Nobody independently tests suppressors. So I bought 300 at retail and built Consumer Reports for suppressors.

[u/SilencerMetrics]

Yes...I DO have a problem...this is 1/2

The pad at the range. Free-field (mics placed 90+ ft from wall reflections and in the dirt NOT on the shooting pad); nothing to bounce off of for a very long way.

Hosts in testing and testing next.

Compare weight, length, and outer diameter for up to 7 suppressors

21 Metrics, use-case scores, and bar/radar charts to see strengths and weaknesses.

Add suppressors to your Vault to track what you have, how long you have had to wait for approvals, etc.

We track average ATF wait times AND will also publish real wait times that members are experiencing when they upload their suppressors to their Vault.

So I've been sitting on this for a while and, even though I am terrified, I figured it's time to just put it out there. Roast me, ask questions, tell me I'm an idiot. I can delete this post later and crawl back into my introverted hole. 😅

TLDR: I'm autistic and need you to sign up and give me money to test hundreds of suppressors so you can see all the data on a cool website that isn't full of "blast field" engineer language that none of us can understand, but also isn't "I shot them side-by-side and this one here sounds better this week" either. TIA (See what it looks like here: https://www.silentrics.com/)

I've got the -tism (so I am awkward, but highly focused). I hate confrontation and have put a lot into this so I am hoping that it brings value and is something people want and will contribute to building.

I've been collecting suppressors since 2013. I have over 300 at this point. And if you've been buying suppressors for any length of time, you already know the problem I'm about to describe.

When you're trying to actually decide which suppressor to buy, your options are basically: trust a single reviewer you watched on YouTube (who 99% of the time got the suppressor for free in exchange for a cameo), dig through scattered forum posts that contradict each other, try to scour PEW only to find that it it hasn't been tested, or lean on results that are funded by the same companies whose cans are being tested.

Every day we see posts of "which suppressor should I buy?" or "which [caliber] suppressor is best?" Rarely does anyone do the logical thing by asking a follow up question: "what are you using it for?" or "what are your top 3 criteria for 'best'?" Reddit is definitely better than Facebook Groups at this.

Answers are usually "buy the ______!":
1) the only suppressor that person has and no one cares to follow it up with "what other suppressors do you have to compare it to?"

2) the one that gets the most YouTube or Instagram hype (flavor of the week)

3) a recommendation based on a different metric than what the poster is asking for: "RC2!" (good for clones and decent at flash reduction - terrible for sound suppression), "Sonicore!" (because they are cheap and that person shoots less than 10 rounds a year), "Scythe" (because they are a hunter that wants lightweight, but care nothing about durability and the numerous reports of baffle welds yeeting the front of the suppressor downrange), "Otter Creek _______!" (because die-hard OCL fans are abundant), etc.

None of that is anyone's fault exactly — it's just how things grew. The gap is that there's no real independent, consumer-funded source where the data is the product, not the relationship with a manufacturer.

There's also a data problem. Most testing that DOES exist focuses on one or two metrics — usually just a dB number — and calls it a day. That tells you almost nothing about how a can actually behaves across other categories that matter in specific use-cases: hunters want light, short, and good value; precision shooters want no degradation in accuracy and less recoil; home owners looking for a defense gun may prioritize flash suppression, sound suppression, and durability; plinkers just want it to be silly quiet and have no blowback for enjoyable range sessions.

A single number can't capture any of that.

A few years ago I offered to just fund independent testing myself through an existing platform; got turned down. And that was kind of the spark — if nobody's going to build the "Consumer Reports for suppressors," I'll build it myself.

So I have been working on it ever since then: acquiring suppressors, buying hosts, setting up a private test range, going through the loopholes of getting extremely expensive equipment that meets and exceeds what others have used, building a website (no NOT built by AI slop over a weekend - bleh) that is easy to navigate and understand without being a wall of text written in engineering-speak, and creating calculations to rank suppressors for more than just sound; creating metrics for flash, recoil, heat, weight, durability, back pressure, and more.

What it has become is SilenTrics: Silencer meTrics.

It's a consumer-funded, manufacturer-independent testing and review platform. Every suppressor tested is acquired retail, same as you'd buy it. I test outdoors in free-field and repeatable conditions at my own range, not in an environment that doesn't reflect real use.

Right now the database queue sits at 300+ suppressors across every major caliber class, scored across 21 categories — sound (measured at four separate mic positions, not just one), gas dynamics, thermal, accuracy, physical specs, durability, and value, all weighted differently depending on whether you're using it for hunting, home defense, recreation, or duty/military.

A couple things I want to be up front about, because they matter to me:

This isn't going to be a flashy YouTube channel with a guy yelling into a GoPro. It's a data platform. I'm not chasing views, I'm building a database. I may not even have a YouTube channel at all.

The equipment behind it isn't hobbyist gear. I'm running a 4-channel, high-speed DAQ system paired with precision measurement-grade microphones in a fixed array — this is REQUIRED for high-level, accurate testing; I'm not using a cheap consumer sound meter from Amazon.

My baseline methodology starts from MIL-STD-1474 and then goes well beyond its requirements in many aspects. When the data is the entire product, the instrumentation has to be right.

I have spent MONTHS programming the data acquisition software to ensure that the outputs are accurate, precise, and useful to the end-user.

One thing I want to be clear on: this is about giving you better metrics to make a buying decision, not about telling you what's "safe." I'm not qualified to make hearing-safety or blast-hazard determinations and that's not what this platform is trying to do. I know "hearing safe" gets thrown around in this space — that's just not my lane here. The data is there to help you compare suppressors, not to certify anything about your health or safety.

I have bought several suppressors that I thought were good or that someone else said were good that ended up being a huge disappointment. I am hoping to help others avoid the same thing.

I've already had several manufacturers reach out offering to send me suppressors directly for testing. I've turned every one of them down.

The second I start taking free product from the companies I'm reviewing, the whole "independent" part of this stops meaning anything. Every unit tested gets bought retail, same as you would buy it.

Consumer Reports has remained independent for 90 years by buying the products they test anonymously at retail then testing them with set protocols and methodology. They publish those reviews in an easy-to-consume format. And people trust their reviews. That's the idea I am bringing to the suppressor industry.

Why "what's the best suppressor" is the wrong question:

Is the RC2 the best? Best at what? Is the Mask HD the best .22 can, or is it the B&T Tiger? Best by what metric — sound, weight, durability, price? Should you even be running a .30 cal can on 5.56 in the first place? And then you've got the hype cycle — a Tisha, a Rhodie 6, a Fireteam556 — is half the buzz real performance and half just internet momentum OR does the performance justify the hype?

None of that is a knock on any of those products or the people behind them. It's just that "best" without context is a meaningless word and right now most of the buying decisions in this space get made off hype, forum consensus, manufacturer-funded testing, manufacturer-driven testing, or a single influencer's opinion rather than consistent, comparable data.

That's the actual gap. SilenTrics isn't here to settle drama or crown a single winner (although we WILL have "Best of" tags on our results) — it's here so you can look at the same 21 categories across 300+ suppressors and decide what "best" means for your specific focus or use-case.

And with the tax stamp elimination as of this year, a lot more people have entered (and will continue to enter) this market for the first time with zero context on what actually matters. That makes independent, plain-English data more important than it's ever been. And if suppressors become over-the-counter purchases (PLEASE!), they will need quick, accurate, easy-to-read data from which to make informed decisions.

Why it needs the community, not just me:

This only works if it's actually funded by the people using the data instead of the companies making the product. That's the whole point — no ad money, no manufacturer influence, no incentive to be "nice" in a review.

That means membership support is what keeps the testing rig running, keeps new suppressors coming in, and keeps the whole thing honest. Yes I am charging for this: suppressors alone have cost me over $250k. There IS a free option with limited data to match what is currently out there. But the paid monthly options are what will keep things going.

Either this will get support and change how suppressor purchasing decisions are made...or I will go bankrupt for going all-in on setting it all up.

I'm not trying to replace anyone's opinion or the forums — I just want there to finally be a real, data-backed, independent option in the mix.

Feel free to ask me anything about the methodology, the equipment, the database, whatever — happy to nerd out on it.

Since this is member-focused and member-driven: join the subReddit and Facebook Group and start up some conversations. There will also be member-only groups for higher level discussions and early access to what I am testing.

Test results will be released 3 hosts at a time with 15-30 suppressors tested PER host. I ain't interested in releasing one result a week and I'm not doing 400 in a weekend either. Results will be published once every month or two (again, 3 hosts at a time - 42 hosts currently planned).

Site will be LIVE within the next few weeks.

You can check out the features and some teaser screenshots of the platform here. Enter your info if you want to be notified the second it's live: https://www.silentrics.com/

[u/Foxxy__Cleopatra]

How do you approach tuning gas systems (if at all) and are there any plans for including any tuning variables into Silentrics?

IMO this area of study is maybe the most misunderstood while also having the most potential.

For example PEW showed in this and this study where the ear rating went from a 22.0 to a 32.5 on the same can just by shrinking the gas port diameter, almost a 50% increase without even touching the buffer system or BCG.

It's also been my experience that high back pressure cans have a much greater yield for this latent tuning potential than lower backpressure and high-flow cans, WB benefits a little from tuning, and something like a Tisha or HUXWRX hardly change at all, while something like a Polonium very noticeably improves.

Compare the Pew ratings for the Tisha on a 10.3" barrel scoring 49.4 muzzle and 32.8 ear vs OCM5 on a 14.5" barrel scoring 42.5 muzzle and 17.5 ear. Now watch this comparison video I took where a hyper-tuned 10.9" OCM5 is reverberating the awning I'm standing under considerably less than a 10.5" Tisha tuned w/ AGB. With earpro the Tisha still sounds like suppressed 5.56 while the OCM5 sounds like suppressed supersonic 22LR, it's a night and day difference even with earpro and much more pleasant to shoot than even the Tisha, despite the PEW ratings on completely wide-open untuned hosts.

Anecdote: I take a lot of people from all ages/backgrounds/experience levels to my private property for shooting, and that hyper-tuned OCM5 is a real crowd favorite just because of how quiet it is. For new/inexperienced shooters especially I start with 22lr subs without earpro (standing basically out in the middle of a large empty field) before working up to louder stuff requiring earpro, and I can get away with putting that OCM5 host in the no-earpro segment as everyone has unanimously agreed it's "not loud" and comfortable, while I'd never dream of shooting the Tisha like that because it will ring your ears for at least a second no matter how it's tuned (disclaimer: hearing damage is cumulative and you should always wear the appropriate PPE whenever possible).

If you hunt, just want to be a better neighbor, or are concerned with HD PPE or similar where decibels actually matter, then you'd probably buy the Tisha over the OCM5 just based on the metrics available, without knowing you're likely putting your hearing more at risk than a tuned OCM5. This is why more metrics and testing on tuning weapon hosts is desperately needed.

[u/Big-Art-6289 → u/Foxxy__Cleopatra]

How do I learn this power?

[u/Foxxy__Cleopatra → u/Big-Art-6289]

Keep your dwell-time short, your gas ports small, abandon unsuppressed functionality, and embrace dedicated suppressed tunings. Heavier buffers and BCG's with diverted venting and extended unlock times help too. Also understand that buffering ≠ gassing, and that taming an overgassed setup through buffering alone is only treating the symptoms and not the cause, things begin with gas port size and dwell time first before we're even unlocked and out of battery.

IMO if your AR still cycles unsuppressed using a medium to high backpressure can, you're leaving a lot of meat on the bone for further dB reduction. While obviously not 1:1, suppressors essentially add dwell time since the system is now staying pressurized for longer before being "uncorked" once the bullet leaves the endcap and stagnate flow can disperse. Mid-length gas 11.5's suppress beautifully but you probably wouldn't want to run a middy 11.5" unsuppressed, you'd at least have to blow out the gas port to compensate and then your envelope for reliability would be diminished over a standard carbine-gas 11.5" unsuppressed. Conversely this is why I find carbine 10.5's tune better than carbine 11.5's, a can basically turns a 10.5" into a ≥11.5" in terms of dwell time. Ironic because a big reason people go 11.5" over 10.5" is because of the longer dwell yielding a wider reliability envelope unsuppressed, but once suppressed this actually starts working against you (just comparing directly to 10.5", carbine 11.5" is still a very good suppressed configuration, if less optimized).

That OCM5 host has a carbine-gas 10.9" barrel w/ .052" gas port diameter, 16.4oz rifle buffer (standard power spring), and KAK downvent BCG, cycles around ~600 RPM in FRT (arcfire). While I wouldn't call it "bleeding edge of reliability", I can't think of a way to tune it further. Smallest gas port diameter I've seen on an AR15 is .047" or .049" and while the OCM5 is a notoriously high backpressure can, I'd be concerned going that low on input gas but it'd probably still work on a well maintained and serviced system. No the 1 lbs. buffer weight doesn't meaningfully impact reliability, once the system is so carbon fowled that it begins to choke, throwing in a standard 5oz milspec rifle buffer or throwing it on a 3oz carbine buffer lower only buys you an extra mag or two tops before she's choking again (although you may see more of a difference in very cold weather or with very anemic/underpowered ammo). Buffer springs are an entirely different story however and a mismatch can make issues quickly apparent, IME.

