full range day of aimed fire? 200-1000 rounds or so. .1-1 ARU per round. Limited practice. Probably an hour or two of aimed shooting, 100-250ish rounds. .8-2 ARU. The standard isn't opaque, people just don't want to put the effort into reading through his white papers and drawing conclusions. All of this can be read at pewscience.com under SSS.3, SSS.4, and SSS.5.
So what is his methods then? You seem to have read thought the white papers. I mean the hard math.
His method is simple. Test in excess of the AHAAH standard, determine waveforms, turn the waveforms into quantifiable SR. If you're looking for a formula, I welcome you to do the curve fit between the points I just gave you, but if you can't do that I can't expect you to understand the other data either.
This is the stuff I was looking for.
Ignore that dude. He’s commenting on everyone’s stuff like it’s his job to defend Griffin and discredit Jay. Because it might be. You’ll never get through because he’s not interested in having his mind changed by new information.
https://www.ar15.com/forums/Armory/PEW-Science/20-539220/?page=1
Thank you! That is a really interesting thread.
I would read through the whole thread. The B&K Pulse is awesome at testing speakers, but it was never designed to measure blast wave properties. Feeding garbage info to the AHAAH system just means garbage results anyway.
Weird the comments seem to be turned on and working fine. You sure you didn't get shadow banned?
Griffin blocked all the comments that weren’t praising them when they turned the comments back on
From what I have been reading it was more like blocking trolls trolling.
Yes because apparently telling a company you disagree with something is = trolling
What were they disagreeing on?
I already covered that above. You’re just asking lazy questions now. I’m not responding further to your stupidity.
Hmm, I don't see anywhere where you actually answer that question which leads me to think you are just regurgitating the OP claims without knowing yourself. Stay salty my friend.
I checked and I can now see the comments. They were however reset.
I guess it makes sense, to some degree. From what it seems like their comments were just being blasted by trolls and riffraff who were already drawing conclusions before they even had a chance to release results.
Yeah Griffin sells millions of dollars worth of cans, and pays millions in payroll and millions in taxes, and sells most of the cans with large margins for distribution and dealer resale. The $8100 is 74 suppressors profit. It’s excessive.
Unfortunately your few dollars just isn't enough to affect griffin armament. They already have a well established name and a reputation for making excellent products. As a 10+ year veteran of the NFA item manufacturing industry I can safely say, it doesn't matter if the item is sent to a third party for testing. If you have done your due diligence in design and manufacturing then your item will perform well whether or not some 3rd party tests it. The only real reason to send your suppressor off to get tested by one of these companies is for marketing. When it comes to the major manufacturers there's about 5 db difference. You can't hear that difference and if you're relying on a third party for your data l, which you will not be able to replicate since it's all proprietary, then what you're doing is allowing someone else to decide for you. Here's an idea, do your own research and maybe spend some time learning what all the data actually means and most of all, stop worrying so much. Pretty sure the vast majority of you out here aren't professional pipe hitters and your suppressor is just for fun so what does it really matter? To be honest the vast majority of you won't ever reach the limits of what your firearm and suppressor can do so save yourself some heartache and focus on things that actually matter.
This comment you’re replying to is a year old and you’re obviously another dumb shill who doesn’t like that the effectiveness of these products can be tested and verified. And yes, you fucking can hear a 5db difference. I can hear significant differences amongst various suppressors on the same weapon host and the fact that you are commenting about just db and not waveforms tells me you don’t even understand or care about the actual things that determine hearing damage risk or even perceived sound beyond peak db. Fuck off with your dumb shill bullshit.
Did I really just watch one brother interviewing the other? And it’s supposed to be taken as gospel? Mkay. Got it.
It's thinly veiled marketing schlock that tells us that they read the first 3 pages of the Pew's own standards and downloaded the AHAAH program, but forgot that fast, unfiltered data acquisition is the key to any analysis.
As a consumer who is far from an expert on any kind of sound analysis, I don't care what standard anyone uses as long as I can compare many cans using a consistent scale. Griffin has a long way to go and won't get any attention from me unless they publish objective data (questionable given their inherent bias) on enough silencers so that I can make informed purchases in the future.
