The first no blowback can?
Moderators: mpallett, mr fixit, bakerjw, renegade
The first no blowback can?
Member of the LSU, SWR, and RUGGED underground. Shame Silencerco!
- O2HeN2
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:13 am
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Re: The first no blowback can?
What a bunch of marketing BS. My meter pegged on the the "No Mirage" explanation.
O2
O2
When seconds count, the police are mere minutes away...
You are the FIRST responder. Police, fire and medical are SECOND responders.
You are the FIRST responder. Police, fire and medical are SECOND responders.
-
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:26 pm
- Location: las vegas nv
Re: The first no blowback can?
I can't for the life of me figure it out why HK partnered up with them.
from what I gather of the explanation is gas hits the diffuser which redirects to the reflex part of the suppressor through a set of turbines to the back of the can then to the outer edge of the tube through a series of another set of turbines out the open front.
from what I gather of the explanation is gas hits the diffuser which redirects to the reflex part of the suppressor through a set of turbines to the back of the can then to the outer edge of the tube through a series of another set of turbines out the open front.
Re: The first no blowback can?
I havent shot one, but everything we heard at SHOT was the damn things work. As non traditional as they may seem, again, supposedly they work really well.
Re: The first no blowback can?
Has anyone tried a OSS suppressor? They have a dozen or so dealers listed. Including silencershop....who doesn't seem to stock them.
http://www.oss-online.com
http://www.oss-online.com
Re: The first no blowback can?
I probably have too many cans already, but I will definitely be picking up one of these guys when they are available...
Check out the ATF classifications on their website: http://www.oss-online.com/atf-classification.html
Now I see how they make it a single-stamp dual-component suppressor:
Suppressor components:
SRM = Signature Reduction Module
BPR1 = Back Pressure Regulator 1 OTB
BPR2 = Back Pressure Regulator 2 FM
CTU = Combined Technology Unit
Non-suppressor components:
FHMB = Flash Hider Muzzle Brake
SOFH = Standoff Flash Hider
If you buy the SRM at the same time as either of the BRP’s it is not serialized, therefore making the 2-piece unit you purchased one unit.
If you buy the SRM separately, it is serialized and therefore another stamp is required.
Basically the system consists of the SRM and EITHER the BPR1 OR BPR2.
The CTU is a whole unit that does not accept an adapter, so that is a single stamp.
The other parts are not considered suppressor components.
Check out the ATF classifications on their website: http://www.oss-online.com/atf-classification.html
Now I see how they make it a single-stamp dual-component suppressor:
Suppressor components:
SRM = Signature Reduction Module
BPR1 = Back Pressure Regulator 1 OTB
BPR2 = Back Pressure Regulator 2 FM
CTU = Combined Technology Unit
Non-suppressor components:
FHMB = Flash Hider Muzzle Brake
SOFH = Standoff Flash Hider
If you buy the SRM at the same time as either of the BRP’s it is not serialized, therefore making the 2-piece unit you purchased one unit.
If you buy the SRM separately, it is serialized and therefore another stamp is required.
Basically the system consists of the SRM and EITHER the BPR1 OR BPR2.
The CTU is a whole unit that does not accept an adapter, so that is a single stamp.
The other parts are not considered suppressor components.
Re: The first no blowback can?
I don't understand the mirage portion of that - or frankly, ANY portion of that. However, the initial portion of looks very much like the turbine of a jet engine, and those trap air at several times the pressure of the outside WITHOUT releasing it. Obviously this isn't the same thing because a turbine spins, and that's really the crux of its success. However, there are some points to consider:
First - logically, if his suppressor didn't perform at least partially has he describes it, then why would a company like H&K show interest? It just seems that logically, they could debunk his claims in whole or in part and walk away -- instead, they tested it, and saw some compelling reason to partner with him. That should say something already.
Second - without understanding the dynamics of the design, he still showed it both bare and in cut-away. How many other manufacturers make claims so bold they border on ridiculous but then refuse to show any portion of the magic?
This could all be bogus --- but the two things that "all-talk" companies do is, one: make vague references to either a black-ops / government contracts, OR 'major firearm manufacturer'..... and the other thing they do is refer to super-engineered, highly classified, magical, mysto internals that no one can see.
This guy backed up both of those.
Could be BS --- but it's not checking off the regular BS boxes.
First - logically, if his suppressor didn't perform at least partially has he describes it, then why would a company like H&K show interest? It just seems that logically, they could debunk his claims in whole or in part and walk away -- instead, they tested it, and saw some compelling reason to partner with him. That should say something already.
Second - without understanding the dynamics of the design, he still showed it both bare and in cut-away. How many other manufacturers make claims so bold they border on ridiculous but then refuse to show any portion of the magic?
This could all be bogus --- but the two things that "all-talk" companies do is, one: make vague references to either a black-ops / government contracts, OR 'major firearm manufacturer'..... and the other thing they do is refer to super-engineered, highly classified, magical, mysto internals that no one can see.
This guy backed up both of those.
Could be BS --- but it's not checking off the regular BS boxes.
-
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 707
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:20 pm
- Location: The South
Re: The first no blowback can?
I'd be interested to shoot one . . .
on an unrelated note, I think the "KEYMOD" idea jumped the shark about a week after it came out.
I heard you like keymods, so I made a keymod on your keymod.
on an unrelated note, I think the "KEYMOD" idea jumped the shark about a week after it came out.
I heard you like keymods, so I made a keymod on your keymod.
Re: The first no blowback can?
Yes, the rotor in a turbine is spinning... Difference is, it's taking gasses (air) at normal pressure and compressing it. This device is sort of like half of a turbine, in that it has a 'stator', but no rotor. The gasses being directed into the 'stator' are under extreme pressure already, so I guess it is simply manipulating the flow. Turbulence and travel are key in slowing down flow and dissipating heat, and the guts of this thing look like they might do this very efficiently.TROOPER wrote:I don't understand the mirage portion of that - or frankly, ANY portion of that. However, the initial portion of looks very much like the turbine of a jet engine, and those trap air at several times the pressure of the outside WITHOUT releasing it. Obviously this isn't the same thing because a turbine spins, and that's really the crux of its success. However, there are some points to consider:
First - logically, if his suppressor didn't perform at least partially has he describes it, then why would a company like H&K show interest? It just seems that logically, they could debunk his claims in whole or in part and walk away -- instead, they tested it, and saw some compelling reason to partner with him. That should say something already.
Second - without understanding the dynamics of the design, he still showed it both bare and in cut-away. How many other manufacturers make claims so bold they border on ridiculous but then refuse to show any portion of the magic?
This could all be bogus --- but the two things that "all-talk" companies do is, one: make vague references to either a black-ops / government contracts, OR 'major firearm manufacturer'..... and the other thing they do is refer to super-engineered, highly classified, magical, mysto internals that no one can see.
This guy backed up both of those.
Could be BS --- but it's not checking off the regular BS boxes.
Mind you, all this is nothing more than a WAG, but it makes sense to me as I look at the gut shots of this thing. Thoughts? Am I way off? To those who think it's BS, it sure seems like it on the surface. But remember... Just because YOU don't understand how something works, doesn't mean it won't work. I'm anxious to see how this pans out.
Re: The first no blowback can?
That isn't a difference, it's a commonality between these two. There's an area of low pressure at the intake, and both the turbine and this suppressor wish to make the secondary area a high pressure area. The only difference here is that these parts don't spin. Rather, based on the spiral-shaped ridges, it appears that the "blades" of this suppressor "turbine" don't spin, but are stationary while the gas spins. Either way, it's movement of the mechanicals relative to the gas.Difference is, it's taking gasses (air) at normal pressure and compressing it.
Re: The first no blowback can?
It seems like a lot of people are threatened by this company and it's technology.
From now on when you see an OSS thread, grab some popcorn.
GHEN
From now on when you see an OSS thread, grab some popcorn.
GHEN
Re: The first no blowback can?
According to what we were told at SHOT it isn't as quiet as a conventional suppressor. The number we were told is 136db.
But................it is somewhat intriguing. We were also told it resulted in less than 5% backpressure and additional bolt speed. I would like to try one.
But................it is somewhat intriguing. We were also told it resulted in less than 5% backpressure and additional bolt speed. I would like to try one.
On Target Ammunition, LLC
Re: The first no blowback can?
I think we are agreeing at a certain level, ie. the end result is high pressure that is being directed in a controlled manner. But no, a turbine and this suppressor do NOT operate the same, rather they are polar opposites. You say the parts don't spin... I said the same thing, as in: STATOR. Turbines are comprised of a rotor, and a stator... The rotor spins, the stator is stationary. They are oriented in a configuration with the rotor and it's blades spinning in close tolerance to the stator blades, which pulls the air mixture in and compresses it. This suppressor only has a stator, therefore it can only direct and slow the flow. A turbine converts low pressure (intake) to high pressure (output)... this suppressor converts high pressure (intake) to low(er) pressure (output). Don't mean to argue, was just trying to stimulate thoughts and conversation.TROOPER wrote:That isn't a difference, it's a commonality between these two. There's an area of low pressure at the intake, and both the turbine and this suppressor wish to make the secondary area a high pressure area. The only difference here is that these parts don't spin. Rather, based on the spiral-shaped ridges, it appears that the "blades" of this suppressor "turbine" don't spin, but are stationary while the gas spins. Either way, it's movement of the mechanicals relative to the gas.Difference is, it's taking gasses (air) at normal pressure and compressing it.
Re: The first no blowback can?
We're not arguing, we're debating. I disagree in that they want the area inside of the suppressor to become high pressure... and STAY high pressure without high pressure gas flowing back out through the intake. In that regard, it is essentially the same goal of a turbine -- turning low pressure air at the intake into high pressure air on the inside.
Sure, it's a little different, because there is a high pressure area forcing the gas into the suppressor.... but after the pressure in the barrel dies, they still want the pressure in the suppressor high... without decompressing through the intake.
Just for clarity's sake ... I'm not arguing. And frankly, I don't even think you're incorrect... we're just looking at it from slightly different ways and it's mucking up our vernacular.
Sure, it's a little different, because there is a high pressure area forcing the gas into the suppressor.... but after the pressure in the barrel dies, they still want the pressure in the suppressor high... without decompressing through the intake.
Just for clarity's sake ... I'm not arguing. And frankly, I don't even think you're incorrect... we're just looking at it from slightly different ways and it's mucking up our vernacular.
Re: The first no blowback can?
I'm only threatened by the lack of info. I'm intrigued and the can has my interest but the lack of even the most basic of specs strikes me as odd.GHEN wrote:It seems like a lot of people are threatened by this company and it's technology.
From now on when you see an OSS thread, grab some popcorn.
GHEN
Some of the owner's claims against other suppressors also seemed off.
Can anyone tell me the weight and added length?
Could be a perfect can for rifles without a suppressed setting on the gas block.
- continuity
- Elite Member
- Posts: 4554
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:39 am
- Location: Ohio
Re: The first no blowback can?
Hmmm... you guys are apparently some very smart cookies. Lost me on the second curve of the compressor/turbine discussion... sorta.
Wonder if, while it looks like a turbine, the physics of the beasts operation are actually rooted in something different. More along the lines of giving the blast energy associated with the gas flow, "paths" to expend that energy on. Everytime a fluid under confinment, in this case a flowing gaseous mass, is forced to change direction, it removes energy from the flow relative the work done in changing direction. As energy is removed from the mass, there is less energy available to turn into sound, heat, or pressure on non-suppressor elements of the system. While the muzzle blast seems "instantaneous", it does have a spacial change element, the speed in the confined state, limited at the sonic boundary.
Short version of my mental meandering, is the gas pressure wave is exposed to mutiple mazes that divides the pressure wave "front" into several smaller "fronts", exposing the flow(s) to multiple redirections, forcing each to compress, and then, sorta, return along the maze pathway. A take on rabbit holes, and divide and conquer.
Regardless of how it works, it looks cool.
We may just be a buncha cavemen using the equivalent of stone wheel suppressors, on the way to someone coming up with the rubber tired version.
Wonder if, while it looks like a turbine, the physics of the beasts operation are actually rooted in something different. More along the lines of giving the blast energy associated with the gas flow, "paths" to expend that energy on. Everytime a fluid under confinment, in this case a flowing gaseous mass, is forced to change direction, it removes energy from the flow relative the work done in changing direction. As energy is removed from the mass, there is less energy available to turn into sound, heat, or pressure on non-suppressor elements of the system. While the muzzle blast seems "instantaneous", it does have a spacial change element, the speed in the confined state, limited at the sonic boundary.
Short version of my mental meandering, is the gas pressure wave is exposed to mutiple mazes that divides the pressure wave "front" into several smaller "fronts", exposing the flow(s) to multiple redirections, forcing each to compress, and then, sorta, return along the maze pathway. A take on rabbit holes, and divide and conquer.
Regardless of how it works, it looks cool.
We may just be a buncha cavemen using the equivalent of stone wheel suppressors, on the way to someone coming up with the rubber tired version.
Last edited by continuity on Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
What amount of a man is composed of his own collection of experiences... and the conclusions that those experiences have allowed him to "know" for certain as "Truth"? :Ick
Re: The first no blowback can?
rockman96 wrote:Yes, the rotor in a turbine is spinning... Difference is, it's taking gasses (air) at normal pressure and compressing it. This device is sort of like half of a turbine, in that it has a 'stator', but no rotor. The gasses being directed into the 'stator' are under extreme pressure already, so I guess it is simply manipulating the flow. Turbulence and travel are key in slowing down flow and dissipating heat, and the guts of this thing look like they might do this very efficiently.TROOPER wrote:I don't understand the mirage portion of that - or frankly, ANY portion of that. However, the initial portion of looks very much like the turbine of a jet engine, and those trap air at several times the pressure of the outside WITHOUT releasing it. Obviously this isn't the same thing because a turbine spins, and that's really the crux of its success. However, there are some points to consider:
First - logically, if his suppressor didn't perform at least partially has he describes it, then why would a company like H&K show interest? It just seems that logically, they could debunk his claims in whole or in part and walk away -- instead, they tested it, and saw some compelling reason to partner with him. That should say something already.
Second - without understanding the dynamics of the design, he still showed it both bare and in cut-away. How many other manufacturers make claims so bold they border on ridiculous but then refuse to show any portion of the magic?
This could all be bogus --- but the two things that "all-talk" companies do is, one: make vague references to either a black-ops / government contracts, OR 'major firearm manufacturer'..... and the other thing they do is refer to super-engineered, highly classified, magical, mysto internals that no one can see.
This guy backed up both of those.
Could be BS --- but it's not checking off the regular BS boxes.
Mind you, all this is nothing more than a WAG, but it makes sense to me as I look at the gut shots of this thing. Thoughts? Am I way off? To those who think it's BS, it sure seems like it on the surface. But remember... Just because YOU don't understand how something works, doesn't mean it won't work. I'm anxious to see how this pans out.
Now that you mention it, the stators don't line up which would slow down the gas flow a bit? This can looks kinda like the Surefire .22 can internals that never really came about, but these are actually available so i guess time will tell. How heavy is this, and how hard is it to take apart?
AAC Cyclone-BRANDED FOR LIFE MEMBER
Re: The first no blowback can?
I see what you were saying now, and we were basically agreeing even more than I thought we were. Like you say, we were just looking at it at from different angles.TROOPER wrote:Just for clarity's sake ... I'm not arguing. And frankly, I don't even think you're incorrect... we're just looking at it from slightly different ways and it's mucking up our vernacular.
Re: The first no blowback can?
Vid showing complete take down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d1mPJPi ... r_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d1mPJPi ... r_embedded
Re: The first no blowback can?
gunguy wrote:rockman96 wrote:Yes, the rotor in a turbine is spinning... Difference is, it's taking gasses (air) at normal pressure and compressing it. This device is sort of like half of a turbine, in that it has a 'stator', but no rotor. The gasses being directed into the 'stator' are under extreme pressure already, so I guess it is simply manipulating the flow. Turbulence and travel are key in slowing down flow and dissipating heat, and the guts of this thing look like they might do this very efficiently.TROOPER wrote:I don't understand the mirage portion of that - or frankly, ANY portion of that. However, the initial portion of looks very much like the turbine of a jet engine, and those trap air at several times the pressure of the outside WITHOUT releasing it. Obviously this isn't the same thing because a turbine spins, and that's really the crux of its success. However, there are some points to consider:
First - logically, if his suppressor didn't perform at least partially has he describes it, then why would a company like H&K show interest? It just seems that logically, they could debunk his claims in whole or in part and walk away -- instead, they tested it, and saw some compelling reason to partner with him. That should say something already.
Second - without understanding the dynamics of the design, he still showed it both bare and in cut-away. How many other manufacturers make claims so bold they border on ridiculous but then refuse to show any portion of the magic?
This could all be bogus --- but the two things that "all-talk" companies do is, one: make vague references to either a black-ops / government contracts, OR 'major firearm manufacturer'..... and the other thing they do is refer to super-engineered, highly classified, magical, mysto internals that no one can see.
This guy backed up both of those.
Could be BS --- but it's not checking off the regular BS boxes.
