I can't disagree with your desires, but the NFA has distorted the market to where it is.   Silencers won't be 'accessories' harmonized to common guns as long as people have to pay a punitive tax, wait for an archaic and deliberately delayed paper process, and are essentially wed to the device without taking a loss.

The market presents us with a wider and more diverse trade space than ever before when choosing between size, weight, cost, performance, mounts, adaptability, etc.  Other than the unicorn of simultaneously cheap, light, small, quiet, durable, and idiot proof, most shooters with a little realism can find good functional products.

Seems like everyone has already made this point very well, but I'll just clarify again: Mikesmith, you are wrong and being at best intellectually dishonest.  Your supposition that those who buy suppressors do not tinker has been shown to be quite incorrect.  You moved goal posts to say "oh well in a world without the NFA every rifle should be suppressed and THEN people won't want to tinker!"  Not only is that about as far from reality as you can get, but an adjustable gas block isn't exactly "tinkering."  As others have pointed out, adjustable gas systems have been around for 60+ years, they are a simple concept and easy to use, as are gas busting charging handles and so on.

As others have pointed out, the OSS cans represent at the very best a compromise for optimized Semis.  You lose suppressor performance and gain weight.  As soon as you take the basic steps to optimize an AR, you are left with only disadvantages.

Try whatever mental gymnastics you'd like, you will end up right back here.

Where did I say "those who buy suppressors do not tinker"?  I'm saying the TYPICAL AR-15 BUYER does not tinker.  Go look at the AR-15s walking out the door at any gun show over the last 10 years and tell me the percentage of those people who are going to tinker with their purchase.  I acknowledged right now suppressors is still a niche and the kind of people in the niche are more likely to be open to tinkering than the average AR buyer.  I'm saying they ought not to have to if they don't want to, and we need a better answer for every new suppressor owner than "modify your rifle from its factory condition".

And yes, changing a gas block absolutely deserves the label of tinkering.  You are taking a gun that works fine under all conditions anticipated by the manufacturer from the box, and essentially changing a component that could lead to more malfunctions and taking responsibility for any malfunctions onto yourself and away from the manufacturer by choice.  You're not a professional, but you're going to engage in trial and error with a device you may trust with your life.  If that's not what the term "tinkering" means to you, then I guess we just have different understandings of the word.

Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that if that's what you want to do, and I'm not saying I wouldn't do it myself for certain purposes.  But to make that the standard recommendation for every suppressor buyer, regardless of who they are, their skills, their intended applications, etc.?  THAT'S what I'm pushing back against.

The intellectual dishonesty is to make this all about OSS and its storied history and ignoring the words coming out of the mouth of the God of Suppressors himself.

----------------------------

ETA: I know these conversations can get scattered and hard to track, so I'm going to make it very clear what I'm talking about so nobody has to waste time responding to something I'm not saying.

It's a very simple question--when dealing with the issue of backpressure, should the default solution/recommendation be "change to an adjustable gas block" or "buy a low-backpressure suppressor"?
At this point it's pretty obvious that OSS is not the only option if you want to avoid backpressure.  I've seen anecdotal evidence and/or marketing that companies such as:

Delta P
Q
Sig
Dead Air
SAS
Amtac
LaRue
NG2 Defense

(just the first few that pop into my mind) have significantly reduced backpressure issues with their products.  So when I talk about alternatives to an adjustable gas block, I am most certainly not saying "everybody buy an OSS".  So far I haven't heard anybody saying that buying a Q product required making undesirable sacrifices regarding performance or weight...

Unfortunately, until somebody starts measuring bolt speed changes and/or can measure the actual amount of gas coming out of the ejection port, determining how well a product performs is somewhat anecdotal other than measuring the impact on sound levels at the ear.  That's why measuring at the ear is so important, and it's great to see it catching on, because it's really the only empirical data we have so far easily available.

Now, if we really want to get into the question of whether an adjustable gas block solves all problems, watch this video and then tell me if you think it's just marketing BS or demonstrating a legitimate problem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi4yb9Emw8Q&t=3s

Cool--any chance you can hook up with a YouTuber who is doing metering to add that data to their reports?

I dont run my guns with acrylic paint in the barrel, so my baffled suppressors seem to be doing just fine

last week I reached out to a swat sniper (city of 130,000) because I remembered that they ran 2 different suppressors on their AR10s.  He sent me some feedback that might be of interest to some. Notice he doesn't call either suppressor a POS - just points out the differences that each shooter/team worked through.  They had the 2 Sigs, went to an Eval in January -  bought 2 OSS QD762s.  couple months later bought 2 more OSS 762s.  The city was in the process of suppressing their 70 14.5" colts, but that I think (I hope) is next year's budget.

"Hey Tom,
Thanks for reaching out. We were not aware of that particular sniper comp. Hope it went well. The 4 OSS cans are working well and we needed no gas block adjustments with our JP rifles. We had an acceptable amount of zero shift shooting suppresses/unsuppressed. We have noted very little in increased fouling shooting suppressed. All in all, they are GTG.
We are also running two Sig QD cans on JP 762 rifles. These were the first cans we were allowed to purchase that met the dollar amount of a small budget they gave me. One thing I noted between the two is that the Sig can was noticeably quieter to the ear than the OSS. However, the rifles required gas tuning and more maintenance due to heavier fouling.
In summary:
OSS= plug and play with very little change in shoot-ability and required maintenance.
SIG or Baffle can= Better noise reduction at the expense of heavier fouling and needed gas modification for reliability.
Best regards",

nothing major in this team's experience, but I thought it might add to the discussion.  Draw your own conclusion based on what you'd rather prioritize  - which is a valid thing to do since there are many quality suppressor brands out there.

Thanks for the anecdotal info; it's definitely food for thought.

My biggest concern would be how much suppression is actually given up in exchange for ease of use. Being an enthusiast, I have no concern over tuning or cleaning as much as needed to get the desired level of suppression I'm looking for.

I can see how some people are required to use a firearm as part of their job, such as police officers, but don't necessarily have a solid understanding of how their firearm functions. I presume that this would be the target demographic for a plug-and-play suppressor like the OSS.

I'm still of the strong opinion that it's better to educate the consumer on how the system works as a whole, rather than sacrifice performance to create a more "idiot-proof" product. Just my opinion, though...

That seems to be the consensus SentinelMN, thanks again for the excellent info you've provided ITT ;).

Mikesmith, when you've got something more than stretched semantics and red herrings, let me know.  At least we agree that we need more data.  Really looking forward to Pete's results.

HX-QD 556 Part 1 Here:

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/08/11/oss-helix/

OSS SUPPRESSORS HELIX HX-QD 556 DECIBEL METERING

Environment: 77 degrees; 95% humidity
Decibel Meter: B&K 2209 – A Weighted
Control Silencer: SureFire SOCOM 556 RC2
Host: Dynamic Defense 18” Romeo with adjustable gas block
Ammunition: 62gr Federal Fusion SP
Meter Location: MILSTD Muzzle

147
145.6
145.1
143.9
144.6
145.3

Meter location: Right Ear

136
135.1
137.1
138.3
137.9
137.8
138.4

Environment: 77 degrees; 95% humidity
Decibel Meter: B&K 2209 – A Weighted
Test Silencer: OSS HX-QD 556
Host: Dynamic Defense 18” Romeo with adjustable gas block
Ammunition: 62gr Federal Fusion SP
Meter Location: MILSTD Muzzle

144.8 (failure to feed)
142.4 (FTF) (1/4 turn open on SLR gas block)
140.5
139.2
142.1
141.5

Meter Location: Right Ear

136
135.8
136.1
136
135.1
134.6
134.7
138.1
136
136.2
136.5
135.8
137.7
137.6
140+ (bolt hold open)

—————

Flame on

Enjoyed the article and seeing the details. Thank you .

Good stuff!
I'm waiting for a helix 5.56 can myself.

I know y'all are just going to call me a shill again for posting this, but I'm posting it anyway because I think it has some interesting technical "data" to add to the conversation about blowback/backpressure.

https://youtu.be/injnd3rGwdk

If you want to skip the sales rep doing his thing, go to about 8:40.  They compare an LMT piston on the suppressed setting to a regular DI gun.  He has the shooter hold the gun with the ejection port facing up so they really feel the gas in their face.  In addition to the reaction from the shooter, you can actually see the difference by how the gas moves the shooter's hair.  You can see it again with another shooter at 15:00.

Until we see some more scientific measurements of this phenomenon, I think demonstrations like this have some value.  I never thought about doing this with somebody with longer hair, but it does provide a pretty effective visual indication of what's going on!  Maybe that's an idea for somebody's future YouTube video...

Wow mikesmith, that has got to be one of the silliest promos I've seen.  If that marketing video actually shows how OSS thinks AR15s function...they need to get a little more familiar with the operating system.  I'm not sure which is more agregious, that one, or this more direct followup they did here.

The video starts out with a straight up lie, and only goes south from there.  They claim AGBs will not "deal with the pressure in the barrel, only the gas coming through the gas tube."  That is simply untrue.  Controlling the amount of gas allowed into the gas tube will control how long it takes for the bolt to unlock.  The longer the bolt stays locked, the lower the chamber pressure will be and the more gas will be able to escape out the front of the suppressor.  So AGBs do precisely control the amount of pressure that will be unleashed upon the shooter via the chamber.  They either lack very basic understanding of how the AR15 operates, or are lying through their teeth.  Either way, it yields 0% confidence in their company and product.

Heck all they needed to do was hop on google and watch part of a 6 minute video and they'd know the results of AGB vs. non-AGB suppression of AR15s (which is to say AGBs significantly reduce db to the shooter with traditional cans).

I'm not sure why anyone would call you a shill for linking a video which shows nothing but OSS incompetence at best.

Yeah, the guys who have been working full-time for years to figure out the best way to suppress an AR-15 don't understand how they work. Okay, you've got me convinced.

Your post is a perfect example of typical internet discourse. You exaggerate or misrepresent what somebody is saying and then respond to that.  I am sure that if you ask them they would readily acknowledge that an adjustable gas block can affect the gas coming out of the barrel, but their obvious point is that it does not completely solve the problem.

Instead of arguing with your points, how about you simply show me evidence that they're full of BS and there's no increase in backpressure back down the barrel as long as an AGB is set up properly.

Not "I didn't notice any gas" but something that's at least as empirical as showing somebody's hair moving or not moving.

ETA: Because I try to engage in good faith I went back and re-watched that video from Suppressed Nation you linked to.  I did not see any apples to apples comparison where the only thing that changed was the gas block.  Please correct me if I missed it, because I'm very interested in seeing such testing.  While sound metering is not an absolute measurement of gas coming into the chamber, it certainly can indicate when something changes substantially.

I wish OSS, and all suppressor manufactures would take 2 identical rifles and test on an even playing field. Sure, the video with what I assumed was an AAC M4-2000, on an LMT rifle with a "suppressed" setting might have more gas, but it doesnt really tell me what THEIR can sounds like on the same rifle.

I agree, I've been wishing for that for years.  My best guess is that the lawyers don't like anything that involves a competitor in official marketing (especially if they are identified), but an independent tester shouldn't have to worry about that.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, $199 psa upper

Yeah, Q is really worried about that....

You were who I had in mind when I posted that. 2 Colt factory ARs side-by-side with OSS can and one with competitor. No AGB, etc etc... same ammo, same barrel length. But we will never see that. Is nice to know I shouldnt fill my chamber with black paint and go shooting in my new Kanye West plain white $100 t-shirt though.

The management changes at this company, the generation after generation design changes, and the marketing claims seem like “clues” to me.  Pass.

I agree with this approach and its very close to what we try to accomplish with LE evals.  Its not perfect, but we match our rifles as close as we can to what the team is either currently shooting, or what they want to move to. I can't think of another way to even the playing field (as much as possible).

This is what we have for our 556 platforms suppressed at the evals:
10.5" - Four Daniel Defense, and One LMT
11.5" - Three BCMs, One Daniel Defense, Two Colts, and One LMT
12"  - One LMT (piston)
12.5" - Three BCMs and we will add an LMT 12.5" next month to pair with their OTB 556 suppressor.
14.5"  - Three BCMs, One DD, One FN, One Colt, Two LMTs, One HK Piston, One Larue Tactical, (and one IWI X95 - that gets shot a lot, but we've not sold any yet).

our suppressors are paired with the above rifles, and we stress that shooters should try to initially evaluate the rifles, optics, and suppressors separately.  Every rifle is stock, and the only ones with an adjustable gas block is the LMT piston, and the Larue.  During the follow up evals is when we start moving platforms around to exactly the combinations they want to see.   Each time its a different focus, but the premise that an even playing field is the best way to tell the difference is correct in my opinion.  However, I dont think the manufacturers will line up to try to do these types of comparisons.

Typical mikesmith, nothing but more lies and fallacies.  Now your posts are certainly an example of shilling.  Blatant misinformation, excuse after excuse, and only for the benefit of one company.  Anyone can clearly watch the videos and see for themselves, as many have.  Also I find it hilarious you jump to their defense saying "OSS clearly understand the gas system!!!!"  Ok, well that was one of TWO options I gave to cover their lie: incompetence.  The other option is just a bold faced malicious lie on their part, so that is what you've chosen.  If they understand the system so well, then there is only one option: their marketing team made two videos straight up lying about how the AR gas system works and how AGBs interact with said system.  I'd give you a demotion if I was your boss.

I will say one thing however.  If a rifle cannot make use of a good adjustable gas block or similar technology (and a heavy buffer and spring is not in that category although it does help some) THEN the OSS and similar close to zero back pressure cans make sense (like the Nexgen).  An excellent modern example of this is given above, the Tavor and X95.  Similarly "old school" designs like the AR18 would be prime for such cans.

Good grief... I try not to let these conversations get personal but your arrogant elitist attitude is getting really annoying.  I think you're having some cognitive dissonance issues.

They made it very clear that they acknowledge that adjusting the gas can help address timing issues. Their point is that even if you fix the timing traditional suppressor designs can still leave enough pressure in the barrel that additional gas comes back in when the action opens.

They tried to do a demonstration that isolated the gas coming out through the barrel from the gas coming back through the gas tube.  If you think that's BS, then it's up to you to provide contradictory data/demonstration.  The fact that you may be happy enough with the improvements accomplished with an adjustable gas block is not sufficient to prove that they are "straight up lying" and being deceptive in their marketing.  Not only have you failed to provide contradictory evidence, you haven't even tried to explain how what they did was deceptive or misleading.

You are so obsessed with your anti-OSS/pro-AGB bias that you can't even notice that one of the videos was a third-party recording of a sales demonstration at a public event and was not produced by their marketing department.

Maybe I should just start calling you a shill for adjustable gas blocks...

Just arrived...

Go use your cans.

Very nice pic of a very aesthetic build.  And I know you are going to shoot it.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/09/01/oss-suppressors/

TLDR Raw data:

VARIABLES AND EQUIPMENT:

72 degrees
62% humidity
B&K 2209 – A Weighted
Calibrated and tested c/o Allen Engineering
MODEL: OSS HX-QD 556K

HOST: DYNAMIC DEFENSE 12” SIERRA

https://dynamicdefensedevelopment.com/product/sierra/

AMMUNITION: FEDERAL 62GR M855

MILSTD Muzzle

140+
152.5
151.4
152.3
151.9
150.9
151
150.4
150.7
150.8

At The Ear

141
141.7
142
140
140.3
142.2
142.4
141.1
143.1
142.5 BHO

MODEL: OSS HX-QD 556

MILSTD Muzzle

149.5
142.6
142.
143.7
143.9
144.6
143.5
144.6
143.9
144.2

At The Ear

140.6
141
142
141.5
140.4
140.5
139.2
138.1
139.5
138.1 BHO

MODEL: HX-QD 762 (5.56 HOST)

MILSTD Muzzle

150+
144.9
146.1
144.6
143.9

At The Ear

141.5
141
140.5
140.6
139.7

HOST: DYNAMIC DEFENSE 16” ROMEO

https://dynamicdefensedevelopment.com/product/romeo/

MODEL: HX-QD 556K

Adjustable Gas Block: FULLY CLOSED

MILSTD Muzzle

150+
144.6
144.9

At The Ear

140.8
140
138.1

Adjustable Gas Block: 8 CLICKS OPEN

MILSTD Muzzle

148.6
145
146.3
144
145.1
144.5
145.7
147.6
147.7
145.9

At The Ear

141.6
139
142.1
139.5
142.6
142.4
139
142.1
144.5
142.6
140.7

MODEL: OSS HX-QD 556

MILSTD Muzzle

145.8
137.1
140.7
138.1
140.8
138.3
138.7
138.9
139.6
139.8

At The Ear

139.5
140.1
141
140.5
142
140.4
141.9
140
140.1
140.7 BHO

HOST: H&K CSASS RIFLE – 7.62×51

MODEL: OSS HX-QD 7.62 MAGNUM TI

AMMUNITION: ZQI 147GR FMJ

MILSTD Muzzle

149.9
144.4
144.9
146.4
145.7
144.7
147.2
146.8
147
149.1 BHO

At The Ear

138.1
136.9
138
136.8
139.1
135.9
138
139
136.2
137.9 BHO

MODEL: OSS HX-QD 762

MILSTD Muzzle

150+
146.9
147
146.6
146.8
146.4
146.5
145.6
147.4
148.1

At The Ear

137.2
135.1
137.
139.9
137.2
136.8
137.2
137.1
136.9
136.1

Can you clarify if the 7.62 magnum is a typo?  I believe the magnum is a .338.

A google search of your screen name turns up a pretty interesting post trends of yours. Unserstaning this is a technical forum I will leave it at that.

ETA: Fixed Typo. Gets really interesting on TFB comment sections.

So, you're saying that a gun designed to run with a can does better. Hmmm....

I know I'm just a novice, but those numbers seem rather 'meh' to me.

Also interesting to note that there appears to be a significant FRP at the muzzle.

I'm looking forward to hearing the more experienced members chime in here.

I dont think they look meh. They definitely aren't out of the park. Good at the ear, not so much at the muzzle.


 
 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 
 

OSS	HX-QD 556	16" 5.56 [bullet weight??]	@ear: 140.62	@muzzle: 139.78
AAC	M4-2000	16" 5.56 55gr	@ear: 143.7	@muzzle: 131.2
YHM	Turbo	16" 5.56 55gr	@ear: 130.3	@muzzle: 135
SilencerCo	Saker 556	16" 5.56 55gr	@ear: 143.7	@muzzle: 132.3
Sig	SRD556TI-QD	16" 5.56 55gr	@ear: 141.4	@muzzle: 134.8
Griffin Armament	M4-SD	16" 5.56 55gr	@ear: 144.7	@muzzle: 135.3
Gemtech	Trek	16" 5.56 55gr	@ear: 141.8	@muzzle: 133.9

Also, I dont know why using the table function forces your post to be a mile long and puts the table data way down at the bottom.

Ironically, the HX-QD 556 in your table was quieter at the muzzle than at the ear!

I couldn't find the videos, but I seem to remember some other conventional suppressors measuring around 136 dB at the ear. I could be mistaken, though. All the videos I've watched kind of meld together over time...

The numbers are definitely better than MAC's earlier tests, which I believe were 150+ dB at the muzzle.

Looking back, the 18" rifle tested previously had much better at-ear numbers, which ironically enough could be attributed to the presence of an adjustable gas block...

This test seemed to be more balanced between at-ear and muzzle numbers.

hard to find apples to apples- so I went with full-size 5.56 cans, on 16" barrels with 55gr ammo. And I used silencershop's data from the Modern Rifleman database, ver 1.99.

My comment about being better at the ear than the muzzle, is from all of the #s taken from Pete's data he posted. One thing to consider, if hes shooting 62gr M855 and everybody else is running 55gr 193, might make a bit of difference. Still, I dont think the OSS #s are way out there.

