Knights Armament QDSS-NT4 | Brugger & Thomet ROTEX-X | Griffin Armament M4SD-L | Sound Test Overview

[@matthewrank109]

Love the scientific approach and video format. Lightest and most silent. Congrats!!

[@GriffinArmamentOfficial]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@Clockwork0nions]

I find these B&T results to be a little suspect. I've seen a lot of scientific, and unscientific, tests that put the ROTEX-X right up there with the Surefire RC2 (beating it most times). this test shows the opposite result, and seems to be showing it gets worse results on longer barrel lengths?

[@GriffinArmamentOfficial]

We use Bruel & Kjaer Pulse, lab grade sound testing equipment in a controlled space when gathering data. We are as transparent as possible with these results, including posting tests in which some of our suppressors are outperformed in decibel readings. B&T has a great reputation in the sound suppressor market, but the ratings are true to what we gathered.

[@luckygunnerx30]

Never trust a manufacturers video comparison

[@Three60Crusader]

B&T ain’t no surefire

[@luckygunnerx30]

@@Three60Crusader no Surefire sucks compared to B&T

[@daltonrowell2760]

The regular M4SDK with the dual lok system would be awesome!!

[@MrTehGui]

you just described the HRT 556, but it doesnt have the textured sleeve like the sdk does

[@tylergoldstein]

The M4SD-L has lower back pressure than the M4SD-II or M4SD-K? It looks like the M4SD-L has a lot more gas than the other two suppressors tested here (Knights & B&T).

[@blackcatgats]

The issue with these tests is that they only show the impulse, not the pressure wave.

[@austingreen3888]

I referred this question to Hottinger Bruel and Kjaer technical support, and they said the microphone would pick up the pressure wave- the pressure wave would be the unprocessed signal, and the Z weighted waveform would be identical to the raw pressure waveform- it is a pressure waveform that is not processed in any way. The microphone is a pressure-field microphone, so we are showing the pressure wave- you are looking at it. We also show the average linear and A weighted DB, over the 80MS standard graph size for our tests, allowing these LEAQ and LEQ numbers to be comparable test to test, which gives you 4 dosing metrics- ARU warned, Allowable rounds based on A weighted energy, LEAQ (average A AVG DB over 80 MS), and LEQ (linear AVG DB over 80 MS). You also get to see Z peak of the closest to average round of the 5 round string, and the A peak average.

[@goawaybaizuo]

Please put this m4sd-l on a Dual-lok mount. I have the Dual-lok 5 and would buy it in a heartbeat. Those numbers are insane.

[@wongkeebs4327]

Is the M4SD-L new or something? I cant find any info on your site on it

[@wargreymonst]

It is new.

[@GriffinArmamentOfficial]

Keep an eye out for it!

[@austingreen3888]

This is a release product ~ 4 weeks out.

[@wongkeebs4327]

@@GriffinArmamentOfficial How is it getting so much more dB reduction over the dual lok 5? They look nearly identical in design from the outside shape and welds.

[@Three60Crusader]

Need something that fits on a surefire mount.

[@guitar3212]

How does this M4SD L compared to the M4SD ii? I love the M4SDK, and I'm debating on this new M4SD L.

[@GriffinArmamentOfficial]

It all depends on what you want to prioritize in your build. The M4SD-L is tubeless, lighter weight, and reduces back pressure, while the M4SD II is more durable and has slightly better sound reduction. Though, they're both hearing-safe and great options!

[@guitar3212]

@@GriffinArmamentOfficial what makes the M4SDii more durable? Is it rated for a faster firing rate or what?

[@GriffinArmamentOfficial]

@@guitar3212The M4SD II is a traditional tube-over design, giving it more volume and weight as compared to the M4SD-L, making it slightly more durable and able to withstand hotter temperatures.

[@FDCNC]

I wonder what effect sound dampening panels have on the recorded signature by the microphones.

[@GriffinArmamentOfficial]

They help with absorbing noise residue. Without the foam panels, the whole room would echo and generate less accurate data. The lab-grade meters used in our indoor testing accurately absorb the information necessary for deriving hearing protection results.

[@boejiden1942]

Now do one with the hux. I really want the Gate Lok to win so I don't have to buy proprietary mounts.

[@GriffinArmamentOfficial]

The only HuxWrx suppressor we've tested so far is the Flow 556K. You can check out those testing results here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jqipl2mGbbhngqc

[@waltermatney6090]

I’m really surprised , B&T did not do all that well what are your thoughts on this suppressor?

[@GriffXJ]

It's really interesting results too. I've heard many people say that the B&T was about as quiet, if not slightly quieter, when compared to the Surefire RC2. I just compared Griffin's RC2 numbers to Griffin's B&T numbers and they're radically different, which is counterintuitive to many of the reviews I've read/seen.

[@lukebrady8870]

@@GriffXJ Keep in mind the B&T is nearly half the price of the RC2

[@GriffXJ]

@@lukebrady8870 and the B&T is still made out of mainly inconel, same as the RC2. From what I understand, B&T is able to charge less for their suppressors simply because they recouped all of their R&D costs decades ago, they're the biggest suppressor manufacturer in the world and are now just getting into the US market over the past couple years. I'm still puzzled by these results though, other reviews with the B&T Rotex X and Surefire RC2 shot back to back say that they're about the same level of suppression, with the Rotex being maybe a little quieter. But, Griffin's results make the B&T seem like it's a much louder suppressor. This is still counterintuitive to all of the B&T reviews.

[@lobster8009]

If you look at suppressors like quieter ist better then yeah the rotex did terrible. Especially considering the db scale is not linear. They say 3 db more sounds twice as loud to the ear. The Rotex is designed to be put on belt fed machine guns and eat belts till its red glowing and its also optimised for reducing back pressure keeping heat and dirt out of the gun. Now im not familliar with the other two suppressors in this video but i suspect they cant compete with the rotex mounted on a machine gun firing full auto all day. If you shoot low volume and care about maximum suppression the rotex is a bad choice. If you shoot high volume and full auto and you want to go to war with it the rotex is the right choice.

[@luckygunnerx30]

You’re also getting a video comparison from a competitor. They also have the weight wrong

[@cg762x35]

Crazy that none of these have any FRP. Are you shooting in an oxygen purged room?

[@austingreen3888]

On the 16" the M4SD-L had 3.4DB muzzle FRP. The B&T had 2DB muzzle FRP on the 16" and 0.7 on the 11.5. When you look at ear, the FRP on the B&T is the worst of the three cans. These cans are designed to have low flash when mounted to flash suppressors, and that may be a performance indicator of a low FRP suppressor.

[@richardbonner1674]

Im hoping that this was the 7.62 rotex.

[@DAP-1776]

It’s the 556 Rotex.

[@richardbonner1674]

@@DAP-1776 how does a suppressor that long and I'm guessing appropriately sized baffles perform so poorly?

[@austingreen3888]

@@richardbonner1674 Quite simply it seems Brugger and Thomet sucks at making suppressors. That's the best explanation I can think of. The can is a flaming turd in my opinion.

[@richardbonner1674]

@@austingreen3888 compare it to the RAzor "556". Only because I really hate that can.

[@ATFisGay]

​@@richardbonner1674It's a hard use 556 can. Nato version of the rc2

[@dk99745]

Not much flow through…over gassed. Ejection patterns are all at the 1 to 2 o’clock

[@corruptbanjo27]

Looks like someone trying to be like Jay at Pew Science.

[@austingreen3888]

We were testing silencers probably 15 years prior to Jay testing silencers. Customers wanting more information was something we wanted to accommodate but this is not to be mistaken as wanting to be like pew science. Quite the contrary. We welcome others to use our methods, and we have educated people on the methods and equipment, so that our testing can be replicated by anyone who wants to spend the money and time with Bruel and Kjaer to get settup. We also offered to buy a firearms news company a system for doing their own independent testing and they were interested but intimidated by the amount of work running this represents. Ultimately they have not taken us up on that open offer at the present time. We are not using an undisclosed testing method so our testing in that regard is more transparent than pew science.

[@Trygga_Mike]

Lmao these guys have been testing suppressors for decades. Just because jays doing it now doesn’t mean other people haven’t

[@ctotheg593]

GA has been testing suppressors long before Jay's time in the industry

[@DD-hz3ts]

...why do you think audio waveform analysis is supposed to be limited to pewscience Does he have a monopoly on doing a repeatable test using this exact same equipment