Military Arms Channel Rugged Surge, Biased Review?

Armory » Silencers

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Military Arms Channel Rugged Surge, Biased Review? (Page 1 of 4)

Posted: 5/26/2017 4:53:22 AM EDT

Just watched this, it felt like I was watching an infomercial for OSS. the Rugged Surge to the OSS Helix.
Some highlights:
He calls it heavy as a tank (listed weight- 21.5 oz), (OSS listed weight 22.3oz)
He seems to really dislike the belt fed rating.
And of course, he thinks it's overpriced.

After watching his OSS review, a few things... Different ammo in the tests.
OSS is tested on a piston rifle, Surge on a DI.

Anybody else feel like this review was biased?

Posted: 5/26/2017 6:58:15 AM EDT

[#1]

Not really the impression I got. The db readings at the shooter's ear is interesting; I'm in the market for my first 7.62 can and I didn't realize there was that much of a discrepancy between muzzle db and the db at the shooter's ear. The Surge and Sandman that he tested are currently number one and two on my list. I'd like to see more ear db readings on other brands.

Posted: 5/26/2017 7:42:12 AM EDT

[#2]

I have a rugged surge and am pleased with it. I dont have a fleet of suppresseors to test from but I find there is little difference in sound from one to another using the same ammo. The review did sound a little spiteful but its only his opinion and nothing more.

Posted: 5/26/2017 9:16:42 AM EDT

[#3]

Reviews are simply a opinion on a product and in most cases not a scientific study.

Yes some times it's biased and some times they are pretty objective. Usually if you watch past reviews of one individual you can see a trend. Best practice if you want to learn about a product is to watch as many reviews as you can on it then find a actual user and pick their brain. The internet machine doesn't pain a true picture all the time, see it in person if you can.

Posted: 5/26/2017 10:04:43 AM EDT

[#4]

pretty sure MAC does a lot of infomercials

or at least that's what I always used to think, I don't bother watching him anymore

Posted: 5/26/2017 10:12:15 AM EDT

[#5]

I watched it and thought that he was very critical of the suppressor. I view the Rugged Surge as one of the top cans in the industry. OSS towards the other end of the spectrum.

But that's just my opinion.

Posted: 5/26/2017 10:42:03 AM EDT

[#6]

MAC does A LOT of biased reviews. Unfortunately, his review of the HTA Kestrel led me my purchase of one, but it sits unused in my safe because it's heavy and loud. You'll find that he provides his opinion, and should be taken as such. I think you'll find that from many reviewers. Take them all with a grain of salt and try to get firsthand or unbiased reviews where you can.

Posted: 5/26/2017 10:47:05 AM EDT

[#7]

Called him out on this. Because he forgot the wrench to make it shorter. And if my understanding is correct. If you suppress less at the muzzle, usually have less port pop I.E. dead air, surefire and others I'm sure. Granted the few baffles might not make that much of a difference. The OSS can is high priced, bulky, heavy, and proprietary muzzle devices classified as silencers themselves. He's allowed to have his own opinions on stuff he likes, but sometimes it comes off as he shoves one product in our face and degrades other well known products

Posted: 5/26/2017 11:00:22 AM EDT

[#8]

I agree I didn't like his review. His whole concept of quiet at the shooters ear may sound correct, but a very unscientific study of shooting minus the hearing protection he always wears will have him changing his mind quickly. No experience with the rugged, but the tone on something like the sandman S is WAY better to the shooters ear than the garbage loud OSS can. I believe the peoblem with that comparison is you get more blowback with traditional cans but better suppression. I'm thinking the blowback action noise is what's causing his shooter's ear results to be so high but actual use minus ear pro and he'd know that the rugged can is above and beyond better than the OSS piece of crap I'm sure he was given along with a small bribe so he could give it a glowing review.

Posted: 5/26/2017 11:06:44 AM EDT

[#9]

Quote History

Quoted:
You'll find that he provides his opinion, and should be taken as such. I think you'll find that from many reviewers. Take them all with a grain of salt and try to get firsthand or unbiased reviews where you can.

View Quote

Exactly! If you watch his OSS "review" video, he tests one suppressor against the other using different weapon systems with different gas systems, along with a different type of bolt carrier (gemtech suppressed bolt carrier) in the DI system. Now I get that he didn't want to try out the DA can on his HK cause of warranty issues and that's fine, but to just still do a comparison test and call it the best because you won't try other setups is just biased/unfair.

Personally I'll view the OSS as loud as any other cans on any other rifles until someone can get an honest review out. That said, the OSS can seems to do good with the HK rifle, so that makes me wonder if other cans would do good with that rifle as well.

Posted: 5/26/2017 11:17:10 AM EDT

[#10]

Alot of the video "reviews" I've seen on suppressors seem more like advertisements. I realize for FFL's their are alot of perks from some manufatures (free products, discounts, pre release access, etc.) so that seems like it would sway opinions. These dealers get early access and demo cans to use and then "review" on different host and ammo. Not much of a review to do anything for me.

Posted: 5/26/2017 11:24:54 AM EDT

[#11]

For a rather mainstream review channel he's way late to the party reviewing the Surge. I take it he likes OSS...a lot.