I agree, the test numbers don't appear to be out of line at all. I guess I'm more suprised that the results seem kind of average when compared to other conventional suppressors.

I also noticed the use of M855 instead of M193, but have no idea how much of a difference that makes. The 18" rifle test used 62gr Federal Fusion along with an AGB, which could account for the lower at-ear numbers.

We really do need to get everyone on board with a standardized testing platform like a 16" mid-length and M193, as multiple people have already proposed.

Where are you seeing an 18" rifle? all I see are the 12", 16" w/ AGB, and an HK CSASS 7.62

Look at the top of this page. The 18" rifle results were posted a few weeks ago.

Ahh, yes forgot about that. The avg @ear for the OSS HX-QD 556 on the 18" Romeo with 62gr ammo is 136, so I would think that extra 2" of barrel helps the numbers come down a hair.

I do find it interesting that the SOCOM suppressor measured almost the same at the ear as the OSS.

Another interesting note in the comments was that the OSS only required one additional 1/4 turn on the AGB to function properly. That seems to suggest that the SOCOM and OSS have very similar amounts of back pressure.

Great data Pete!  Thanks so much for doing that testing.  Seems to confirm the mainstream hypothesis that OSS is very loud at the muzzle and quieter at the ear BUT you can get better results with a traditional can and an AGB (better as in similar at the ear, better at the muzzle, and lighter and shorter).  Still good to have on the market (along with the Nexgen and others) for rifles without access to AGBs.

That’s my fault. The previously mentioned 18” barrel was actually 16”. I’m not used to anything over 12” anymore...

Also, the humidity and temp were pretty different for the older and newer tests. I also didn’t have enough fusion to burn between all the combinations. The M855 is 62gr.

Standardization is tricky. One 16” barrel may have a gas port size different from another manufacturer. Then as soon as you standardize a barrel and ammo, people will want numbers from shorter or longer barrels and with different rounds.

In a perfect world you’d have a dozen test platforms, all the ammo you can dream of, a controlled environment and unlimited time.

All of this leads me back to the belief that decibel metering is useful for silencer design and not so much for consumer purchase decisions.

Thanks for the thanks.  Fun and interesting.

Regarding standardization, someone here suggested a simple $199 PSA mid-length upper for testing purposes. If all the various groups doing testing could splurge for one, and put just a few rounds through it during each test, it would help establish a baseline for comparison purposes.

That being said, I'm all for more testing of the shorter 10.5"-12" uppers, as those are the ones that need suppressors the most! Maybe standardizing on a 10.5" PSA upper might be a better choice for the baseline.

The biggest thing I want to know at the moment is your personal opinion. How do the OSS suppressors compare to all of the common favorites, like the Omega, Saker, and Sandman?

Thanks again for doing everything it took to make this happen, any data is better than no data!

But I do think that it's challenging to make everybody happy because different people have different interests. For example, if the goal is to show the differences between competitors then the most important thing is to run them all on the same setup with nothing changing. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who probably just want to know how a certain product would perform on their preferred set up, which is going to lead to different variable selection.

My personal interest is in solid data that demonstrates the differences between designs, and that's where I think it makes the most sense to use the most common setup of 16 inch barrels with normal gas blocks, both for AR-15 and AR-10 rifles.  I assume that the military spec for an AR-15 includes the size of the gas port so if a manufacturer says that it's a mil-spec gun then it should be the same size gas port but I have not researched that detail.

it also helps avoid a lot of questions about variables changing if the competitors are tested at the same time on the same gun like you did in the first OSS test, but I understand that isn't always possible.  I'm certainly interested in how adjustable gas blocks can affect the outcome, but that's a different test and the presence of an adjustable gas block just adds more questions if the main goal is to determine how one model compares to another.

it certainly makes the most sense for the ASA to take the lead on this as KB discussed with you--maybe an interview with them should be on the agenda?

My opinion isn’t worth much. Most supersonic centerfire silencers sound the same to me. Loud.

Besides, I’m a subsonic kind of guy.

But, the OSS cans seem to perform as well as some of the industry standard silencers. And they aren’t as complicated and gimmicky as previous generations.