Any info on - OSS Mission Rifle Suppression System

[camoxjeep]

Tried searching but couldnt find anything. Anyone have any dealings with this product? Any close up pics of how its put together? thanks

http://oss-online.com/HOME.html

[chrisva]

Seems like a lot of stuff to get the same sound reduction of an 7.62SDn.
chris

[Selectedmarksman]

Seems like a lot of stuff to get the same sound reduction of an 7.62SDn.
chris

I'm skeptical of the DB claims, until I see real data. However, if it could perform close to a 7.62SDn, this is a way to avoid one tax stamp and/or have a short, suppressed platform where SBR's are not allowed.

[Bowen1911]

they sounded the same in the video. suppressed and unsuppressed

[Bendersquint]

they sounded the same in the video. suppressed and unsuppressed

yuck, pass

Far fetched claims and the 1.7" OD HEX body is huge, and all the modules you would have to buy would weigh a ton and drain any account.

And the question they pose on the first page....."As a commander wouldn't you want something modular?" I dont' know a 'commander' that would go for something like this when he can buy 2 parts(suppressor and mount) and be on the road, not a 6 part assembly.

Every part there is is another part that can unscrew or break, the magnitude is amazing with this one.

-B

[chrisva]

Isn't each of those extensions a taxable item, I wonder what the work around is?

[Bendersquint]

Isn't each of those extensions a taxable item, I wonder what the work around is?

There isn't a workaround to it. They are marketing it towards commanders in the military and LE. They don't pay the taxes.

-B

[OSSMISSION]

Hey you guys sorry we have been off for awhile, we were deployed. No longer being an active duty member and ETS'd from the military I will be more than willing to answer your questions and comments with facts.

Bendersquint,
First of your claims are not factual, here are some facts, from an actual operator, me.
The decibel reduction is true, we could not go more public at the time because I was a voting member on the SOCOM down select for the, "all weapons under SOCOM suppressed movement". Hence why my product was not submitted.

I will get this out there now, if you want a traditional styled suppressor we will, and always will, only recommend AAC since they have been brought up in previous post. There is a reason they get the recognition they do and its because in their market they work. Also, the only reason SUREFIRE was selected and not AAC for shoulder fired assault platforms is the fact that they had the wrong flash hiders and we had to select that day. Is the SUREFIRE can better than the KAC that we had been issued at the time? Yes, but not better than any product offered by AAC.

1. The 1.7" octagon has a purpose do your research. Fact of the matter is the only reason people use 1.5 tube is because its cheap and easily available. Weight wise we are the exact weight as a 7.62SDN and 1.5" shorter. What difference does it make if the an does not interfere with your SOPMOD accessories.
I recommend learning about false mirage and you will see how heat travels, then see the benefit of the octagon keeping your center line of aim clear and free of false mirage.

2. Price, we are right on par with every other company, now that we are machining everything, and that is for the 3 components not 6 that we have. To be clear, our price total is for the 3 components BPR,SRM,AND VSR that make our system modular. As far as price a lot of companies will tell you that they will last 10,000 rounds, I did the durability test on all of them and will tell you, its false. AAC is the closest out of them. With the others, within 5 mags of rapid fire, not auto, we had baffle strikes. At ten mags we had cracks and holes in the initial baffle and outer tube. We re-wrote the firing tables for all the test to simulate an actual fire fight, which we are all very familiar with.

We will 100% confidently say that with our can at 5,000 rounds you spend $150 and replace two small parts as an end user and we will surpass 10,000 while maintaining our standards.

We are different in the aspect that we have no blowback, and we will not increase your bolt velocity which decreases your weapons reliability and life span. We have been there in horrible conditions and it has happened.

3. I pretty much answered the commander question with price and sustainment above and at the end of the day budget is what most are worried about. We just ensure that total signature reduction, and weapons reliability are there.

4. We will unscrew or break...wrong again our components actually self tighten with each shot, it is impossible to unscrew our suppressor while firing and no tools are required when you want to take it off, just man hands.

We applaud your forward thinking with your company, hands down its a great idea. Traditional suppressors are very consumable and it backs our idea of the need for modularity and sustainability. We just ask that you do not put us in the same category as traditional suppressors as we are quite opposite that.

All the best,

OSS

[OSSMISSION]

Bendersquint also we would love to talk to you at SHOT show so you may see for your self why we are different. We will show you our can sectioned and it will all be clear to you.

[Pman5KMO]

Bendersquint also we would love to talk to you at SHOT show so you may see for your self why we are different. We will show you our can sectioned and it will all be clear to you.

But the big question that is still out there, is will there be a single stamp civilian model. If the BRM alone reduces noise levels, it is legally defined as a suppressor. A suppressor must have a fixed length, it can be modified to be made shorter in the even of repair, etc. It however CAN NEVER CHANGE CALIBER, as per ATF that is mfg of a new suppressor, so essentially it wouldn't be nearly as modular for a civilian consumer (and sub caliber use has not been demonstrated with your design, otherwise there would be no need for such modularity).

The SRM even if it was advertised as 'removable for maintenance' which would be the only perceivable way and still sketchy for civ use, and suppressor total length including it, would again not be able to be modified for another caliber. It would also essentially need to be 'mated' to the BRM, lest you open the all too undefined category of 'unregistered suppressor parts'.

The only clearly legal way I could see this going to civilian market, is if made as a one single piece unit, in one given caliber.... This does however bear to question the cost, and performance comparison to other cans on the market, especially when subcaliber use is very much likely to suffer from looking at some of the specs. Modular cores would be a huge no-go for civilian sales.

Could this be the latest greatest thing for LE/DoD use.... who knows, possibly, without hands on eval, it is impossible to tell. The KAC cans are mediocre at best. They are an old design that has fared decently, is rather durable, and make a decent blunt force hand held weapon by themselves. I am not fond of the surefire cans personally, did some operational testing of them back in 2004-2005, didn't like how the original models mounts added length to the barrel without a can mounted (critical for vehicle based operations) and they also just felt a little.... loose (kinda like most pistol cans have that rotational play in the piston for reliability) which is also why I HATE the gemtech bilock cans.

AAC cans are good, but their CS is hit or miss. There constantly changing mounts, and stopping mfg of mounts for some recently halted MFG models also gets annoying as all hell.... A friend of mine can't find MITER mounts for other rifles of his, and actually bought an inexpensive YHM can for moving from host to host as a result. The changing of mounting systems also can bring some contention to users of an older model.

Now another big issue that plagues ALL suppressors to various degrees, carbon build up and locking. Now reducing back pressure would also be capturing LOADS of carbon. How is the carbon build up (and resultant holding of moisture) in this design?

[plumber576]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqgW-7Q_axc

This video from SHOT Media Day shows cut-outs of the inside of the suppressor.

[Bendersquint]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqgW-7Q_axc

This video from SHOT Media Day shows cut-outs of the inside of the suppressor.

In the video he has 3 cutaways that were "more of your traditional style suppressors", they don't look like anything on the market though.

[Grounded]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqgW-7Q_axc

This video from SHOT Media Day shows cut-outs of the inside of the suppressor.

In the video he has 3 cutaways that were "more of your traditional style suppressors", they don't look like anything on the market though.

Their design is basically a baffle with an extended spacer and the outer surface of the spacer creates almost a corrugation between itself and the next baffle spacer combo. That corrugation slows the gasses and creates the length of gas travel they claim. I still fail to see how its a one stamp can. The first BRM portion which is unmarked has basically 4 baffles and the last one looks identical to the ones in the SRM. Definitely a neat design.

[bani]

has anyone seen evidence the ATF has signed off on the modularity / one-tax-stamp aspect?

[dan9591]

Posted this in another thread, but seems relevant here as well...

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.

[wacki]

As far as price a lot of companies will tell you that they will last 10,000 rounds, I did the durability test on all of them and will tell you, its false. AAC is the closest out of them. With the others, within 5 mags of rapid fire, not auto, we had baffle strikes. At ten mags we had cracks and holes in the initial baffle and outer tube.

Are you saying AAC cans will out last the SilencerCo Saker? Or Specwar?

Why would you get baffle strikes at 5 mags? Is the can bending from metal expansion?

[Bendersquint]

As far as price a lot of companies will tell you that they will last 10,000 rounds, I did the durability test on all of them and will tell you, its false. AAC is the closest out of them. With the others, within 5 mags of rapid fire, not auto, we had baffle strikes. At ten mags we had cracks and holes in the initial baffle and outer tube.

Are you saying AAC cans will out last the SilencerCo Saker? Or Specwar?

Why would you get baffle strikes at 5 mags? Is the can bending from metal expansion?

If you are getting baffle strikes after 150 rounds or rapid fire your can is defective. If you are getting crack and holes in the tube after 300 then you should have stopped at 150 rounds and returned the defective can for repair/replacement.

If that was the case there wouldn't be a successful can that makes it through a training class or pre-deployment spin up.

I think the numbers in that quote are off quite a bit. Where did the quote come from?

[wacki]

This thread.. via OSSMission in his response to you. Do a CNTRL-F and search for "10,000" or just "000"

[Bendersquint]

This thread.. via OSSMission in his response to you. Do a CNTRL-F and search for "10,000" or just "000"

The thread from several years ago?

[continuity]

This thread.. via OSSMission in his response to you. Do a CNTRL-F and search for "10,000" or just "000"

The thread from several years ago?

LOL... truth.

Have heartburn with the modularity thing. Not only from a military issue standpoint, which I've never been a part of, but from an on shore unit issue thing. Users are often less than interested in equipment that requires "thought" to make functionally operational. Especially at the point of contact.

[bani]

so basically the one-tax-stamp-modularity-approved-by-atf thing didnt happen. not really suprising.

[jh1990]

Added length? Weight? I don't see any real specs. Also says they measure dbs at the shooters ear.

[AirCavBob]

I've bought in as a dealer. These are the real deal.

[Pman5KMO]

Watch as the ATF changes their minds and declares the two piece design two separate taxable items. They have already ruled pistons as suppressor parts (ala YHM) and with one piece not serialized may require them to be permanently attached at some point.

Civ. users still will not be able to change the caliber of the can, so modularity only goes as far as having the one piece or both together whoch does make it rather... moot.

It also does open a huge potential loophole which the ATF will have under the microscope... with the way they have it all listed.

plus all the MFG and complex machining will surely make this one helluva expensive can... especially when you consider it will be more of a dedicated type can and swapping hosts is not the most feasible.