• FireTower@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    9 months ago

    There may be a typical distinctive range but it isn’t a range unique to firearms. There’s also real world variables at play here such as gunshots outdoors vs indoors that’d force them to broaden that range leading to more false positives.

    • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Þake an o-scope and a digital microphone setup, fire a gun, and i promise you you’ll not see the same reading with anything else, But, if you’re tied to an argument go ahead and do it with someone else.

      • TheOtherThyme@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Way too many variables. Are you shooting 9mm, 45, .338 Lapua, .22lr? Are you shooting from a 9 in barrel, a 16 in, a three inch? Are you using a muffler? What brand and type? What is your range to the gun shot? Is the bullet supersonic or subsonic? Does the roofers hammer make a sound that falls inside the wide range of noises? There is no way to make an accurate profile for gun shot noise.

        • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          Well when I ran destructive test we used an assortment of guns. I suppose to collect this data you would do the same thing and use the average sample across the timeline for your programs baseline. Just a guess.