Mind you, all this is nothing more than a WAG, but it makes sense to me as I look at the gut shots of this thing. Thoughts? Am I way off? To those who think it's BS, it sure seems like it on the surface. But remember... Just because YOU don't understand how something works, doesn't mean it won't work. I'm anxious to see how this pans out.
Now that you mention it, the stators don't line up which would slow down the gas flow a bit? This can looks kinda like the Surefire .22 can internals that never really came about, but these are actually available so i guess time will tell. How heavy is this, and how hard is it to take apart?
I would like to see 500-1000 rounds run though it hard and disassembled. Its gotta be a pain. I know some of the weight was cut back with the alum outer tube but not sure about internals... stainless or inconel maybe?
07/02 behind enemy lines
Re: The first no blowback can?
This might not be a big issue or bad, the wake behind the stators might work to dissipate energy. Hard to say how much energy is lost though, the same happens in a turbine. Since the rotors spin compared with the stators the same problem will occur there, both the rotor and the stator blades move compared to each others and will thus present a non-aligned configuration most of the time.gunguy wrote:the stators don't line up
Re: The first no blowback can?
dan9591 wrote: Now I see how they make it a single-stamp dual-component suppressor:
Suppressor components:
SRM = Signature Reduction Module
BPR1 = Back Pressure Regulator 1 OTB
BPR2 = Back Pressure Regulator 2 FM
CTU = Combined Technology Unit
Non-suppressor components:
FHMB = Flash Hider Muzzle Brake
SOFH = Standoff Flash Hider
...
The other parts are not considered suppressor components.
This makes absolutely ZERO sense to me. Like I don't really want to expend the energy thinking about it because I think the system is sort of goofy. But what I'm getting is that the SRM (actual silencer part, baffles) should never be bought alone, always with a BRP (volume module) because that way the baffles portion (SRM) doesn't need a stamp on it's own. Correct?
So if you wanted to set two rifles up, you need at least two BRPs that stay fixed on each gun, and at least one SRM, but it's dumb to buy an SRM on it's own so you buy two SRMs too right? BUT.... then I have a module (SRM) with no stamp, can't I buy and sell those as I please? How is there any determination for the layman that is a "silencer part"? Seems like a fucking nightmare.
THAT SAID... Yes, HK bought into this. And I won't say what I heard, but let's just say, HK bought more than a samples worth. Like, I heard 5th hand they bought a LOT more than ANYONE would suspect. So there may be something to this. HK is a big company with some good engineers, so on one hand I'd like to believe they aren't idiots. On the other hand... They do have proprietary backwards keymod... So....
I agree with the turbine comparison, it's clear that's their goal. I get having a device to keep consistent (or as much as possible) back-pressure, to be able to tune the gun for one mode, makes a lot of sense. I don't know if they have managed that exactly although I'm willing to believe they have something with enough volume to compress during the shot allowing the bolt to see equal impulse suppressed or not.
HOWEVER.... Their explanation of mirage went full retard. It could have made sense if the entire unit wasn't one homogenous piece of metal. No, I take that back, it was never going to make sense. It's stupid claim to make. The idea that this "can not" loosen during shooting, but will be able to remain serviceable without tools is also entirely bullshit. You can have a mile's worth of interrupted threads - hand loose means hand tight, and hand tight silencers will work themselves off.
+ HK is sold on it, very much so from what I hear
+ The idea of consistent backpressure is a good one
+ It's impressively machined
+ I did talk to two people at SHOT who shot this on media day, they said it ran smooth and clean
- Unknown Mfg, no mil contracts, no independent testing,
- Not all that modular really, looks it, but sort of isn't. You need at least one part to remain on each rifle, but that's a taxable part, (so F--k you?)
- I didn't see a weight, but I can tell it's heavier than a normal can
- Expensive
- BS on the mirage claims. If anything the mirage should be worse on this as it's actively encouraging the outer tube to heat up
- Reflex kinda sucks.
- It's disaster of letters and regulations in the eyes of the civilian, and the ATF eventually
- Ugh, Octagon...
= Nope.
Edit: Removed CTU, didn't understand it's just a BRP and SRM combined together not in addition to the two part system
Last edited by este on Mon Jan 20, 2014 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The first no blowback can?
F--k, after watching that I'm pretty sure their designer just figured he'd make it look as turbine-y and complicated as possible.CThomas wrote:Vid showing complete take down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d1mPJPi ... r_embedded