Wildcat Whisper .22lr Review

[TattooedGun]

http://blog.stegough.com/uk-custom-shop-wildcat-whisper-22lr-moderator-review/

 

Thoughts and suggestions on how I may improve the review/wrteup for future versions welcome. Hope someone finds it interesting.

 

No Blanks this time!

[Big Al]

I think it would have been useful to have given the reader the moderated db figures for the SAK - the SAK is a well known low cost moderator and it would have been a good comparison, easy to do at the same time.

[TattooedGun]

I think it would have been useful to have given the reader the moderated db figures for the SAK - the SAK is a well known low cost moderator and it would have been a good comparison, easy to do at the same time.

I have that and will be publishing it later this week....

[maximus otter]

An excellent review. I like the concept of "decibels of noise reduction per pound of cost".

 

Just correct the text from "it's" to "its" here:

 

"...at some point during it’s lifespan.."

 

... and it'll be fine.

 

maximus otter

[Shuggy]

I really don't mean to be rude, so please don't take this the wrong way. It is meant as constructive criticism. I am afraid that you have fallen into the old trap of using the wrong type of sound pressure meter for your tests. You are not alone in this - Shooting Sports/Gun Mart do it all the time.

 

You say that you wanted to achieve an 'effective, repeateable test', but you won't do so with that type of industrial noise meter. They simply don't have the sampling rate or dynamic range to accurately measure the impulse noise from a gunshot. The reality is that an unsuppressed .22 will be achieving around 140db.

 

Another common pitfall is that people will use the A weighting frequency response. This is very relevant for repeated exposure to steady state or impulse noise, but is not suitable for peak measuremen of gunshots, as it eliminates the low frequency sounds that can damage hearing. The accepted modern method is to use the C weighted peak measurement.

 

Basically you need a sound meter that meets BS EN 61672 and to follow a proper test regime, such as described in Def Stan 00-27 issue 3.

[TattooedGun]

An excellent review. I like the concept of "decibels of noise reduction per pound of cost".

 

Just correct the text from "it's" to "its" here:

 

"...at some point during it’s lifespan.."

 

... and it'll be fine.

 

maximus otter

 

Thanks mr Otter Done

[TattooedGun]

I really don't mean to be rude, so please don't take this the wrong way. It is meant as constructive criticism. I am afraid that you have fallen into the old trap of using the wrong type of sound pressure meter for your tests. You are not alone in this - Shooting Sports/Gun Mart do it all the time.

 

You say that you wanted to achieve an 'effective, repeateable test', but you won't do so with that type of industrial noise meter. They simply don't have the sampling rate or dynamic range to accurately measure the impulse noise from a gunshot. The reality is that an unsuppressed .22 will be achieving around 140db.

 

Another common pitfall is that people will use the A weighting frequency response. This is very relevant for repeated exposure to steady state or impulse noise, but is not suitable for peak measuremen of gunshots, as it eliminates the low frequency sounds that can damage hearing. The accepted modern method is to use the C weighted peak measurement.

 

Basically you need a sound meter that meets BS EN 61672 and to follow a proper test regime, such as described in Def Stan 00-27 issue 3.

Hmm... I do see where you're coming from. Unfortunately I can only review with what I have, and those sound meters seem to cost a lot of wedge when realistically I don't make diddly squat from my reviews.

 

I do however have a repeatable test, where I can show the difference in moderators that are tested the same way with the same equipment and show the comparison of the different mods given this test (even if they are not 100% accurate figures, the percentages of moderation should be right, right?).

 

Maybe need to get back to the drawing board at some point...

[gbal]

TG,I understand your points-in this case authentic measurement will not come cheaply-you have some limited comparative data,for different moderators,but huggy's point (as I understand it) is that some important components are not really measured well,or at all. Other audiology experts have said the same.If that is so,then any measurements might be not only 'not 100% accurate' but misleading.

While no expert, my scientific training was that if something could be measured,it probably should be,BUT if it were measured,it were best to measure it well (validly and reliably).

 

Consider a basic simplistic 'analogy': how big is the moderator?

 

Well if you measure only diameter,this will be accurate and allow a comparison of diameters.

If you measure only length,this likewise allows good comparisons on length.

'Length' may suffice for some users.But any real measure of 'size''needs both length and diameter-it's very clear different moderators vary on these two dimensions. So, any 'size' comments are incomplete,at best,unless both are included.

'Weight" might also be added to a more comprehensive list of measures(most users think it's important for their uses).

 

Yes,all very obvious.Because we 'know' the three variables that matter for 'size' (length,diameter,weight)-and if any are missing in a review we will see that easily.

 

Alas,this is not so for sound moderation unless properly tested(as per Shuggy's recomendations.)

 

I am not trying to criticise,just underline the points-especially if hearing damage might result-that is no fun,so I'm told (though don't always hear!).Whether it is of practical/field relevance,is up to the shooter-but at least be guided by 'comprehensive' valid tests,if possible (and there are not many readily available!).

 

gbal

[Shuggy]

Well without getting too technical, in simple terms - no. It would be a bit like trying to work out the results of a race by only measuring 2 runners, for the first half of the race!

 

You are right that Class 1 sound meters cost serious wedge. About £2-3000 for a decent one. Which is why these tests are probably only done by government labs and big companies. In the US there are quite a few silencer enthusiasts who have made the investment and who publish their results according to Mil Std 1474D (which isn't a perfect standard, but at least is accurate and repeatable). But these are all with US suppressor designs. There are very few published test results of european or UK suppressor designs. As far as I know, only Ase Utra publish proper test results.

 

If someone ever started publishing UK test results according to Def Stan 00-27, I know that there are a lot of people who would be paying attention!

[DL.]

The cynic in me thought it was a remarkable coincidence that when the Wildcat Whisper was launched it was almost identical to the DM80. Just a passing resemblance obviously.