![]() The Suppression Rating of the SOCOM300-SPS at the shoot’s ear on this weapon platform is slightly closer to that of the SRD762Ti-QD. The Suppression Rating 1.0 m left of the endcap is less than a category lower than that of the Sig SRD762Ti-QD (Review 6.39). This higher subsonic suppression performance for a full-size silencer like the SOCOM300-SPS is a physical consequence of the silencer’s flow rate reducing design. The mass flow rate of the Surefire SOCOM300-SPS is low, and the baffles are numerous enough, and possess enough conventional gas-trapping features, such that it reaches sound suppression performance with subsonic 300 BLK above that of many compact and midsize. Direct comparisons with other silencers are provided in Section 6.57.2, below. With subsonic 300 BLK from an 8-inch barrel, the SOCOM300-SPS is noticeably quieter to bystanders than many other silencers from an 8-in barrel. This is one of the reasons why The Silencer Sound Standard requires examining multiple sound signature metrics. The FRP phenomenon cannot always be shown by viewing only the peak sound pressure. First-round sound signatures always differ from subsequent shots, as the atmosphere within the silencer changes. 308 supersonic, but testing is needed to verify this phenomenon.Īs stated above, the FRP of the SOCOM300-SPS in the subsonic flow regime is noticeable but not severe. The degree of performance differential is postulated to be lower with 300 BLK subsonic than with. Based on the test results and analysis previously presented, PEW Science postulates that subsonic suppression performance with the WARCOMP will be lower than with the SOCOM 3-prong flash hider, with all Surefire silencers, due to excessive gas leakage at the mount interface from close mount port proximity to the mount collar and different seal geometry. PEW Science has not evaluated the subsonic performance of Surefire silencers with the WARCOMP mount. PEW Science has also evaluated the SOCOM300-SPS in the supersonic flow regime with both the 3-prong flash hider and the WARCOMP mount those results and analyses are forthcoming. PEW Science Note 2: PEW Science previously evaluated the supersonic performance of the Surefire SOCOM762-RC2 with both the SOCOM 3-prong flash hider and the WARCOMP muzzle brake in Sound Signature Review 6.26. Subsonic suppression performance is highly dependent upon back pressure generation it is the primary mechanism of subsonic sound signature suppression in most small arm weapon system silencers. PEW Science Note 1: The increase in back pressure with the SOCOM300-SPS compared with that of the Surefire SOCOM762-RC2 is significant. This is evident in the significantly shallower initial positive phase impulse slope displayed in Figure 3. As discussed above, the SOCOM300-SPS generates higher back pressure than the SOCOM762-RC2, and its suppression method allows for greater trapping of gas. The Surefire SOCOM300-SPS produces somewhat perceptible FRP to bystanders it is more pronounced in the impulse regime (Figure 3) than in the pressure regime (Figure 2). ![]() Again, full and short timescales are shown. The real sound impulse (momentum transfer potential) histories from the same 5-shot test are shown in Figure 3. A zoomed-in timescale displays the region of peak sound pressure in Figure 2b, for the first three shots. The primary sound signature pressure histories for all 5 shots are shown in Figure 2a. However, the Surefire SOCOM300-SPS does not reach the performance of the Sig SRD762Ti-QD (Review 6.39) on this platform. The SOCOM300-SPS exceeds the performance of the wiped VOX S on this platform, and does so without a wipe, which is significant. The SOCOM300-SPS outperforms several other silencers with 300BLK in the subsonic flow regime, including the Q Half Nelson (Review 6.29) and even the wiped Energetic Armament VOX S (Review 6.38). The SOCOM300-SPS possesses a significantly higher Suppression Rating with the subsonic 300BLK cartridge than the SOCOM762-RC2 on this weapon system. The SOCOM300-SPS suppresses precursor flow more significantly than the SOCOM762-RC2 and the significant decoupling between the bullet exit event (Feature 2 in Figure 1) illustrates this. The back pressure generated by the Surefire SOCOM300-SPS is higher than that of the Surefire SOCOM762-RC2 (Review 6.46).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |