PDA

View Full Version : What muzzle brake is this guy talking about?


Droppin Deuces
10-30-2010, 11:44 PM
http://vuurwapenblog.com/2010/10/30/own-a-certain-muzzle-brake-get-your-form-1-ready/

technique
10-30-2010, 11:49 PM
I don't know for sure...all I have is a hunch and speculation.

IsaacGlass
10-30-2010, 11:52 PM
Here's my guess

http://media.midwayusa.com/ProductImages/Medium/524840.jpg

Droppin Deuces
10-30-2010, 11:52 PM
Could it be the one everyone is talking about around here lately..?

EDIT: ^^^ Oh, I was thinking of a different one.

IsaacGlass
10-30-2010, 11:55 PM
Could it be the one everyone is talking about around here lately..?

EDIT: ^^^ Oh, I was thinking of a different one.


Battle Comp 1.0??

A friend of mines as one on his LMT, sounds pretty darn loud to me.

technique
10-30-2010, 11:57 PM
The author didn't mention what kind of equipment was used in his recent test to measure db levels. Or anything surrounding the test.

My only concern is some pompous *** thinking he's hot shat, and letting his ego lead him to whistle blowing.

Ape
10-30-2010, 11:58 PM
Here's my guess

http://media.midwayusa.com/ProductImages/Medium/524840.jpg

I have one of those and it doesn't do a whole lot for sound, but I'd have to admit that it does bring it down a small amount.

IsaacGlass
10-31-2010, 12:05 AM
He tested a few MB's

BC 1.0
Vortex
Blackout
PWS TTO

http://vuurwapenblog.com/2010/08/23/battle-comp-night-shoot-comparison/

technique
10-31-2010, 12:10 AM
He gave a clue, he said the "frequency" was offensive to some people. That narrows it down.

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 12:24 AM
The author didn't mention what kind of equipment was used in his recent test to measure db levels. Or anything surrounding the test.

My only concern is some pompous *** thinking he's hot shat, and letting his ego lead him to whistle blowing.

Really? You took it that seriously? I guess you missed the part where I described my testing as informal. Not that I think it matters. If it's actually going to be considered a suppressor by the ATF, by simply admitting that I'm in possession of it, I'm committing a felony. I don't have to actually use it.

technique
10-31-2010, 12:27 AM
Really? You took it that seriously? I guess you missed the part where I described my testing as informal. Not that I think it matters. If it's actually going to be considered a suppressor by the ATF, by simply admitting that I'm in possession of it, I'm committing a felony. I don't have to actually use it.

You already did by posting about it.

So, what equipment did you use? What method? What side of the firearm, how far away?

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 12:29 AM
This pompous *** will let you know when it suits him.

technique
10-31-2010, 12:29 AM
Figured.

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 12:32 AM
Indeed. You clearly had me all figured out from the beginning. Because of this, it was beyond you to simply email me and ask a question.

IsaacGlass
10-31-2010, 12:34 AM
This pompous *** will let you know when it suits him.

Pretty please? inquiring shooters wants to know.

Merc1138
10-31-2010, 3:06 AM
Wait...

So what exactly is the reason you can't let us know your testing methodology?

Any result of an experiment should be reproducible by other individuals, this isn't like you've got some secret technology you're waiting to be awarded a patent for. If you can't let others know how you got your result, it's probably because you're full of it.

Fjold
10-31-2010, 9:31 AM
This pompous *** will let you know when it suits him.

It looks like Technique was right.

Juice5610
10-31-2010, 9:45 AM
Yup


It looks like Technique was right.

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 9:53 AM
Wait...

So what exactly is the reason you can't let us know your testing methodology?

Any result of an experiment should be reproducible by other individuals, this isn't like you've got some secret technology you're waiting to be awarded a patent for. If you can't let others know how you got your result, it's probably because you're full of it.

Believe what you want. I have no desire to prove myself to some "nice person" who would rather take potshots at me on some forum than send me an email with a question. The latter would be way too hard, right? And it looks cooler to attack, insult, and attempt to discredit someone than to bother to see if they're telling the truth. You're going down the same road.

Even if I did describe the way I got my results, someone here would probably say "that's not good enough, you should have done it THIS WAY" without ever putting forth any effort on their part to come up with any results. OR - you would say that I'm just making something up in order to cover my butt.

You see, I've been down this road before. When I posted a video of an AR covered in dirt being fed with mags that had been buried in dirt, I was accused of somehow faking it! I don't even have this on video, because I only brought one tripod, and used it for the sound equipment instead of the camera.

So I might as well show some outside testing that seems to confirm what I had to say.

