• *Effective 3/27/2024 - The discussion of the creation, fabrication, or modification of airgun moderators is prohibited. The discussion of any "adapters" used to convert an airgun moderator to a firearm silencer will result in immediate termination of the account.*

Latest Moderator

Status
Not open for further replies.
I recently received an Old Spook, “Ember” moderator designed for .22 caliber, and a carbon fiber shell. Construction is top notch, literally beautiful. To date it’s been used on two completely different rifles, for over a thousand rounds total and with similar results. Very noticeable sound reduction, looks great and most importantly, no loss in accuracy at all.
Two photos. First the Ember on a .22 BRK Ghost. Second shows the Ember on a new .22 FX King.

IMG_4245.jpeg


IMG_4242.jpeg
 
It’s the same moderator in both photos. The logo was installed on the moderator to be correct on one of the rifles, but we’ve been testing the moderator on the other rifle too. It works very well on each rifle, which shows the versatility of the design.

I’m certain the logo can be installed any direction a person wants, or even by the customer themselves.
 
I recently received an Old Spook, “Ember” moderator designed for .22 caliber, and a carbon fiber shell. Construction is top notch, literally beautiful. To date it’s been used on two completely different rifles, for over a thousand rounds total and with similar results. Very noticeable sound reduction, looks great and most importantly, no loss in accuracy at all.
Two photos. First the Ember on a .22 BRK Ghost. Second shows the Ember on a new .22 FX King.

View attachment 412388

View attachment 412390
NICE...DARN NICE!!! I need one of these for a 177..
 
There is one in the classifieds this evening.
@OldSpook

Would one of these embers work on marauder pistol? I got one I’m hoping to tune to about 18-20fpe. It might be a tad under those numbers though. I seen your ad said for airguns in 20-40fpe range. I’m new to PCP Airguns so sorry if it’s a silly question. I tried to PM you but haven’t made 10 post. I just got bit by the Airgun bug and have a to learn.

Thanks,
Rob
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike_OH
They are 35mm in diameter. If you are running an optic that should not be a problem for you. Honestly they work great on my .177s and none of the are over 18 fpe. Should work for you, yes.
Thanks, looks like a nice size for a carbine like my P-rod. I’m interested in one. I can’t PM you though. I don’t have 10 post yet. Not sure if you can PM me?
 
No new moderator review is complete without the moderator disassembled and photographed. It is only fair because the effectiveness is very subjective. Sound measurement numbers cannot be relied on simply because they cannot be reliably reproduced. I also make moderators and I try to photograph them disassembled with listed dimensions as well. Although I have never sold one of my moderators, most folks do not have the facility or tooling to make their own, so doing so has little to no impact on future sales. So why not?
 
Sound measurements can absolutely be a reliable, scientific and repeatable way to test moderator performance when the proper equipment and methodology is used. Unfortunately, the $20 decibel meters people buy on Amazon and use in their backyards to do such tests are nowhere near the proper level of equipment that needs to be used. You don't need to spend thousands, but a few hundred or so to get the proper recording gear that would give accurate and repeatable measurements.
 
Exact measurements are difficult to reproduce, relative measurements (placing a set of moderators on a continuum ranked in order and separated in a scaled relationship based upon their damping properties) is pretty easy to duplicate.

I haven't seen one of your posts where you did that? If you have time, perhaps you'd send e a link? I always enjoy seeing another engineer's work.

That depends upon your target market. If you want to sell a proprietary design, publishing it with drawings might be a poor idea.


Where have you been @steve-l ? We have been discussing and I have been posting images of my design(s) for more than a year here on this forum. We've spent the last two months beating the use of the "gyroid" shape to create porous Tesla baffles to death. We have explored the use of different plastics to enhance the passive damping properties of those same baffles.

I have repeatedly discussed in painful detail my thinking on the subject. Right, wrong or indifferent it's all out there. All you have to do is read it. The only thing that I haven't discussed publicly at this point is where in my porous designs I place hard points to strengthen the structure and restrict air flow. That's not a secret. I just haven't gotten around to it.

There's no magic here.
So, show your mods disassembled. Here are two of my latest along with a new Hush that came with my new GK1(which does nothing). Please note they are all shown with dimensions. Both of mine work well in my tests. I have sent one of the new 6" Mods to the HUBEN gun shop in Spain for their testing and evaluation as my opinion is both biased and subjective. The old design is all aluminum and has inverted conical baffles. The new 6" model has aluminum end caps , carbon fiber outside tube and carbon fiber flat baffles. Both style baffles work well, but the conical baffles are superior. The older 7" design uses 5mm stainless compression studs and stainless acorn nuts along with a small stack of Belleville spring washers on each stud. The new design at the smaller diameter uses stainless M3 studs and stainless acorn nuts without Belleville washers. I also included two alignment gauge rods in the shipment to verify correct barrel to moderator bore alignment one in .22 and one in .25. Note: the diameter is not 1.825 that is a misprint. It is 1.185". It weighs 180 grams.

