If someone claimed their .223 Rem was producing 6000 fps at the muzzle would you require testing to confirm or deny that claim? Or have you seen enough load data and been around long enough to know that such a claim is simply impossible?
I am all for "seeing is believing" but sometimes information is so outside the realm of possibility that it can safely be discounted as not credible without having to actually test it. Nobody can walk to the moon. We don't need to test that.
The original thread claimed this brake produced an SPL of approx 140 dB. Now I have sound tested a lot of different centrefire rifles and not one came anywhere close to that sound level. Even subsonic ammo is considerably louder than that. Typically a centrefire rifle will produce an SPL of roughly 165 dB. Which when we consider the logarythmic decibel scale is a few thousand times louder than the claimed 140 dB. That tells me they are either making stuff up or don't know how to properly sound test a firearm. Either way their data is so far outside the realm of possibility that it doesn't need to be tested in order to be discounted.
IF that brake really does produce an SPL of 140 dB then it is a fairly effective silencer and thus a prohibited device under Canadian law. The best centerfire sound suppressors in the world are producing SPL's around 135 dB and they can be safely shot without the need for hearing protection.
Regarding subjective testing. How a particular person hears a given sound depends on a number of variables including how much hearing damage that person has sustained in their life, the frequency of the sound, proximity to the sound etc etc etc.
I have personally been fooled in my subjective comparison of several shots. Sometimes what sounded clearly louder to me metered very quiet where a shot I thought was quieter than the rest showed to be louder on the sound meter. The location of your ears and how your head is oriented can all change how the shot is perceived.
Frequency can also fool the ears. We typically perceive low frequency sound as quieter than high frequency sounds. This is most clearly demonstrated between 9mm and .45 ACP. A suppressed 9mm can be up to 10 dB quieter than a suppressed 45 yet most observers will perceive the 45 as quieter because it produces a much lower frequency sound signature. A muzzle brake could easily change the frequency composition of a gunshot. However it wouldn't change the peak of the impulse so even if it is perceived to be quieter, it isn't and hearing damage is still occurring.
The length of the sound impulse can also be a factor. A short, sharp sound is usually perceived as quieter than a softer drawn out sound. The longer duration sound allows our ears more time to react to and collect that sound impulse. Again, the noise isn't quieter, we just perceive it to be.
. If he didn't test the device, he needs to mind his attitudes towards it until such a time that he can either prove the statements false (by SCIENTIFICALLY testing the MB) or the manufacturers withdraw their claim.
So you are OK with a manufacturer making sales on BS claims without a single shred of data to back them up? But you want me to meet some kind of scientific burden of proof when I question those unsupported claims? IMO you have it backwards. If they are going to make a claim they need to back it up. If I have a question as to the veracity of that claim then they should be the ones facing the burden of proof because they made the claim in the first place.
I have a bunch of experience actually sound testing firearms to the Mil Std using the proper equipment and techniques by people who do this stuff for a living. I guarantee that Corlane's does not have a clue how to properly sound test a firearm and they certainly don't have the proper equipment. So if you guys think they are a more credible source of information go buy one of those brakes. I understand that ignorance is bliss.