If you visit this link (http://www.guns.connect.fi/rs/308measured.html) you will see a "similar in nature" test conducted with far more advanced equipment by far more experienced and knowledgeable individuals.

And if you scroll down, you'll see this quote:

"The muzzle brake did not have equal effect on the side noise levels (yellow and black)."

below this picture:

http://www.guns.connect.fi/rs/308level.GIF

Notice that the side sound level at 10m emitted with the muzzle brake was 1db lower than the rifle without the muzzle brake. This is substantially the same distance that I used and result that I found.

But, of course, I'm still full of it. "Technique" has spoken. :rolleyes:

Merc1138
10-31-2010, 10:42 AM
Wait, so now you're upset because we publicly asked you to post how you got the results, and not privately?

Yes, you're full of it. This forum is loaded with people who would use just about any excuse to go to the range, including testing something like this.

As far as video is concerned, a test like this does not require video as "proof". For starters, I'm not one of these kids that is only capable of learning something if it's in the format of a youtube video. Second, using a camcorder to attempt to represent the true volume level of something like a gunshot is absolutely ridiculous as you'll never be able to represent it with the built in mic, and even if you mixed in the audio from better microphones, unless the viewer new what they were doing and had a sound system capable of playing it back at reference levels it wouldn't matter anyway.

That site also doesn't list what muzzle brake they're using, and still doesn't justify the fear mongering you appear to be doing. Yes, fear mongering. Without bothering to give any details, all you're doing is trying to convince people that their muzzle brake may suddenly be classified as a suppressor by the ATF who may come to bust them some day.

Yes, you're full of it. Go ahead and keep making excuses, you'll still get questioned. Trying to publish test results without including methodology is garbage.

Juice5610
10-31-2010, 10:50 AM
Dude if your gonna get your panties in a twist every time some asks you to "show your math" for the answer or every time someone insults you on an internet forum maybe you should keep your test results to yourself and your friends or grow some thicker skin. Your just adding fuel to the fire now

MaHoTex
10-31-2010, 11:00 AM
Reading the article I noted that the device lowered the signature by 1dB. 1dB is at the edge of audible sensitivity for almost all human ears. Heck even using different ammo would produce more impact than 1dB.

I do good to hear a change at 2dB and wold never even notive a 1dB decrease. I would loose no sleep.

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 11:03 AM
Second, using a camcorder to attempt to represent the true volume level of something like a gunshot is absolutely ridiculous as you'll never be able to represent it with the built in mic, and even if you mixed in the audio from better microphones, unless the viewer new what they were doing and had a sound system capable of playing it back at reference levels it wouldn't matter anyway.

Did you read what I said? Apparently not.

I don't even have this on video, because I only brought one tripod, and used it for the sound equipment instead of the camera.



That site also doesn't list what muzzle brake they're using, and still doesn't justify the fear mongering you appear to be doing. Yes, fear mongering. Without bothering to give any details, all you're doing is trying to convince people that their muzzle brake may suddenly be classified as a suppressor by the ATF who may come to bust them some day.

Yes, you're full of it. Go ahead and keep making excuses, you'll still get questioned. Trying to publish test results without including methodology is garbage.

Fear mongering? Did you read the whole thing? Did you read the post in this thread where I asked "Technique" if he took it that seriously? You clearly didn't read the part of my post where I described using sound equipment, so I guess these are rhetorical questions.

I'm not making excuses, I'm speaking from experience. I'll be questioned no matter what I do or say.

I conducted (as I described in the blog post) informal testing using basic, commercially available, consumer-grade sound equipment from the side of the weapon at various distances, and, separately, a computer program that analyzed the frequency of each report. I have no way of proving that I did so (other than a screenshot of the computer program's data, which you'd say could easily have been faked). You'll have to take my word for it - which, from the very first post Technique made in this thread, is clearly not good enough for this forum.

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 11:20 AM
Dude if your gonna get your panties in a twist every time some asks you to "show your math" for the answer or every time someone insults you on an internet forum maybe you should keep your test results to yourself and your friends or grow some thicker skin. Your just adding fuel to the fire now

You're right, I never should have posted here. It was a mistake to respond. It was a mistake to sign up. It was a mistake to view the thread.

Fjold
10-31-2010, 11:21 AM
If every time you post something you get a load of grief about it then you should probably should have figured out that maybe your initial posts are deficient.

I.E. If you post crap, you get crap responses.

i1800collect
10-31-2010, 11:25 AM
I'm still confused why anyone even cares about what this guy's blog post is asserting. From what I read, it's just some guy blogging about his own personal paranoia and making baseless claims about an unnamed muzzle device.