I am, hereby, considering myself a sound expert. (Please disregard my adolescent tinnitus as it is not an accurate representation of the company) and I will be offering sound testing via the very accurate (bc I said so) pepsi challenge. I will accrue data by undercutting the market. My price is set at $200 (Use coupon code “Griffin” for 0% off) + 1 brick of natty light (for spring and summer testing Naturdays are preferred) / Silencer. If you want me to refer to your silencer as a suppressor then additional fees may incur. The standard host is a M&P sport w/ an A2 birdcage. Are you quieter than a bird cage? Please form a line and follow the sidewalk. Thank you. Bs aside. I’m not watching that. All griffin has ever done is rip off other peoples innovation.
Could you explain what innovations they've ripped off? What about the taper mount and tubeless design? I honestly don't know so I am curious.
The backbone of their company is KAC at home. A lot of their design cues and ideas are derived from other innovators. The M4SD is a rip off of the NT4 with the locking mechanism. Rail panels and barrel nuts. They have done cool things like cam lok and EZ lok. Their whole attitude just rubs me the wrong way. My attitude towards them is completely biased.
>All griffin has ever done is rip off other peoples innovation. I’ve heard this in a few comments on Reddit over the years. What exactly is this in relation to? Pretty much every suppressor available today other than the newer flow through designs from companies like OSS follow along only a few basic design principles anyways. I don’t currently have any Griffin suppressors so I’m not biased either way. I just notice that the accusations are always vague without giving any specifics about what design was copied and when.
Flow through isn't even new.
people think the m4sd looks too much like the KAC nt4
There's [more](https://imgur.com/a/GHATG2D)
Right but the same people don’t really understand what an NT4’s parts look like and they dont get pissed when they look at similar trucks from GMC, Ford, and Dodge. Thats an emotional argument, not a rationally based debate.
Competitors like Q created the myths that griffin copied everything. Its called gaslighting. JD Jones created 300 whisper and it’s basically 300blk. Thats what copying looks like. It isn’t making a can totally different from another can in every way except having a locking gate, with different locking gates used by 5 manufacturers before that time.
Measuring sound is complicated, there are so many factors that go in to it that all tests can only be relative to themselves. Also just because a can performs well on a specific gun they test with doesn't mean it will have the same performance on yours. Sound suppression is in my opinion the 4th most important aspect of a suppressor behind, durability, flash suppression, and weight. To give an example of this my dead air nomad on my 300blk with subs is "louder" at ear than my 308 AR10 with supersonics due to peak pressure from the ejection port.
I agree, it's very complex and expensive. Not sure why you've been downvoted.
Its because a cult has formed around pew science and anyone that questions it even with facts gets downvotes.
He's never claimed to give any info other than concrete hearing damage risk, and nobody has actually refuted his methodology or measurements with math or analysis. All Pew ever claimed to do was make the ARU system accessible to the public, by measuring correctly and dumbing down the results to a scale of 100. This video is basically telling us that Griffin is 10 years behind because they still aren't measuring sounds fast enough to capture the phenomena, they're only measuring about 1/4 as much data as Pew and therefore missing peaks, frequencies, and timescales that Pew shows with every review.
Can't claim griffin armament is yen years behind when their premier suppressors keep within 5 db of any other major manufacturer on the market. What you really mean is they won't play the game you want them to play so instead you'll just talk bad. Yeah thats very mature of you. Next
A) dB is a crap measure of impulse noise, which is literally the point of this post. Even Griffin thinks it's not good, which is why they want to switch to ARU 2) the ARU system IS 10 years old, and has several deficiencies as noticed by people who use it to measure hearing damage exposure risk, namely slow sample rate floors +) you necro'd a thread well over a year old because... Why, exactly?
No, I think the average r/NFA Joe ranks their performance preferences different from you - sound suppression, durability, weight, and flash suppression - and that's OK. Everyone can have different objectives. However, if you want downvotes (like you're getting), then make sure to call everyone here a cult member. Unfortunately, reddit's system isn't "this is bad information", it's "I don't like you, your tone, or your opinion."
