Suppressors OSS HX-QD 762 - Anyone here have hands on experience?
- Thread starter KZP
- Start date
Yeah, there is no reason to use one on a precision rifle. They are loud, heavy, and long compared to traditional cans. On bolt guns they are 5-10db+ louder than traditional cans. On ARs they are about the same SPL to the shooter's ear as just using a traditional can and an adjustable gas block.
The firearms that it makes sense to use on are semi-auto's that use pistons and cannot adjust the gas much. So things like the Tavor/X95, AUG, AK's, SCARs and so on. None of which are precision rifles.
If you are looking for a can for a bolt gun, get a TBAC Ultra.
If you are looking for a can for a precision gas gun, Dead Air Nomad.
The firearms that it makes sense to use on are semi-auto's that use pistons and cannot adjust the gas much. So things like the Tavor/X95, AUG, AK's, SCARs and so on. None of which are precision rifles.
If you are looking for a can for a bolt gun, get a TBAC Ultra.
If you are looking for a can for a precision gas gun, Dead Air Nomad.
Thanks for the info.
I have experience with the previous models, they worked as advertised. Shot them on a MK17 and a M240. I did not change the gas setting on the MK17 to “suppressed” on purpose, it ran without any issues. Shooting it on the 240 was a game changer.
Like Potss said, I would not put one on a bolt gun right now, there are better options out there that have been tested and verified To have minimal POI shifts that are repeatable.
With that being said I did buy 2 of their cans in 5.56 and 7.62 about 9 months ago (still waiting on the stamps) for use on my AR’s. Once I receive them I plan on testing if they are a viable bolt gun solution.
I'd love to hear how they work out for you once you get them. I have a all purpose AR15, precision AR10 & bolt in 30 cal so I figured this could be a one size fits all can if it didn't destroy accuracy.
So for a piston gun that can be adjusted you'd recommend the Dead Air Nomad or something else?
Depends on which piston gun. Some pistons like the PWS or SCAR are adjustable from "normal" to suppressed", while others like the FAL or RDB have 20+ gas settings. The more you can fine tune it the less useful the OSS will be. It also comes down to design, but that is really on a rifle by rifle basis of how quickly they unlock.
Additionally , in 5.56 and .300blk usually the OSS will be a bit quieter in piston, especially on things that only have 1-2 settings and cannot be fine tuned. But on a .308 the OSS is 148db+ at the muzzle which negates the good at the ear numbers due to splashback. So unless your barrel is 20in++ on a platform with few adjustments on the 308, you'll again be better served by a traditional can like the Nomad.
Additionally , in 5.56 and .300blk usually the OSS will be a bit quieter in piston, especially on things that only have 1-2 settings and cannot be fine tuned. But on a .308 the OSS is 148db+ at the muzzle which negates the good at the ear numbers due to splashback. So unless your barrel is 20in++ on a platform with few adjustments on the 308, you'll again be better served by a traditional can like the Nomad.
[QUOTE="Additionally , in 5.56 and .300blk usually the OSS will be a bit quieter in piston, especially on things that only have 1-2 settings and cannot be fine tuned. But on a .308 the OSS is 148db+ at the muzzle which negates the good at the ear numbers due to splashback. So unless your barrel is 20in++ on a platform with few adjustments on the 308, you'll again be better served by a traditional can like the Nomad.[/QUOTE]
I have used them on a 16” and 14.5” MK17 without any ear pro and did not have a problem.
I have used them on a 16” and 14.5” MK17 without any ear pro and did not have a problem.
A.) Hearing damage is cumulative, so I'd avoid shooting ANY suppressor without earpro for more than a few rounds. Anything over 85db will damage your hearing with enough exposure. 140db is just the limit for NO safe exposure.
B.) Everyone's hearing is different, but meters don't lie: MAC got 148db at the muzzle average on a 16in .308, and over 150db FRP. When Pete from TFB tested it, he got about the same with a 147.1db average. So whether or not you can personally perceive it, you are doing permanent damage to your ears with a setup like that.
B.) Everyone's hearing is different, but meters don't lie: MAC got 148db at the muzzle average on a 16in .308, and over 150db FRP. When Pete from TFB tested it, he got about the same with a 147.1db average. So whether or not you can personally perceive it, you are doing permanent damage to your ears with a setup like that.
That same video also yielded an average of 142.2 at the shooter's ear for those who don't want to watch the whole thing.
Well, I definitely don’t perceive it, seems fine to me. I am probably a bad judge of noise levels though, my hearing is not the greatest. (It’s not due to shooting rifles or pistols)
I am using them, and think they are very good precision rifle suppressors.
If you are shooting a precision rifle can, accuracy is paramount, the sound is secondary we are shooting full power loads and in most cases, the DB ratings are within a small fraction of each other. You usually see a 3 to 5 DB difference between cans.
You want accuracy and precision, you want the group size to either shrink or stay the same, not grow by any measurable amount. This is KEY to a suppressor with a precision rifle.
If you are shooting a precision rifle can, accuracy is paramount, the sound is secondary we are shooting full power loads and in most cases, the DB ratings are within a small fraction of each other. You usually see a 3 to 5 DB difference between cans.
You want accuracy and precision, you want the group size to either shrink or stay the same, not grow by any measurable amount. This is KEY to a suppressor with a precision rifle.
They are having a free tax stamp sale on silencer shop right now...for the OSS....would save a couple hundred bucks.
I'm glad Frank chimed in here. Too much negativity surrounding these cans. The old OSS cans had their hangups. The new QD cans are a different beast. They aren't loud, they aren't a give and take on accuracy, and are certainly the best choice for any semi auto platform, if not arguably one of the better choices for bolt guns. Hard to argue with JFComforts group. The few decibels argued is the same argument between any two cans for the most part. Your ear can't discern the difference.
chager23, that is just straight up wrong. They are certainly loud at the muzzle as shown above, which when you go over 145db means it is WAY louder to the shooter. They are also louder than an AR with a better more traditional can and an AGB. We aren't talking a few DB, on bolt guns we are talking 10db+. Not to mention heavy and long.
It isn't a good choice for anything but piston guns.
It isn't a good choice for anything but piston guns.
Can you expand on your comment based on your experience? In the video presented above muzzle readings were higher than shooter ear readings.
I don't understand the value of readings at the muzzle anymore, beyond a secondary data point.
I don't care what the muzzle readings are. I care about the value at the shooters ear. Maybe its just me, but I'm only worried about my own hearing, not the downrange report. Potss, do you own any OSS cans or have any experience, or are you just making evaluations based on youtube videos you've watched? Thats not a jab, I'm serious/curious. In macs video the host weapon has an ejection port at the shooters ear. Bullpup designs are inherently louder than traditional AR platforms, suppressed or not. I won't argue shooting with suppressors over prolonged periods is bad for your hearing. At least most suppressors... save .22, subs, etc etc. On a 16" LWRC REPR my Helix 7.62 I consider "hearing safe" as in I don't have any ringing or discomfort while shooting it. Same thing on a 16" AR with their 556 can. I won't argue this any further, a lot of this is a matter of opinion. On bolt guns I run TBAC. I'm not saying its the best choice for bolt guns, but I would argue that for a jack of all trades can, it could easily pull double duty. IMHO, YMMV.
Anyone have experience with a ti version? Any reason not to get the ti? I know they are $300 more. It’s worth the weight savings to me as long as there aren’t any negatives. If there is a strength or longevity compromise I’ll deal with the few extra ounces and skip on the ti model.
If you read my comments ITT, you'd already have the explanation. This isn't about muzzle vs. ear readings. At the ear is what matters. But when the muzzle readings climb about ~145db, the splashback means the shooter will actually experience a secondary SPL (from muzzle) that is louder than the initial one (from chamber unlock). So you can have great at the ear numbers that don't mean jack if the muzzle is over 145db, and the more above the louder it will be to the shooter's ear. EX: on a 16in .308, it won't be <140db. On a 16in 5.56 it certainly will be though.
Long, heavy, and loud are not traits you want in a suppressor unless there are no other options. On piston guns, they do make sense, because with traditional cans there is too much back pressure and the unlock is too early. On DI (stoner piston system, whatever) ARs, the adjustable gas blocks mean you have a better solution regardless. And bolt guns it isn't even close.
This isn't a "jack of all trades" can, it is a very niche can for AKs, X95s, AUGs, SCARs and similar. Yeah it does something on other platforms but it is pretty inferior compared to other options for basically everything else.
Long, heavy, and loud are not traits you want in a suppressor unless there are no other options. On piston guns, they do make sense, because with traditional cans there is too much back pressure and the unlock is too early. On DI (stoner piston system, whatever) ARs, the adjustable gas blocks mean you have a better solution regardless. And bolt guns it isn't even close.
This isn't a "jack of all trades" can, it is a very niche can for AKs, X95s, AUGs, SCARs and similar. Yeah it does something on other platforms but it is pretty inferior compared to other options for basically everything else.