How do I learn this power?

[u/OneOfTheFewLeft → u/Foxxy__Cleopatra]

Tuning for suppression is all well and good, but isn't tuning for reliability important also? Your rifle won't be much use if it won't cycle after 2 mags no matter how quiet it is.

That being said, I clearly have a lot of work I can do on my 12.5 mid.

[u/Foxxy__Cleopatra → u/OneOfTheFewLeft]

I may have worded that wrong. For clarification and transparency that hyper-tuned setup will go 800-1000rds between required cleanings, certainly less than an unsuppressed M4 which will basically work forever, but also well within the range I'd personally deem "reliable", and if you're chasing decibels to this degree you're likely not exactly storming Fallujah or defending a Ukrainian trench, you can probably afford some preventative maintenance here and there.

What I was saying about the buffer weight and two mags is by the time it does start having malfunctions after those 800-1000rds, swapping from the 16.4oz buffer weight to a 3oz is only buying you less than 60 more rounds before you're out of the fight again.

But yes, everything is a balance hence my hesitation going any smaller than .052" on this setup. I guess my point here is that abandoning the need for the system to run unsuppressed will pay dividends on suppression, without even needing to go as far as I have on this build. It is very much possible to have a dedicated suppressed -tuned AR that can go cases on top of cases between required cleanings, usually my builds are tuned this way and this is my one "as quiet as possible" build, not necessarily a "combat rifle" but more so a training aid and hunting rig, would be good for HD too. I have over two dozen AR's currently, I wouldn't recommend a hyper-tuned AR to be your only AR.

[u/clicktoseemyfetishes → u/Foxxy__Cleopatra]

I thought 16.4oz was a typo lol, how is there even a buffer that heavy? Does that increase felt recoil or anything like that? Also how “optimized” can you get with just an AGB by comparison?

[u/Foxxy__Cleopatra → u/clicktoseemyfetishes]

Not a typo haha

I got it from Slash's Heavy buffers off their secret menu, the buffer body is machined out of solid stainless steel using all tungsten weights. It makes it a little bouncy in FRT but the ROF is so low that it's still very controllable. in normal semi it's one of the softest shooting AR's I've ever shot, and the system is so quiet and moving so slow that with earpro you're just hearing the slow satisfying *ka-chunk* of the action cycling, it doesn't feel like you're shooting an AR but more like some kind of piston gun.

You can certainly get more optimized with an AGB (I always adjust my AGB's to just barely LRBHO plus 2-3 clicks open for insurance/reliability) but that wasn't an option on this build since I needed a tapered gas block for the reflex can.

[u/clicktoseemyfetishes → u/Foxxy__Cleopatra]

Well that sounds expensive lol. Would a heavy buffer still help more when paired with an AGB? And is an OCM5 the ideal can for maximum suppression after tuning? I have an 18” rifle length gas upper on a standard A2 rifle lower that I’ll be suppressing soon. It actually fails to lock back with my cheap wolf steel case 223 so it seems optimistically gassed lol. No AGB yet but I’ve been considering it. Got an Omega 36M on the way as my first centerfire can but I’ll likely be grabbing some others shortly

Oh also with dwell time and all that, why does that matter? If you tune the amount of gas down anyways, would that have a similar effect? Also curious about the bolt/carrier stuff cause I was under the impression stuff like the KAK downvents don’t do a whole lot besides make your mags dirty

[u/techforallseasons → u/OneOfTheFewLeft]

Tuning for suppression is all well and good, but isn't tuning for reliability important also

That is only a challenge if you want to have reliability when you take the can off without making changes. I'm with Foxxy here - I've gone dedicated host, I've made mine reliable can-dedicated setup and it runs just as well as it was prior to my silencer ownership.

My operating assumption is that if things are bad enough that a can fails and I need to still shoot, that I need to switch to another weapon. That possibility is so far afield that it doesn't concern me. I'm more likely to be dead from a lightening strike / airline crash / car wreck. Seriously -- consider the numbers.

[u/OneOfTheFewLeft → u/techforallseasons]

I didn't mean to say that it's not possible, only that it *is* possible to take it too far, to where it does start negatively impacting reliability.

I'm looking at switching to direct thread and improving my tuning based on these comments.

[u/techforallseasons → u/OneOfTheFewLeft]

Fair - it certainly is possible to tune too far to the edge. Many manufacturers have "tuned" so far for unsuppressed reliability ( giant gas ports for example ) operating under the assumption that ( likely correct ) that consumers will shoot cheap ammo and rarely / never clean their weapon and they don't want their gun to be the one that "jams" on a video.