IMG_1751.JPG


IMG_1750.JPG


IMG_1749.JPG
 
Last edited:
😂🤣😂
Like I said, I have repeatedly published dimensions and specifications of the designs that I have found to be successful. I have excruciatingly detailed my thoughts, measurements, philosophy, and experiments. I've done that right here in this forum on AGN. There are drawings all over this forum with dimensions. I am not going to duplicate that for you here.

Had you been paying attention, and my suspicion is that you have not, you would have the information you are demanding.

That said, I do not respond well to demands. I took orders the better part of 50 years. That means I have earned the right to tell most people who want to give me orders to piss off.

You keep pushing and you will find yourself blocked.

Now "piss off".
I'm not demanding anything nor am I insulting you or your efforts. Since most folks do not have the facility to compare or accurately measure the sound of a moderator, I have asked you to show your mod disassembled with dimensions. You asked me to do the same. I included the photos originally included in the GK1 mod thread here on this thread for your convenience. You have not done the same nor have you linked the thread where you have done this in the past. I have not said that your mod is better than mine or visa/versa. You should be proud of your work as I am mine. Why not show it off?

It would be great if there was a unbiased special testing facility available where all these moderators could be tested against each other, but there is not. I sent my mod to the HUBEN gun shop not just for evaluation and unbiased feedback, but because the HUBEN mod adaptor design issue which allows the adaptor to skew out of alignment with the barrel. That is why I also sent two alignment testing rods as well. Hopefully they can convince the HUBEN factory to change the adaptor design.
 
@steve-l
I do not see the connection between accurately measuring the sound and showing a moderator disassembled.

Yes I HAVE done it in the past. Did you need someone to hold your hand? Ok... :rolleyes:
I expect that will get you started. There are numerous other links which provide additional material.

Oh well, I guess you'll have to establish your own procedure. I've heard that Audacity and a cellphone can take you down that road far enough to get meaningful results. YMMV a'course.

Good luck with that.
Thank you for your effort and for sharing. There is no reason for your hostility. I am not in competition with you. In point of fact I really like your design. In my 50 years of making these things for myself, I have come to the same conclusions to what works and what does not. I personally have had very bad experiences with both durability and distortion with 3D plastics when used as functional parts, so I stick to subtractive, conventional construction. I'm sure that in the future those current issues with additive construction will be resolved.

Because of my recent experience with the GK1 barrel alignment issue with their moderator adaptor design. How do you check barrel to moderator bore alignment? I have recently found the test to be important. If you have access to a lathe, gauge rods are easy to make. I use AL6961-T6 .250" stock turned down on one end to the barrel land diameter. When placed through the moderator into the barrel, it is then easy to see if the rod exits the moderator in the center of the moderator bore as it should. If you do not have access to a lathe, just let know and I'll make one for you for free.
 
Sound measurements can absolutely be a reliable, scientific and repeatable way to test moderator performance when the proper equipment and methodology is used. Unfortunately, the $20 decibel meters people buy on Amazon and use in their backyards to do such tests are nowhere near the proper level of equipment that needs to be used. You don't need to spend thousands, but a few hundred or so to get the proper recording gear that would give accurate and repeatable measurements.
Please provide your methodology and equipment used vs. the $20 amazon dB variety.

I'll start:


 
Please provide your methodology and equipment used vs. the $20 amazon dB variety.

I'll start:



I use a Zoom H6 for acquisition and a stereo mic. Placed 3’ square in front of and to the side of the end of the mod on the horizontal plane. 48kHz sample rate at 24bit. The waveforms and spectrograms are then reviewed in either Adobe Audition or Audacity to find peak dBf and to get an idea of the dominate frequency bands. Three shots averaged for each mod. Ideally, each set of tests is analyzed relative to mods tested in that particular run to ensure conditions are identical. Results have been very consistent, but I do plan to test further with more mics and at even higher sample rates. It starts to get expensive, though.
 
I use a Zoom H6 for acquisition and a stereo mic. Placed 3’ square in front of and to the side of the end of the mod on the horizontal plane. 48kHz sample rate at 24bit. The waveforms and spectrograms are then reviewed in either Adobe Audition or Audacity to find peak dBf and to get an idea of the dominate frequency bands. Three shots averaged for each mod. Ideally, each set of tests is analyzed relative to mods tested in that particular run to ensure conditions are identical. Results have been very consistent, but I do plan to test further with more mics and at even higher sample rates. It starts to get expensive, though.
Do you have any #'s from the Zoom H6 vs. amazon dB meter?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.