He doesn't name the muzzle device he tested, no mention of equipment, no testing methodology or procedure, and absolutely no documentation to speak of.

So I just need to ask: Who cares?

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 11:26 AM
If every time you post something you get a load of grief about it then you should probably should have figured out that maybe your initial posts are deficient.

I.E. If you post crap, you get crap responses.

Depends on your definition of "crap". I sure get a lot of crap on Youtube, but no one ever manages to disprove something I show in a video.

I also got a lot of crap about the heat dissipation testing, but no one managed to disprove that either - even when they conducted their own testing.

i1800collect
10-31-2010, 11:27 AM
Depends on your definition of "crap". I sure get a lot of crap on Youtube, but no one ever manages to disprove something I show in a video.

If you're seriously going to Youtube looking for an intellectual debate, you're doing it wrong.

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 11:28 AM
I'm still confused why anyone even cares about what this guy's blog post is asserting. From what I read, it's just some guy blogging about his own personal paranoia and making baseless claims about an unnamed muzzle device.

He doesn't name the muzzle device he tested, no mention of equipment, no testing methodology or procedure, and absolutely no documentation to speak of.

So I just need to ask: Who cares?

Apparently, you care enough to reply.

I must make it clear that I will continue to use this device and that this post was created solely to point out the ridiculousness of what is apparently interpreted to constitute a “silencer” under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(24).

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 11:29 AM
If you're seriously going to Youtube looking for an intellectual debate, you're doing it wrong.

Well, I'm not looking for an intellectual debate on Youtube. So...

Merc1138
10-31-2010, 11:30 AM
I'm not making excuses, I'm speaking from experience. I'll be questioned no matter what I do or say.


Yes, any time you post something where you're trying to prove that x+y=z, you're going to be questioned. This is because people want information. If you can't handle that, then don't post your results. Asking questions is the nature of science, and if you refuse to post your testing methodology, then you should expect to get a hell of a lot more questions.

Or do you think Einstein, Volta, Tesla, Newton, Bohr, Curie, Edison, Franklin, etc never got questioned about their findings and asked to provide the methodology and proof?

If you can't take the heat, get the hell outta the kitchen.

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 11:35 AM
Yes, any time you post something where you're trying to prove that x+y=z, you're going to be questioned. This is because people want information. If you can't handle that, then don't post your results. Asking questions is the nature of science, and if you refuse to post your testing methodology, then you should expect to get a hell of a lot more questions.

Or do you think Einstein, Volta, Tesla, Newton, Bohr, Curie, Edison, Franklin, etc never got questioned about their findings and asked to provide the methodology and proof?

If you can't take the heat, get the hell outta the kitchen.

Again, I described the testing as informal. I did not claim to be anywhere near the level of any of the scientists you listed.

As I posted here (http://vuurwapenblog.com/2010/10/21/working-through-a-ton-of-data/), I am working through a lot of data, and do not have enough to make a full report. However, I did have enough to make a few comments that I stand behind - within the limitations of the informal testing, as I have stated numerous times.

But clearly, the earlier post on the same topic was simply a sham in order to bolster the argument for the later post, in which I was "fear mongering" by saying that one device was slightly quieter than another.

So are you going to answer my questions? Or were they truly rhetorical, and too inconvenient for you to answer, because you're too busy going after me?

Merc1138
10-31-2010, 11:39 AM
I never said you needed to be at the level of any of the scientists I listed. You're still making excuses. Even informal testing has parameters that can be reproduced in a reasonably close setting.

You also didn't read what I said regarding fear mongering. If you weren't, then you'd post what muzzle brake it was. Instead of letting the readers know what brake it is, you're fear mongering by letting the reader assume their brake might be the one you're talking about.

Either post the information, or stop making excuses. The excuses are lame and aren't exactly helping your cause. Whining about being questioned isn't any better.

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 11:39 AM
I never said you needed to be at the level of any of the scientists I listed. You're still making excuses. Even informal testing has parameters that can be reproduced in a reasonably close setting.

You also didn't read what I said regarding fear mongering. If you weren't, then you'd post what muzzle brake it was. Instead of letting the readers know what brake it is, you're fear mongering by letting the reader assume their brake might be the one you're talking about.

Either post the information, or stop making excuses. The excuses are lame and aren't exactly helping your cause. Whining about being questioned isn't any better.

So are you going to answer my questions or not?

i1800collect
10-31-2010, 11:47 AM
Well, I'm not looking for an intellectual debate on Youtube. So...

You stated you post videos of your "testing" on Youtube and consider the fact that "no one ever manages to disprove something [you] show in a video" somehow validates your testing. Excuse me for assuming you'd want to seek a bit of peer review (intellectual debate) before considering your testing and results accurate.

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 11:52 AM
You stated you post videos of your "testing" on Youtube and consider the fact that "no one ever manages to disprove something [you] show in a video" somehow validates your testing. Excuse me for assuming you'd want to seek a bit of peer review (intellectual debate) before considering your testing and results as accurate.

I'm intimately familiar with the concept of peer review. I've discussed the results of a lot of what I do with industry professionals and manufacturers. I have not done so with this information.

Please note my use of the word "apparently". It was in the article from the start.

Were I to continue using this device, knowing that it apparently diminishes the report of a firearm, it would seem that I would be committing a felony.

Please note the intent of the article as clarified about an hour after it was originally posted.

I must make it clear that I will continue to use this device and that this post was created solely to point out the ridiculousness of what is apparently interpreted to constitute a “silencer” under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(24).

technique
10-31-2010, 11:53 AM
I conducted (as I described in the blog post) informal testing

Then why, if it was informal, should we have "our forms ready"?
If it was so informal why bother to blog about it as if you've found something?

using basic, commercially available, consumer-grade sound equipment from the side of the weapon at various distances, and, separately, a computer program that analyzed the frequency of each report.

Huh, I see.


I have no way of proving that I did so (other than a screenshot of the computer program's data, which you'd say could easily have been faked). You'll have to take my word for it - which, from the very first post Technique made in this thread, is clearly not good enough for this forum.

This isn't Arfcom, we're not as easily amused.



This may come as a shock to you, but I've followed your blog for sometime now. Not religiously or anything. I found your buffer weight/bolt bounce video informative.

On the other hand, much of what you say, and the information you have on your blog is really no more than known info, reiterated by you. Please forgive me for not being impressed. You've given a prime example of it in this thread. You've used someones work and information in an attempt to support your statements. As someone who follows your blog, I've noticed this pattern.

You admitted with your slow motion camera, you went cheap, it overheated, you should have bought better...etc. Please forgive me for being skeptical.

using basic, commercially available, consumer-grade sound equipment from the side of the weapon at various distances, and, separately, a computer program that analyzed the frequency of each report.

Didn't sound like any learning occurred.


So, my post still stands.

Your ego led you to blog about your findings.
Your ego led you register here.
Your ego is why you're posting rebuttals. (weak ones at that)
Your ego leads you to believe you and your blog are important enough that I or anyone else would care to email you.

So, I can tell your *** is chapped. Tell me,

Really? You took it that seriously?

Merc1138
10-31-2010, 11:54 AM
Please quote the questions you asked me, as the only thing I'm seeing is you asking whether or not I've read the posts from Technique in this thread, I have. However I fail to see how Technique's posts are relevant to what I've been asking you, he isn't the one who posted results with no methodology and isn't the person I'm asking about the methods used to make the claimed observations.

Besides, it's a little impolite to demand answers to questions after refusing to answer what you were asked first.

You're still making excuses for not listing the equipment used and products tested. Heck, even in highschool that would have earned you an F.

CSACANNONEER
10-31-2010, 11:56 AM
All MBs divert gasses and sound. So, my question is, does it really alter the signature or just divert it in the dirrection that the gasses are venting? I'm willing to bet that if it's quiter for the shooter, it's probably louder at some other location.

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 12:02 PM
technique:

This may come as a shock to you, but I've followed your blog for sometime now. Not religiously or anything. I found your buffer weight/bolt bounce video informative.

On the other hand, much of what you say, and the information you have on your blog is really no more than known info, reiterated by you. Please forgive me for not being impressed. You've given a prime example of it in this thread. You've used someones work and information in an attempt to support your statements. As someone who follows your blog, I've noticed this pattern.

I won't disagree in the least. Much of the stuff I do should be obvious to people who have a lot of experience with firearms. I was sick of misinformation being rampantly spread on forums, so I created my blog to provide an outlet for my own information that would generally relate to some of the topics I saw discussed over and over.

I also do product reviews, which may or may not be of brand new products or may not bring earthshattering information to the table, but I felt that (especially on Youtube) there was a certain lack of quality reviews.

Your ego led you to blog about your findings.
Your ego led you register here.
Your ego is why you're posting rebuttals. (weak ones at that)
Your ego leads you to believe you and your blog are important enough that I or anyone else would care to email you.

And your actions have nothing to do with your ego?

I've clearly insulted you in some form or another via some of my blog posts, because your initial reaction, even though you've apparently browsed my blog in the past, was to call me a "pompous ***" on a forum instead of asking questions.

It's not a matter of importance - it's a matter of common courtesy.

You admitted with your slow motion camera, you went cheap, it overheated, you should have bought better...etc. Please forgive me for being skeptical. Didn't sound like any learning occurred.

And yet...

I found your buffer weight/bolt bounce video informative.

While the camera was low cost, it apparently provided valuable enough results to register as "informative" on your level of caring scale.

And it did the same for a number of other people.

So yes, I could easily have sold a rifle or two to rent a true high speed camera for a few days - and the results would have been prettier, but I don't know that it would've delivered much more of a return on my investment.

The same goes for the sound equipment.

Marxman
10-31-2010, 12:04 PM
Even if the testing is informal it should follow certain scientific parameters outlined in the scientific method. In regards to your findings we have to question both the result and the experiment given the lack of details on its methodology and operating parameters. If we blindly believe your findings we've just skipped over the majority of experimentation - we know an experiment occurred and we have your findings, but without the parameters of said experiment we can't possibly replicate and confirm or disprove your findings. Furthermore we cannot identify sources of systemic and human error, we cannot calculate statistically relevant factors, and we cannot determine if the data is significant or not. While I must admit the latter areas of data interpolation may be overkill for an 'informal' test, I'm more than willing to bet we have members on this forum who would gladly do the math for you or conduct their own separate test using the proscribed parameters.

In short, if you simply told us how you tested the muzzle break (distances, sound recording equipment, computer program, ammunition, rifle, areas of significance, controlled variables, possibly some common observations, etc) I'm positive that we'd give you a little more credibility. I'm not trying to bash, I'm trying to let you know why some of us are skeptical with your 'results.'

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 12:08 PM
Please quote the questions you asked me, as the only thing I'm seeing is you asking whether or not I've read the posts from Technique in this thread, I have. However I fail to see how Technique's posts are relevant to what I've been asking you, he isn't the one who posted results with no methodology and isn't the person I'm asking about the methods used to make the claimed observations.

Besides, it's a little impolite to demand answers to questions after refusing to answer what you were asked first.

You're still making excuses for not listing the equipment used and products tested. Heck, even in highschool that would have earned you an F.

I've been so busy focusing on some of the more ridiculous comments here that I didn't focus on the basics. I thought my clarification would...clear things up, but obviously that didn't work.

I asked Technique if he took it that seriously because it was initially apparent to me that the title was satirical. Due to his responses, it became clear that it was not apparent to others, so I added the bottom clarification in italics where I stated that the purpose of the post was solely to point out how ridiculous the ATF's position on what constitutes a "silencer" was.

It is very clear now that I failed to express the original intent of the article. My questions to you were asking whether or not you'd read the last part and whether you felt that it was still fear mongering after reading that part.

Merc1138
10-31-2010, 12:27 PM
Your article doesn't indicate at all that it was satire. Again, I don't care what Technique things. I haven't asked him about anything regarding your blog post and testing, or responses you've posted on this thread. Stop trying to deflect questions I'm asking you directly by referring to someone else.

Now if you're going to backpedal and just say the entire thing was an exercise in satire, then go update it to indicate it as such. As it stands, it's fear mongering. Apparently you've failed to realize that with no tone of voice, text doesn't necessarily convey implied meanings very well without being extremely descriptive.

And yes, I just said you were back pedaling. Why? It's simple. If this whole thing were simply satire like you claim now, then why didn't you just post that as your first reply when being questioned about the methods used?

"Hey guys, it was just something I wrote for satire, poking at the ATF's ridiculously vague definitions of a suppressor."

ONE sentence like that would have ended the conversation without post after post crying about being attacked in youtube comments, or your other tests being questioned.

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 12:32 PM
In short, if you simply told us how you tested the muzzle break (distances, sound recording equipment, computer program, ammunition, rifle, areas of significance, controlled variables, possibly some common observations, etc) I'm positive that we'd give you a little more credibility. I'm not trying to bash, I'm trying to let you know why some of us are skeptical with your 'results.'

Sound meter located at a right angle to the muzzle, 3, 10, 25 feet, 5 muzzle devices, 5 shots per configuration per distance, computer program is called "Chromatia". 16" midlength AR-15 using Prvi Partizan M855.

I originally did not plan on firing so many rounds, but I was surprised to see that the brake was quieter than all of the other devices (and some, like the Blackout, were actually louder). So I changed from my original position (10 feet) and tried other positions and fired more rounds. The results were consistent (at distance).

