Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: MAC meters the new OSS can

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,300
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)

    MAC meters the new OSS can

    Interesting results: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY1r5a_SZBc

    Nevertheless, I'm still fascinated by the design.
    Last edited by mig1nc; 07-26-18 at 06:33.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    1,591
    Feedback Score
    0
    MAC uses a meter that doesn't meet milspec. No point in watching the videos for anything other than entertainment value.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,300
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    True, but what's really interesting with these cans is the difference between at the ear and at the muzzle.

    That much is actually illustrated in the video reasonably well.

    Check it out, it's a fun watch anyway.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    51
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BigWaylon View Post
    MAC uses a meter that doesn't meet milspec. No point in watching the videos for anything other than entertainment value.
    I would imagine they are good relative measurements though.

    I wonder how much the ejection chute muffles the sound at the shooters ear. He should have used something like a AR10.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    1,591
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by mig1nc View Post
    True, but what's really interesting with these cans is the difference between at the ear and at the muzzle.

    That much is actually illustrated in the video reasonably well.

    Check it out, it's a fun watch anyway.
    I watch a lot of his stuff, and enjoy it.

    But bad data is bad data. It's not accurate measurements at either location, so the real life numbers could be opposite of what you see (as far as ear vs muzzle).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    1,591
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by lee1000 View Post
    I would imagine they are good relative measurements though.

    I wonder how much the ejection chute muffles the sound at the shooters ear. He should have used something like a AR10.
    They're not "good". That's the whole issue.

    We've had this discussion over on ARF 2-3 times in the last month, with a lot of really good technical discussion and many industry experts taking part. I can link the threads if anybody wants to read through them.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    51
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BigWaylon View Post
    They're not "good". That's the whole issue.

    We've had this discussion over on ARF 2-3 times in the last month, with a lot of really good technical discussion and many industry experts taking part. I can link the threads if anybody wants to read through them.
    But they are relative measurements. Maybe not actual but they are relative to other measuments using the same equipment and to other suppressors.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    1,591
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by lee1000 View Post
    But they are relative measurements. Maybe not actual but they are relative to other measuments using the same equipment and to other suppressors.
    They're actually not. The issue is the sampling rate isn't fast enough. So it might catch it on the upslope for one shot, the peak for another, and the down slope for a third. Not a case of "just add 3dB and it'll be right"...or "even though it's not the right number, it still indicates which one is quieter/louder". The readings are inaccurate at a random rate. It's inconsistently inconsistent.

    This is truly a case of some data being worse than no data.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    1,591
    Feedback Score
    0
    The manufacturer of that meter even admits it can't accurately measure a gunshot according to the milspec standard.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    51
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BigWaylon View Post
    They're actually not. The issue is the sampling rate isn't fast enough. So it might catch it on the upslope for one shot, the peak for another, and the down slope for a third. Not a case of "just add 3dB and it'll be right"...or "even though it's not the right number, it still indicates which one is quieter/louder". The readings are inaccurate at a random rate. It's inconsistently inconsistent.

    This is truly a case of some data being worse than no data.
    Ah, okay, I stand corrected. Definitely not relative. I live in a mechanical world at work, I'll sit down now thanks.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •