Opinions on OSS Suppressors?

Armory » Silencers

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Opinions on OSS Suppressors? (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 2/1/2016 10:55:25 AM EDT

Does anyone on here have first hand experience with the OSS suppressors? Is the lack of blowback really worth the $$ they charge for them?

Posted: 2/1/2016 11:06:59 AM EDT

[#1]

You are going to get the gamut of responses.

Those who have them, seem to really like them.

Posted: 2/1/2016 11:45:11 AM EDT

[#2]

I really wanted to snag the $449 gen 4 from QRF just t try it out. I'm not sure I buy the hype but I've pissed away $449 in much worse ways

Posted: 2/1/2016 11:48:42 AM EDT

[#3]

This is the "OSS Cycle"

OSS Cans come out
OSS raves about how awesome they are
OSS gets lots of coverage
Past users of OSS cans surface saying their cans/cans they've tried are loud and heavy
OSS (and their fans) say "oh that was the last Gen, the new Gen will be awesome"
New Gen comes out
OSS raves about how awesome they are
OSS gets lots of coverage
etc...

I think they're on Gen 5 at this point of "this time it will be amazing".

The last gen awesome-sauce cans were picked up by Silencer Shop, and after the first users got theirs suddenly sales stopped and SS blew them out below their cost and won't carry them. This violated MAP so OSS tried to play it as they were cutting SS off.

Posted: 2/1/2016 12:48:54 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Does anyone on here have first hand experience with the OSS suppressors? Is the lack of blowback really worth the $$ they charge for them?

View Quote

Yes, I own one and can provide some real life, firsthand feedback.

I like mine very much.
It makes shooting my SCAR much more enjoyable. ETA 7.62x51

For me that's all there is to it.

Your money your choice.

Posted: 2/1/2016 1:14:28 PM EDT

[#5]

I have two questions about them.

1) Are they as quiet as a similarly sized suppressor with traditional baffles?

2) Do they significantly reduce back pressure?

Posted: 2/1/2016 2:24:07 PM EDT

[#6]

I will answer your questions with 2 videos. There is definitely greatly reduced blowback relative to my other cans. I have a 10.5" lwrc (piston) with a specwar 556k that can be pretty gassy if I forget to flip the setting to suppressed.
I can say that I would NOT purchase one at the full price or whatever MSRP settles at, but I can say that I bought one in 556 and one in 762 (762 just approved and waiting for the stamp to arrive) at a pretty decent discount. I don't think it would be a good multipurpose can because of the mounting system, but I bought them to reduce blowback especially when firing in full auto. I have a 16" 5.56 upper and a 10.5" 300blk that these are going on. I shot the 300blk in FA as well, but I don't have video. It performed well for gas, and decently for suppression. It's an interesting decision. The cans seem to be very polarizing, but I think a lot of that has to do with the company attitude. They definitely come across as overly arrogant and frankly, their marketing division needs a lot of help.

So, if you're in the mode of getting several cans from several companies and diversifying your experience, then it might be worth checking one out at $500 - $650

Here is Robbie Reidsma on an HK MR556 filmed on an IPhone 6 plus by me in November, 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maH2mWAIIP4

Here I am firing one full auto last summer on an IPhone 5 by someone else. Shooting this inspired me to purchase
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sdtGx3KVFs

Posted: 2/1/2016 8:14:40 PM EDT

[#7]

I view OSS silencers the same way I view electric cars: I'm glad someone is doing something fundamentally different, but I don't want to own one yet. Maybe in several years it'll be different. I am very curious about them, and would like to see a good side-by-side test done between OSS and the current class-leading baffle suppressors with meters in the standard location as well as at the ear on bolt action and semi-auto hosts.

Their website guy needs to figure out the difference between "brake" and "break." It says "break" all over their site, and it makes them look bad.

Posted: 2/2/2016 8:08:37 AM EDT

[#8]

Quote History

Quoted:
I view OSS silencers the same way I view electric cars: I'm glad someone is doing something fundamentally different, but I don't want to own one yet. Maybe in several years it'll be different. I am very curious about them, and would like to see a good side-by-side test done between OSS and the current class-leading baffle suppressors with meters in the standard location as well as at the ear on bolt action and semi-auto hosts.

Their website guy needs to figure out the difference between "brake" and "break." It says "break" all over their site, and it makes them look bad.

View Quote

I would love to participte in a side by side shoot.

Didn't a bunch of guys from VA get together recently to do this?

Posted: 2/2/2016 8:21:57 AM EDT

[#9]

I'd like to see two identical hosts, one setup with an OSS and the other setup with a Specwar762. If sound reduction and blowback are similar, I don't see any advantage of going with the OSS.

I chose the Specwar for its *similar* weight/length and great reviews.

Posted: 2/2/2016 9:36:38 AM EDT

[#10]

Here's my thoughts on these reduced blowback/pressure suppressors. The suppressor is intended to stop the super fast expression on the exiting gas from the muzzle. If the pressure is held up at the muzzle end to suppress sound, then the gas has to go somewhere. Thus it comes through the chamber. It's likely that if you're decreasing the blowback you're doing it at the detriment of sound suppression and the suppressor will likely be louder bc you're probably not efficiently/effectively harnessing the muzzle exiting of the gas.

Posted: 2/2/2016 9:38:13 AM EDT

[#11]

And just to note...OSS provides "at the shooter's ear" dB numbers...not the 1-meter 90-degree readings. Just keep that in mind when you're comparing published numbers.

Posted: 2/2/2016 10:55:17 AM EDT

[#12]

Quote History

Quoted:

I would love to participte in a side by side shoot.

Didn't a bunch of guys from VA get together recently to do this?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I view OSS silencers the same way I view electric cars: I'm glad someone is doing something fundamentally different, but I don't want to own one yet. Maybe in several years it'll be different. I am very curious about them, and would like to see a good side-by-side test done between OSS and the current class-leading baffle suppressors with meters in the standard location as well as at the ear on bolt action and semi-auto hosts.

Their website guy needs to figure out the difference between "brake" and "break." It says "break" all over their site, and it makes them look bad.

I would love to participte in a side by side shoot.

Didn't a bunch of guys from VA get together recently to do this?

Not yet. I've been waiting for my can(s) to get approved or at least in state. Hansohn Bros has graciously offered up some other cans to use as a comparison. I've not purchased any metering equipment because it's expensive. I still plan to get this together in the near future.

Posted: 2/2/2016 1:45:46 PM EDT

[#13]

Some of the biggest misconceptions of about our suppressors are that they are long and heavy. Let the specs of the suppressors speak for themselves please. You can see them on the website, or check out the link here on arfcom HERE

Allow me to clarify on how we measure sound. At OSS we measure sound in 3 locations, the shooters left ear, right ear, and 1 meter off (industry standard). When referring to the dB level of a particular suppressor, we reference the value at the shooters ear.

Note, ejection port side ear measurements are generally louder (higher) than values taken 1 meter off. This is likely due to the extra chamber noise and pressure come from that area. It's common for readings of ~137 dB at the shooters ear, to simultaneously read ~132 dB at microphone at 1 meter off.

We often get criticized for being loud because people see numbers like 138 dB (shooters ear values) and compare them to numbers they see on competitors sites at 132 dB etc.

In the future we will be updating on the specifications on the site to reflect dB numbers at the shooters ear, AND at 1 meter off. We feel this will help consumers compare.

Posted: 2/2/2016 1:48:15 PM EDT

[#14]

Quote History

Quoted:
I have two questions about them.

1) Are they as quiet as a similarly sized suppressor with traditional baffles?

2) Do they significantly reduce back pressure?

View Quote

1st question, absolutely.
2nd question, absolutely. We often speak about a less than 5 or 6% increase in back pressure, but with most of the 5.56 testing we've done we generally see about a -1% increase in pressure. The firearm doesn't know its suppressed.

I should state, this video is a side by side comparison of a 10.3" MK18. The OSS suppressor used on the video on the left is our 5.56 BPR2-6. While the suppressor on the right is the current SOCOM contracted MK18 suppressor.

Posted: 2/2/2016 2:31:07 PM EDT

[#15]

Quote History

Quoted:
Some of the biggest misconceptions of about our suppressors are that they are long and heavy. Let the specs of the suppressors speak for themselves please. You can see them on the website, or check out the link here on arfcom HERE

Allow me to clarify on how we measure sound. At OSS we measure sound in 3 locations, the shooters left ear, right ear, and 1 meter off (industry standard). When referring to the dB level of a particular suppressor, we reference the value at the shooters ear.

Note, ejection port side ear measurements are generally louder (higher) than values taken 1 meter off. This is likely due to the extra chamber noise and pressure come from that area. It's common for readings of ~137 dB at the shooters ear, to simultaneously read ~132 dB at microphone at 1 meter off.

We often get criticized for being loud because people see numbers like 138 dB (shooters ear values) and compare them to numbers they see on competitors sites at 132 dB etc.

In the future we will be updating on the specifications on the site to reflect dB numbers at the shooters ear, AND at 1 meter off. We feel this will help consumers compare.

View Quote

Thanks for doing the part in red, I think that's a great idea. I would also like to see:

1. The silencers tested on bolt action hosts. Right now, the 7.62 silencers only have dB values for a 14.5" AR. A 20" bolt action is a very common rifle for people to use a 7.62 suppressor on.
2. Materials listed for the tube, the stack, everything. What are they made out of?
3. Weights for the MG silencers. (I know those are coming later.)

For the part in blue, letting the specs speak for themselves tells me the silencers are longer, heavier, and have a larger "diameter" (or whatever the equivalent is for an octagon) than traditional silencers. For example, the smallest 5.56 silencer you offer is 7.25" long, 1.75" across, and weighs 20.3 oz. A Recce 5, for comparison, is 6.2" long, 1.47" across, and weighs 14.5 oz. Understanding the purported benefits of the OSS design, why doesn't OSS have silencers that are more competitive in size and weight to traditional silencers? Would they be louder than acceptable if they were kept to the same size limitations as traditional silencers?

Also - are all OSS suppressors full auto rated, or only the MG suppressors?

Posted: 2/2/2016 3:17:22 PM EDT

[#16]

Quote History

Quoted:

For the part in blue, letting the specs speak for themselves tells me the silencers are longer, heavier, and have a larger "diameter" (or whatever the equivalent is for an octagon) than traditional silencers. For example, the smallest 5.56 silencer you offer is 7.25" long, 1.75" across, and weighs 20.3 oz. A Recce 5, for comparison, is 6.2" long, 1.47" across, and weighs 14.5 oz. Understanding the purported benefits of the OSS design, why doesn't OSS have silencers that are more competitive in size and weight to traditional silencers? Would they be louder than acceptable if they were kept to the same size limitations as traditional silencers?

Also - are all OSS suppressors full auto rated, or only the MG suppressors?

View Quote

To be fair, the OTB designs though total length is longer, the length added the the barrel is pretty darn good considering the dB you get out of them.

For example, if you went with the BPR1-15 + SRM-3 combo. Total length would be 11" but it would only add 5.35" to the muzzle; which is pretty good considering the dB level for that system. I'm guessing the average suppressor in the industry for a 5.56 weighs roughly 17.5 oz? The weight is 19.9 oz (a tad bit on the heavy side). Personally I'd like to see them a bit lighter. The 1.75" diameter doesn't bother me, nor does the length.

Posted: 2/2/2016 3:28:21 PM EDT

[#17]

Quote History

Quoted:

To be fair, the OTB designs though total length is longer, the length added the the barrel is pretty darn good considering the dB you get out of them.

For example, if you went with the BPR1-15 + SRM-3 combo. Total length would be 11" but it would only add 5.35" to the muzzle; which is pretty good considering the dB level for that system. I'm guessing the average suppressor in the industry for a 5.56 weighs roughly 17.5 oz? The weight is 19.9 oz (a tad bit on the heavy side). Personally I'd like to see them a bit lighter. The 1.75" diameter doesn't bother me, nor does the length.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

For the part in blue, letting the specs speak for themselves tells me the silencers are longer, heavier, and have a larger "diameter" (or whatever the equivalent is for an octagon) than traditional silencers. For example, the smallest 5.56 silencer you offer is 7.25" long, 1.75" across, and weighs 20.3 oz. A Recce 5, for comparison, is 6.2" long, 1.47" across, and weighs 14.5 oz. Understanding the purported benefits of the OSS design, why doesn't OSS have silencers that are more competitive in size and weight to traditional silencers? Would they be louder than acceptable if they were kept to the same size limitations as traditional silencers?

Also - are all OSS suppressors full auto rated, or only the MG suppressors?

To be fair, the OTB designs though total length is longer, the length added the the barrel is pretty darn good considering the dB you get out of them.

For example, if you went with the BPR1-15 + SRM-3 combo. Total length would be 11" but it would only add 5.35" to the muzzle; which is pretty good considering the dB level for that system. I'm guessing the average suppressor in the industry for a 5.56 weighs roughly 17.5 oz? The weight is 19.9 oz (a tad bit on the heavy side). Personally I'd like to see them a bit lighter. The 1.75" diameter doesn't bother me, nor does the length.

I was strictly speaking to the flush mount suppressors. Reflex suppressors don't appeal to me because of the host limitations - i.e. my 10.5" rifle with a 9" handguard, my 14.5" rifle with a 13" handguard. Just looking at the suppressed rifles picture thread here shows that flush mount suppressors are vastly more common than reflex designs.

Posted: 2/2/2016 5:42:59 PM EDT

[#18]

We took one in as a transfer, and the buyer wasn't able to mount it on any of his platforms. His fault for not doing his homework, but if you are looking at the OTB, make sure you know the barrel dimensions and length from the gas block the can requires before you drop the $$ on the suppressor.

I personally think the cans are huge, bulky and require a rifle to damn near be custom built to accept the suppressor. Definitely not a can that you can use on several different rifles unless you go with a specific barrel profile.

The engineering inside them is impressive, but I haven't got to hear one because none of our .30 cal hosts will run it either. We almost got it to fit on a .300Blk Handi rifle

but the can bumps into the handguard.

Posted: 2/2/2016 6:54:29 PM EDT

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:
We almost got it to fit on a .300Blk Handi rifle

but the can bumps into the handguard.

View Quote

That's exactly what I did when I tested an OSS on a 300BLK Handi, took the hand guard off.

The OSS stuff is very mission specific.

Posted: 2/2/2016 8:03:00 PM EDT

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:

Thanks for doing the part in red, I think that's a great idea. I would also like to see:

1. The silencers tested on bolt action hosts. Right now, the 7.62 silencers only have dB values for a 14.5" AR. A 20" bolt action is a very common rifle for people to use a 7.62 suppressor on.

View Quote

Personally, I don't care how it functions on a bolt gun. Since OSS touts extremely low backpressure, using it on a bolt gun seems to defeat one of its key design attributes.

I'm still trying to figure out what the "a jet engine in reverse" analogy really means. Granted I only have one PhD and not three.

Posted: 2/2/2016 8:12:32 PM EDT

[#21]

Quote History

Quoted:

Personally, I don't care how it functions on a bolt gun. Since OSS touts extremely low backpressure, using it on a bolt gun seems to defeat one of its key design attributes.

I'm still trying to figure out what the "a jet engine in reverse" analogy really means. Granted I only have one PhD and not three.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Thanks for doing the part in red, I think that's a great idea. I would also like to see:

1. The silencers tested on bolt action hosts. Right now, the 7.62 silencers only have dB values for a 14.5" AR. A 20" bolt action is a very common rifle for people to use a 7.62 suppressor on.

Personally, I don't care how it functions on a bolt gun. Since OSS touts extremely low backpressure, using it on a bolt gun seems to defeat one of its key design attributes.

I'm still trying to figure out what the "a jet engine in reverse" analogy really means. Granted I only have one PhD and not three.

Bingo. That's exactly the point - seeing how it performs on a non-semi auto host vs. a semi-auto host. Likewise with what you're saying, the Sandman L is designed to have low backpressure as well, but it does really well at the ear on semi-autos and bolt actions. Ref. 131.6 dB on a 20" .308. I'd like to see apples-to-apples how the OSS suppressors do on bolt actions for that reason.

Posted: 2/2/2016 9:02:25 PM EDT

[#22]

Quote History

Quoted:

Personally, I don't care how it functions on a bolt gun. Since OSS touts extremely low backpressure, using it on a bolt gun seems to defeat one of its key design attributes.

I'm still trying to figure out what the "a jet engine in reverse" analogy really means. Granted I only have one PhD and not three.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Thanks for doing the part in red, I think that's a great idea. I would also like to see:

1. The silencers tested on bolt action hosts. Right now, the 7.62 silencers only have dB values for a 14.5" AR. A 20" bolt action is a very common rifle for people to use a 7.62 suppressor on.

Personally, I don't care how it functions on a bolt gun. Since OSS touts extremely low backpressure, using it on a bolt gun seems to defeat one of its key design attributes.

I'm still trying to figure out what the "a jet engine in reverse" analogy really means. Granted I only have one PhD and not three.

I believe it's meant to describe the function of the internal parts and how they move the gasses.
I bet if you looked at one of the schematics you could figure it out.
Or, perhaps that comparison is a stretch and a simpler reference is needed.

Posted: 2/2/2016 10:05:58 PM EDT

[#23]

Quote History

Quoted:

That's exactly what I did when I tested an OSS on a 300BLK Handi, took the hand guard off.

The OSS stuff is very mission specific.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
We almost got it to fit on a .300Blk Handi rifle

but the can bumps into the handguard.

That's exactly what I did when I tested an OSS on a 300BLK Handi, took the hand guard off.

The OSS stuff is very mission specific.

That is a very good way to describe them. I am going to have to borrow that,

Posted: 2/2/2016 10:13:44 PM EDT

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:
I believe it's meant to describe the function of the internal parts and how they move the gasses.

I bet if you looked at one of the schematics you could figure it out.

Or, perhaps that comparison is a stretch and a simpler reference is needed.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Thanks for doing the part in red, I think that's a great idea. I would also like to see:

1. The silencers tested on bolt action hosts. Right now, the 7.62 silencers only have dB values for a 14.5" AR. A 20" bolt action is a very common rifle for people to use a 7.62 suppressor on.

Personally, I don't care how it functions on a bolt gun. Since OSS touts extremely low backpressure, using it on a bolt gun seems to defeat one of its key design attributes.

I'm still trying to figure out what the "a jet engine in reverse" analogy really means. Granted I only have one PhD and not three.

I believe it's meant to describe the function of the internal parts and how they move the gasses.

I bet if you looked at one of the schematics you could figure it out.

Or, perhaps that comparison is a stretch and a simpler reference is needed.

OK, since I'm obviously the class dunce, explain it to me.

Posted: 2/2/2016 10:24:00 PM EDT

[#25]

Quote History

Quoted:

OK, since I'm obviously the class dunce, explain it to me.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Thanks for doing the part in red, I think that's a great idea. I would also like to see:

1. The silencers tested on bolt action hosts. Right now, the 7.62 silencers only have dB values for a 14.5" AR. A 20" bolt action is a very common rifle for people to use a 7.62 suppressor on.

Personally, I don't care how it functions on a bolt gun. Since OSS touts extremely low backpressure, using it on a bolt gun seems to defeat one of its key design attributes.

I'm still trying to figure out what the "a jet engine in reverse" analogy really means. Granted I only have one PhD and not three.

I believe it's meant to describe the function of the internal parts and how they move the gasses.
I bet if you looked at one of the schematics you could figure it out.
Or, perhaps that comparison is a stretch and a simpler reference is needed.

OK, since I'm obviously the class dunce, explain it to me.

I wasn't implying anything. With a screen name "Engineer" I'm assuming you are a smart guy.
That's why I encouraged you to check the schematic as I was hoping to learn something from your opinion.
But, my take on it, as a non operator, is that rather than using traditional baffles to restrict the expansion of the gasses in this case in moves through a series of channels that slow and redirect the gas as it moves through the long tube and back out the front; thus reducing blowback.
Right?

Posted: 2/2/2016 10:50:17 PM EDT

[#26]

Was low bp the goal, and the baffle design is how they got it......or was low bp a byproduct of the baffle design?

Posted: 2/3/2016 1:22:36 PM EDT

[#27]

Quote History

Quoted:
We took one in as a transfer, and the buyer wasn't able to mount it on any of his platforms. His fault for not doing his homework, but if you are looking at the OTB, make sure you know the barrel dimensions and length from the gas block the can requires before you drop the $$ on the suppressor.

I personally think the cans are huge, bulky and require a rifle to damn near be custom built to accept the suppressor. Definitely not a can that you can use on several different rifles unless you go with a specific barrel profile.

The engineering inside them is impressive, but I haven't got to hear one because none of our .30 cal hosts will run it either. We almost got it to fit on a .300Blk Handi rifle

but the can bumps into the handguard.

View Quote

This is a surprise. The standard 5.56 and 7.62 OTB suppressors will all accommodate standard .750 barrel diameters. Barrel diameters of .750 are probably the most common barrel thickness on the market. We make a can for about everything, so we'd love to help if your having problems.

If you check out the models we offer, our OTB models will overlap from the shoulder in a range of lengths: 2.8", 3.55", 4.2", 5.05" and 5.8". If you want to run them under a rail, they will fit under any rail that has a 1.75" inside diameter. Seekins Rails, Aero Precision, Spikes Tactical, POF USA to name a few.

If OTB doesn't work for you then look into our FM line.

Posted: 2/3/2016 1:56:41 PM EDT

[#28]

Quote History

Quoted:
Was low bp the goal, and the baffle design is how they got it......or was low bp a byproduct of the baffle design?

View Quote

If by "BP" you mean Back Pressure? Back pressure is a byproduct or consequence of using baffle designs. Maxim's baffle design was engineered to trap expanding gases as they flow into to separate chambers or baffles. However, trapping the expanding gases also drastically increases the pressure that is built up inside the suppressor before the round exits the bore. The highly pressurized gas will then travel 2 directions to travel after the round exits the bore:

1: Go forward – through the baffles that are designed to block the gas.
2: Go backward – down the barrel, into the operating system and out the chamber into the shooters face. This pressure is known as Back Pressure.

Low BP has never been the result of baffle designs. There are hundreds of baffle designs out there and they've advanced greatly over the years. Some manufacturers will drill holes around the edges of the baffles, or add other internal venting features aiming to reduce the problem of back pressure. Our testing can actually confirm that some of those designs do will result in less back pressure and bolt velocity increase than un-vented baffle designs.

For instance, we generally see about a 22% increase in bolt velocity with tradition baffle designs without internal venting. We also see about a 20 - 30x PSI increase on the bolt face with those designs.

Without naming names, designs that claim internal venting (by adding holes and vents in the baffles or enlarged holes on last baffle etc) generally see about a 15% increase in BP and 18 - 23x PSI increase.

In any case, all baffle designs have one problem in common. They create a sustained pressure inside the weapon system, longer than the weapon system was engineered to operate.

Posted: 2/3/2016 2:12:36 PM EDT

[#29]

Quote History

Quoted:

If by "BP" you mean Back Pressure? Back pressure is a byproduct or consequence of using baffle designs. Maxim's baffle design was engineered to trap expanding gases as they flow into to separate chambers or baffles. However, trapping the expanding gases also drastically increases the pressure that is built up inside the suppressor before the round exits the bore. The highly pressurized gas will then travel 2 directions to travel after the round exits the bore:

1: Go forward – through the baffles that are designed to block the gas.
2: Go backward – down the barrel, into the operating system and out the chamber into the shooters face. This pressure is known as Back Pressure.

Low BP has never been the result of baffle designs. There are hundreds of baffle designs out there and they've advanced greatly over the years. Some manufacturers will drill holes around the edges of the baffles, or add other internal venting features aiming to reduce the problem of back pressure. Our testing can actually confirm that some of those designs do will result in less back pressure and bolt velocity increase than un-vented baffle designs.

For instance, we generally see about a 22% increase in bolt velocity with tradition baffle designs without internal venting. We also see about a 20 - 30x PSI increase on the bolt face with those designs.

Without naming names, designs that claim internal venting (by adding holes and vents in the baffles or enlarged holes on last baffle etc) generally see about a 15% increase in BP and 18 - 23x PSI increase.

In any case, all baffle designs have one problem in common. They create a sustained pressure inside the weapon system, longer than the weapon system was engineered to operate.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Was low bp the goal, and the baffle design is how they got it......or was low bp a byproduct of the baffle design?

If by "BP" you mean Back Pressure? Back pressure is a byproduct or consequence of using baffle designs. Maxim's baffle design was engineered to trap expanding gases as they flow into to separate chambers or baffles. However, trapping the expanding gases also drastically increases the pressure that is built up inside the suppressor before the round exits the bore. The highly pressurized gas will then travel 2 directions to travel after the round exits the bore:

1: Go forward – through the baffles that are designed to block the gas.
2: Go backward – down the barrel, into the operating system and out the chamber into the shooters face. This pressure is known as Back Pressure.

Low BP has never been the result of baffle designs. There are hundreds of baffle designs out there and they've advanced greatly over the years. Some manufacturers will drill holes around the edges of the baffles, or add other internal venting features aiming to reduce the problem of back pressure. Our testing can actually confirm that some of those designs do will result in less back pressure and bolt velocity increase than un-vented baffle designs.

For instance, we generally see about a 22% increase in bolt velocity with tradition baffle designs without internal venting. We also see about a 20 - 30x PSI increase on the bolt face with those designs.

Without naming names, designs that claim internal venting (by adding holes and vents in the baffles or enlarged holes on last baffle etc) generally see about a 15% increase in BP and 18 - 23x PSI increase.

In any case, all baffle designs have one problem in common. They create a sustained pressure inside the weapon system, longer than the weapon system was engineered to operate.

That's not what he's asking. He asked if low backpressure was the goal of the OSS design or if it was a byproduct of the OSS design.

Posted: 2/3/2016 4:07:43 PM EDT

[#30]

Quote History

Quoted:
That's not what he's asking. He asked if low backpressure was the goal of the OSS design or if it was a byproduct of the OSS design.

View Quote

Perhaps I misunderstood then. When he mentioned baffle designs....I assumed he was talking about baffle designs? Our suppressors don't use baffles, so I assumed he was speaking about everybody else?

The mission of OSS was to create a suppressor that had no adverse effects on the weapon system suppressed or un-suppressed. To create a suppressor with virtually no back pressure increase, no bolt velocity increase, no increased fowling, better thermal dynamics, all while being hear safe. To design a suppressor that the firearm didn't know it was wearing.

Posted: 2/3/2016 4:20:23 PM EDT

[#31]

Quote History

Quoted:

Perhaps I misunderstood then. When he mentioned baffle designs....I assumed he was talking about baffle designs? Our suppressors don't use baffles, so I assumed he was speaking about everybody else?

The mission of OSS was to create a suppressor that had no adverse effects on the weapon system suppressed or un-suppressed. To create a suppressor with virtually no back pressure increase, no bolt velocity increase, no increased fowling, better thermal dynamics, all while being hear safe. To design a suppressor that the firearm didn't know it was wearing.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
That's not what he's asking. He asked if low backpressure was the goal of the OSS design or if it was a byproduct of the OSS design.

Perhaps I misunderstood then. When he mentioned baffle designs....I assumed he was talking about baffle designs? Our suppressors don't use baffles, so I assumed he was speaking about everybody else?

The mission of OSS was to create a suppressor that had no adverse effects on the weapon system suppressed or un-suppressed. To create a suppressor with virtually no back pressure increase, no bolt velocity increase, no increased fowling, better thermal dynamics, all while being hear safe. To design a suppressor that the firearm didn't know it was wearing.

Perhaps i should have said "internals" instead of baffles.......but that was the question.

Posted: 2/3/2016 7:03:30 PM EDT

[#32]

Quote History

Quoted:

Perhaps I misunderstood then. When he mentioned baffle designs....I assumed he was talking about baffle designs? Our suppressors don't use baffles, so I assumed he was speaking about everybody else?

The mission of OSS was to create a suppressor that had no adverse effects on the weapon system suppressed or un-suppressed. To create a suppressor with virtually no back pressure increase, no bolt velocity increase, no increased fowling, better thermal dynamics, all while being hear safe. To design a suppressor that the firearm didn't know it was wearing.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
That's not what he's asking. He asked if low backpressure was the goal of the OSS design or if it was a byproduct of the OSS design.

Perhaps I misunderstood then. When he mentioned baffle designs....I assumed he was talking about baffle designs? Our suppressors don't use baffles, so I assumed he was speaking about everybody else?

The mission of OSS was to create a suppressor that had no adverse effects on the weapon system suppressed or un-suppressed. To create a suppressor with virtually no back pressure increase, no bolt velocity increase, no increased fowling, better thermal dynamics, all while being hear safe. To design a suppressor that the firearm didn't know it was wearing.

I am going to save this for my replies in the future.

Also, will be doing dB measurements this weekend to share with people as I have stated I would do so.
Unfortunately the sub sonic ammo won't arrive until Monday.

Posted: 2/5/2016 10:02:02 AM EDT

[#33]

http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2016/02/04/video-oss-suppressor-makes-barrett-50-cal-quiet-airsoft-gun/

Video: OSS Suppressor Makes Barrett .50 Cal Quiet as an Airsoft Gun
BY: Daniel Xu + POSTED: 2/4/16
oss 50
6.8K
Shares
There’s a reason that nobody wants to fire a Barrett M107 in an enclosed space—ever. This titanic rifle is chambered in the equally massive .50 BMG, and it can be both loud as well as concussive. Firing what is essentially a very small artillery cannon in a 10-foot by 20-foot box can produce a markedly unpleasant ringing in your ears, and that may be the least of your problems.

Operators Suppressor Systems (OSS) has a different idea. The testers over at OSS slapped a flow-through suppressor on the rifle and the results are remarkable. Sure, it may not be exactly as quiet as an airsoft gun, but it should be noted that the falling brass makes more noise than the shot itself. The suppressor also appeared to have greatly reduced recoil, allowing it to be fired off-hand.

Are you salivating yet?

View Quote

Posted: 2/5/2016 12:59:27 PM EDT

[#34]

Quote History

Quoted:
http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2016/02/04/video-oss-suppressor-makes-barrett-50-cal-quiet-airsoft-gun/

<a href="http://s1255.photobucket.com/user/pmdata/media/image_zpshyzkndae.jpeg.html" target="_blank">http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh623/pmdata/image_zpshyzkndae.jpeg</a>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndbfj-Jk0To

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:
http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2016/02/04/video-oss-suppressor-makes-barrett-50-cal-quiet-airsoft-gun/

<a href="http://s1255.photobucket.com/user/pmdata/media/image_zpshyzkndae.jpeg.html" target="_blank">http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh623/pmdata/image_zpshyzkndae.jpeg</a>

Video: OSS Suppressor Makes Barrett .50 Cal Quiet as an Airsoft Gun
BY: Daniel Xu + POSTED: 2/4/16
oss 50
6.8K
Shares
There’s a reason that nobody wants to fire a Barrett M107 in an enclosed space—ever. This titanic rifle is chambered in the equally massive .50 BMG, and it can be both loud as well as concussive. Firing what is essentially a very small artillery cannon in a 10-foot by 20-foot box can produce a markedly unpleasant ringing in your ears, and that may be the least of your problems.

Operators Suppressor Systems (OSS) has a different idea. The testers over at OSS slapped a flow-through suppressor on the rifle and the results are remarkable. Sure, it may not be exactly as quiet as an airsoft gun, but it should be noted that the falling brass makes more noise than the shot itself. The suppressor also appeared to have greatly reduced recoil, allowing it to be fired off-hand.

Are you salivating yet?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndbfj-Jk0To

To be fair, I shot this video with a phone... The contrast in concussion was surreal, but its certainly louder than an airsoft gun lol. But we're pretty happy with it

Posted: 2/5/2016 1:02:45 PM EDT

[#35]

I figured the author might have taken liberties with the air soft description.

Posted: 2/5/2016 1:03:09 PM EDT

[#36]

Quote History

Quoted:

Not yet. I've been waiting for my can(s) to get approved or at least in state. Hansohn Bros has graciously offered up some other cans to use as a comparison. I've not purchased any metering equipment because it's expensive. I still plan to get this together in the near future.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I view OSS silencers the same way I view electric cars: I'm glad someone is doing something fundamentally different, but I don't want to own one yet. Maybe in several years it'll be different. I am very curious about them, and would like to see a good side-by-side test done between OSS and the current class-leading baffle suppressors with meters in the standard location as well as at the ear on bolt action and semi-auto hosts.

