SilencerTalk

Sound Suppressor Discussion
It is currently Sun Sep 21, 2014 4:05 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Gemtech Outback II review posted on Silencer Research.com
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:18 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly

Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:03 am
Posts: 1217
Location: AR
I got done working on the review and wanted to share it.

http://www.silencerresearch.com/gemtech_outback_ii.htm

_________________
07FFL 02 SOT


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:12 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:51 am
Posts: 1890
Location: Arizona, USA
Thanks! I really enjoy reading your reviews.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:44 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:28 am
Posts: 205
Location: Texas, Missouri
Thank you


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:52 pm 
Offline
Silent Operator

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:30 pm
Posts: 58
that was great!!! i cant wait till you get some more new reviews. i just ordered an outbackII myself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:08 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly

Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:03 am
Posts: 1217
Location: AR
Thanks, I am glad you like the review.

_________________
07FFL 02 SOT


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:46 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly

Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:26 am
Posts: 829
Location: Pittsburgh, pa
Thanks for the review.

I find this "first round pop" thing to be very interesting. Given the theory of extra oxygen in the can, it would seem that the Aviator with more volume might actually have a bigger difference in first round noise vs. all additional rounds. Obviously the style of baffle can affect this, but it seems everybody is using a K style.

I wonder at what point does the volume overcome the extra oxygen- or does it?

For military guys, it would seem that having the first shot quiet would be very beneficial.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 4:45 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 8:07 pm
Posts: 63365
I found the review interesting as with the Walther & outbackII combo CCI standard velocity was a tad quieter then with CCI subs & the Rem. subs and with the 10/22 also iirc, but not enough to make a dif.

I would also like to add something about the ejection bark noise, I believe its in part due to the brass itself, a stiffer or harder brass that doesn't fully expand under pressure to grip the chamber and seal it.
I would say try to notice if it happens more with one brand compared to others as I noticed those blackened cartridge cases were of the same make.

A good review overall, kudos. :D

p.s. If you have any of those cartridges that caused the "barking" that are unfired I would ask to mike the diameters to see it their a tad undersized, this along with harder brass and quick burning powder would all be contributing factors.

_________________
Demand stringent background and mental health checks on your politicians.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:12 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly

Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:03 am
Posts: 1217
Location: AR
Hush wrote:
I found the review interesting as with the Walther & outbackII combo CCI standard velocity was a tad quieter then with CCI subs & the Rem. subs and with the 10/22 also iirc, but not enough to make a dif.

I would also like to add something about the ejection bark noise, I believe its in part due to the brass itself, a stiffer or harder brass that doesn't fully expand under pressure to grip the chamber and seal it.
I would say try to notice if it happens more with one brand compared to others as I noticed those blackened cartridge cases were of the same make.

A good review overall, kudos. :D

p.s. If you have any of those cartridges that caused the "barking" that are unfired I would ask to mike the diameters to see it their a tad undersized, this along with harder brass and quick burning powder would all be contributing factors.


I have three left, and I can send you the ones that barked. email me and I will send them to you to test your theory.

Glad you liked the review

_________________
07FFL 02 SOT


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 7:56 am 
Offline
Silent But Deadly
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:32 pm
Posts: 2591
Hush is right on the spot about the bark noise
,i have seen this on a Remington slide action(with a can on) ,there should not be any noise at the ejection port ,but with some brands there was not only noise but Ewen flames due to not fuly expanded brass
This only stress out that you have to do all tests on guns that do make no sound at the ejection port (finding ammo that does seal the chamber)

Hush also wrote
p.s. If you have any of those cartridges that caused the "barking" that are unfired I would ask to mike the diameters to see it their a tad undersized, this along with harder brass and quick burning powder would all be contributing factors.

Wel,, some brass shrink more than others after firing for many reasons,like if they was undersized they did stretch and almost stay chamber sized after firing,, a tight fit only expand a little and the go back to normal size (unfired)

Also burn rate of the powder makes a difference quick burning makes a god seal ,, slower sometimes not
those who reload ,38 special might know this ,,to weak a load = fouled cases ,

But if they are fouled ,,thats sign for a unsealed chamber = barking
Also the sound of the brass can some time tell (falling on concrete)hard brass makes a kind of pling kling sound softer more a click click dead sound ,,it might sound funny ,,but try to do it ,,your canher the difference :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 8:32 am 
Offline
Silent But Deadly

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:32 pm
Posts: 235
I thought it was cool to see a tac67 vs. outback.
That told me what I needed to know.
The rifles are much quieter than the pistols, that told me a lot as well.
thank you for the informative testing under real world conditions 1928.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 12:01 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:36 pm
Posts: 306
1928A1,

The most informative test you did was the VS test.

