Like clockwork... Cue the OSS fanboys.
I never said they were bad cans, just overrated and hyped...And now everyone is losing their shit. It's fucking hilarious at all the butthurt when the fanboys get riled up.
Last edited:
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Suppressors MK18 Suppressor
- Thread starter Joemannnnn
- Start date
I never said they were bad cans, just overrated and hyped...And now everyone is losing their shit. It's fucking hilarious at all the butthurt when the fanboys get riled up.
Why deflect? Let's get back to logic and answer the question. How do you have any knowledge of OSS sales or their production capacity? How does you, visiting one, or even 10 ranges during a given time period have any factual basis on how many OSS cans are out there and being used in what is a very expansive country? Show me data that the CURRENT lineup of OSS cans is either heavier or more expensive than comparable suppressors in their class?
Fanboy or no, facts matter. That's all I'm saying.
Fanboy or no, facts matter. That's all I'm saying.
I never said I knew the exact numbers, how desperate to win are you? You're the one who set completely unrealistic facts into this in an attempt to be right, and discredit my opinion based on what I've seen. I'm basing this off how FEW dealers you see carrying them, how few you see in person at dealers and ranges, how FEW you see online, on forums, on YT, etc... compared to pretty much every other major brand of suppressors. You see Dead Air, SiCo, Surefire, YHM, TBAC, Rugged, AAC, etc... everywhere. You don't see OSS like any of those. That's all I'm saying.
Facts do matter, and since you want to ask stupid questions... I'll throw it back to you... Prove to me that I'm wrong. Show ME the numbers of each brand, proving that OSS holds it own against the others.
All I did was walk into a MK18 thread, and state that the OCL Polonium just toppled the PEW Science charts tested on a MK18...PERIOD...FULL-STOP. And the other douche interjected his BS about OSS being better.
And I'm suddenly the bad guy for pointing out statistical facts, by stating that high BP cans with loud port noise can be moderated as well as an OSS does, by adding heavy buffers and AGB's to bring the port numbers up, and cut the BP on baffled cans. But he wanted to get pissy, and incoherently rant about me pointing out his fanboy idiocy, instead of just admitting that I was also correct...Which I am. I didn't say anything was any better than the other, I showed numbers and facts to the test data that just dropped, and he didn't like it. So he pitched a fit...Same thing you're doing now.
I'm not here defending another forum member's statements or any product and def not pitching a fit. I'm just pointing out that you do not have facts to back up several statements you made namely that OSS is expensive, heavy, doesn't sell many cans and no one uses them. The first two are verifiably false (or demonstrably relative depending on what brand you're looking at) and the last two none of us has any real data to make an accurate assessment. Nothing more, nothing less.
Guys who argue suppressor db numbers are like car guys who argue over lap times, produced by professional drivers, when they themselves would never come close. It's awesome. Doesn't really represent real world use but that wasn't my original issue with your post.
Just quote the PEW data and be done. Win win for everyone and the internet in general. Just know there's more to end user satisfaction than db readings but I get the whole numbers game. Hopefully everyone continues to improve, including OSS, aka HUXWRX.
I'm confused about the "toppled" comment? It appears the OC did beat the OSS at the muzzle but not at the ear? I personally care about the ear numbers but if you care about muzzle, nothing wrong with that, just state the facts and move on. Overall rating was 37.7 vs. 31 (OC to OSS respectively) so good on them. But trying to suppress a 10.3" barrel on 5.56 is going to be tough for any can. I'll take function over 4db. It appears the two cans weigh about the same with mounting devices. Otter Creek definitely gets the win in the cost department but I have no doubt that it produces substantially more back pressure than the OSS.
From Pew's site, direct quote on the OSS, granted this was prior to the OC but the OC's numbers are higher at ear than OSS: "From the above data, it can be concluded that the aforementioned low back pressure (low flow restriction; low PEW Science Back Pressure Metric, Omega) of the OSS HX-QD 556 results in significant sound signature reduction at the shooter’s ear on the MK18 weapon system, when compared to that from the Surefire SOCOM556-RC2 and the SilencerCo Saker 556. On the MK18, the at-ear Suppression Rating with the HX-QD 556 is half a category higher than with the 3-prong-equipped SOCOM556-RC2. The MK18 with the HX-QD 556 exhibits an ear signature a full category less severe than with the WARCOMP-equipped SOCOM556-RC2 or with the Saker 556. This is a direct consequence of the low back pressure (low flow restriction) generated by the HX-QD 556.
A notable performance metric of the HX-QD 556 on this weapon system is that the muzzle Suppression Rating is, for all intents and purposes, identical to that of the at-ear Suppression Rating. Bystanders may perceive the OSS HX-QD 556 to be louder than the SOCOM556-RC2 or Saker 556. However, the personnel firing the weapon will experience lower hearing damage risk.
The coalescing of the ejection port overpressure with the primary muzzle blast exacerbates the severity of the signature at the shooter’s head position. It is not ejection port signature, alone, that dictates the signature measured at the shooter’s head position. The muzzle signature of the OSS HX-QD 556 is quiet enough such that the at-ear signature is still quieter than those from the other silencers. This performance balance is notable on a short barrel automatic weapon system (the MK18)."
I care about my ears, not the other guy. I can see the argument for muzzle signature down range. I'm not in that use category.
Guys who argue suppressor db numbers are like car guys who argue over lap times, produced by professional drivers, when they themselves would never come close. It's awesome. Doesn't really represent real world use but that wasn't my original issue with your post.