I find it odd that someone who is hung up on shooter's ear dB, turns around and states that he doesn't notice or care about tone because he wears ear pro all the time. Hell, I can tell the difference even doubled up. Comparing cans without using the same host system is interesting as well. And a $900 dollar modular can is expensive while touting a $1500 can that's muzzle device is considered a "silencer part" so you only have one mount. Yeah, that's practical and cost effective.

Posted: 5/26/2017 11:45:43 AM EDT

[#12]

What a joke.

Posted: 5/26/2017 12:20:35 PM EDT

[#13]

He certainly does a lot of very positive reviews on weapons and ammo provided to him from the manufacturers. There are a number of guys on Youtube who do very professional looking reviews that I used to like a lot until I noticed the same. I still watch them but take what they say with a grain of salt.

I really appreciate the reviews of people who show all the bad with the good. If there are any I want to see all the malfunctions and breakages and loose things that need to be tightened.

I also like real world torture tests.I want to know where dirt or crud gets into each gun. When there is a pistol slide with a cutout. I want to know what happens when it falls on the ground and gets mud, dirt or pebbles inside around the barrel and recoil guide rod/spring.

Posted: 5/26/2017 1:00:16 PM EDT

[#14]

As much as I like MAC's channel, I got a similar vibe right off the bat for this video before he even started talking performance. There is nothing out there that I am aware of that could convince me to buy an OSS can.

Posted: 5/26/2017 1:13:42 PM EDT

[#15]

I do like the NRA and charity donation he mentions at the end.
Not sure how many businesses he represents, but wasn't he working at the Silencerco booth at the NRA Atlanta Convention this year?
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Posted: 5/26/2017 1:17:24 PM EDT

[#16]

I haven't done any testing with the microphone of a meter horizontal to the ground. It was my understanding the microphones should point upright, but his data doesn't seem off

We did at one time test Silencer Co's SWR specwar 762 caliber can at the ear one day, because a vendor was telling us how quiet the can was and how awesome it was. One of our guys was curious so he fired it without ear protection on 300BLK supersonic (a really tame round) and it rung his ears horribly despite metering well up front. That was confusing to everyone there. We put a meter on it at the shooters ear and it was ~ 148DB A weighted at the shooters right ear (and we were tucked up on rifle centerline behind the action, not 6" outboard). Our Recce 7 was there and we were reading ~138 at the same location. It was night and day. 10DB over the high 130's is a lot of noise increase- 142DB is 1meter left of the muzzle for a .22lr 10/22 unsuppressed with high velocity ammo.

If a baffle system is too restrictive it can actually drive a lot of sound out of the chamber and gas system of auto-loading firearms. It's not uncommon for typical market 5.56mm cans to drive 143-144DB on gas guns (most of our 556 line is hovering right around 140) on quality gas guns so we're lower than average, and Surefire (556 full size only) cans we tested were right around 139 so really nice, but in my opinion, 150 is just totally ridiculous. A can should not meter 150DB A weighted at the shooters ear for a right handed shooter. It's total amateur hour when stuff like that happens. The customer of that product isn't getting a good value- they may even get some serious hearing loss from that without realizing how dangerous it is to use that product without hearing protection.

Scientists get into weighting table arguments, OSHA is C weighted, some people prefer unweighted, but in my own humble opinion as a former warfighter, anything close to 140DB A weighted is going to be really great for a shooter to have to safeguard his hearing in defensive or sport (hunting) senarios. As a soldier I had cans that would do ~143 at the ear, and I was VERY VERY happy to have access to that level of hearing risk mitigation. I saw it as a personal safety tool and force multiplier- the silencer reduced incidence of return fire by reducing flash at night, and dust disturbance in the day. We shot sometimes daily, sometimes weekly, always with only fractions of a second or a second notice, and we didn't have time to don ear protection or even push plugs into our ears. We worked around guys who went deaf. Sometimes a guy would light up a 50BMG and lose tons of hearing. I've been nocked off my feet by an RPG and lucky to have not a scratch. Sometimes a guy would fire an AT4 and I've personally pushed plugs on "back blast area clear!" and was one of the lucky people present not to lose a bunch of hearing in a second. That firer went solidly half deaf. I just looked that up. 189.8DB is the SPL of an AT4.
https://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?page=351

Posted: 5/26/2017 1:35:21 PM EDT

[#17]

Last I checked, an adjustable gas block + rugged surge is STILL cheaper than an OSS can, and such a setup would be better in every way.

Honestly, are most people dumb enough to buy a $800-900 suppressor and not pay $100 to tune the rifle? And then bitch that it's LOUD?

What a joke of a review

Posted: 5/26/2017 1:43:00 PM EDT

[#18]

Quote History

Quoted:
I haven't done any testing with the microphone of a meter horizontal to the ground. It was my understanding the microphones should point upright, but his data doesn't seem off

We did at one time test Silencer Co's SWR specwar 762 caliber can at the ear one day, because a vendor was telling us how quiet the can was and how awesome it was. One of our guys was curious so he fired it without ear protection on 300BLK supersonic (a really tame round) and it rung his ears horribly despite metering well up front. That was confusing to everyone there. We put a meter on it at the shooters ear and it was ~ 148DB A weighted at the shooters right ear (and we were tucked up on rifle centerline behind the action, not 6" outboard). Our Recce 7 was there and we were reading ~138 at the same location. It was night and day. 10DB over the high 130's is a lot of noise increase- 142DB is 1meter left of the muzzle for a .22lr 10/22 unsuppressed with high velocity ammo.

If a baffle system is too restrictive it can actually drive a lot of sound out of the chamber and gas system of auto-loading firearms. It's not uncommon for typical market 5.56mm cans to drive 143-144DB on gas guns (most of our 556 line is hovering right around 140) on quality gas guns so we're lower than average, and Surefire (556 full size only) cans we tested were right around 139 so really nice, but in my opinion, 150 is just totally ridiculous. A can should not meter 150DB A weighted at the shooters ear for a right handed shooter. It's total amateur hour when stuff like that happens. The customer of that product isn't getting a good value- they may even get some serious hearing loss from that without realizing how dangerous it is to use that product without hearing protection.

Scientists get into weighting table arguments, OSHA is C weighted, some people prefer unweighted, but in my own humble opinion as a former warfighter, anything close to 140DB A weighted is going to be really great for a shooter to have to safeguard his hearing in defensive or sport (hunting) senarios. As a soldier I had cans that would do ~143 at the ear, and I was VERY VERY happy to have access to that level of hearing risk mitigation. I saw it as a personal safety tool and force multiplier- the silencer reduced incidence of return fire by reducing flash at night, and dust disturbance in the day. We shot sometimes daily, sometimes weekly, always with only fractions of a second or a second notice, and we didn't have time to don ear protection or even push plugs into our ears. We worked around guys who went deaf. Sometimes a guy would light up a 50BMG and lose tons of hearing. Sometimes a guy would fire an AT4 and I've personally pushed plugs on "back blast area clear!" and was one of the lucky people present not to lose a bunch of hearing in a second. That firer went solidly half deaf.

View Quote

These are good points all around.

I think part of the problem with at ear testing and gas guns is that you're likely going to get more variation in readings across different firearms. I'd be willing to bet that if he had a well tuned adjustable gas block on that, it would make a difference. I know that switching locking pieces in my PTR-91 was a noticeable improvement not only in terms of reliability, but also in at-ear suppression. It's probably ambitious to expect such things to make 10 dB of difference, though. The point here is that there may be things that can be done to increase lockup time that might mitigate the issue and some rifles will handle the additional backpressure differently than others. Moreover, he wasn't able to test the short configuration, but Silencer Shop's 5.56 testing of the Surge (their .308 was a bolt gun) showed an improvement at the ear when shortening the can. Not necessarily a surprise.

Otherwise, his points are pretty solid. It's certainly fact that most of the quietest cans when measured off the muzzle are much louder at ear. It's also true that semi-automatic rifles are going to be louder at the ear than bolt guns. Though I don't know anyone who's paying full MSRP for suppressors, so I think the Surge is competitively priced for its place in the market. I know Rugged likes to adhere to MAP, so I won't post the exact price here, but Silencer Shop has the Surge for way, way below MSRP. It's certainly cheaper than the OSS offering that he uses as a comparison.

Posted: 5/26/2017 3:24:32 PM EDT

[#19]

My biggest issue with the review is the lack of any real constants in the test combined with his tone in presenting information that in all reality is a good thing for consumers. As for the constants, if he was just presenting the data on its own, wouldn't be a big deal, instead, he chose to try and compare the surge with the OSS, and once he opened that can of worms, he should have been providing consistent info. The "I forgot the tool" argument for not testing it in short configuration was also a huge disappointment. In reality, I would have hoped to see the use of the SAME AMMO across the board, to keep that consistent. And the use of the SAME RIFLE. The piston system he uses in the OSS test is likely inherently more quiet at the "ear" than a DI. And in the OSS test, the other can he tested, he went on step further and used the gemtech adjustable gas bolt system, which I'm confident increased the noise, and by his own admission, extra gas out the ejection port leads to that noise. I really would've liked a subjective test, and prior to this hadn't gotten a huge impression of bias out of him, but he blew it big on this video for me. And it sounds like I'm not alone in feeling that way.

Full disclosure, I have a Rugged Surge sitting in NFA Jail at PSA, I paid WELL below MSRP, and felt I had done PLENTY of research prior to buying. I actually got the chance to test numerous cans live, at the Quirt Riot shoot in Macon last year. Ironically, I went pretty set on Dead Air, but after the terrible experience I had with their rep there, to include his complete lack of knowledge regarding his own products, swore they would never see a dime of my money. Ever. Even if they had the best can in the world.

Posted: 5/26/2017 5:24:12 PM EDT

[#20]

My personal opinion on reviews:

I don't care if someone gets paid or the amount of their compensation. But I do think they should disclose if they are being paid by any manufacturer for a review.

I am not sure how anyone could disagree with that.

A simple "yes, ACME Suppressor company is paying me to review the Badass1000. In exchange, I signed a contract stating I would give it a fair and honest review."

Very few people would care after that.

Posted: 5/26/2017 6:15:46 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Just watched this, it felt like I was watching an infomercial for OSS. the Rugged Surge to the OSS Helix.
Some highlights:
He calls it heavy as a tank (listed weight- 21.5 oz), (OSS listed weight 22.3oz)
He seems to really dislike the belt fed rating.
And of course, he thinks it's overpriced.

After watching his OSS review, a few things... Different ammo in the tests.
OSS is tested on a piston rifle, Surge on a DI.

Anybody else feel like this review was biased?

View Quote

I got the same feeling, first review I felt like he was opining based on a budget. I hope I'm wrong and this isn't a byproduct of lost revenue from YT and we don't start seeing more paid opinions everywhere. I also thought it was interesting he threw in a quick send it to Copper Custom to get re-cerakoted, but who can blame a guy for self promotion and growing his business. Stil he does alot of entertaining videos and I appreciate the trouble he goes through to do these kinds of tests and the Gauntlet.

I like my Surge. Alot. We disagree on this. I'm okay with that. I'd like to have an OSS to test for myself but I'm hesitant to give them my money based on their track record.

Posted: 5/26/2017 9:49:16 PM EDT

[#22]

Geez, guys... it's not like he said "the only suppressor I would recommend buying is the OSS". He just said the OSS is the only one he has metered under 140 at the ear so far. Maybe that matters to you, maybe it doesn't--it's just a statement of fact, use it how you choose. He also mentioned he owns and uses others besides OSS. He even said he has a Griffin Recce 7--I got the impression he likes Griffin in the past, so maybe you guys ought to call him up and ask him to do the same testing with your product if you think it will do better with the muzzle vs ear comparison.

He said that most of the noise at the ear comes from gas coming back down the barrel, not the gas tube. How is an adjustable gas block going to fix that? Or are you saying you disagree with him on that? It seems like it ought to be a pretty easy question to resolve if you have access to a proper meter--somebody ought to do some A/B testing and post the video. You don't even need to use the same gun and swap the gas block--just compare it to a gun with the same length barrel and gas system and it should be good enough to prove or disprove the claim.

I'm not saying OSS is the quietest available, but I suspect the widespread perception that "they are loud" may not be deserved once you limit the comparison to measurements at the ear, which was part of the fundamental design philosophy behind what they did. I'd be very interested in seeing more data from other products measured at the ear if it's available.

Regarding the OSS review video, MAC explained why he didn't do apples-to-apples testing (didn't have the right adapter). The main take-away from that video for me was not so much the comparison between the products but the measurements of the OSS at the muzzle vs the ear.

Sure, he expresses his opinion--if you disagree, fine. But that doesn't discount the hard objective data he includes in his reviews--that's all I care about, and I'm glad he's doing it.

Posted: 5/26/2017 11:09:29 PM EDT

[#23]

Some of the comments on the video either hinted at or pointed out similar points, which he disagreed with.

I think he's right that $1300 MSRP for that can is high, and that much cheaper cans (street price) have similar performance. I think he hammered Rugged a bit too much on the "Belt Fed Rated" thing. A few reviewers have rolled their eyes at that, and that's fine, but I don't think it is that big of a deal.

Not having the wrench on hand was a bummer. Would have been a better review if he had been able to evaluate that aspect of the can (one of its biggest selling points).

Posted: 5/27/2017 1:09:26 AM EDT

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:

He said that most of the noise at the ear comes from gas coming back down the barrel, not the gas tube. How is an adjustable gas block going to fix that? Or are you saying you disagree with him on that? It seems like it ought to be a pretty easy question to resolve if you have access to a proper meter--somebody ought to do some A/B testing and post the video. You don't even need to use the same gun and swap the gas block--just compare it to a gun with the same length barrel and gas system and it should be good enough to prove or disprove the claim.

View Quote

I agree with your other points.

The reason the gas block would make a difference is that it would help to keep the bolt locked a little longer. That should make a difference because it will affect chamber pressure on opening, pressure that leads to port noise.

ETA: I still don't think you're looking at 10 dB of improvement with an adjustable gas block, but 2-5 seems reasonable given my past experience.

Posted: 5/27/2017 1:33:22 AM EDT

[#25]

Quote History

Quoted:

The reason the gas block would make a difference is that it would help to keep the bolt locked a little longer. That should make a difference because it will affect chamber pressure on opening, pressure that leads to port noise.

View Quote

From my personal experience this is how I go about "tuning" my AR hosts.

On the subject of Mac's reviews, I feel like it's pretty obvious when he's "shilling" a bit and I think I can make that distinction and then exclude that bit from my opinion on the particular piece of hardware he's reviewing. I mostly view his videos for the 'features and benefits' aspect of whatever he's reviewing.

Posted: 5/27/2017 2:19:18 AM EDT

[#26]

In my opinion, both systems had negative aspects.

The oss he reviewed had somthing like 149db spl up front and very quiet 138db in back on the ejection port side. In his rugged review it could have been the oss numbers flipped practically.

Both systems had peak spls of ~150. Ild prefer a can that didnt heavilly compromise ear for muzzle or muzzle for ear.

The linked HEL military report puts firer spl for the 20" m16a1 at 154db unsuppressed. That shows how loud 150 is.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/450726.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj4sKOqtI_UAhWh14MKHRnmDCgQFgh5MBI&usg=AFQjCNFvJztYo_Kj94xkjlLUOOL37ct-mw&sig2=sNHiiHYqaW5migRIwLT7HA

Posted: 5/27/2017 3:09:09 AM EDT

[#27]

As a Surge owner I have a biased opinion. Also I live in SC and Rugged is based in SC. But I'm also fan of MAC and saw Tim at The Gun Collective Q&A at the NRA meeting. But he does miss the point of the Surge.

Not everyone can afford multiple cans but with the Surge you get 2 different lengths. The short configuration is great on a sbr or a bullpup, while the long confriguration gives you the option for more suppression. I love running the short config on my 300 blk sbr and X95. But on my Remington 700 I like to run the long config.

I paid well under MSRP for my Surge and I bought mine at the end of March 2016. As ncthorn1623 stated Silencer Shop has them way below MSRP. Yet Tim keeps bringing up the MSRP in the video and comments. Also if you buy a Rugged can now you get their new blast diverter.

Rugged also has a great mounting system. It's quick, simple, repeatable, and secure. I've noticed very little POI shift maybe 1 to 2 inches, group sizes stayed the same or improved at least on my 700 and 18" AR. Only rifle I noticed have a big POI shift is my X95 but that rifle shoots 3-4 moa groups. Accurate Ordance recently partnered with Rugged and now run Rugged muzzle devices on their Signature Series Rifles.

https://accurateordnance.com/signature-series-rifles-now-equipped-with-rugged-suppressor-brakes/

However, a member here did launch his Surge off his rifle. Rugged of course took care of him.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_20/478110_Rugged-Warrenty-Experience.html

But who hasn't launched a suppressor here. I've actually seen a Silencerco Specwar get launched and don't forget the guy who launched his Omega. Another member here even launched his Dead Air Sandman-S.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_20/477796_Guy-launches-SiCo-Omega-downrange--RSOs-refuse-retrieval--leading-to-can-being-shot-by-others.html

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_20/477715_I-shot-my-Sandman-S-down-the-range-today.html

Posted: 5/27/2017 5:19:18 AM EDT

[#28]

This is just my opinion. So take it for what it is worth. I am not hating on anyone, just calling it like I see it.

Tim, was having a bad day. You could see it in the vid. Whom ever is his editor should have sent them out a second time to reshoot that vid. Also Make sure to take all the tools if you are going to review something. No half-assing production when the face is not feeling like performing like a champ(Chimp?) call the shoot and come back a separate day. Yeah it is expensive and it just sucks, but come one show some integrity, you have a half a million subs people are going to start seeing you for who you really may be.

I do feel his "review" was very biased to put it mildly. Do I think he was heavy handed in his judgemental comments he made comparing apples to oranges? Yes. NFA all comes with a stupid price and I am sure everyone agrees we pay a shit ton for something that should be able to purchase for 35%-60% of what we do actually spend on the items. NFA is rarely for the highpoint crowd.

His "reviews" in the last 2 year+ have become a bit more of the "here is the supper K wiggett! Look at it and me say mostly good things about it." It comes off kinda like he is a shill or taking money to give a positive review. The exception is the "Gauntlet" that he has created and seems to changing his testing "protocol" if a gun is preforming better or worse than he feels it should. Case examples would be both the H&K VP9 and the Walther PPQ. BTW how many people have dropped a gun in the mud muck he does? I guess I just don't "get it."

I am almost to the point I would rather hear Nutn'Fancy or Yankee Marshal drone on for 50 minutes than have to decide if the MAC is Shilling or being paid to show us a "Gun Review".

Then again I could just be wrong and one of the many drones on the interwebs that hates on everyone.

Posted: 5/27/2017 5:29:23 AM EDT

[#29]

Quote History

Quoted:
I agree I didn't like his review. His whole concept of quiet at the shooters ear may sound correct, but a very unscientific study of shooting minus the hearing protection he always wears will have him changing his mind quickly. No experience with the rugged, but the tone on something like the sandman S is WAY better to the shooters ear than the garbage loud OSS can. I believe the peoblem with that comparison is you get more blowback with traditional cans but better suppression. I'm thinking the blowback action noise is what's causing his shooter's ear results to be so high but actual use minus ear pro and he'd know that the rugged can is above and beyond better than the OSS piece of crap I'm sure he was given along with a small bribe so he could give it a glowing review.

View Quote

I disagree with your first few lines. Noose at the ear trumps noise at the muzzle for shooter comfort, in my experience. Muzzle signature is sexyfactor, port signature is hearing safety factor.

Posted: 5/27/2017 7:50:20 AM EDT

[#30]

I just watched the whole thing and felt it was poorly done, it was a very biased review with a lot of opinion and not a lot of fact.

Posted: 5/27/2017 8:57:13 AM EDT

[#31]

The whole review seemed forced, maybe he can chime into this thread and explain/defend himself @MilitaryArms

Posted: 5/27/2017 11:21:57 AM EDT

[#32]

Quote History

Quoted:
...

We did at one time test Silencer Co's SWR specwar 762 caliber can at the ear one day, because a vendor was telling us how quiet the can was and how awesome it was. One of our guys was curious so he fired it without ear protection on 300BLK supersonic (a really tame round) and it rung his ears horribly despite metering well up front. That was confusing to everyone there. We put a meter on it at the shooters ear and it was ~ 148DB A weighted at the shooters right ear (and we were tucked up on rifle centerline behind the action, not 6" outboard). Our Recce 7 was there and we were reading ~138 at the same location. It was night and day. 10DB over the high 130's is a lot of noise increase- 142DB is 1meter left of the muzzle for a .22lr 10/22 unsuppressed with high velocity ammo.
.......

View Quote

Specwar 762 is 10dB louder than Recce 7 ?!?!? Something ain't right and doesn't make sense.

Posted: 5/27/2017 7:27:10 PM EDT

[#33]

Quote History

Quoted:

Specwar 762 is 10dB louder than Recce 7 ?!?!? Something ain't right and doesn't make sense.

View Quote

At the ear.

Posted: 5/28/2017 12:06:19 AM EDT

[#34]

Quote History

Quoted:
I do like the NRA and charity donation he mentions at the end.
Not sure how many businesses he represents, but wasn't he working at the Silencerco booth at the NRA Atlanta Convention this year?
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

View Quote

First, I am not paid to represent any company. None. Zero.

My opinions are just that, mine. I make that abundantly clear. For those claiming to watch my videos yet you've somehow missed that, well, you're not watching or you're not paying attention. I tell people regularly not to buy something just because I like it and never sell something because I don't happen to like it.

The Surge is over priced for what it is. It does nothing other silencers with similar features don't already do at a better price. If that makes Surge owners upset, sorry. It's my opinion and it's worth exactly what you paid for it.

I didn't work at the SilencerCo booth at the NRA show. Ironically, in the Surge video, if you pay attention, I say to avoid a certain SilencerCo product at all costs. Kind of a strange thing to say if I'm a paid rep for SilencerCo, don't ya think?

Tone? Are you kidding me? You're going to take a "pleasant tone" over a scientific test carried out using modern military testing standards and industry standard sound testing equipment? Tone means absolutely NOTHING when it comes to a pressure wave damaging your hearing or not. The prettiest tone in the world can still deafen you. If you think your Surge is hearing safe on your gas gun and you don't wear hearing protection when using it, you're wrecking your hearing. That's a fact. This is true for many other popular silencers on .308's as well. Don't let your fanboyism destroy your hearing.

There's a reason the Helix won the CSASS contract, that's because it was the only can tested that passed the threshold test of having the pressure sensor 15cm from the right ear and measured at 140dB or less. Translated - it preserves the shooters hearing. I've confirmed this with my own testing. Before I conducted my tests of the Helix I listened to people like those posting here who thought it was a ruse based on nothing but their baseless assumptions. Then I personally tested one with proper testing equipment and found out for myself it is in fact safe to the shooters ear and the reduction in back pressure down the bore is substantial. My testing and conclusions does not mean I'm paid by OSS. OSS pays me nothing. Even if they offered I would decline.

It's funny how if I like something, I'm a paid shill. If I dislike something, I'm a paid shill. No good deed goes unpunished on the forums... LOL

The whole "tone" BS came about from people who don't have proper testing equipment, by the way. It's also a security blanket for those that need to justify purchases of products they find out later don't live up to their original expectations.

I'll bow out now and let you guys continue to ramble on nonsensically about how I'm a paid shill for company X. I am one of the few YouTube guys that doesn't accept any type of money from manufacturers. But please, go ahead and perpetuate the lie I'm on this company's payroll and that companies payroll. It's why the forums exist... to treat others like shit... anonymously.

Carry on.

Posted: 5/28/2017 12:12:43 AM EDT

[#35]

Quote History

Quoted:
My personal opinion on reviews:

I don't care if someone gets paid or the amount of their compensation. But I do think they should disclose if they are being paid by any manufacturer for a review.

I am not sure how anyone could disagree with that.

A simple "yes, ACME Suppressor company is paying me to review the Badass1000. In exchange, I signed a contract stating I would give it a fair and honest review."

Very few people would care after that.

View Quote

Go to my About section on my website. I disclose everything there. By FCC rules if you're paid to endorse a product, you must disclose it. I get free ammo. Oh, the horror of it.

I AM NOT PAID TO ENDORSE ANY FIREARMS OR SILENCERS. I HAVE SAID THIS MANY TIMES. ...and people will still pretend this post never happened.

That's why I can say the Surge isn't so hot for the money, there are better options. That's why I can say the MAAD mount sucks. That's why I can say the Sig 556 series of rifles sucked. That's why can say the Remington R51 and RP9 suck. That's why I can say the XCR sucks. That's why I can say anything I want sucks, because I don't rely on manufacturer support to make my living.

But please, don't let me muddy the water with the truth, because that's no fun. It's far more fun for you guys to accuse everyone of being paid shills... yet you'll take the words of a fanboy as gospel.

Posted: 5/28/2017 12:16:30 AM EDT

[#36]

Quote History

Quoted:
Last I checked, an adjustable gas block + rugged surge is STILL cheaper than an OSS can, and such a setup would be better in every way.

Honestly, are most people dumb enough to buy a $800-900 suppressor and not pay $100 to tune the rifle? And then bitch that it's LOUD?

What a joke of a review

View Quote

...and an adjustable gas block won't do crap to reduce the back pressure coming down the bore and the subsequent chamber pop that will ring your ear(s) -- which is the real problem. But please, continue to trash you're hearing because you're a know-it-all that doesn't have a sound meter to find out for yourself that you're damaging your hearing.

Posted: 5/28/2017 12:18:35 AM EDT

[#37]

Quote History

Quoted:
The whole review seemed forced, maybe he can chime into this thread and explain/defend himself @MilitaryArms

View Quote

There's no point in defending myself. I've chimed in countless times yet the same sophomoric rants about me being a paid shill flow freely.

If you don't like my testing, don't watch. If you don't believe my numbers, go ring your ears. It's not my problem.

Posted: 5/28/2017 12:19:28 AM EDT

[#38]

Quote History

Quoted:
I just watched the whole thing and felt it was poorly done, it was a very biased review with a lot of opinion and not a lot of fact.

View Quote

Yeah, the numbers were all made up. But please, go shoot your Surge on your AR10 without ear pro and deafen yourself. Karma is a bitch.

Posted: 5/28/2017 12:30:42 AM EDT

[#39]

Quote History

Quoted:

At the ear.

View Quote

I still don't see how as 10db is huge ..... The 7.62 specwar out performs essentially every can I've ever seen metered ..... But it's also a big heavy can

Posted: 5/28/2017 12:32:44 AM EDT

[#40]

Quote History

Quoted: you'll take the words of a fanboy as gospel.

View Quote

Can I get a witness?

Posted: 5/28/2017 12:33:15 AM EDT

[#41]

Quote History

Quoted:

I still don't see how as 10db is huge ..... The 7.62 specwar out performs essentially every can I've ever seen metered ..... But it's also a big heavy can

View Quote

3dB is a doubling of the sound energy.

Posted: 5/28/2017 12:39:46 AM EDT

[#42]

Quote History

Quoted:

I disagree with your first few lines. Noose at the ear trumps noise at the muzzle for shooter comfort, in my experience. Muzzle signature is sexyfactor, port signature is hearing safety factor.

View Quote

Please don't try to interject logic, facts or reason into an emotional dog pile.

Posted: 5/28/2017 12:41:09 AM EDT

[#43]

Wow. Just... wow

Posted: 5/28/2017 12:46:42 AM EDT

[#44]

Quote History

Quoted:
3dB is a doubling of the sound energy.

View Quote

I know it wasn't your claim MAC .... Griffin came in here saying their Reece 7 metered nearly 10db less than the Specwar 7.62 at the ear

I would like to see some testing to back that up

Posted: 5/28/2017 12:54:15 AM EDT

[#45]

Quote History

Quoted:

I know it wasn't your claim MAC .... Griffin came in here saying their Reece 7 metered nearly 10db less than the Specwar 7.62 at the ear

I would like to see some testing to back that up

View Quote

They posted an IG video showing their Paladin (formerly Alpha) silencer being below 140dB at 6" (roughly 15cm) off the shooters right ear. This was to counter my comments in my Surge video I've tested no .308 silencers on a gas gun that were below 140dB at the shooters ear using the CSASS testing specs (except the Helix). So, I'm going to run the same test. Full disclosure; I contacted them and they said my Alpha had outdated baffles and they are updating them to the newer Paladin baffles. So, once I have my Alpha back I will do the same test.

I've run tests with the Griffin guys and they've always been adamant about being straight with meter numbers. I've never seen them fudge numbers. I can't say the same for other silencer manufacturers. So, we'll see if the Paladin can in fact be hearing safe on my AR10 at the port/ear. If so, it will be in very small group of silencers that can claim that, at least that I've tested.

Posted: 5/28/2017 2:27:41 AM EDT

[#46]

I definitely take Youtube reviews (all of them) with a grain of salt. Unless a reviewer sticks strictly to numbers and facts their review is, at best, just their opinion and personal experience. It carries no more weight to me than the experiences and opinions of some random Joe in a gun store or on this site. Actually I probably value the Youtuber's opinions less because they do this as a business, just like gun magazines, and we all know how objective those reviews tend to be. Even if a channel isn't receiving direct compensation from companies they could still have a vested interest in certain companies or products for one reason or another. Maybe they're buddies with the company owner or have some other kind of business relationship with them. More than a couple Youtubers either own stores or are closely affiliated with one. There's no way to really know for sure, hence the salt.

To me this review felt more sloppy than deliberately biased. Was it supposed to be a comprehensive review of the Surge, or a direct comparison of the Surge vs. other suppressors at the ear? It didn't really succeed at either, IMO. The Surge wasn't used in the short configuration, so it certainly wasn't comprehensive. He says it's heavy, which isn't really helpful. Is it heavier than similar performing suppressors? If so, which ones? Ditto with price. The only direct comparison to another suppressor I caught was sound at ear vs. the OSS Helix, and that was with a different rifle so that comparison means little. So what we do get is the tests of at muzzle vs. at ear of this specific rifle/suppressor combo, which I do find interesting. I would definitely like to see more consistent, comprehensive tests of different guns and suppressors in that regard.

Posted: 5/28/2017 4:14:34 AM EDT

[#47]

I think it's awesome Of you to come in and offer your side of the story. Honestly, if you wouldn't have just said it, I would have suspected you of having received some form of compensation from companies to push their products. I still don't fully agree with your opinions regarding a few facts, but don't have any doubts about your meter readings. A huge portion of communicating a message is the tone in which it is done. In your review, it felt like you had made up your mind that you hated the cab from the very beginning. Regardless of your words or facts, your tone muddled any message you tried to deliver. I think your presentation of facts regarding metering sounds at the shooters ear is phenomenal, but the methods in which you are testing are inconsistent at best, and will continue to raise questions when you try to use them as comparisons. I have trouble believing that a suppressor on a piston rifle will be exactly as loud as a suppressor on a di rifle. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But the way I understand the systems, there should be a positive effect using the piston system because there is less overall making it to the chamber.

Do you have any intentions of retesting the suppressor again in both configurations, in an apples to apples test, using the same equipment and ammunition? I genuinely think a lot of folks here would love to see it, and I think it would aid your overall message. Maybe a suppressor shootout, with a handful of big cans on the chopping block? I see you had partnered with silencershop in getting the surge, surely they would love the content to help drive sales?

Posted: 5/28/2017 4:29:41 AM EDT

[#48]

Are we all really saying 139 is magically safe? We're getting lost in the weeds over something that's still dangerous to an extent

Posted: 5/28/2017 4:45:59 AM EDT

[#49]

Quote History

Quoted:
Go to my About section on my website. I disclose everything there. By FCC rules if you're paid to endorse a product, you must disclose it. I get free ammo. Oh, the horror of it.

I AM NOT PAID TO ENDORSE ANY FIREARMS OR SILENCERS. I HAVE SAID THIS MANY TIMES. ...and people will still pretend this post never happened.

That's why I can say the Surge isn't so hot for the money, there are better options. That's why I can say the MAAD mount sucks. That's why I can say the Sig 556 series of rifles sucked. That's why can say the Remington R51 and RP9 suck. That's why I can say the XCR sucks. That's why I can say anything I want sucks, because I don't rely on manufacturer support to make my living.

But please, don't let me muddy the water with the truth, because that's no fun. It's far more fun for you guys to accuse everyone of being paid shills... yet you'll take the words of a fanboy as gospel.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
My personal opinion on reviews:

I don't care if someone gets paid or the amount of their compensation. But I do think they should disclose if they are being paid by any manufacturer for a review.

I am not sure how anyone could disagree with that.

A simple "yes, ACME Suppressor company is paying me to review the Badass1000. In exchange, I signed a contract stating I would give it a fair and honest review."

Very few people would care after that.

Go to my About section on my website. I disclose everything there. By FCC rules if you're paid to endorse a product, you must disclose it. I get free ammo. Oh, the horror of it.

I AM NOT PAID TO ENDORSE ANY FIREARMS OR SILENCERS. I HAVE SAID THIS MANY TIMES. ...and people will still pretend this post never happened.

That's why I can say the Surge isn't so hot for the money, there are better options. That's why I can say the MAAD mount sucks. That's why I can say the Sig 556 series of rifles sucked. That's why can say the Remington R51 and RP9 suck. That's why I can say the XCR sucks. That's why I can say anything I want sucks, because I don't rely on manufacturer support to make my living.

But please, don't let me muddy the water with the truth, because that's no fun. It's far more fun for you guys to accuse everyone of being paid shills... yet you'll take the words of a fanboy as gospel.

WTF dude. I figured all the positive stuff you had to say about the ARX-100 was because Beretta was paying you off, and they must really believe in their product to bother with buying off YouTubers. That played into my buying decision. Do you mean to tell me all that crap you spouted was actually just your own opinion?

I'm totally let down by this. I'm gonna sell my ARX now.

Posted: 5/28/2017 7:34:09 AM EDT

[#50]

Quote History

Quoted:
Yeah, the numbers were all made up. But please, go shoot your Surge on your AR10 without ear pro and deafen yourself. Karma is a bitch.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I just watched the whole thing and felt it was poorly done, it was a very biased review with a lot of opinion and not a lot of fact.

Yeah, the numbers were all made up. But please, go shoot your Surge on your AR10 without ear pro and deafen yourself. Karma is a bitch.

I don't shoot any suppressed centerfire rifles using super sonic ammo without hearing protection, nor do I own a Surge or an AR10.

ETA - I dunno if someone pissed in your Cheerios before you recorded your review, but your tone and your attitude seemed as if you were genuinely annoyed and inconvenienced having to test the Surge. You spent like a third of the video fussing about the "belt fed rating" thing instead of talking about say, the barrel lengths the Surge is rated to, which would be useful information to prospective buyers.

And your smart ass replies here don't really lend credence to your chicken shit review either.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Military Arms Channel Rugged Surge, Biased Review? (Page 1 of 4)

Armory » Silencers

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us