The only flaw I could find was that you didn't test them on the same rifle.

You'll note that your records show that the Custom barreled 10/22 was slightly louder than the Tactical Innovations barreled 10/22.

I think if you had used the same cans on the same weapon you' d have found a 1-1.5 db difference between the two cans if used on the same weapon.

I hope you do many many more comparison reviews in the future, as they are really the only way to truly compare sound levels. Same weapon, same ammo, same day, same time. :)

Thanks again!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly

Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:03 am
Posts: 1217
Location: AR
USMC_2674 wrote:
1928A1,

The most informative test you did was the VS test.

The only flaw I could find was that you didn't test them on the same rifle.

You'll note that your records show that the Custom barreled 10/22 was slightly louder than the Tactical Innovations barreled 10/22.

I think if you had used the same cans on the same weapon you' d have found a 1-1.5 db difference between the two cans if used on the same weapon.

I hope you do many many more comparison reviews in the future, as they are really the only way to truly compare sound levels. Same weapon, same ammo, same day, same time. :)

Thanks again!


I agree about the same gun, same ammo, same day. The weapons are so similar that I doubt there would have been much difference over a 10 shot average. We didn't do that, so its speculation.

In the future, as I get more products to test, there will be a lot of heads up testing. This heads up test was to show people what the future of the website will be like.

_________________
07FFL 02 SOT


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 12:34 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 1:01 pm
Posts: 170
USMC_2674 wrote:
The only flaw I could find was that you didn't test them on the same rifle.

You'll note that your records show that the Custom barreled 10/22 was slightly louder than the Tactical Innovations barreled 10/22.

I think if you had used the same cans on the same weapon you' d have found a 1-1.5 db difference between the two cans if used on the same weapon.


I agree with USMC, but even so 1-1.5 db is a very small difference. I'm surprised they metered so close. I've shot an OutbackII side by side with a Pilot and one of the Tac cans (can't remember if it was a 65 or 67). The Pilot and Outback were noticeably quieter than the Tac-6x. They all sounded good, but they higher end cans sounded just a little better.

We were shooting them on a pistol (1911 w/ Marvel conversion), which may be a better platform to test a pistol can's potential since a can has to work harder to quiet the report from a pistol's shorter barrel.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 1:04 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 1:01 pm
Posts: 170
Thoughts/questions on ejection port bark:
It looks like this happened most frequently -- but intermittently -- with remington subsonics Watching the video, it seemed to a) not happen with every round, and b) correlate with the lower-velocity rounds.

This would make me think it may not have as much to do with burn rate as it does with the powder charge weight.

Since they were all the same brand, we can assume they were all using the same powder. Remington wouldn't have loaded half the box with faster powder and half the box with slower powder, but they could have easily loaded some rounds with more or less powder than others, causing the large variance in velocities revealed by your chrono testing.

The lower-velocity rounds -- the ones that barked -- may have just been loaded a little light, which would produce less velocity AND lower chamber pressure. The result is the cartridge case either doesn't seal against the chamber wall, or doesn't stay sealed long enough.

Of course this could combine with other factors such as small or inconsistent bullet diameters, overly hard case metal (which other have mentioned), inconsistent case crimping, etc.

It would be intersting to pull a sample of bullets and weigh the powder charges for consistency.

It's too bad you can't easily handload 22LR to try to replicate and isolate the issue.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 10:13 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly

Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:03 am
Posts: 1217
Location: AR
smallchange wrote:
Thoughts/questions on ejection port bark:
It looks like this happened most frequently -- but intermittently -- with remington subsonics Watching the video, it seemed to a) not happen with every round, and b) correlate with the lower-velocity rounds.

This would make me think it may not have as much to do with burn rate as it does with the powder charge weight.

Since they were all the same brand, we can assume they were all using the same powder. Remington wouldn't have loaded half the box with faster powder and half the box with slower powder, but they could have easily loaded some rounds with more or less powder than others, causing the large variance in velocities revealed by your chrono testing.

The lower-velocity rounds -- the ones that barked -- may have just been loaded a little light, which would produce less velocity AND lower chamber pressure. The result is the cartridge case either doesn't seal against the chamber wall, or doesn't stay sealed long enough.

Of course this could combine with other factors such as small or inconsistent bullet diameters, overly hard case metal (which other have mentioned), inconsistent case crimping, etc.