Their website guy needs to figure out the difference between "brake" and "break." It says "break" all over their site, and it makes them look bad.

I would love to participte in a side by side shoot.

Didn't a bunch of guys from VA get together recently to do this?

Not yet. I've been waiting for my can(s) to get approved or at least in state. Hansohn Bros has graciously offered up some other cans to use as a comparison. I've not purchased any metering equipment because it's expensive. I still plan to get this together in the near future.

Gamerc,

I live in MD near DC. If you all are not too far away I would like to join your shoot, and would be happy to bring my suppressors and hosts.

I currently have two Omegas, a Spectre II and a GM22. I am waiting on an YHM ULT for an 11.5" 6.8 upper.

Hosts AR's or uppers are 16" 5.56, 16" 6.8, 10.5" 300BLK, 11.5" 6.8.

For 22lr hosts are 10/22 with 16" barrel, P22 and a SIG P226 with a SIG 22lr kit installed.

JPK

Posted: 2/5/2016 1:10:33 PM EDT

[#37]

Quote History

Quoted:

View Quote

So have you sold enough suppressors to afford eye pro for your guys yet?
Most demos I've seen has them firing at contact distances into a pit of shredded tire rubber with no glasses, seems like an accident waiting to happen...

ETA, Russ Oliver no less...

Posted: 2/5/2016 2:23:32 PM EDT

[#38]

If you are trying to make the point that with your suppressors there is little or no back pressure or gas in the face (from either the ejection port or through the action via charging handle) I can see why you would shoot without eye pro, likewise if you are trying to make the point that your suppressors are hearing safe and wearing ear pro.

JPK

Posted: 2/5/2016 2:26:21 PM EDT

[#39]

Quote History

Quoted:
If you are trying to make the point that with your suppressors there is little or no back pressure or gas in the face (from either the ejection port or through the action via charging handle) I can see why you would shoot without eye pro, likewise if you are trying to make the point that your suppressors are hearing safe and wearing ear pro.

JPK

View Quote

So the explosion that's taking place inches from your face isn't a factor in that? Eye pro should always be worn when shooting, regardless of circumstances.

OSS, I asked a few questions on the previous page. Can you guys answer those?

Posted: 2/5/2016 3:00:21 PM EDT

[#40]

Quote History

Quoted:

So the explosion that's taking place inches from your face isn't a factor in that? Eye pro should always be worn when shooting, regardless of circumstances.

OSS, I asked a few questions on the previous page. Can you guys answer those?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
If you are trying to make the point that with your suppressors there is little or no back pressure or gas in the face (from either the ejection port or through the action via charging handle) I can see why you would shoot without eye pro, likewise if you are trying to make the point that your suppressors are hearing safe and wearing ear pro.

JPK

So the explosion that's taking place inches from your face isn't a factor in that? Eye pro should always be worn when shooting, regardless of circumstances.

OSS, I asked a few questions on the previous page. Can you guys answer those?

Ha! Your reply might apply to the range, but not to a whole lot of real world shooting.

JPK

Posted: 2/5/2016 3:06:58 PM EDT

[#41]

Quote History

Quoted:

Ha! Your reply might apply to the range, but not to a whole lot of real world shooting.

JPK

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
If you are trying to make the point that with your suppressors there is little or no back pressure or gas in the face (from either the ejection port or through the action via charging handle) I can see why you would shoot without eye pro, likewise if you are trying to make the point that your suppressors are hearing safe and wearing ear pro.

JPK

So the explosion that's taking place inches from your face isn't a factor in that? Eye pro should always be worn when shooting, regardless of circumstances.

OSS, I asked a few questions on the previous page. Can you guys answer those?

Ha! Your reply might apply to the range, but not to a whole lot of real world shooting.

JPK

No, but being in a box with flying brass and debris (that you know about ahead of time) without eye protection is moronic.
There is no articulable logic for shooting in those conditions without eye protection when you know you're going to be shooting.

I don't use eye pro hunting most of the time, or bench shooting with a scope, but if I've got brass bouncing off my face while shooting into a pit full of shredded rubber and steel 2ft away, I would be wearing eye protection.

Posted: 2/5/2016 3:33:19 PM EDT

[#42]

And that would be your choice. If I were making a video trying to reinforce the point that the suppressors I am trying to sell reduce back pressure to almost nothing and so eliminate gas in the face, and the point that the suppressors are hearing safe, I wouldn't be wearing eye pro or ear pro either... Like the shooter in the video.

JPK

Posted: 2/5/2016 3:36:55 PM EDT

[#43]

Quote History

Quoted:
And that would be your choice. If I were making a video trying to reinforce the point that the suppressors I am trying to sell reduce back pressure to almost nothing and so eliminate gas in the face, and the point that the suppressors are hearing safe, I wouldn't be wearing eye pro or ear pro either... Like the shooter in the video.

JPK

View Quote

And you would be an idiot.
Notice how he's squinting really hard so he doesn't get a case head stamp branded into his cornea.

That's like proving how well your new bike's ABS works by not wearing a helmet.

Posted: 2/5/2016 4:25:40 PM EDT

[#44]

OK, so me and the shooter are idiots...

He is squinting in every photo or video, I think that is his style, or maybe he needs glasses. I am lefty and shoot right handed AR's. If anyone is going to get hit with brass it would be me, but it never happens...

I'll add that one of the few times it really is stupid not to wear eye pro is shooting a rifle in the day time off of a bench or, for that matter, at a range.

BTW, the world got on fine before ABS brakes and wearing a helmet or not is still a personal choice in some states.

Please, never play with scissors, put the BB gun down before you shoot your eye out, buy your wood don't use that chain saw, and head to Safeway for your meat, since you just might cut yourself with a knife.

JPK

Posted: 2/5/2016 4:30:22 PM EDT

[#45]

Quote History

Quoted:
OK, so me and the shooter are idiots...

He is squinting in every photo or video, I think that is his style, or maybe he needs glasses. I am lefty and shoot right handed AR's. If anyone is going to get hit with brass it would be me, but it never happens...

BTW, the world got on fine before ABS brakes and wearing a helmet or not is still a personal choice in some states.

Please, never play with scissors, put the BB gun down before you shoot your eye out, buy your wood don't use that chain saw, and head to Safeway for your meat, since you just might cut yourself with a knife.

JPK

View Quote

Keep shooting without glasses...
All it takes is one hot piece of unburned powder from the chamber or a piece of shaved led from a revolver to make you regret that decision.
I've been hit in the glasses by both.
I've even had spall from a guy two bays over hitting the target stand at 25yd embed itself in my glasses. If i didn't wear them I would be down at least one eyeball by now.

Posted: 2/5/2016 4:34:51 PM EDT

[#46]

let's keep the discussion on OSS...not the fact that he should be wearing eye protection in the video

Posted: 2/5/2016 4:40:16 PM EDT

[#47]

mmmmm

Posted: 2/5/2016 5:17:19 PM EDT

[#48]

Quote History

Quoted:
mmmmm

http://i.imgur.com/BH1ze1G.jpg

View Quote

That's the oddest looking drill I've ever seen.

Posted: 2/5/2016 7:19:52 PM EDT

[#49]

Quote History

Quoted:

So the explosion that's taking place inches from your face isn't a factor in that? Eye pro should always be worn when shooting, regardless of circumstances.

OSS, I asked a few questions on the previous page. Can you guys answer those?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
If you are trying to make the point that with your suppressors there is little or no back pressure or gas in the face (from either the ejection port or through the action via charging handle) I can see why you would shoot without eye pro, likewise if you are trying to make the point that your suppressors are hearing safe and wearing ear pro.

JPK

So the explosion that's taking place inches from your face isn't a factor in that? Eye pro should always be worn when shooting, regardless of circumstances.

OSS, I asked a few questions on the previous page. Can you guys answer those?

There seemed to be a number of questions & statements. Can you be specific please.

Posted: 2/6/2016 4:33:32 AM EDT

[#50]

Quote History

Quoted:

There seemed to be a number of questions & statements. Can you be specific please.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
If you are trying to make the point that with your suppressors there is little or no back pressure or gas in the face (from either the ejection port or through the action via charging handle) I can see why you would shoot without eye pro, likewise if you are trying to make the point that your suppressors are hearing safe and wearing ear pro.

JPK

So the explosion that's taking place inches from your face isn't a factor in that? Eye pro should always be worn when shooting, regardless of circumstances.

OSS, I asked a few questions on the previous page. Can you guys answer those?

There seemed to be a number of questions & statements. Can you be specific please.

From here:

Quoted:

Quoted:
Some of the biggest misconceptions of about our suppressors are that they are long and heavy. Let the specs of the suppressors speak for themselves please. You can see them on the website, or check out the link here on arfcom HERE

Allow me to clarify on how we measure sound. At OSS we measure sound in 3 locations, the shooters left ear, right ear, and 1 meter off (industry standard). When referring to the dB level of a particular suppressor, we reference the value at the shooters ear.

Note, ejection port side ear measurements are generally louder (higher) than values taken 1 meter off. This is likely due to the extra chamber noise and pressure come from that area. It's common for readings of ~137 dB at the shooters ear, to simultaneously read ~132 dB at microphone at 1 meter off.

We often get criticized for being loud because people see numbers like 138 dB (shooters ear values) and compare them to numbers they see on competitors sites at 132 dB etc.

In the future we will be updating on the specifications on the site to reflect dB numbers at the shooters ear, AND at 1 meter off. We feel this will help consumers compare.

Thanks for doing the part in red, I think that's a great idea. I would also like to see:

1. The silencers tested on bolt action hosts. Right now, the 7.62 silencers only have dB values for a 14.5" AR. A 20" bolt action is a very common rifle for people to use a 7.62 suppressor on. Will you guys do this?
2. Materials listed for the tube, the stack, everything. What are they made out of?
3. Weights for the MG silencers. (I know those are coming later.)

For the part in blue, letting the specs speak for themselves tells me the silencers are longer, heavier, and have a larger "diameter" (or whatever the equivalent is for an octagon) than traditional silencers. For example, the smallest 5.56 silencer you offer is 7.25" long, 1.75" across, and weighs 20.3 oz. A Recce 5, for comparison, is 6.2" long, 1.47" across, and weighs 14.5 oz. Understanding the purported benefits of the OSS design, why doesn't OSS have silencers that are more competitive in size and weight to traditional silencers? Would they be louder than acceptable if they were kept to the same size limitations as traditional silencers?

Also - are all OSS suppressors full auto rated, or only the MG suppressors?

Everything in green, thanks.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Opinions on OSS Suppressors? (Page 1 of 2)

Armory » Silencers

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us