I conducted the frequency testing separately because of the need to properly position both the sound meter and the laptop and its microphone. I wasted a lot of ammunition before I figured out what distance (and microphone sensitivity) allowed me to get consistent "sound profiles," for lack of a better term.

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 12:33 PM
Why? It's simple. If this whole thing were simply satire like you claim now, then why didn't you just post that as your first reply when being questioned about the methods used?

"Hey guys, it was just something I wrote for satire, poking at the ATF's ridiculously vague definitions of a suppressor."

ONE sentence like that would have ended the conversation without post after post crying about being attacked in youtube comments, or your other tests being questioned.

I did!

I did that an hour after I posted the article! Which is before you even replied to this thread! I recognized my failure to identify the nature of the article and, as I said, thought I made it abundantly clear. While the findings were real, the reaction was a joke.

"I must make it clear that I will continue to use this device and that this post was created solely to point out the ridiculousness of what is apparently interpreted to constitute a “silencer” under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(24). "

If that text is not appearing on the blog post, please let me know. It would certainly explain a lot of things.

themailman
10-31-2010, 12:40 PM
Indeed. You clearly had me all figured out from the beginning. Because of this, it was beyond you to simply email me and ask a question.

Sounds like youre full of poo, why dont you leave?

Merc1138
10-31-2010, 12:41 PM
One line in that post does not indicate "satire". I mentioned a sentence like that regarding your responses HERE. Notice how I was talking about your replies here directly above that sentence of mine you bolded. If your post was satire, then write the entire post as satire, not simply one little blurb toward the end of the article.

For all I know you were attempting to do serious scientific testing to prove that the ATF is ridiculous. Instead all you've done is make excuse after excuse(and only just recently posted any information regarding how the test was conducted) about how people are being overly critical about your blog post that we've all read as being serious.

CavTrooper
10-31-2010, 12:44 PM
(and some, like the Blackout, were actually louder).

Question:

How would a muzzle break AMPLIFY sound?

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 12:44 PM
One line in that post does not indicate "satire". I mentioned a sentence like that regarding your responses HERE. Notice how I was talking about your replies here directly above that sentence of mine you bolded. If your post was satire, then write the entire post as satire, not simply one little blurb toward the end of the article.

For all I know you were attempting to do serious scientific testing to prove that the ATF is ridiculous. Instead all you've done is make excuse after excuse(and only just recently posted any information regarding how the test was conducted) about how people are being overly critical about your blog post that we've all read as being serious.

I apologize if the clarification was not sufficient. It seemed more prudent to put a note on the blog, where everyone who read it after that would see it (including people not reading it via the link on this forum).

I have already noted that I failed to address that and was too busy defending myself, which I have also noted was a mistake.

If I was trying to do "serious scientific testing" - why would I, from the very beginning, in the initial post, call it "informal"?

You're reaching here.

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 12:46 PM
Question:

How would a muzzle break AMPLIFY sound?

It's a flash suppressor, technically. I can only throw out wild guesses, but it does "ring" after every shot (at the previously mentioned frequency of 3200hz) and it's possible that that device vibrated at a frequency that the sound meter interpreted as being (1 decibel) louder. Or it redirected the sound in some small way towards the meter.

CSACANNONEER
10-31-2010, 12:50 PM
Question:

How would a muzzle break AMPLIFY sound?

They don't! But, they can divert the sound and muzzle blast toward the shooter which makes it seem like it's "louder". I really think that the reverse of this is what the blog is all about. No MB (without expansion chambers) truely changes the level of sound coming from the muzzle. But, they can change the dirrection that the sound travels in.

Merc1138
10-31-2010, 12:50 PM
I apologize if the clarification was not sufficient. It seemed more prudent to put a note on the blog, where everyone who read it after that would see it (including people not reading it via the link on this forum).

I have already noted that I failed to address that and was too busy defending myself, which I have also noted was a mistake.

If I was trying to do "serious scientific testing" - why would I, from the very beginning, in the initial post, call it "informal"?

You're reaching here.

Informal doesn't mean that you toss out the entire scientific method and fail to log how you achieved your results. Again, another excuse.

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 12:52 PM
Informal doesn't mean that you toss out the entire scientific method and fail to log how you achieved your results. Again, another excuse.

Informal doesn't mean "serious scientific research."

No excuses. I've owned up to several mistakes. You're still operating under an incorrect assumption in the face of information that suggests otherwise (my fairly quick edit).

technique
10-31-2010, 12:55 PM
(my fairly quick edit).

I'd like to add that your edit was nonexistent when I first read your entry.
I noticed the addition later.

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 12:59 PM
I'd like to add that your edit was nonexistent when I first read your entry.
I noticed the addition later.