It would be intersting to pull a sample of bullets and weigh the powder charges for consistency.

It's too bad you can't easily handload 22LR to try to replicate and isolate the issue.


Very interesting. I appreciate the comments, perhaps we can get to the bottom of this issue.

_________________
07FFL 02 SOT


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 12:26 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 1:01 pm
Posts: 170
1928A1 wrote:
Very interesting. I appreciate the comments, perhaps we can get to the bottom of this issue.


I hope so. Have you observed similar phenomenon with subsonic loads in other calibers, i.e. 9mm?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 12:36 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly

Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:03 am
Posts: 1217
Location: AR
smallchange wrote:
1928A1 wrote:
Very interesting. I appreciate the comments, perhaps we can get to the bottom of this issue.


I hope so. Have you observed similar phenomenon with subsonic loads in other calibers, i.e. 9mm?


I have not really noticed it with my 9mm stuff. The 9mm stuff is typically a lot louder than a 22LR is, so its far easier to hear with a 22.

_________________
07FFL 02 SOT


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 4:41 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:32 pm
Posts: 2591
Smallchange wrote
The lower-velocity rounds -- the ones that barked -- may have just been loaded a little light, which would produce less velocity AND lower chamber pressure. The result is the cartridge case either doesn't seal against the chamber wall, or doesn't stay sealed long enough.

True also that it could be that the case was to hard to fully expand to seal
the chamber ,,but when they bark they lose gas = low inconsistent/velocity

But what can we do ,,as smallchange says we cant reload ,,so we just have to pick the right ammo ,look for fouled cases light primer strikes ,this can also
course less velocity AND lower chamber pressure

Reasen for light primerstrikes could be ,tight or dirty chamber (cartrigde not fully chambered )
Its all the old storry about 22, test until you have found the amme YOU gun likes ,and in this case it also have to stay subsonic
:idea:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 12:54 am 
Offline
Silent But Deadly

Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:43 pm
Posts: 541
Tactical Innovations is willing to sell to someone more gutsy than I to test their 1 in 9 P22 barrel. Any takers let them know. It's under $60 bucks, made for the SSS.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 8:34 am 
Offline
Silent But Deadly

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:51 am
Posts: 1890
Location: Arizona, USA
jonthan wrote:
Tactical Innovations is willing to sell to someone more gutsy than I to test their 1 in 9 P22 barrel.


Too bad it's still a P22 barrel ... :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:45 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 562
Nice testing. Thanks for taking the time to do this, it will help newbies just getting into the game.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2007 9:33 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly

Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:03 am
Posts: 1217
Location: AR
Thanks. I wish there was such a resource when I got into silencers. Its one of the reasons I am doing it.

_________________
07FFL 02 SOT


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:05 am 
Offline
New Member

Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 12:35 am
Posts: 2
This is my first post on here, and I just wanted to say that I really appreciate you doing this test, and especially appreciate the video you included. I'm in the process of buying my first suppressor and I originally thought that I would go for the larger calibers (which led to a post on HKPro about it), but now I'm looking at a .22 suppressor (specifically the Outback) for both a Browning Buckmark and a Ruger 10/22, and your review did a great job of showing me what I could expect in terms of look/feel and how well the suppressor works.

Thanks again for a very helpful review.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:25 am 
Online
Silencertalk Goon Squad
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 4172
Location: Tidewater, VA
jimmy-buffett wrote:
This is my first post on here, and I just wanted to say that I really appreciate you doing this test, and especially appreciate the video you included. I'm in the process of buying my first suppressor and I originally thought that I would go for the larger calibers (which led to a post on HKPro about it), but now I'm looking at a .22 suppressor (specifically the Outback) for both a Browning Buckmark and a Ruger 10/22, and your review did a great job of showing me what I could expect in terms of look/feel and how well the suppressor works.

Thanks again for a very helpful review.


The guy that did the testing has been banned from this site for various reasons.

I would recommend you getting an SWR Warlock or Spectre or the AAC Pilot or Aviator. All of them will be more quiet than the Outback and a better deal IMHO. The outback doesn't have anodized baffles nor does it have a steel mounting surface. The Spectre is basically a warlock that you can take apart for cleaning and would be my choice if I were buying one today. They are going to start shipping soon. I own a Pilot, it's been great. The fit and finish are superb, anodized baffles, steel threads, etc. The aviator is a pilot that is longer with more baffles so it's more quiet.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ash, Fireman1291, krinkov, Mitch1352, moose1507, savagetactical and 134 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group