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

        Take 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
          ·
          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
            2
            ·
            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.