Your reaction prompted the edit, so regardless of how I initially received it, I thank you for the strength with which you made your opinion known. Otherwise, I might not have made that clarification.

BTW, I have found that it was not made an hour after I posted the article, it was made an hour after the article was posted here.

Merc1138
10-31-2010, 1:01 PM
Informal doesn't mean "serious scientific research."

No excuses. I've owned up to several mistakes. You're still operating under an incorrect assumption in the face of information that suggests otherwise (my fairly quick edit).

Uhh, if you're going to be testing audio, and you're not doing it in an anechoic chamber, I'd call that informal. This can be pretty important when you start running into cancellation due to echos, as well as making sure you didn't position your mic dead smack in the middle of a node(which would drastically skew the results).

Saying informal somehow means throwing out the idea of "showing your work", is an excuse. Like usual, you have posted another excuse. This is a pattern you seem to be stuck in, you're either deflecting my questions by referring to other people who have nothing to do with your testing or my query, or you make an excuse and try to argue semantics.

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 1:03 PM
Uhh, if you're going to be testing audio, and you're not doing it in an anechoic chamber, I'd call that informal. This can be pretty important when you start running into cancellation due to echos, as well as making sure you didn't position your mic dead smack in the middle of a node(which would drastically skew the results).

Saying informal somehow means throwing out the idea of "showing your work", is an excuse. Like usual, you have posted another excuse. This is a pattern you seem to be stuck in, you're either deflecting my questions by referring to other people who have nothing to do with your testing or my query, or you make an excuse and try to argue semantics.

Wait, so you're disagreeing with my assessment of the testing as informal by saying that it was informal?

Look man, I don't know what your problem with me is, but I've made a big effort to clarify my positions to you. It seems that you're unwilling to accept this and are going to extreme lengths to continue to attack me. It's bordering on nonsensical at this point.

Merc1138
10-31-2010, 1:08 PM
Wait, so you're disagreeing with my assessment of the testing as informal by saying that it was informal?

Look man, I don't know what your problem with me is, but I've made a big effort to clarify my positions to you. It seems that you're unwilling to accept this and are going to extreme lengths to continue to attack me.

I'm disagreeing with your excuse that it being informal somehow means you can't do things correctly. Mythbusters would be an example of people doing a lot of informal testing, it doesn't mean they don't do things like have a control, log the data, and then show how they did it if they're trying to explain a result.

Like I said, now you're attempting to argue(poorly) semantics.

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 1:11 PM
I'm disagreeing with your excuse that it being informal somehow means you can't do things correctly. Mythbusters would be an example of people doing a lot of informal testing, it doesn't mean they don't do things like have a control, log the data, and then show how they did it if they're trying to explain a result.

Like I said, now you're attempting to argue(poorly) semantics.

I did log the data on paper, I just haven't gone through it all and made it into a pretty excel file with graphs and such.

Merc1138
10-31-2010, 1:30 PM
I did log the data on paper, I just haven't gone through it all and made it into a pretty excel file with graphs and such.

So that's your excuse for waiting so long to explain the setup, and still not bothering to let us know what the actual product in question is? Now your excuses are just circular. Are you even capable of replying without making an excuse or deflecting?

leelaw
10-31-2010, 1:40 PM
This pompous *** will let you know when it suits him.

For a first day poster, you're not going to be around long enough to "let [us] know" with this attitude.

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 1:50 PM
So that's your excuse for waiting so long to explain the setup, and still not bothering to let us know what the actual product in question is? Now your excuses are just circular. Are you even capable of replying without making an excuse or deflecting?

I've made some mistakes. I manned up and admitted them.

I appreciate the constant bumps you provide to this thread, the visibility of which is causing a fair number of people to visit my blog (about a 10% bump compared to my average daily hits so far - the day is young, though).

You're welcome to continue doing so, for it will only benefit me in the long run.

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 1:52 PM
For a first day poster, you're not going to be around long enough to "let [us] know" with this attitude.

With all due respect, I'm not a California resident, so it's unlikely that I would be around much after this anyway, as the forum holds little relevance to my daily life. Site staff and owners are free to ban me if I've violated the conduct code of this website.

technique
10-31-2010, 1:52 PM
I appreciate the constant bumps you provide to this thread, the visibility of which is causing a fair number of people to visit my blog.



I've been checking other sites to see if it has been posted elsewhere.I was curious what others had to say. Got any insider info?

Merc1138
10-31-2010, 1:56 PM
I've made some mistakes. I manned up and admitted them.