I think saying it is inferior to other cans is a matter of personal opinion, determined by what you are looking for. I bought an OSS can because your gun will run cooler, cleaner, less felt recoil and over the long haul the internals will experience less wear and tear. It may not be as quite as other cans but that is a trade off.
If you think a 10db+ difference at the muzzle is a matter of opinion, you need to look up the word opinion.
If you think an OSS can makes a DI AR with an AGB last longer or have less felt recoil than a Dead Air Nomad or something similar, I'd like to see any evidence at all to support this (hint: there is none).
If you think an OSS can makes a DI AR with an AGB last longer or have less felt recoil than a Dead Air Nomad or something similar, I'd like to see any evidence at all to support this (hint: there is none).
Compared to a surefire, Knights armament or AAC I will choose the OSS, those are the 4 I have used and can speak of, and yes, that is what I think.
Then you know neither the definition of opinion, nor have any evidence to support your claims. Just as I indicated.
Sorry, I don’t have pics or fancy graphs to show you, just real world experience that can’t be proven easily via a forum, and yes in my opinion I will choose an OSS. You don’t have to like it or agree with it, and I am not asking you to.
But that is the thing, I DO have graphs and pics and videos as shown above, and all show the performance to be sub-par on larger calibers (like .308) with shorter barrels, and AR15s (for the length and weight), and bolt guns especially. Your subjective experience with some old cans is an interesting anecdote, but doesn't make a difference when it comes to the actual data.
My point stands. It is only ideal for one use, for the rest it is very overshadowed (not bad, just very far from optima). I don't understand why people's egos get so wrapped up in their purchases.
My point stands. It is only ideal for one use, for the rest it is very overshadowed (not bad, just very far from optima). I don't understand why people's egos get so wrapped up in their purchases.
I've ran the OSS HX-QD Ti on a few different rifles, currently its on my .300 BLK SBR. The first thing I did was test host rifle accuracy using my 18" 6.5 CM bolt gun. I was impressed with the result and like their QD mount. I haven't always had great results with QD mounts on precision rifles. While I had it on the bolt gun I noticed the recoil pulse was more like a muzzle brake vs. a traditional suppressor and suppression performance seemed to lack versus others. Granted on bolt guns back pressure/carrier timing and things like that are a non issue.
On my .300 BLK using sub-sonic ammo the suppression was not on par with a Rugged Surge 762 but not as noticeable when shooting supersonic ammo. My rifle will cycle with subsonic & supersonic ammunition, with or without the suppressor attached. The amount of gas in your face with the Rugged vs OSS is very noticeable.
On a friends LaRue the suppressor did outstanding in host rifle accuracy and POI return but did have issues cycling reliably. I touched base with Randy at OSS and he mentioned incidents where using the suppressor actually slowed carrier speed. I haven't had the opportunity to re-test it using different ammunition. Suppression on the LaRue with the OSS seemed to be on par with the other suppressors we had out that day including a KAC and Surefire. I don't have metering data so comments regarding suppression are subjective.
On my .300 BLK using sub-sonic ammo the suppression was not on par with a Rugged Surge 762 but not as noticeable when shooting supersonic ammo. My rifle will cycle with subsonic & supersonic ammunition, with or without the suppressor attached. The amount of gas in your face with the Rugged vs OSS is very noticeable.
On a friends LaRue the suppressor did outstanding in host rifle accuracy and POI return but did have issues cycling reliably. I touched base with Randy at OSS and he mentioned incidents where using the suppressor actually slowed carrier speed. I haven't had the opportunity to re-test it using different ammunition. Suppression on the LaRue with the OSS seemed to be on par with the other suppressors we had out that day including a KAC and Surefire. I don't have metering data so comments regarding suppression are subjective.
Look, here is what I can tell you. I put a surefire can on my rifle and tuned the gas block to it. Once the day was over I took it off and took it back to work. A few days later I went to shoot the same gun but now it was not cycling correctly due to the gas block being set for shooting with that surefire. A couple weeks later I had a OSS can did the same thing but know the rifle would function just fine can on or off. I also noticed that at the end of the day there was less fouling inside the gun than there was with a regular can. That is why I say from my experience they run cooler, cleaner and have less felt recoil because at the end of the day you only have just the amount of gas needed for everything to work. So when I went shopping for a personal can the pros outweighed the cons and I bought one. I don’t really care about the noise level at the muzzle, I am not gonna put my head down there and I am certainly not gonna have my buddy put his head by the business end and tell me how loud it is.
If you are insinuating that my ego is altered by my purchase, you got me all fucked up. In fact you came across like a dickhead, just re read your posts
If you are insinuating that my ego is altered by my purchase, you got me all fucked up. In fact you came across like a dickhead, just re read your posts
Still want to know if Potss has actually shot an OSS can or if he’s just really good at math.
I doubt it, otherwise he would have said so by now.
I've been watching this thread and trying very hard to resist the temptation to jump in, but I just can't anymore--I just have too much fun arguing with Potss. 
Quick background--I've gone back and forth with him a lot already regarding OSS over at AR15.com so we have history. He seems to be on some kind of anti-OSS crusade and I apologize because I think it's at least in part my fault. I didn't see him saying much about them before I started arguing with him. I expect he'll continue attacking me personally and calling me a shill because he just doesn't have any substance to refute my points. He has a real superiority complex and likes to position himself as an Expert Who Shall Not Be Questioned instead of using persuasion and reason to convince you he's right. If you disagree with him expect him to tell you he knows more about how AR-15s operate than you do.
Now a disclaimer--I'm a self-labeled fanboy for OSS. My general interest is in anything innovative or new. They first got my attention years ago when I had the opportunity to chat with a sales rep face to face, and I've followed them closely since. I admit that I want them to succeed, not because I have any vested interest but simply because I want to see innovative companies succeed and I want better products available to buy myself. When the Gen 4 stuff was on close-out I couldn't resist the low prices and bought 4 of them, but since shooting is not a part of my life right now for various reasons they still sit in the safe along with all my other gun stuff so I have no hands-on experience yet. I try to only relay data and information generated by others to be helpful and/or correct what I think is bad info and I try to never appeal to personal expertise or experience. I know it's easy to miss that nuance sometimes but just think of me as an analyst looking in from the outside collecting and analyzing data and presenting findings and conclusions.
First, a little history... I liked the philosophy guiding OSS from the beginning (a suppressor should be invisible to the action of a gun), but it has always been hard to find 3rd party data that validated their marketing claims. I have yet to see any meter data for the Gen 4 models (I think those were the first offered for public purchase). I don't think I've seen any for the Gen 5 over-the-barrel models either. The Helix flush-mount models came next, and MAC did a little metering for those but it was of limited utility for comparison purposes. From what I remember, he did the 7.62 on an H&K piston rifle and although he promised more coming soon the only 5.56 data he ever put out was recently on a Tavor (where the ear numbers were VERY impressive, especially for a bullpup!). His statement then (and now as far as I know) is that the OSS does better at the ear on 7.62 than anything else he has ever used.
For those of you who aren't aware, that was the end of the old line-up with previous management and after separating from the founder the first new products were the current QD lineup. MAC metered the 7.62 QD recently on an MDR (bullpup) and the numbers were admittedly disappointing--pretty high at the muzzle and not that impressive at the ear. Unfortunately I haven't seen data that tells us how much of that is due to the ejection port being so close to the ear, so those numbers are difficult to interpret.
The Suppressed Nation guys/Hansohn Brothers supposedly did some metering with the QD 5.56 models but they never put out a video with any details. Potss usually doesn't distinguish between 5.56 and 7.62 when making general statements against OSS. Pete at TFB did some metering with 5.56 and 7.62 which at least demonstrated that the muzzle numbers for 5.56 aren't that bad depending on the model--on a 16" with the regular 5.56 model (not the short one) the average was easily under 140 db and the ear numbers were pretty good. 7.62 muzzle numbers were similar to MAC's--mid to high 140's with a 16" barrel. Pete only did 7.62 with a piston H&K rifle, but his ear numbers looked pretty good compared to any other 7.62 ear data I have been able to find. Silencer Shop has done some metering but for some reason they use an MCX for 5.56 and only do 7.62 on a bolt gun so it's hard to know exactly how to compare their numbers to other data. They also don't specify what ammo they are using.
There was a Discreet Ballistics metering event that measured an older model 7.62 on a 300 Blackout bolt gun. For some reason the numbers were surprisingly high even at the shooter's ear--I have heard Dead Air talk about how designs respond differently depending on pressure. For example I think they've said the Nomad actually does better with high pressure than low pressure. I'd like to see more explanation and testing to explore that phenomenon.
To the best of my knowledge that's the only 3rd party data available for these products. All anecdotal evidence I've seen indicates that their back-pressure claims are legitimate, but I've yet to see anybody do any empirical testing to verify it. At one point the Dead Air guy educated me about the difference between back-pressure (high-pressure gas that affects the function of the gun) and blow-back (low-pressure gas that comes back into the receiver and may deposit stuff but doesn't necessarily affect action timing). OSS put out a video trying to demonstrate that when using conventional baffle suppressors, even when the gas is adjusted to compensate for higher back-pressure you still get blow-back coming out of the barrel getting things dirty. Potss claimed it was all BS based on his superior knowledge of the AR and essentially said that these guys who have been doing R&D for many years didn't know what they were talking about, but never offered anything else as proof that they were wrong.
If anybody is interested I can pull together all the relevant links, but I'm just trying to give a big picture overview for anybody who hasn't been following this stuff closely. Here are my summary observations:
-- The older models were obviously heavy and expensive before they got discounted. Users seem to be happy with them--they are usually described as louder at the muzzle but good at the ear with no increase in gas to the face, stuff in the chamber, etc.
-- Most people seem to be happy with POI shift, most report improvement in felt recoil, and I've seen reports of increased accuracy
-- The old mounts/assembly were not simple, but I haven't heard much complaint about the current QD mounting system
-- Whenever you hear somebody say "they're loud", if they aren't distinguishing between ear and muzzle then it's of minimal utility. OSS has always said that they sacrifice muzzle levels to improve ear levels. A big problem is that many people still aren't aware of just how high the ear levels are on a normal AR with a baffle design that gets good muzzle levels. There is plenty of meter data available that shows that if you are getting mid 130's on an AR-15 you are probably getting low to mid 140's at the ear. I've seen some that are in the high 140's.
-- All the hard data that I have seen indicates that OSS probably measures significantly lower at the ear than many competitors, for both 5.56 and 7.62 (with no gas adjustment)
Potss arguments seem to rest on the assumption that every DI AR either has or should have an adjustable gas block. I freely acknowledge that adjusting the gas probably does help with the problem of high ear levels. But when you remove that condition most of what he says is irrelevant. Instead of acknowledging that, he just essentially says your opinions are irrelevant if you don't have an AGB.
The conversation about AGBs is somewhat separate, and I think it's ok to have divergent opinions on that based on the use and missions. Personally I prefer the more universal solution of a low-backpressure design than to accept the compromises of an AGB. In concept I don't like the idea of changing settings every time the suppressor goes on or off, and I don't like the idea of narrowing the operating range and reliability margin (on a fighting rifle). For hunting or recreation it's not so critical, but I think the idea that we should just tell every suppressor buyer to change the gas block and settings on their AR is rather sub-optimal. It's disingenuous not to acknowledge and accommodate the fact that many either don't want to or won't ever do it.
I have a wish list for testing that would help resolve some of these arguments. Sometimes I'm not so much saying what is or isn't as much as pointing out that there isn't solid data supporting what somebody says. It would be very helpful if somebody were to do some videos demonstrating:
-- the difference at the ear between a normal gas block and an AGB with a baffle design with nothing else changing
-- the difference between a 16" barrel and a short barrel (10-11") at the muzzle and ear with nothing else changing (even better if it included OSS and competitors in the comparison)
-- comparing OSS to any popular baffle competitor on the same gun with no other changes (Pete's data comparing to a Surefire product was interesting but unfortunately there was an AGB involved with no way to know if/how much that affected the numbers)
I have more, but those are the big points. I have said before that it would really help the consumer if everybody would agree on some standardization when doing metering. Using a basic milspec 16" AR-15 and a DI AR-10 type would help eliminate some of the variables when comparing one person's testing to another. It would be even better if there was a well-known product that is used as a control group and measured during each session to illuminate any variations between testing sessions. Until the industry establishes an independent testing entity it's an opportunity for some YouTubers to provide the consumers with useful information and help clear up some of the confusion and murkiness in this market.
To be clear, nothing that I say should be construed as advice or recommendation of what to buy, claiming that one product is better than another, etc. I just think that we all benefit when we are informed and educated, so as I look for more information for myself I also try to help clear things up for others if I am able to pass along information/knowledge that I've acquired elsewhere. I hope something in here is helpful to somebody!
My big issue with Potss is not that I'm necessarily claiming that everything he says is wrong, or that I'm an expert on anything, but if you ask him for evidence to support the things he says, he just tells you he knows what he's talking about and you're wrong. It's a serious disservice to anybody who might be reading and not commenting (now or later) NOT to push back on that!
I'm not going to dig into everything he's said here, but I do want to ask him about one thing. Potss, you said:
If that is true, then how do you explain both MAC and Pete getting ear numbers below 140 on a 16" 7.62? How is the meter measuring a lower number first and then not picking up on this second pressure wave that's even stronger coming back from the muzzle?
Quick background--I've gone back and forth with him a lot already regarding OSS over at AR15.com so we have history. He seems to be on some kind of anti-OSS crusade and I apologize because I think it's at least in part my fault. I didn't see him saying much about them before I started arguing with him. I expect he'll continue attacking me personally and calling me a shill because he just doesn't have any substance to refute my points. He has a real superiority complex and likes to position himself as an Expert Who Shall Not Be Questioned instead of using persuasion and reason to convince you he's right. If you disagree with him expect him to tell you he knows more about how AR-15s operate than you do.
Now a disclaimer--I'm a self-labeled fanboy for OSS. My general interest is in anything innovative or new. They first got my attention years ago when I had the opportunity to chat with a sales rep face to face, and I've followed them closely since. I admit that I want them to succeed, not because I have any vested interest but simply because I want to see innovative companies succeed and I want better products available to buy myself. When the Gen 4 stuff was on close-out I couldn't resist the low prices and bought 4 of them, but since shooting is not a part of my life right now for various reasons they still sit in the safe along with all my other gun stuff so I have no hands-on experience yet. I try to only relay data and information generated by others to be helpful and/or correct what I think is bad info and I try to never appeal to personal expertise or experience. I know it's easy to miss that nuance sometimes but just think of me as an analyst looking in from the outside collecting and analyzing data and presenting findings and conclusions.
First, a little history... I liked the philosophy guiding OSS from the beginning (a suppressor should be invisible to the action of a gun), but it has always been hard to find 3rd party data that validated their marketing claims. I have yet to see any meter data for the Gen 4 models (I think those were the first offered for public purchase). I don't think I've seen any for the Gen 5 over-the-barrel models either. The Helix flush-mount models came next, and MAC did a little metering for those but it was of limited utility for comparison purposes. From what I remember, he did the 7.62 on an H&K piston rifle and although he promised more coming soon the only 5.56 data he ever put out was recently on a Tavor (where the ear numbers were VERY impressive, especially for a bullpup!). His statement then (and now as far as I know) is that the OSS does better at the ear on 7.62 than anything else he has ever used.
For those of you who aren't aware, that was the end of the old line-up with previous management and after separating from the founder the first new products were the current QD lineup. MAC metered the 7.62 QD recently on an MDR (bullpup) and the numbers were admittedly disappointing--pretty high at the muzzle and not that impressive at the ear. Unfortunately I haven't seen data that tells us how much of that is due to the ejection port being so close to the ear, so those numbers are difficult to interpret.
The Suppressed Nation guys/Hansohn Brothers supposedly did some metering with the QD 5.56 models but they never put out a video with any details. Potss usually doesn't distinguish between 5.56 and 7.62 when making general statements against OSS. Pete at TFB did some metering with 5.56 and 7.62 which at least demonstrated that the muzzle numbers for 5.56 aren't that bad depending on the model--on a 16" with the regular 5.56 model (not the short one) the average was easily under 140 db and the ear numbers were pretty good. 7.62 muzzle numbers were similar to MAC's--mid to high 140's with a 16" barrel. Pete only did 7.62 with a piston H&K rifle, but his ear numbers looked pretty good compared to any other 7.62 ear data I have been able to find. Silencer Shop has done some metering but for some reason they use an MCX for 5.56 and only do 7.62 on a bolt gun so it's hard to know exactly how to compare their numbers to other data. They also don't specify what ammo they are using.
There was a Discreet Ballistics metering event that measured an older model 7.62 on a 300 Blackout bolt gun. For some reason the numbers were surprisingly high even at the shooter's ear--I have heard Dead Air talk about how designs respond differently depending on pressure. For example I think they've said the Nomad actually does better with high pressure than low pressure. I'd like to see more explanation and testing to explore that phenomenon.
To the best of my knowledge that's the only 3rd party data available for these products. All anecdotal evidence I've seen indicates that their back-pressure claims are legitimate, but I've yet to see anybody do any empirical testing to verify it. At one point the Dead Air guy educated me about the difference between back-pressure (high-pressure gas that affects the function of the gun) and blow-back (low-pressure gas that comes back into the receiver and may deposit stuff but doesn't necessarily affect action timing). OSS put out a video trying to demonstrate that when using conventional baffle suppressors, even when the gas is adjusted to compensate for higher back-pressure you still get blow-back coming out of the barrel getting things dirty. Potss claimed it was all BS based on his superior knowledge of the AR and essentially said that these guys who have been doing R&D for many years didn't know what they were talking about, but never offered anything else as proof that they were wrong.