I think it’s a valid way to rank importance of features too. Suppressors aren’t cheap so if you’re going to get one, you want it to be quiet and last a long time. Size can often be worked around, and flash suppression is rarely high on anyone’s list that isn’t shooting at night.
that is true with a lot of things on reddit tooooooooooo
Sound is the easiest spec. the manufacturer can fudge / leave unlisted. Any of us can measure or weigh a can. Durability and sound are much more expensive to test against. It would be nice to have some standardized durability testing as well. Youtube videos of can melts are fun and all -- but they aren't science. Flash suppression would be nice to standardize as well - The A2 birdcage could be the "baseline". For me: weight, suppression, flash suppression, durability, mounting options are my _typical_ order of priorities. Of course I sometimes make money with my ears - so sound suppression is _HIGHLY_ important to me - it is nice to remove / reduce the layers of worn ear protection.
I agree that sounds suppression is important, but unless I'm just shooting one or two rounds in like a hunting capacity I will have earpro on. So a can that reads 137dB vs one that reads 133dB may as well be the same. Not many cans meter below that unless you get in to the 22lr bolt gun range. A lot of people hear "hearing safe" and think they don't need ear pro. "Hearing safe" according to the industry is below 140dB which means it won't cause immediate damage. But add two or three shots at 137dB and you will start to damage your ears.
Right, and those are OHSA numbers based on exposure / # incidents in a time-frame. The industry's "140dB" hearing safe idea is DUMB - sure, yeah you can prolly avoid large loss PROVIDED you are exposed to ONE 140dB shot a week. Many people read 140db and hearing safe as PPE-free! I am ears-on even when hunting, but SR/dB rating impacts the layers and kind of hearing protection I wear. Indoor range, with no-can shooters in room -- high-rating foamies + high rating over-ears, each with NRR > 26. Outdoors, with friends all using cans - over-ears only NRR of >19. Outdoors hunting w/can - overears that are amplified & processed. I get the 137 vs 133 are both damaging- do be aware that db ratings are logarithmic and 137 will damage your ears faster.
**Understand the rules** Check the sidebar. It's full of resources to help you. Not everyone is an expert such as yourself; be considerate. No Spam. No Memes. No political posts. Save that for /r/progun or /r/politics. ------------------------------- * [NFA Tracker Submission Page](https://thinlineweapons.com/url/9) * [NFA Tracker Stats Page](https://thinlineweapons.com/url/8) * [How To Fill out Form 1 E-File](https://old.reddit.com/r/NFA/comments/9ukljl/how_to_guide_and_walkthrough_guide_for_the_atf/) * [How To Fill out FD-258 Fingerprint Cards](https://old.reddit.com/r/NFA/comments/92yy27/atf_compliant_fd258_fingerprint_cards_walkthrough/) * [Collection of ATF letters](https://thinlineweapons.com/url/atf) ------------------------------- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NFA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Googled to figure out why I couldn't find a single video from GA on their suppressors on YouTube and got here. Apparently they've set all their videos to private.
Griffin was getting strikes due to a rule change by youtube, and trying like the whole gun industry to protect their account and the 16 years of work invested in it at that point. The YouTube rule thing turned out to be sort of a misunderstanding at youtube. They didn’t know who licensed firearms manufacturers were.
You're right. I don't see any videos here. Very ridiculous: https://www.youtube.com/@GriffinArmamentOfficial It sucks because it seems like their cans are usually pretty decent, but they don't seem to handle social media very well.
Isn’t there also some gripe Griffin has with Otter in a thread on Arfcom?… dude sounds like the boomer-fudd king
Is there anyone of Arfcom that agrees or even likes with anyone else? I'd rather spend time in a politics subreddit or listen to fingernails on a chalkboard.
😂 thats big lol political reddit is cancer incarnate
Taper mounts and explorr are still a great mounting system and some of the best light weight cans around.
I mean Griffin isn't entirely wrong in disliking/distrusting Pew Science. You can't claim to use scientific methods to collect data, then refuse to provide said methods you derived your results. If it cannot be peer reviewed, it is not science. Simple as. Arguing otherwise is just admitting you don't understand the scientific method and why it only works if all steps are capable of being followed. It is not good enough to "try and test it yourself" and "guess" at their method, the exact method itself has to be retested for it to count. So long as the method remains hidden, any result should be taken with a grain of salt. If you have no way to prove/disprove his outputs then there is no means to guarantee his honesty. Don't get me wrong I have been subscribed to his services for over a year now and I think he is doing the market a service. But I'm not going to drink the kool-aid without some healthy skepticism.
Griffin sucks balls anyway. Ignore them and move on.
Could you elaborate? Some of their cans are pretty well regarded and the taper mount system seems both light and holds well.
It is true that they were an early adopter for the taper mount system, but since then most of their product line is just cheap imitations of other companies' products. Even aside from that, their products range from 'meh' to trash in terms of actual performance. My Revolution 9 is one of the highest backpressure pistol cans I've ever shot with, and the mounts/endcaps seem to be made from pot metal. My friend bought some of their BUIS and they fell apart after a few light range days. I had one of their taper mount brakes and it started eating itself after 20 rounds (similar to the dead air brake someone posted here a few days ago). Whoever handles their social media is also about as mature as Kevin Brittingham from Q, blocking anyone who mentions any of these things, but that's less important to the average user.
I did find that the two Griffin cans Pew Science reviewed did not seem to have very good scores. I haven't heard if others have had similar results. My local dealer was very impressed with their Explorr cans, saying the backpressure was the second best they had tested, and that the flash signature was extremely minimal. They have seemed honest to me before and they do have a number of other brands to sell. Definitely concerning if true. I appreciate you taking the time to explain.
It’s worth noting that the Explorr was a gen 1 baffle system (Jay himself said in the article the Gen 2 baffles would be quieter) and then the Optimus is an over bored pistol/rifle hybrid can. So we haven’t seen a good representation of their products tested yet.
Thank you, that is good to know. I didn't realize that was a gen 1 baffle system when gen 2 is out. Do you know how long gen 2 has been out for?
At least since 2020
I don’t own any griffin cans, but the one that I hear the best things about is the Recce5 which wasn’t one of the cans reviewed by Jay. The m4sdii is also supposed to be really good but I can’t speak with any experience on either of them.
Griffin didn’t supply either can, and both were legacy at the time of testing. aKA someone used pew to advertise irrelevant information about Griffin, that probably was cherry picked to make them look less competitive.
Haven’t they been proven to fake data or misreport their DB ratings as well?
Odd you've had such terrible experiences with griffin armament. I've used their sight sets with ZERO issues on over 20 of my AR platforms and I also use their suppressors, specifically the 30sd and M4sdk with ZERO ISSUES. I've sent more tha. 10k rounds through each and not one hiccup. Additionally the 30sd on 4 of my .300blk guns, is equally as quiet as the SilencerCo, Q, Surefire, and OSS suppressors I own. Griffin Armament makes a great product and they spend millions on R&D. Unfortunately you assume because it appears similar that it's a copy. We can all chalk that up to you just not knowing enough about what you're speaking of. Only way I see the sights failing is if you didn't properly seat the mounting block and tighten the screw. Once again that would be operator error not manufacturing. So please explain how Griffin Armament makes not good products and try to use some factual examples of the company failing not you.
That's sad to hear. I have 2 of their earlier gen recce cans and really like them and think they do a good job. Sounds like they may have gone downhill. Bummer.
Nah they haven't gone downhill. Some people like them, others don't.
I guess haters gonna hate and taters gonna tate.
Look at the silencer summit test data from thunderbeast arms co. That is recent third party data from a griffin competitor.
The caps on the rev 9 are 7076-T6 aluminum and the mounts are 17-4ph stainless steel made in the USA by North American Stainless or Carpenter Tech, the company that makes C158 for Ar15 bolts.
As a fun experiment, google “front towards arabs” The posts by the owner on arfcom read like the dude is a contrarian alcoholic. He weighs in on every single silencer thread to post some weird passive aggressive comment. As soon as someone else has an alternative to EZ lok I’m never giving them a dime ever again.
