They did well and i suspect when they are matched bore to calibre they would be excellent in sound attenuation and recoil suppression
Centrefire Moderator Test and Review
- Thread starter Edinburgh Rifles
- Start date
They did well and i suspect when they are matched bore to calibre they would be excellent in sound attenuation and recoil suppression
paul o'
Well-Known Member
A Well rounded set of tests results there Ed 
I was glad that my Evo was among the list tested , and I would't mind betting thats the most in-depth set of tests out there at this time but funny I feel with my old ears its better than the hardy or others out there I'v used or had lol , but then iam going deaf after many years of not use'g anything at all in the 70's and 80's 
you live and learn well some do 
I was glad that my Evo was among the list tested , and I would't mind betting thats the most in-depth set of tests out there at this time but funny I feel with my old ears its better than the hardy or others out there I'v used or had lol , but then iam going deaf after many years of not use'g anything at all in the 70's and 80's you live and learn well some do Mine is 243 specific and it feels like it does a good job. depending on the landscape it sounds louder sometimes than others but because of this I now wear ear protection. Possibly a bit over kill but watched Roy lupton on field sports Britain the other week and looks like he'd done a bit of damage to his ears over the years, so better safe than sorry.
Yes, prevention is better than cure, so hearing protection should be worn. My hearing has been damaged because of shooting over the years. My left ear is worse than the right because being right handed the stock has actually shielded my right ear. Since we have been using mods my hearing has actually improved. When I asked how is this possible, the nurse said that the damaged nerves will repair themselves.
When you say 243 specific, what do you mean exactly ?
That the hole in the silencer is 243 size essentially
Smokedude
Well-Known Member
Have to apologise about the above posts I need 5 to post this thread
@Edinburgh Riles nice test you have done and I'm going through the results.
While doing some investigation I came across this another test that was carried out by New Zealand hunting magazine Rod & Rifle might make some interesting comparisons and also might be some in there that you may not have tested.
Supressor Test - NZ Rod&Rifle
Again nice job and thanks it's taken the guesswork out.
On a side note about Hardy suppressors the company in NZ has a bit of a bad rep in regards to customer aftermarket service, a lot of Kiwi hunters won't deal with them any more.
Uncle Buck
Well-Known Member
I take my hat off to you Ed you must have put some the in there....one question whatever happened to the humble T8 reckon it still a formidable player...?
Billy
Billy
that would make it .22 specific at best!
Yeah a .243" hole is 6.2mm so suited for a .224 (5.6mm) bullet.
Typically a .243 moderator has a 7.4mm bore so can be used for a .25cal bullet or 6.5mm(variant)
I don't think @Whitester understood what was being asked though
Typically a .243 moderator has a 7.4mm bore so can be used for a .25cal bullet or 6.5mm(variant)
I don't think @Whitester understood what was being asked though
icerider
Active Member
Very nice work indeed. I'm strongly considering Freyr-Devik either 196 or 269 for my Sako 6.5x55. Unfortunatelly they are not tested back to back in this review. I also have no chance to try them life on a rifle including balance. Which one of these would better suit for my 6.5 please? My rifle has standard factory barrel in 560mm.
Last edited:
Thanks for all that info. Very interesting and useful stuff.
For me, there’s more to moderators than noise attenuation and recoil reduction though. As someone who shoots a lot of rounds in a couple of my rifles, durability comes very high on my list. Stripping for cleaning is also important to me as moderators suffer with moisture (a by product of combustion) and carbon build up quite badly.
With the only legal way to acquire a replacement mod, being a one for one variation, which could take weeks, or longer, the ability to buy individual replacement parts means you aren’t out of action while you wait for paperwork.
I’ve seen more than a few one piece steel mods rusted through, mostly T6/T8, I’ve also seen a fair few all aluminium mods with badly fire cut baffles and in some cases catastrophic tube failures.
I’ll stick with my Wildcat P12s for my long range guns, both have thousands of rounds down them with less than negligible erosion, 100% reliability and if I need parts I can get them tomorrow. Just treated myself to an evolution for my stalking rifle on the back of their performance and im happy so far.