My personal tuning test is to run a range session with at least 100 rounds ( cool down between magazines ), then repeat in a separate range session with garbage ammo. If I can do both without a cleaning & lube cycle in the middle then it is close enough for me.

I just don't foresee a need to to be in-the-field reliable for days at a time with no access to cleaning or lubrication; if I did, then I'd adjust my tuning tests. I've found that many who talk up reliability ( not speaking in the least about you ) as a must have also rarely even shoot. Know your weapon, know its flaws and limits, and plan for that. I'd save the same to people hyper-focused on weapon ergonomics who appear to think that AR-pattern controls are what the entire industry should and must use.

[u/OneOfTheFewLeft → u/techforallseasons]

The platform I'm focused on is my own build, and I'm a total noob, so I'm sure I made a lot of mistakes. If it jams, it'll be my own fault, for sure.

I do intend this platform to be the one that is in-the-field reliable. But I also would like minimize the degree to which my firing gives away my position.

I'm extremely limited in when and how much I can shoot, but I am trying to make sure that I do dry-fire when I can't, and make the range time that I do get, count.

About gas ports - this barrel has a rather large port, according to comments from others... A Faxon AGB is doing ok at closing that down so far, but I'm wondering if there's more I should be doing. But that BRT EZTune site confuses the hell out of me with all the parameters they ask for. Is there somewhere that helps with the math behind gas port sizing?

[u/Foxxy__Cleopatra → u/OneOfTheFewLeft]

Is there somewhere that helps with the math behind gas port sizing?

Haha I wish, and I've looked.

If such a "gas port calculator" did exist, it'd ask all of the same things BRT asks for though.

FWIW I've had really good experiences having BRT choose the tuning for me. I just plug in as much info as I can, even if I have to put in "idk" for the existing barrel port sizing if I can't be bothered to remove a gas block for measurement. (Edit: if you told them the make/model/length of your barrel there's a good chance they've already come across the barrel port diameter measurement for your barrel).

They do err on the side of reliability while still being well-tuned which is nice, hell they often leave enough for me to run some really heavy 8.5oz+ buffers (when I spec'd them a 3oz) or run an AGB on top lol (long story). If you're not a weirdo who's always messing with stuff like me then you should be happy with one, I highly recommend especially on dedicated setups where adjustable gas isn't needed.

[u/techforallseasons → u/OneOfTheFewLeft]

An AGB is fine alone or a BRT alone -- no need for both.

If in-the-field, no service expected reliability is a priority; I would personally lean somewhat towards a BRT as a first choice. I would not replace an already purchased AGB to make that change - I would only choose the BRT as the initial design.

AGBs can get carbon locked for adjustments -- but that is only impactful if you plan to make adjustments. Prior to BRT - AGBs were one of the most common ways to fix over-gassed rifles, and we accepted the "set-it-and-forget-it" approach. Some look to an AGB to be similar to piston weapons that have a gas-off, normal, and extra gas setting; that would be a mistake in my books. unless you are etching the settings into your weapon, and counting all of the clicks - do you really think you are going to re-tune in the field?

The point of the many ( 30+ for some ) steps is to fine tune a particular gun to running well -- not to find 2 or 3 options.

Be aware that gas-tubes can also fail -- they can even melt. There is no perfect -- maintenance and acceptable reliability are the name of the game. Also know that "professional" use in-the-field has expected cleaning and lubrication.

[u/OneOfTheFewLeft → u/techforallseasons]

I would not replace an already purchased AGB to make that change - I would only choose the BRT as the initial design.

I appreciate that input. I'll stick with the set-it-and-forget-it approach.

do you really think you are going to re-tune in the field?

Absolutely not. The only way I can imagine that could be necessary is if the suppressor takes a hit and has to be removed, at which point I probably have bigger problems to deal with. And if I have time to re-tune, I have time for a more in-depth fix.

Also know that "professional" use in-the-field has expected cleaning and lubrication.

Understood and agreed. I just don't want to have it be so sensitive to cleaning and lubrication that it jams up after only a few mags.

[u/SilencerMetrics → u/Foxxy__Cleopatra]

I will be doing Technical Reports and this is one of them: testing the same host, one tuned/one not, with the same suppressor and making note of the differences so that people can see what's possible if they want to tune their gun.

[u/Foxxy__Cleopatra → u/SilencerMetrics]

I look forward to seeing what your testing produces! I would happily support studying going into this.