FBI HRT and SWAT officially getting suppressed

[georgeib]

The sound signature review from Pew Science was released this morning on the new Huxwrx(OSS) Flow 556k from the MK18. It the quietest at the ear 556 suppressor ever tested, taking the crown from the OSS HX-QD 556. Reading on Reddit, Jay, the owner of Pew Science, is pretty amazed at its performance. https://www.reddit.com/r/NFA/comment..._flow_556k_on/

Here's a link to the Pew Science review:
https://pewscience.com/sound-signatu...xwrx-flow-556k

PEW Science Research Note 9: The HUXWRX FLOW 556k is the only silencer tested by PEW Science on the standard MK18, to date, to achieve an at-ear (shooter) Suppression Rating in the 30-zone on the Suppression Rating Dose Chart. The reduction in hearing damage risk by the FLOW 556k on the MK18, to the weapon operator, is unprecedented in PEW Science testing and analysis. The combination of bystander and shooter signature suppression, as reflected in the Composite Suppression Rating, is also unprecedented for its size. For reference, the FLOW 556k is almost an inch shorter than the Surefire SOCOM556-RC2 and Otter Creek Labs Polonium.

[WillBrink]

The sound signature review from Pew Science was released this morning on the new Huxwrx(OSS) Flow 556k from the MK18. It the quietest at the ear 556 suppressor ever tested, taking the crown from the OSS HX-QD 556. Reading on Reddit, Jay, the owner of Pew Science, is pretty amazed at its performance. https://www.reddit.com/r/NFA/comment..._flow_556k_on/

Here's a link to the Pew Science review:
https://pewscience.com/sound-signatu...xwrx-flow-556k

More reasons I'm glad I started the thread (I ultimately left due to endless trolling by a few, but I digress....) on cans for SBRs/PDWs, as there learning on my end was had and some good advice given too, and I narrowed it down to OSS finally. Now waiting the wait of the civilian pleb wanting permission from the gubment to save his hearing. On my AR PDW I doubt it will be hearing safe indoors, but a damn better than without no doubt.

[georgeib]

More reasons I'm glad I started the thread (I ultimately left due to endless trolling by a few, but I digress....) on cans for SBRs/PDWs, as there learning on my end was had and some good advice given too, and I narrowed it down to OSS finally. Now waiting the wait of the civilian pleb wanting permission from the gubment to save his hearing. On my AR PDW I doubt it will be hearing safe indoors, but a damn better than without no doubt.

Yeah, bro. It's gonna be nice.

I mean, no 556 can is truly hearing safe, especially indoors, but miles better than no can. And if you look in the chart above at the RC2's numbers, which lots of mil guys use, the OSS is significantly better at the shooter's ear. I imagine that the OSS will at least be as good as the RC2 on a shorter PDW length barrel. You made a really solid choice on the can.

[WillBrink]

Yeah, bro. It's gonna be nice.

I mean, no 556 can is truly hearing safe, especially indoors, but miles better than no can. And if you look in the chart above at the RC2's numbers, which lots of mil guys use, the OSS is significantly better at the shooter's ear. I imagine that the OSS will at least be as good as the RC2 on a shorter PDW length barrel. You made a really solid choice on the can.

Which is what I care about. If I were sneaking around hunting goblins for a living, and masking my sound location the primary goal, might consider a different can. As a lot of mil seem to be adopting OSS, I guess they feel the juice worth the squeeze on that trade off.

[BVickery]

I am tempted to grab this for my SBR. Thanks for posting the Pew Science, just gotta wait to pay off some debt and then grab it.

[rocsteady]

Some interesting features, curious to see them in action. I thought it was very clever to have it flow so that it tightens itself on each shot. At almost $1100 it sure ain't cheap. Not like it matters while I'm in Jersey but definitely on my wish list.

[Todd.K]

It sure would be interesting to see one of the quieter cans tested on a tuned AR.

[georgeib]

It sure would be interesting to see one of the quieter cans tested on a tuned AR.

I will say that though rifles can be tuned so that the operation of the rifle is less affected by a high back pressure can, you can't prevent a high back pressure can from pushing gas down the bore. This is evidenced by the difference in shooting a high back pressure and low back pressure can in a piston rifle, such as my PWS, where a DI system is taken out of the equation. Though I agree with your assumption that a big part of the reason HRT went with the OSS is not having to tune for it, there are other advantages. Namely less port pop and less gas to the face.

I did tons of research, on Pew Science and other places, before buying my pair of OSS cans, and I'm very satisfied with my choices.

[Todd.K]

I will say that though rifles can be tuned so that the operation of the rifle is less affected by a high back pressure can, you can't prevent a high back pressure can from pushing gas down the bore. This is evidenced by the difference in shooting a high back pressure and low back pressure can in a piston rifle, such as my PWS, where a DI system is taken out of the equation.

You are correct in that it is almost entirely gas through the bore. Not increasing the cyclic rate is the key, and piston guns should be tuned just as much as DI guns. I’ve been involved in both.

Tuning reduced both gas to face and port noise, but I wasn’t doing any testing with sound metering and this was all before OSS anyway.

How close sound at the ear can be for a tuned setup to OSS is something I would like to see done.

[1168]

How close sound at the ear can be for a tuned setup to OSS is something I would like to see done.

Same. For me, its the number one thing I’d like to see testing on for 5.56 hosts. Most other questions have been settled.