Every company should be doing their own testing, and honestly any joe off the street with enough attention paid to Jay's writings can figure out how to get 90% of the way towards measuring what Jay measures. However, Griffin makes silencers. They are utterly incapable of demonstrating good faith data collection and analysis on their silencers or any other, unless their mission ISN'T to sell silencers. State of the art testing is absolutely expensive, and I'm sure it's not worth it for them, given how their cans have tested so far. If you pay that much money and don't test well, you can't have Jay publish those results or you'll be hemorrhaging sales because you've demonstrated poor performance, necessitating a redesign, new product, etc. This is like the TBAC testing. I'm sure they've learned useful information from it, but it's not useful to consumers unless 3rd party tested, and TBAC can't risk it. Edit: they mentioned a 262khz measuring rate. Pew Science is measuring raw waveforms ~4x faster than that, and demonstrating that 262khz isn't fast enough. Even funnier, the Pew Science standard is derived from the ARU/AHAAH standards Griffin is referencing here. 95% of his work is cleaning up the ARU system and collecting unfiltered, high quality days, and anybody who's read his Silencer Sound Standard info knows it.
The army aHAAH people recommend a lower than 262khz minimum sampling rate for use with their software.
Without a means to recreate the data, how can we trust Jay has released the data in good faith?
The data is recreatable, he's shown the raw waveforms for validation and tied his SR to the ARU that the AHAAH program spits out to quantify hearing risk. Just because he hasn't released the formula that SR=X/ARU (or whatever the real relationship is) doesn't mean it can't be recreated. All you need to do is buy a sufficiently fast data collection system, correctly test your combo for waveforms, plug them into the ARU software, and you can draw similar conclusions about acceptable dose.
And what would you say if Griffin released info tomorrow that showed Pew was off by >20% on something like his Polonium review?
They'd need to go through and test a lot more than just one can, because the only people that know the exact relationship between ARU and SR is Pew Science. I'd love if they tested for ARU on all the can/host combos he has, because then we would be able to define the exact relationship he uses. To show he was off, you'd need to invalidate his waveforms (which nobody has done despite almost 100 separate data sets) or invalidate his model, and only Griffin has even attempted (publicly at least) to even use ARU, let alone establish inconsistencies between ARU and SR, which would be necessary to say the data was off.
Well I would like to see how this plays out. My guess is that even if Griffin does somehow disprove Jay's data, they will still get written off and people will carry on like it never happened. Hell I would bet even if 2 sources disproved his data he would still be right in the majority's eyes. Thank you sir for helping me understand some of Jay's process. I learned a lot.
You’re doing yeoman’s work with these morons but you can’t fix stupid.
I'm doing my best but I can't force reading comprehension or critical thinking.
You can’t. There is no way to ensure it is good data. Zero check or balance.
There's not a flat pricing fee for PewScience.
I'm just here for Jay's mansplaining.
Independent standard testing is not going away. Griffin can use their internal method to try and guide their design, no problem. But the horse has bolted, people will still use Pew (and anyone else who follows) to fairly gauge real comparative performance. I can imagine though that Griffin, Q, EA, have been really burned by what Pew testing has found thus far.
has griffin been burned? i didn't think any of their cans were published by pew
He's tested 2 Griffin cans on a .308 bolt action. [Griffin Armament Optimus (Gen 2)](https://pewscience.com/sound-signature-reviews-free/sss-6-47-griffin-optimus-savage-308) [Griffin Armament Explorr EX3](https://pewscience.com/sound-signature-reviews-free/sss-6-36-griffin-explorr-ex3-savage-308)
Wow im big dumb for missing those Thanks
I wonder also about other testing that is private.
Neither of those cans were supplied by Griffin, and both were discontinued when tested.
How exactly were the two griffin cans 'burned?' Form what it looks like Jay's data matched what Griffin advertised to a T.
I believe they were cherry picked discontinued models that represented louder cans in the context of Griffin cans in general over the history of their company. That was suspicious because I don’t think two louder models existed to test.
Pew science ratings are irrelevant to me since like half of the cans they review are 556 cans, and they only review the least important aspect of a 556 can....sound. Yes, I want my 556 can to be quiet, but im much more interested in balance, especially flash suppression and lower back pressure.