Just quote the PEW data and be done. Win win for everyone and the internet in general. Just know there's more to end user satisfaction than db readings but I get the whole numbers game. Hopefully everyone continues to improve, including OSS, aka HUXWRX.
I'm confused about the "toppled" comment? It appears the OC did beat the OSS at the muzzle but not at the ear? I personally care about the ear numbers but if you care about muzzle, nothing wrong with that, just state the facts and move on. Overall rating was 37.7 vs. 31 (OC to OSS respectively) so good on them. But trying to suppress a 10.3" barrel on 5.56 is going to be tough for any can. I'll take function over 4db. It appears the two cans weigh about the same with mounting devices. Otter Creek definitely gets the win in the cost department but I have no doubt that it produces substantially more back pressure than the OSS.
From Pew's site, direct quote on the OSS, granted this was prior to the OC but the OC's numbers are higher at ear than OSS: "From the above data, it can be concluded that the aforementioned low back pressure (low flow restriction; low PEW Science Back Pressure Metric, Omega) of the OSS HX-QD 556 results in significant sound signature reduction at the shooter’s ear on the MK18 weapon system, when compared to that from the Surefire SOCOM556-RC2 and the SilencerCo Saker 556. On the MK18, the at-ear Suppression Rating with the HX-QD 556 is half a category higher than with the 3-prong-equipped SOCOM556-RC2. The MK18 with the HX-QD 556 exhibits an ear signature a full category less severe than with the WARCOMP-equipped SOCOM556-RC2 or with the Saker 556. This is a direct consequence of the low back pressure (low flow restriction) generated by the HX-QD 556.
A notable performance metric of the HX-QD 556 on this weapon system is that the muzzle Suppression Rating is, for all intents and purposes, identical to that of the at-ear Suppression Rating. Bystanders may perceive the OSS HX-QD 556 to be louder than the SOCOM556-RC2 or Saker 556. However, the personnel firing the weapon will experience lower hearing damage risk.
The coalescing of the ejection port overpressure with the primary muzzle blast exacerbates the severity of the signature at the shooter’s head position. It is not ejection port signature, alone, that dictates the signature measured at the shooter’s head position. The muzzle signature of the OSS HX-QD 556 is quiet enough such that the at-ear signature is still quieter than those from the other silencers. This performance balance is notable on a short barrel automatic weapon system (the MK18)."
I care about my ears, not the other guy. I can see the argument for muzzle signature down range. I'm not in that use category.
Surprised there isnt more love out there for the Dead Air Sandman S; QD can, low back pressure, stellite construction, full auto rated and interchangeable front caps. I've got one on my KAC CQB 11.5" and it runs good with minimal blowback and thats saying alot being a lefty. Deadair also has that 556 specific can coming out this year, the Sierra 5. Other options would be Surefire RC2 and KAC QDC which are also hard use cans that can handle those fireball throwing SBR's.
I have a mix of DeadAir, SiCo, and TBAC cans. The ones that come out most often are the DeadAir Ones. Consistent lock up. Minimal impact on POA / POI. Magnum rated. Built like tanks.
Ive never seen more projection in a forum post before, sad really.Facts do matter, and since you want to ask stupid questions... I'll throw it back to you... Prove to me that I'm wrong. Show ME the numbers of each brand, proving that OSS holds it own against the others.
All I did was walk into a MK18 thread, and state that the OCL Polonium just toppled the PEW Science charts tested on a MK18...PERIOD...FULL-STOP. And the other douche interjected his BS about OSS being better.
But he wanted to get pissy, and incoherently rant about me pointing out his fanboy idiocy, instead of just admitting that I was also correct...Which I am. I didn't say anything was any better than the other, I showed numbers and facts to the test data that just dropped, and he didn't like it. So he pitched a fit...Same thing you're doing now.
AR15's can only get so quiet due to their function.
An OSS is not going to be much louder than a larger volume suppressor on an ar15, if at all. dB at the muzzle doesn't really matter on an ar15 when most of the noise is coming from the port.
I can see why people would see value in a flow through system for AR15's. Suppression is not the only factor that people should consider when purchasing a suppressor.
An OSS is not going to be much louder than a larger volume suppressor on an ar15, if at all. dB at the muzzle doesn't really matter on an ar15 when most of the noise is coming from the port.
I can see why people would see value in a flow through system for AR15's. Suppression is not the only factor that people should consider when purchasing a suppressor.
Looks to me like the Surefire w/ a 3 prong is the way to go... A suppressor can be about more than just decibel reduction. Don't forget visual signature as well, the SF excels here... I have a SF on my MK18, and I am not feeling disadvantaged.
Last edited:
Saker 556k is what I went with on my mk18, just posted about this on another thread and there is some good info on it. I don’t know how to copy a link on the app but if you click on my name you can find it. From my research I did I went with a break compared to a three prong. Break acts as a sacrificial baffle. I also went with the geissele Super 42 spring and h3 buffer. Iv had no issues but the only thing Iv ram through it is xm193.
I've heard great things about the Saker, but never shot behind one... Have you fired it in the dark? How is the visual signature?
Iv shot some muskrats with it in my pond. But flood light on my garage was right behind me so I can’t really say about fireball
Makes sense. For me it's trying to be as sneaky as I can with wary critters with a little night vision preservation (not really sure how much help my SF is here) thrown in as well.
Wouldn't surprise me if they do. They are fairly smart buggers...
