User Panel
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. |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote 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 |
|
Quoted:
... 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. View Quote |
|
Quoted: I do a lot of bolt velocity measurements (both opening and closing) for my consulting clients. I have measured the bolt opening velocity of an M4 carbine and M60 with and without the appropriate NG2 suppressor and have found no appreciable increase with the suppressor installed. Nor have I found an increase in rate of fire greater than 1 round/minute. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
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 View Quote |
|
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. |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote 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 |
|
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. |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote 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.
|
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, $199 psa upper View Quote |
|
The management changes at this company, the generation after generation design changes, and the marketing claims seem like “clues” to me. Pass.
|
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote 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... |
|
Quoted:
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... View Quote |
|
Quoted:
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/83570/CAE0969A-86C1-4273-9B08-D9AABC81F59E-649968.jpg Just arrived... View Quote |
|
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.
|
|
Quoted:
Can you clarify if the 7.62 magnum is a typo? I believe the magnum is a .338. View Quote ETA: Fixed Typo. Gets really interesting on TFB comment sections. |
|
Quoted:
I 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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
|
|
Quoted:
I dont think they look meh. They definitely aren't out of the park. Good at the ear, not so much at the muzzle.
View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote 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
|
|
|
Quoted:
Look at the top of this page. The 18" rifle results were posted a few weeks ago. View Quote |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote 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. Quoted:
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. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote 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? |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote 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. Quoted:
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? View Quote |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.