User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/1/2017 7:59:20 AM EDT
[#1]
nm.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2017 8:35:00 AM EDT
[#2]
I guess it depends on if you are worried about the way you hear the noise or your enemy. I wear electronic ear muffs and Id rather have the enemy not hear it. So that suppressor keeps the noise away from the shooter and pushes it out toward the enemy doesn't make sense to me
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2017 10:56:49 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess it depends on if you are worried about the way you hear the noise or your enemy. I wear electronic ear muffs and Id rather have the enemy not hear it. So that suppressor keeps the noise away from the shooter and pushes it out toward the enemy doesn't make sense to me I have watched videos of animals running towards the shooter when a suppressor was used. From what I understand, the suppressor as used by the military helps mask where the shooter is moreover than masking the fact there is someone shooting at you. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2017 11:34:10 AM EDT
[#4]
That's what I mean
I want it to hide the flash and make it harder for someone to triangulate where I am |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2017 12:31:29 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's what I mean I want it to hide the flash and make it harder for someone to triangulate where I am And I've never seen a rifle can or pistol can, completely hide the flash from a contained gunpowder explosion. It greatly reduces it though, and the downrange it's hard to triangulate where that supersonic crack originated from. It's not a concern for most. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2017 6:08:13 PM EDT
[#6]
I'll add to the above that the reduction in sound at the shooter's ear is more important than at the muzzle if you're not wearing ear pro, and it mainly comes from reduced backpressure and thus port pop. This is also the main advantage of the OSS in reduced gas to face, action fouling, stress on parts, and staying further inside the reliability envelope without system tuning.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2017 7:00:17 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Am I wrong? I don't care about my ears or those around me. The guys on the team often do wear electronic ear muffs or can put them on. On the other hand, for a variety of reasons, you should care about your own ears and the ears of those around you. For various reasons, a shooter or team member may choose to, or simply end up not having electronic muffs on when a shot is fired. Even with electronic muffs, suppressors can still be fairly loud, this is not only annoying and uncomfortable, but it can lead to distraction/loss of focus/situational awareness, and possibly long-term hearing damage, especially if you're not "doubling up" with both muffs and plugs. Reducing the signature at the muzzle end and at the shooter's ear can have tangible practical benefits that are worth pursuing. This does not mean ranged signature reduction is unimportant, but if it does the job, it does the job--and you most certainly should care about your ears and those of the guys around you. ~Augee |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2017 6:00:54 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll add to the above that the reduction in sound at the shooter's ear is more important than at the muzzle if you're not wearing ear pro, and it mainly comes from reduced backpressure and thus port pop. This is also the main advantage of the OSS in reduced gas to face, action fouling, stress on parts, and staying further inside the reliability envelope without system tuning. And a gas setting will decrease the stress on the parts (another reason why I like piston ARs) I guess it comes down to what purpose you have the weapon. My purpose is more tactical than self comfort even though I don't find shooting suppressed is uncomfortable at all with my weapons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2017 6:07:45 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes. While signature reduction is a primary purpose for many military use suppressors, the reality is that at a certain point you reach a point of diminishing returns. If the enemy can't tell where the shot came from, they can't tell where the shot came from, and in most realistic situations, a little bit of improvement is not going to significantly affect your ability to mask the point of origin of the shot. On the other hand, for a variety of reasons, you should care about your own ears and the ears of those around you. For various reasons, a shooter or team member may choose to, or simply end up not having electronic muffs on when a shot is fired. Even with electronic muffs, suppressors can still be fairly loud, this is not only annoying and uncomfortable, but it can lead to distraction/loss of focus/situational awareness, and possibly long-term hearing damage, especially if you're not "doubling up" with both muffs and plugs. Reducing the signature at the muzzle end and at the shooter's ear can have tangible practical benefits that are worth pursuing. This does not mean ranged signature reduction is unimportant, but if it does the job, it does the job--and you most certainly should care about your ears and those of the guys around you. ~Augee At this point I wouldn't go for this type if suppressor over a conventional one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2017 6:38:23 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Piston weapons take care of the gas to the face or carbon build up w suppressors. One of the reasons why I prefer piston ARs And a gas setting will decrease the back pressure (another reason why I like piston ARs) I guess it comes down to what purpose you have the weapon. My purpose is more tactical than self comfort even though I don't find shooting suppressed is uncomfortable at all with my weapons. My overall point isn't that piston vs DI is a major point of contention, rather that piston operation doesn't negate the benefits of a seriously low back-pressure can or make it a better choice in all cases. Now if only OSS can make one that doesn't look like AIDS and works with a nice flash-comp type of muzzle device. I also struggle in trusting their durability after the previous generation's issues. In the meantime? I'm sufficiently happy with my SOCOM RC2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2017 6:54:58 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The solution for me would be to have quality electronic ear muffs for myself or those around me. I prefer performance at distance. Even if it's slightly better performance. Maybe in CQB or inside a home/building the OSS would be better because it would push sound forward more. But, if CQB was anticipated sub sonic rounds or another weapon might be better. At this point I wouldn't go for this type if suppressor over a conventional one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2017 10:53:26 AM EDT
[#12]
To me, I prefer at shooter's ears and don't care if the bullets explode at the enemy's ears.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2017 11:10:05 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The solution for me would be to have quality electronic ear muffs for myself or those around me. I prefer performance at distance. Even if it's slightly better performance. Maybe in CQB or inside a home/building the OSS would be better because it would push sound forward more. But, if CQB was anticipated sub sonic rounds or another weapon might be better. At this point I wouldn't go for this type if suppressor over a conventional one. Beyond that, I don't buy into the OSS hype and marketing regardless, so there's that. I'm not sure what quality electronic muffs you're talking about that you perceive to be higher quality from an all-around functionality standpoint than the ComTacs and Sordins are that are the most common issued electronic hearing protection/comms equipment, but that's neither here nor there. Ultimately, whether you perceive it to be uncomfortable or not personally, a suppressed centerfire rifle, even when wearing electronic hearing protection is still loud, both in the moment, and can still potentially have a net negative effect on your hearing long-term. It's that "march of technology" where things are already "good enough," so new things must continue to be "better" and we can worry about such things as long term hearing loss, and it being louder than desired to the shooter and to buddies, whether they be a spotter, or a team member in a stack. ~Augee |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2017 12:54:01 PM EDT
[#14]
I don't buy into it either. I use peltor ear pro and with my suppressors that's more than enough.
I disagree with piston ARs being less accurate. My CMMG and POF are pretty accurate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2017 1:50:12 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't buy into it either. I use peltor ear pro and with my suppressors that's more than enough. I disagree with piston ARs being less accurate. My CMMG and POF are pretty accurate. There is little difference in my 10-15k a year rounds down range through each type. As far as a piston gun suppressed, they can get just as dirty as a DI gun in my exp. I don't see huge benefits over either suppressed, even with adjustable gas system. Its just a matter of personal preference. I love my POF, probably one of the most accurate ARs I have ever had. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2017 2:14:27 PM EDT
[#16]
OSS and pistons in the same thread...
I'll just say more quiet is better than less quiet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2017 8:56:44 PM EDT
[#17]
After watching MAC's OSS video, watch this one: YHM Turbo test
Short version, if you don't watch it--the "1 meter to the left of the muzzle" readings were around 130-132 db. Pretty impressive, until you see the average at the ear was 145.6 db. Standard DI AR, nothing special about the gun that I remember (it's been a while since I watched the whole thing). That's the first time I've seen him do those measurements with a conventional design--anybody else find that unsettling? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2017 12:28:56 AM EDT
[#18]
I've seen similar tests. It's typical to see a difference, but that's especially high at the ear and indicates an overgassed system and/or very high backpressure, though those are very good muzzle readings which supports the suspected high backpressure. No free lunch and all. The SOCOM RC2 tests higher at the muzzle and around 141 or so at the ear. It's actually tolerable in open areas. Sounds about like a 22 LR from a carbine at worst from my 10.5", but I have an SLR gas block.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2017 1:15:52 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't buy into it either. I use peltor ear pro and with my suppressors that's more than enough. I disagree with piston ARs being less accurate. My CMMG and POF are pretty accurate. ETA: Here's the best and only piston gun in the 100yd magnified optics category from the MOAAD thread-- 109. maxxmojo: Norinco NDM-86 7.62 NATO - 8x42D POSP scope - Georgia Arms 168gr. HPBT Canned Heat - Groups: 2.505"/2.2"/1.44"/2.307"/1.7395"/ avg 2.0383" = 1.9468 MOA Not saying that's some piston benchmark, but I think there's mechanical reasons piston guns aren't showing up in the main category replete with well under 1MOA averaging guns. Keep in mind that's with rear squeeze bags and no clamping rests under the rules. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2017 4:07:32 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
After watching MAC's OSS video, watch this one: YHM Turbo test Short version, if you don't watch it--the "1 meter to the left of the muzzle" readings were around 130-132 db. Pretty impressive, until you see the average at the ear was 145.6 db. Standard DI AR, nothing special about the gun that I remember (it's been a while since I watched the whole thing). That's the first time I've seen him do those measurements with a conventional design--anybody else find that unsettling? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2017 4:19:46 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a matter of degrees. A well made piston can shoot plenty well for typical use, but a true precision gun with everything else done right will suffer from the harmonic interference by comparison. I'm talking true 3/4 MOA or better "all day" capable guns, and not three shot or cherry picked BS, rather MOA all day thread qualifiers. If you have a piston gun that can avg 3/4 MOA on five consecutive five shot groups you should post it in there. I don't say that to be a dick, but rather cause it would be really impressive and a great data point. ETA: Here's the best and only piston gun in the 100yd magnified optics category from the MOAAD thread-- 109. maxxmojo: Norinco NDM-86 7.62 NATO - 8x42D POSP scope - Georgia Arms 168gr. HPBT Canned Heat - Groups: 2.505"/2.2"/1.44"/2.307"/1.7395"/ avg 2.0383" = 1.9468 MOA Not saying that's some piston benchmark, but I think there's mechanical reasons piston guns aren't showing up in the main category replete with well under 1MOA averaging guns. Keep in mind that's with rear squeeze bags and no clamping rests under the rules. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't buy into it either. I use peltor ear pro and with my suppressors that's more than enough. I disagree with piston ARs being less accurate. My CMMG and POF are pretty accurate. ETA: Here's the best and only piston gun in the 100yd magnified optics category from the MOAAD thread-- 109. maxxmojo: Norinco NDM-86 7.62 NATO - 8x42D POSP scope - Georgia Arms 168gr. HPBT Canned Heat - Groups: 2.505"/2.2"/1.44"/2.307"/1.7395"/ avg 2.0383" = 1.9468 MOA Not saying that's some piston benchmark, but I think there's mechanical reasons piston guns aren't showing up in the main category replete with well under 1MOA averaging guns. Keep in mind that's with rear squeeze bags and no clamping rests under the rules. The point is that I prefer a weapon that makes things most difficult for someone down range to see or find me. The sound at my ear isn't an issue for me since I use quality ear pro. And gas in my face inst an issue with my ARs. I guess it comes down to what you are using the weapon for. Good discussion. You guys have a lot of good input and points |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2017 5:02:30 PM EDT
[#22]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2017 5:03:51 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a matter of degrees. A well made piston can shoot plenty well for typical use, but a true precision gun with everything else done right will suffer from the harmonic interference by comparison. I'm talking true 3/4 MOA or better "all day" capable guns, and not three shot or cherry picked BS, rather MOA all day thread qualifiers. If you have a piston gun that can avg 3/4 MOA on five consecutive five shot groups you should post it in there. I don't say that to be a dick, but rather cause it would be really impressive and a great data point. ETA: Here's the best and only piston gun in the 100yd magnified optics category from the MOAAD thread-- 109. maxxmojo: Norinco NDM-86 7.62 NATO - 8x42D POSP scope - Georgia Arms 168gr. HPBT Canned Heat - Groups: 2.505"/2.2"/1.44"/2.307"/1.7395"/ avg 2.0383" = 1.9468 MOA Not saying that's some piston benchmark, but I think there's mechanical reasons piston guns aren't showing up in the main category replete with well under 1MOA averaging guns. Keep in mind that's with rear squeeze bags and no clamping rests under the rules. 
https://www.facebook.com/TeludyneTech/posts/10155198544823413 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2017 9:09:44 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Teludyne has finally finished adapting their system to the SCAR. I'm sure it will be pricey, but they claim it's now consistently 1/2 MOA with factory ammo. They are indicating they are going to be putting their system on guns currently deployed with the special ops guys. Maybe one of you guys can get your hands on one to see what a piston rifle can do when improved by them...
https://www.facebook.com/TeludyneTech/posts/10155198544823413 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2017 8:11:18 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whatever it'll do on a SCAR, it'll do better on a DI gun of equal system rigidity. I'm curious how they quantify 1/2 MOA for purposes of that claim. Knowing a bit about that jacket system, I'm sure it does perform well regardless. I'm considering a Dracos for my next Recce barrel.
Can't wait for some of those Dracos barrels to get tested by guys who know what they're doing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 8:07:41 PM EDT
[#26]
Here's some more hard data to add to this conversation: MAC tests the Rugged Surge 762
Short version--138.1 db left of the muzzle, 149.5 db 6 inches from shooter's right ear. He says the only suppressor he has measured under 140 db at the shooter's ear so far is the OSS (I think he has only put the 7.62 on the meter so far). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2017 3:02:09 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, no question about that. I was just pointing out that perhaps, with enough money, it's possible for a piston gun to keep up with premium DI guns regarding accuracy.
Can't wait for some of those Dracos barrels to get tested by guys who know what they're doing. Note the weight    . Granted with the gas block/tube, but FUUUUCK that.
223 WYLDE 16” AR 15 BARREL$850.00 – $900.00Caliber: 223 Wylde Barrel Length: 16? Twist: 1-8 Thread: 1/2 x 28 Gas Tube: Mid Length Barrel Diameter: 25mm /.98” Barrel Weight: 58.5 oz (*Our Barrel weight counts for the integrated Gas Block, the Gas Block Insert and Gas Tube) Barrel Diameter with Gas Block: 1.44” |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2017 12:24:53 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Piston weapons take care of the gas to the face or carbon build up w suppressors. One of the reasons why I prefer piston ARs And a gas setting will decrease the stress on the parts (another reason why I like piston ARs) I guess it comes down to what purpose you have the weapon. My purpose is more tactical than self comfort even though I don't find shooting suppressed is uncomfortable at all with my weapons. Since I'm more concerned about my own hearing preservation as a civilian shooter, I'm going to focus on how loud a rifle is at my ear. I don't care how load it is at the target or if I deafen Bambi just before I harvest her. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2017 1:00:10 AM EDT
[#29]
Being deaf is not only not conducive to hearing other people, it's also distracting.
Sound reduction helps. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2017 5:10:47 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, the Dracos AR-15 Wylde barrels are up for backorder with late June est. delivery. Note the weight . Granted with the gas block/tube, but FUUUUCK that.
223 WYLDE 16” AR 15 BARREL$850.00 – $900.00Caliber: 223 Wylde Barrel Length: 16? Twist: 1-8 Thread: 1/2 x 28 Gas Tube: Mid Length Barrel Diameter: 25mm /.98” Barrel Weight: 58.5 oz (*Our Barrel weight counts for the integrated Gas Block, the Gas Block Insert and Gas Tube) Barrel Diameter with Gas Block: 1.44” |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 9:44:56 AM EDT
[#31]
Depends on what I'm doing. Generally, I want it well rounded, but I care more about it killing the report. For hog hunting, we're usually wearing electro ear pro and I want the report to be as quiet as possible to increase the odds of getting multiple shots and not to dissuade a new batch of hogs from showing up for round 2. Deer hunting, only going to shoot once so it's a toss up. Work, quiet enough for me and mobile, so K cans get the nod. Short of work, where I'll still grab electro ear pro out of my active shooter kit if I can, or 22LR I'm still going to use some type of ear pro. A loud can that is a little quieter at ear at the cost of suppression doesn't appeal to me when the action is going to be noisy anyway.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