For me, there’s more to moderators than noise attenuation and recoil reduction though. As someone who shoots a lot of rounds in a couple of my rifles, durability comes very high on my list. Stripping for cleaning is also important to me as moderators suffer with moisture (a by product of combustion) and carbon build up quite badly.
With the only legal way to acquire a replacement mod, being a one for one variation, which could take weeks, or longer, the ability to buy individual replacement parts means you aren’t out of action while you wait for paperwork.
I’ve seen more than a few one piece steel mods rusted through, mostly T6/T8, I’ve also seen a fair few all aluminium mods with badly fire cut baffles and in some cases catastrophic tube failures.
I’ll stick with my Wildcat P12s for my long range guns, both have thousands of rounds down them with less than negligible erosion, 100% reliability and if I need parts I can get them tomorrow. Just treated myself to an evolution for my stalking rifle on the back of their performance and im happy so far.
I have
I have a f&d featherweight titanium on my x bolt .270. This has totally transformed the balance of my rifle. Formally had an ASE SL5
icerider
Active Member
196
not as quiet as my old SL5 but quiet enough for my purposes. The X Bolt has a 22" barrel so the difference in weight of the moderator makes a massive difference to the balance.
icerider
Active Member
Thanks, from info available online 196 should be on par with SL5 and 269 comparable to SL7. It's a wonder to me you feel SL5 was quiter. Thanks for sharing!
My moderator was the old SL5 not the SL5i as tested by Edinburgh Rifles. The SL5 was much heavier (over 500 g) and perhaps quieter that the 5i?
caorach
Well-Known Member
It is worth being very, very careful with info available online as regards moderators and other shooting related "measurements" of sound pressure levels.
The gear to accurately measure the peak sound pressure level produced by a rifle is very rare and extremely specialized indeed, typically it will be the size of a fridge or similar. It needs to cope with a very high SPL (in the order of 180dB SPL) and it also needs to be extremely "fast" as the peak SPL is present only for a very short period of time, this means it needs to be linear at very high frequencies. These circumstances also require extremely specialized microphones, they need to cope with frequencies over 80kHz and will be producing in excess of 40 Volts, maybe nearly 70V, at their output when subjected to a rifle shot, they also need to be physically small. For comparison most high quality microphones are linear to about 20kHz and will generally produce a fraction of a Volt at their output. Most meters for sound pressure level not only lack the high frequency performance necessary, and the high SPL performance necessary, but they also integrate - that is to say they sort of average the sound pressure over varying lengths of time. Again accurate recording requires data logging at hundreds kHz and this is not trivial. As a result accurate measurements of the SPL of a rifle shot are rare, as are accurate measurements of moderator performance. I've no idea how many suitable meters for this sort of work there might be in the UK, I'd guess there might be a few in a university here or there but it is possible there aren't any at all.
If the incorrect meters are used then it is impossible to predict how they might effect the outcome of any attempt to measure the attenuation provided by a moderator - it is possible a moderator which provides great reduction of the peak SPL might extend the time over which sound is present and so may appear to be "louder" to an integrating meter than another moderator which doesn't actually produce as much peak attenuation, such an error may appear consistent and repeatable and so give unfounded confidence in what is being measured. I have seen one expert shooting writer report the level of a rifle, as measured by his meter close to the shooter, as "98dB." Not only did he not know what it was referenced to (there is no such thing as a dB in isolation, a dB is a ratio and so must be referenced to some known fixed value) but he had no concept that if the meter was, as is likely, calibrated to measure dB(A) then 98dB(A) was probably approaching 70 - 80dB too low for the measurement concerned. As an example a link was recently posted on this forum to a moderator test which was carried out outwith the UK but which used a meter with, according to the maker, a maximum SPL of 140dB SPL and that was an integrating meter (i.e. it did a sort of averaging thing and so didn't measure peak SPL). I suspect most discussions of moderator performance are based upon measurements similar to this and, as such, are going to be incorrect in an almost completely unpredictable manner.
Similar threads