I appreciate the constant bumps you provide to this thread, the visibility of which is causing a fair number of people to visit my blog (about a 10% bump compared to my average daily hits so far - the day is young, though).

You're welcome to continue doing so, for it will only benefit me in the long run.

Yeah, it's like I'm just shoveling cash into your bank account with the hits :rolleyes:

Again, you're deflecting. You haven't manned up to anything, you've made excuse after excuse. If you're so uninterested about guns and California, why are you even here? Being a California resident isn't some requirement for the regular posters here, there are plenty that aren't including some of the folks who you've been conversing with in this thread.

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 1:58 PM
I've been checking other sites to see if it has been posted elsewhere.I was curious what others had to say. Got any insider info?

It hasn't been posted anywhere else. I think I edited it to reflect my original intent early enough that most posters viewing it since understand what it was meant to be.

-hanko
10-31-2010, 2:49 PM
I'd give even odds that GroupPicture has resurrected himself.:D

-hanko

CSACANNONEER
10-31-2010, 2:58 PM
With all due respect, I'm not a California resident, so it's unlikely that I would be around much after this anyway, as the forum holds little relevance to my daily life. Site staff and owners are free to ban me if I've violated the conduct code of this website.

You might be surprised. There is a lot of info here that could and should be relavant to any citizen of the United States. Then, there is the fact that the rest of the country trys to duplicate California firearms laws on both local and Federal levels.

ILVSMOG
10-31-2010, 3:04 PM
In before the lock!

:lurk5:

biker777
10-31-2010, 3:40 PM
is this one of those comedic threads? :popcorn:

leelaw
10-31-2010, 4:52 PM
With all due respect, I'm not a California resident, so it's unlikely that I would be around much after this anyway, as the forum holds little relevance to my daily life. Site staff and owners are free to ban me if I've violated the conduct code of this website.

You're right, site staff is free to ban members who admit to coming here for the sole reason of trolling.

Now, are you done waving around your e-penis, or will you choose to become a productive member, or will you leave on your own accord?

Let me know.

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 5:06 PM
You're right, site staff is free to ban members who admit to coming here for the sole reason of trolling.

Now, are you done waving around your e-penis, or will you choose to become a productive member, or will you leave on your own accord?

Let me know.

Have no fear, I've little interest in darkening your doorstep again.

CSACANNONEER
10-31-2010, 5:13 PM
Have no fear, I've little interest in darkening your doorstep again.

So, why did you log back on just to post this?

BTW, I'm still waiting to find out if you measured the actual report of the gun with and without the muzzle device and if you measured the sound from various angles or just from behind/to the side of the muzzle.

Fjold
10-31-2010, 5:21 PM
I did!

I did that an hour after I posted the article! Which is before you even replied to this thread! I recognized my failure to identify the nature of the article and, as I said, thought I made it abundantly clear. While the findings were real, the reaction was a joke.

"I must make it clear that I will continue to use this device and that this post was created solely to point out the ridiculousness of what is apparently interpreted to constitute a “silencer” under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(24). "

If that text is not appearing on the blog post, please let me know. It would certainly explain a lot of things.

If every time you post something you get a load of grief about it then you should probably should have figured out that maybe your initial posts are deficient.

I.E. If you post crap, you get crap responses.

I guess my post above was correct.

vuurwapen
10-31-2010, 5:22 PM
So, why did you log back on just to post this?

I thought I owed him the courtesy of a reply.

Now that that's done... Enjoy the rest of your weekend and best of luck on Tuesday, I'm rooting for you guys...

CSACANNONEER
10-31-2010, 5:28 PM
Wow, I've asked a relatively easy question 3 times and you have choosen not to answer it. I guess that mean that you never considered the fact that sound can and will be dirrected differently when a muzzle device is used. So, I can only guess that your entire, non-scientific testing and conclusions are so flawed that you shouldn't have ever come to any conclusions in the first place.

Droppin Deuces
10-31-2010, 5:29 PM
Pretty weak, guys...

Merc1138
10-31-2010, 5:30 PM
Is he really done, or is he going to come back just to try and get the last word? One can only wonder...

CSACANNONEER, we apparently aren't worthy of knowing exactly how he conducted his test. You've asked for details 3 times, I've asked a few times. He just refuses to provide the simplest of details, and would rather troll instead.

ivanimal
10-31-2010, 11:33 PM
Is he really done, or is he going to come back just to try and get the last word? One can only wonder...

CSACANNONEER, we apparently aren't worthy of knowing exactly how he conducted his test. You've asked for details 3 times, I've asked a few times. He just refuses to provide the simplest of details, and would rather troll instead.

He will not be back.:troll: