All three are awaiting pickup at the dealer tomorrow. The H&K CSASS rifle is due in any day.

I’m on a train and I just laughed out loud. Thanks.

I’m out of my depth discussing meters but in addition, it would be super helpful if every Tom Dick and Harry would splurge for a $199 PSA 16” middy/carbine and test on a consistent platform

All test we do with Hansohn starting from the last metering day forward will have at least 1 16" with standard gas block and buffer.

lol have all the fun you want, it doesn't bother me.

But a serious question--do you really think that a company that has existed for many years, has in some way generated the capital to cover the expenses of operation and many employees during that time, now has a real government contract, etc. would put out a product, publicly state in marketing materials that it will perform at a certain level, and then have the product actually perform at 10+ db higher than what they said?  Is that actually believable to you?  Is that actually the most reasonable explanation?

I'm just saying I'm not quite ready to take that and run with it without having a little more supporting data.  Call me crazy, but I just think it's a little logic 101.  I'm not saying it's impossible, but that's not where I'm starting.

I don't know.

But.

What does the data say?

That was pretty much my point--as far as I know, that's the first data point for the 556k on a 16" AR.  We need more before we can draw substantial conclusions.

Yeah.

It's not the first time that anyone's said OSS cans are LOUD though.

Yah.

Attached File

Whoa, more data.

it would certainly be interesting to know if weather could make that big a difference!

I just know what I have seen them say officially.  From their website for the 556k at the ear:

136-140 dB on 20" AR15 DI using commercial grade 55 gr ammo

138-142 dB on 16" AR15 DI using commercial grade 55 gr ammo

142-146 dB on 10.5" AR15 DI using commercial grade 55 gr ammo

That 5 meter protocol is new to me--I went digging through the 1474E document and in addition to the  description of the ear measurement it appears to also talk about identifying the point where the levels are below 140 in a circle around the muzzle.  I'm betting they are describing the protocol for muzzle measurements from the CSASS trials in that description, although I haven't been able to find the actual official documentation for that yet.  But if you read what it says, they are describing something in addition to the ear measurements.  So the way I read it they are saying that the levels are good at the ear, one meter from the muzzle they know it will be louder then you would expect, but once you get to 5 meters it's going to be hearing safe for anybody around.

To be clear, your muzzle numbers didn't surprise me but your ear numbers definitely did.

Well at least the guy I’m shooting at won’t need to wear earpro

On a more serious note: anyone able to try it with a PS90 SBR?

Here's our data from the past 2 weeks:

Brooklyn Park PD SWAT (100,000 pop first ring suburb near Minneapolis) -  12-24 OSS 556k suppressors.
Kern County California SD SWAT - 13 OSS 762 suppressors (MK18s). We have 3 other LE orders in process that should land in August.

The only time a meter was close to any of our suppressors is when Minneapolis SWAT metered each brand.  based on the meter science that I have read here recently, no doubt they were using a POS meter.  SO, I guess its very fortunate that they proceeded to put about 6000 rounds of 556 (and about 300 762) through our eval platforms, then narrowed it down to Dead Air Sandman S and K, OR the OSS QD 762 and 556k.  About 40 shooters rotated through, although the heavy eval happened with the warrant team leaders and the snipers.  
we have the LE departments shoot SIlencerCo, Gemtech, Surefire, OSS, Dead Air all on similar or the same platforms, at the same time, with the same ammo, with the same shooters, in the same conditions...all to help a department make an informed decision.

Is the OSS 556k loud? yeah...its a K can.  Its as loud in our evals as every other K can.  I'm not knocking anyone's numbers - I have no reason to doubt that the readings were the readings and Im not an Industry expert...we just show up with a lot of gear, give an overview of suppressors in general, and then turn our gear over to the LE teams and let them start their own eval with their ammo. Can I make a patrol rifle quieter than an OSS?  Absolutely - I put an Omega on the end of a 14.5" and that rifle is pretty damn quiet. its long and gassy, but quiet.  
in just what we observe, there are multiple factors LE teams use to evaluate suppressors - DBs, durability, blowback, ease of use/maintenance, attachment mechanism, length/weight.

There are a large amount of subjective conclusions in this data.

BINGO
Thank you. you just made my entire point much more succinctly.

Plus, our observations are just that - observations. The only conclusions that I can draw from each deal is the purchase order that pays us.  Every eval and Dept is differerent and that’s why we offer head to head comparisons because we didn’t know how else to do it, and as a part time business we needed to set ourselves apart from existing dealers. And OSS doesn’t always win -  Riverside CA SD bought 7 OSS suppressors for their left handed swat members...but the rest of their shooters stayed with their Surefires because they were happy with them.

Given the multiple factors at play every time someone puts a suppressor on a rifle (metered or not), I would think that most reports are subjective to a point. Otherwise how can other folks (who are a lot smarter than I am) fill up long threads debating the science of metering suppressors?

Again I’m not knocking any readings at all- and I get that most shooters have to start somewhere with comparisons.

I mean your "data."

There is nothing, or shouldn't be, anything subjective about a standard test with standardized equipment. The data will speak for itself.

But when a company moves outside those standards, their numbers are meaningless, and when they start using their bad numbers as a marketing feature, it's more than a little suspicious.

We would both agree about objective data = as standard as possible.  That would make a hell of a lot of my purchase decisions easier in life.   Is that even possible in a situation like evaluating suppressors?   I honestly dont know since I just sell the stuff, not invent or build it.  earlier a large dealer posted numbers and said “we do not wait for the best conditions to test silencers”.   Are there “best conditions” to test suppressors?  That dealer clearly seems to know what they are doing, so I assume that by making that comment one can get different readings from the same suppressor at different times (all within a range spread i would guess).  I expect the readings are spot on - for only that suppressor, on that day, with that ammo, on that range (outdoor vs indoor) for that shooter.

So if an OP asks in a thread for feedback on a specific suppressor, I believe that LE purchase decisions after live fire comparisons head to head would be one set of relevant “data” for the OP to consider.  Just like meter readings from a well known, experienced dealer.  
When Mpls Swat went to their final eval, we actually expected Dead Air to carry the day. In the end the muzzle flash from the sandman K, and the Sniper’s strong preference for the OSS762 tipped the scales.

The marketing strategy companies use is a very relevant point.  I look at numbers on suppressor websites just like i look at mileage estimates on new truck stickers...that’s why we decided to offer LE teams a chance to look at other numbers, and then just shoot a bunch of shit side by side with their  own ammo, own range, own drills, own mags, and make their decision.

Ive also come to believe that “K” is industry-shorthand for “loud as shit” when describing suppressors, no matter what manufacturer it is.

I already have a HTA Kestrel, so I have a "loud and heavy 5.56mm can" already and do not feel the need for another.

I got to say, at least my Huntertown POS was cheep.

One key thing it seems folks are forgetting here in regards to LE acquiring cans.  Generally for departments of this size, you are using issues rifles.  They don't have the luxery of having gas busting charging handles and adjustable gas blocks, let alone things like the LMT Enhanced carrier.  In other words, back pressure and gas to the shooter is a way bigger deal because they cannot deal with it the right way (which is the aforementioned CH+AGB) in most cases.  And like .mil decisions can often be bean counter based, but that is another issue.

These "but muh LE" is often reminiscent of the "but muh seals" arguments we see thrown around far too often.  It is almost always not very applicable to the civilian user for a variety of reasons, and there are almost always better options for said civilian for those reasons.  This back and forth about db numbers and location is pointless, all that really needs to be done is for one tester to do at the ear testing with the OSS and a few other high end cans (like the Q, SIG, Surefire, and KAC offerings) back to back with a good meter.  This has been done before, and hopefully we see this done soon for the new OSS lineup.

Very important point - This is precisely the reason we focus on LE sales.  our gig is part time, meaning that I really dont have the time to serve shooters who want to really "dig deep" into NFA stuff and fine tune every little thing until they get their perfect rifle.  as you mentioned, LE wants something that works reasonably well, but more importantly doesn't F shit up.  The only thing harder for cops to do than ask the bean counters for money, is to GO BACK and have to ask them for more money to fix the shit they broke with the first pile of money.  Thats really our niche - show up at their range, let them give our stuff the "rented mule" treatment, and they make the decision themselves.  It sometimes reminds me of the 1911 vs glock debates I used to read online....if you want something that will just work, then maybe thats a different set of priorities than the shooter who wants to tinker and maybe get a better end point
One team's medic had a private SBR completely tuned with an omega - it sounded and shot fantastic.  SO, the team wanted to evaluate Omega's on everything...and they were surprised when the eval with duty SBRs had a different result.  but thats exactly why there are a lot of factors that can have a role to play in a buying decision.

I dont expect anyone here to look at my info as anything more than passing additional information on.  I like a lot of suppressors, and we are now working with LMT's new suppressors and will add them to our demo lineup this month - so far I like what I see, (but civilian shooters probably wont) and thats not who I think LMT made these for.  out of all factors,   I think poor customer service to LE will sour those guys on a company no matter how good the product is.

this made me lol.

Really looking forward to your test results Pete.  On that note, a month ago or so you mentioned you had at the ear numbers for the Delta P Designs Brevis II and were going to post them.  What ever happened to that?

Crap, what did happen to that? Did I totally forget to write that up? My fault. I’ll get the old numbers and get some new numbers in the next few days.

I contend this applies to the typical civilian shooter as well.  Sure, the kind of guys who spend a lot of time here may tinker with their guns, but I think that's a very small subset of AR owners.  Whenever they do buy a suppressor, the vast majority will do nothing but mount it and shoot it to the gun that looks exactly like it did when they brought it home.  That should be the assumption of all manufacturers, in my opinion.  As a design philosophy, the suppressor should be invisible to the gun.  Since I know it's possible, I'm not interested in anything else.

Some day I'd like to see a test that measures bolt speed increase--the results might open a lot of eyes.

Just one consumer's opinion, of course...

Awesome, very excite to see the results Pete!

I totally disagree with the supposition that we should make huge compromises in suppressor performance, weight, and so on just so it can work on a $600 PSA.  Reliable adjustable gas blocks have exploded in popularity, as have gas busting charging handles.  If this was even 5-6 years ago, sure you might have a point.  Now the market is crowded with parts and rifles specifically designed to make suppressed ARs a pleasure to shoot, and they are.  My 11.5in with an Omega is LESS GASSY than my Kel Tec RDB which ejects downward, simply because it has a Superlative Arms AGB, and a gas busting CH (specifically an Armageddon Tactical GMS-15 Gen II).  And the Omega isn't even a lower back pressure design like the Q, SIG, Surefire, KAC, and so on.

The more I shoot our suppressed rifles and the more I observe departments shoot them, the more I'm convinced that there isnt a huge difference between any of the suppressor brands.
if I group the 762 cans, 556 cans, and K cans, I think they seem very close in almost every aspect.  you can weigh a suppressor and think that an extra 4 oz is a huge difference, but put an omega and a Sandman S both on 11.5s and I dont think most guys would really notice once they are sending rounds downrange.  
LE or civilian shooters alike will learn to adapt and work through whatever limitations a piece of gear has (and they all have limitations of some kind).  Gas, dbs, weight, length, etc...shooters adapt and train past whatever it is they dont like.  I think the challenge is taking an objective measurement like Dbs, or Weight and then actually evaluating it subjectively in your hands with your rifles...but the way NFA works thats a difficult/expensive proposition.

same thing we see with the LPVs we have - 1-6s, 1-4s, 1-8s...all seem to work, but each comes with small differences that are sometimes hard to evaluate without actually shooting.

Who said that?  You're setting up a straw man.

And you are completely ignoring my central point. It's not a question about whether options are available, it's simply the reality that a very small percentage of owners will actually use them.

Because you guys are tinkerers, and you interact with other tinkerers frequently, it's easy to forget that you are a very small minority of the total market.

Anyone civilian willing to drop time and money on a can will be willing to do a RTV and drilled CH mod and a $40 no name adj gas block

On what basis are you drawing these opinions? Shooting suppressed centerfire rifles is niche enough to make it “tinkering” already.  It shouldn’t be, but it is.

I’m looking forward to giving these OSS cans a fair, balanced and honest evaluation.

Sure, it's a niche right now.  I'm looking at it from a manufacturer's perspective and the potential market.  In my opinion every rifle should have a suppressor attached to it full time.  That opinion is in the minority right now, but as the barriers come down and the market grows that may change.  There are probably tens of millions of ARs out there right now that need to be suppressed.  The question was not where are things right now, but where manufacturers/designers should be focusing going forward.

I was saying that the design intent ought to be to make the suppressor invisible to the rifle because the vast majority of those owners are probably not going to modify their rifles beyond attaching accessories.  In my personal circle I would say the ratio is at least 10 to 1 if not greater in favor of the people who would never even change the muzzle device on their rifle let alone mess with things like a gas block.

The fact that modifications to accommodate less than optimal back pressure performance are possible and available does not change the fact that many people would not want to do them.

Furthermore, most gun buyers really like the idea of a gun that always works, no matter what ammo is used.  I would argue that many owners would consider adjusting the gas on a general use rifle directly contrary to one of the reasons they chose to buy that gun in the first place.

I'm not saying they are right or wrong, I am describing what I think is the common mindset.  Perhaps somebody who spends a lot of time at the counter of a local gun store can advise if I'm on track or not...

Something that would be interesting is how the new HD suppressors perform vs the previous generation.  While many similarities exist, there were certain changes made to the HD series that may have lessened its sound suppression slightly. I know the old one was not known to be particularly quiet at the muzzle but the I think it would be interesting to know how they compare side by side.

This is one of the reasons we are plagued with oversized gas ports. Uneducated consumers want something they can throw any type of ammunition in without a care in the world.

Never mind the fact that the rifle was sighted in with something else, and now shoots 4" high and 2" right. Never mind the fact that M193 and TulAmmo have completely different velocities and pressure curves.

As long as they both go bang, it's all good, right?

Rather than try to dumb everything down for the lowest common denominator, perhaps we should try educating the consumer base instead.

There's a reason that a lot of firearms came with an adjustable gas port from the factory, like the FAL. Manufacturers knew that different ammo performed differently, and expected the end user to be able to make the necessary adjustments.

If adjustable gas blocks were more accessible and easier to adjust, like the FAL, I doubt this would have ever been considered an issue.

I like the direction the adjustable bolt carriers like the Bootleg are going. Make it easy to access and simple to adjust, and people will use it.

I have no argument with that.  But it's still better to have a suppressor that doesn't require modification than one that does.  if I'm going to tune a gun, I ought to be able to tune it to run well without a suppressor and then have nothing change when I put the suppressor on.

But yes, I'm sure a company like Ruger or S & W is terrified of the possibility that a reviewer would experience any kind of stoppage regardless of the ammo and then publish that experience for everybody to see.  The typical consumer doesn't want to buy something that can't keep up with the mythical image of the AK in their mind, because everybody likes the idea of being equipped for the zombie apocalypse just in case!

Anyway, I haven't posted it here because I thought it might be just a little too shillish for you guys to handle but OSS recently put out a video on their YouTube channel trying to demonstrate that even when you adjust the gas to control the action it doesn't eliminate the issue of blowback coming back down the muzzle.  It's a question that I'd like to see explored further.

We're still dealing with the problem of an uneducated consumer. Anyone that spends the time and money to purchase a suppressor should already understand that it will affect the performance of their firearm.

Even with bolt action rifles, it will still affect the POI/POA. For gas-operated firearms, it affects back pressure and cyclic rate. That's just the nature of the beast. If the consumer jumped into their purchase unaware, that's on them.

Anyone adding custom exhaust to a motorcycle knows that they will need to retune the engine to accommodate. Anyone throwing a turbo on their Honda Civic knows that there will be some modifications involved. Anyone throwing a lift kit and oversized tires on their mall crawler knows that they will have to make some necessary adjustments.

Should all of the above examples expect to "have nothing change" when they make modifications to the base design? Should they be able to just slap that exhaust, turbo, or lift kit on without a care in the world?

Shouldn't we be focusing on educating the consumer instead, so that they better understand how their equipment operates?

Multiple manufacturers have demonstrated that this is not unavoidable.

Why should suppressors be categorized as modifications?  They should be considered as accessories.

Remember, this isn't so much about what is as what ought to be.  If there weren't options on the market that show it's possible to eliminate backpressure, I wouldn't be so adamant in my opinion.  But if it can be done, I have no reason to make excuses for those who aren't doing it.

First rule of business--the customer is always right.  If your business model depends on you telling the customer they are ignorant and need to educate themselves and modify their gun before your product will work properly, you're doing it wrong.

I disagree with this premise wholeheartedly.

Firearms are in inherently dangerous product, and customers are constantly being told they need to educate themselves before using a firearm.

There is also nothing wrong with telling a customer that they need to modify a product in order to properly use an aftermarket accessory. This is done all the time. Often times, it's even specified that any necessary modifications should be made by a professional gunsmith.

If you prefer to sacrifice suppressor performance for a product that requires no forethought or modification, that's fine. Personally, I'd rather have a better product that might require some active participation and understanding on my part to get the best performance from it.

I agree with HansohnBrothers that adjustable gas blocks should become an industry standard. I'd just like to see them become more user friendly, like the FAL's design.

To keep things on topic, I am curious to see how the OSS suppressors meter for GoLoud. I'm curious to see how much suppression has been sacrificed in order to keep the back pressure that low.

Serious question--not being adversarial, saying you're wrong, etc...

What happens when somebody takes your advise, gets things adjusted and working well, and then puts it in the safe.  At some point in the future, maybe the suppressor gets taken off or changed, ammo changes, etc.  Maybe they get sloppy, lose track, forget, etc. Maybe it's a few years later... Then they suddenly need to use that gun in a real world defensive situation, something doesn't work right, and something really bad happens.  What do you say to that guy?

Sure, you can say that the owner is responsible to keep track of everything.  But is that really the solution we should be recommending to everybody?  Why are we so content to settle for something so sub-optimal, especially when options that are so much better are possible?

You can be correct in saying that concealed carriers ought to be at the range once a month keeping their skills fresh, clean their guns periodically, doing dry fire practice, etc. Yet many millions of them rarely do that and yet they still carry a gun and expect their gun to be ready and work without fail if they ever suddenly need it.

I believe the same thing happens with rifles. Millions of people have bought AR-15s and many have probably not touched them since their first trip to the range to make sure everything worked okay.  Out of the AR-15 owners I know, probably 95% fit in that category.  But if something bad ever happens to them, if Katrina or Ferguson ever comes to their town, etc they expect to be able to take that gun out of the safe and have it work perfectly without any issues after not taking it to the range for years.

At some point those people might buy a suppressor. Do you think anything is going to change with the way they operate when that happens?  Are they suddenly going to become the kind of person who messes with the function of their rifles and trusts themselves to do it right and bet their lives on it?

That's just not the advise I want to give my friends when they ask.  They bought a grunt-proof rifle, and adding a suppressor shouldn't change that.  If they are the kind of person who's going to change a gas block, mess with settings, etc. they won't be asking me for help anyway!

That should be your choice. The market should not force it on you by offering no other alternatives.

You always have so much to say.

The market has no obligation to offer alternatives.  Your arguments might have merit for an integrally suppressed gun, but once you add a user supplied can to the muzzle you become your own product integration expert.

People mess up the gas on FALs all the time. There is a reason most ARs are over gassed before even adding a suppressor. Customer support is expensive and most people don't know what a properly gassed gun feels like.  So the default is for positive functioning under the worst conditions. That's not the same as optimal functioning. I'd argue that it's up to the user to define what is optimal for them.

When I get done running my Bootleg adjustable carrier suppressed I always set it back to full open after cycling the settings. This exercises the carbon and leaves the gun in idiot proof mode.

I prefer high back pressure cans because they sound better on bolt actions and I tend to use ear pro with semis anyway.

What happens when this same person forgets that they sighted in using weak commercial ammo because it was cheapest at the time, and then happens to load some M193 or M855 because it's what's currently available?

What happens when they don't realize that they are now hitting 4" high and 2" left from where their point of aim is?

What happens when they shoot something they didn't intend to, because they "lost track"?

We can do hypotheticals all day, but in the end, it is up to the end user to know how their weapon functions. If they are not up to the task, then their ignorance is endangering everyone around them, and perhaps they should educate themselves and train more.

You've made your stance perfectly clear to everyone. You're heavily invested in OSS suppressors, and will defend them to your dying breath. They are the only brand you seem to have an interest in, and you have devoted your life's work to defending their honor. We've seen the same behavior in the sound metering threads, with people willing to go to great lengths to try to justify their choices, against all evidence or opinions to the contrary.

I'm glad you're happy with your choice of suppressors, but please stop trying portray the world through your OSS-colored glasses.

Ironically, you are the one suggesting that we settle for sub-optimal suppressors, when options that are so much better are possible.

So it's comparable to a Sandman K on 5.56.   Good to know.

Hopefully as the market matures we'll get to the point that everybody understands that the best option to put on their hunting rifle is going to look different than the best option for a tactical sniper, and look very different than the best option for their AR-15.  I agree--a tight high-backpressure design has its place, but right now so many people are still in the "one size fits all" mentality and they are not putting pressure on the marketplace because they don't understand things well enough.  It may be a band-aid to swap out a gas block, but if enough people tell manufacturers "I want a design optimized for my AR-15" then we will all benefit.  The two most-owned rifles in the world (AR-15 and AK) both lack adjustable gas from the factory, and nothing anybody says is going to result in most owners doing anything to change that after the purchase.  I'd rather the market develop comprehensive solutions than to just say "go fix it yourself" to every owner.

This isn't just about OSS.  Sure, I like them, and one of the reasons I've liked them from the beginning was because of their design philosophy.  Who can disagree with the goal of developing a design that's invisible to the gun when attached?

Others are starting to follow their lead.  The NG2 MaxFlo 3D is the most obvious one.  The only meter numbers I've seen so far are from the NFA Talk spreadsheet--on a 10.5" piston AR-15 with M855 they show 142.9 db at the muzzle and 136.5 db at the right ear.  Some of the new 3D printed guys are using the same language discussing their internal designs.  Amtac went with the old-fashioned approach with a big reflex chamber in pursuit of the same goal.  Etc.

Go read the marketing for the LaRue Tranquilo:  https://www.larue.com/products/larue-tranquilo-sound-suppressor-m308-k/

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

The TranQuilo's reduced-blowback is what sets it apart. The design approach implemented what LaRue calls "SOT" (Safer Operator Technology). With mitigation of gas blow-back in mind, LEPE (Lower Ejection Port Emissions) reduces dangerous materials and contaminants that typically encounter the user's face. LEPE is an internal design that allows a percentage of pressure to bypass the main flow-path, resulting in extremely low gas blow-back and soft recoil with the benefit of optimum noise and flash reduction.

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

It's not just me talking about this.  It's guys like Mark LaRue and Kevin Brittingham.  If you haven't listened to the latest Q podcast with Pete/GoLoud, Kevin makes it very clear he's solidly in the "ear matters more than muzzle" camp.

Is the holy grail here yet?  Probably not--but it sounds like some of you guys are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  I'm just pointing out that I think it's a good thing to keep the goal high instead of just saying "get an adjustable gas block" every time somebody complains about their experience.  So many times I've resisted the urge to say "you should have bought a different suppressor" on those threads, because it does nothing to help the guy who already has the product in hand after going through the stupid process, but sometimes I feel like doing it for the benefit of all the people who might be reading the thread who aren't even aware that better options do exist.  The point is that if the consumer is more educated, they'll make better purchasing decisions, which moves the market in a direction that benefits all of us.  What's so objectionable about that?