If anybody is interested I can pull together all the relevant links, but I'm just trying to give a big picture overview for anybody who hasn't been following this stuff closely. Here are my summary observations:
-- The older models were obviously heavy and expensive before they got discounted. Users seem to be happy with them--they are usually described as louder at the muzzle but good at the ear with no increase in gas to the face, stuff in the chamber, etc.
-- Most people seem to be happy with POI shift, most report improvement in felt recoil, and I've seen reports of increased accuracy
-- The old mounts/assembly were not simple, but I haven't heard much complaint about the current QD mounting system
-- Whenever you hear somebody say "they're loud", if they aren't distinguishing between ear and muzzle then it's of minimal utility. OSS has always said that they sacrifice muzzle levels to improve ear levels. A big problem is that many people still aren't aware of just how high the ear levels are on a normal AR with a baffle design that gets good muzzle levels. There is plenty of meter data available that shows that if you are getting mid 130's on an AR-15 you are probably getting low to mid 140's at the ear. I've seen some that are in the high 140's.
-- All the hard data that I have seen indicates that OSS probably measures significantly lower at the ear than many competitors, for both 5.56 and 7.62 (with no gas adjustment)
Potss arguments seem to rest on the assumption that every DI AR either has or should have an adjustable gas block. I freely acknowledge that adjusting the gas probably does help with the problem of high ear levels. But when you remove that condition most of what he says is irrelevant. Instead of acknowledging that, he just essentially says your opinions are irrelevant if you don't have an AGB.
The conversation about AGBs is somewhat separate, and I think it's ok to have divergent opinions on that based on the use and missions. Personally I prefer the more universal solution of a low-backpressure design than to accept the compromises of an AGB. In concept I don't like the idea of changing settings every time the suppressor goes on or off, and I don't like the idea of narrowing the operating range and reliability margin (on a fighting rifle). For hunting or recreation it's not so critical, but I think the idea that we should just tell every suppressor buyer to change the gas block and settings on their AR is rather sub-optimal. It's disingenuous not to acknowledge and accommodate the fact that many either don't want to or won't ever do it.
I have a wish list for testing that would help resolve some of these arguments. Sometimes I'm not so much saying what is or isn't as much as pointing out that there isn't solid data supporting what somebody says. It would be very helpful if somebody were to do some videos demonstrating:
-- the difference at the ear between a normal gas block and an AGB with a baffle design with nothing else changing
-- the difference between a 16" barrel and a short barrel (10-11") at the muzzle and ear with nothing else changing (even better if it included OSS and competitors in the comparison)
-- comparing OSS to any popular baffle competitor on the same gun with no other changes (Pete's data comparing to a Surefire product was interesting but unfortunately there was an AGB involved with no way to know if/how much that affected the numbers)
I have more, but those are the big points. I have said before that it would really help the consumer if everybody would agree on some standardization when doing metering. Using a basic milspec 16" AR-15 and a DI AR-10 type would help eliminate some of the variables when comparing one person's testing to another. It would be even better if there was a well-known product that is used as a control group and measured during each session to illuminate any variations between testing sessions. Until the industry establishes an independent testing entity it's an opportunity for some YouTubers to provide the consumers with useful information and help clear up some of the confusion and murkiness in this market.
To be clear, nothing that I say should be construed as advice or recommendation of what to buy, claiming that one product is better than another, etc. I just think that we all benefit when we are informed and educated, so as I look for more information for myself I also try to help clear things up for others if I am able to pass along information/knowledge that I've acquired elsewhere. I hope something in here is helpful to somebody!
My big issue with Potss is not that I'm necessarily claiming that everything he says is wrong, or that I'm an expert on anything, but if you ask him for evidence to support the things he says, he just tells you he knows what he's talking about and you're wrong. It's a serious disservice to anybody who might be reading and not commenting (now or later) NOT to push back on that!
I'm not going to dig into everything he's said here, but I do want to ask him about one thing. Potss, you said:
If that is true, then how do you explain both MAC and Pete getting ear numbers below 140 on a 16" 7.62? How is the meter measuring a lower number first and then not picking up on this second pressure wave that's even stronger coming back from the muzzle?
Here is the ARFCOM thread referenced above: https://www.ar15.com/forums/armory/OSS-HELIX-QD-Suppressors-Anyone-have-one-/20-490380/&page=6
Mikesmith's laughable marketing BS dispelled there by multiple people. Also lots of metering data linked. Suffice to say, my point stands.
Mikesmith's laughable marketing BS dispelled there by multiple people. Also lots of metering data linked. Suffice to say, my point stands.
He never disappoints...
After I re-read that thread from the beginning a while ago I had to admit that I initially was probably a bit more enthusiastic in tone than I should have been in retrospect. After all the back and forth I learned to be more careful to avoid people getting the wrong idea. I had no idea how much people would misinterpret my intentions!
But I still think it's funny that somebody thinks a real shill would be talking about how the only products he owns are from several years/product generations ago and never talks about his experience with the current line-up...
After I re-read that thread from the beginning a while ago I had to admit that I initially was probably a bit more enthusiastic in tone than I should have been in retrospect. After all the back and forth I learned to be more careful to avoid people getting the wrong idea. I had no idea how much people would misinterpret my intentions!
But I still think it's funny that somebody thinks a real shill would be talking about how the only products he owns are from several years/product generations ago and never talks about his experience with the current line-up...
Well I decided to give one a try. Should have some hands on experience within a year or 2 lol. Might get it about the same time as I get my ultra 5. If the government gets as efficient as they say.
Too Follow up,
Since this post is in front of me,
I am really liking these suppressors.
It's on the AX in this video
Since this post is in front of me,
I am really liking these suppressors.
It's on the AX in this video
I've actually been doing some serious thinking about getting one of the HX-QD Magnum TI ones so I can run it for everything from .338 on down.
(I just ordered a HX-QD 556)
Also thinking about either the HX-QD 762 TI as a second option if the first is not available.
Have you seen either of those in action on AI rifles & AR type platforms or just the HX-QD 762 ?
Thanks.
I have 3 of the HX models
the Magnum Ti, 338 and 762 they are very consistent, and each as good as the other
I have been recommending them for guys who want options or who already have TBAC and want something different
the Magnum Ti, 338 and 762 they are very consistent, and each as good as the other
I have been recommending them for guys who want options or who already have TBAC and want something different
On the line shooting the OSS with my AX, I don' t notice it being overly "loud"
Loud without numbers is usually a tone thing, how thick the wrappers are, etc. We are shooting full-power loads with a bolt action and frankly speaking I can careless how loud a can is. At 140db you still want some kind of ear pro, shit, even at 136db you want something
My concern is accuracy, and when cans try to increase the quiet they usually wreck the accuracy the thing. Who wants a rifle that shoots 3/8th of an inch with factory ammo only to have the suppressor turn it into a 5/8th rifle. So accuracy is a bigger concern than sound.
Distance gives you time and opportunity, and that helps mask a lot.
The OSS can be 10db off and as long as it's accurate, who cares, but we all know it's not 10db off the average. 3 is pretty common among brands, a couple of db here and there is lost in the noise.
Loud without numbers is usually a tone thing, how thick the wrappers are, etc. We are shooting full-power loads with a bolt action and frankly speaking I can careless how loud a can is. At 140db you still want some kind of ear pro, shit, even at 136db you want something
My concern is accuracy, and when cans try to increase the quiet they usually wreck the accuracy the thing. Who wants a rifle that shoots 3/8th of an inch with factory ammo only to have the suppressor turn it into a 5/8th rifle. So accuracy is a bigger concern than sound.
Distance gives you time and opportunity, and that helps mask a lot.
The OSS can be 10db off and as long as it's accurate, who cares, but we all know it's not 10db off the average. 3 is pretty common among brands, a couple of db here and there is lost in the noise.
Just throwing out my experience. I have an HK MR762 with an OSS EL762. Absolutely love the combination. Great sound reduction at the ear, almost zero blowback, and accuracy is fantastic. Love it!
I’ve noticed the people that generally talk trash about OSS, are the people that have never had any real time behind one.
I’ve noticed the people that generally talk trash about OSS, are the people that have never had any real time behind one.
He never disappoints...
After I re-read that thread from the beginning a while ago I had to admit that I initially was probably a bit more enthusiastic in tone than I should have been in retrospect. After all the back and forth I learned to be more careful to avoid people getting the wrong idea. I had no idea how much people would misinterpret my intentions!
But I still think it's funny that somebody thinks a real shill would be talking about how the only products he owns are from several years/product generations ago and never talks about his experience with the current line-up...
Have you used your OSS cans yet?
Similar threads
Suppressors ECCO Machine and AAC 762SD
Suppressors OSS vs Sig… which has less blowback?
