BREAKING: OSS Responds To SureFire Regarding Testing

If the firearms industry is laced with drama, then the drama in the silencer division is like Shakespeare: ‘a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing’. I have been vocal about avoiding drama, sticking to the facts and writing about people and companies that are doing great things. But while tracking down some information on a semi-related news story, I ended up receiving a yet-to-be released press release on an emotion-filled subject.

Recently, Operators Suppressor Systems (OSS), based in Murray, Utah posted a video comparing their suppressor with a SureFire SOCOM in a round of what appears to be destructive testing. In the video OSS portrays their suppressor as “beating” the SureFire SOCOM in a battery of testing.


SureFire punched back with a press release refuting OSS’s testing claims.

From Soldier Systems Daily:

Fountain Valley, CA — Recently, a suppressor manufacturer released a video showing what they claimed to be a “government agency test,” in which their suppressor outperformed the SureFire SOCOM556-RC suppressor. In response to this so-called “government agency test” video, SureFire would like to make clear to the public that the test in this competitor’s video was not a test conducted by SOCOM or any other government agency. The test was conducted in-house by the manufacturer of the competing suppressor, with a few members of the Military and Government in attendance. Additionally, the exact opposite results were obtained in actual SOCOM testing in which the competitor’s suppressor was evaluated alongside a SureFire SOCOM556-RC. In this test, the competitor’s suppressor failed, whereas the SureFire suppressor completed the test without incident or causing malfunctions of the MK18.

SureFire suppressors are proven performers and have been in use with military special operations forces, government agencies, and law enforcement all over the world with excellent results and feedback. This video appears to be nothing more than an attempt by the video’s producers to manipulate and mislead the public and potential government end-users. That said, we at SureFire take it as a compliment that a competitor would go to such lengths to attempt to disparage our product. Combine this with the unmatched loyalty of our customers, and we see this as nothing more than confirmation that SureFire remains the industry leader.

For those of you looking for some context, this SureFire press release is in response to a video (OSS vs. Best-in-Class SOCOM Baffle Suppressor Torture Test) released last week by Operator Suppressor Systems. You can check the video out on at the bottom of the landing page.

Now, answering SureFire’s statement, OSS has released their own response:

OSS Video of US Govt. Agency Torture Test – Part 2

MURRAY UT – Last week, Operators Suppressor Systems (OSS) announced the results and a video of recent testing by a US Government agency that compared an OSS Flow-Through™ suppressor with the best-in-class baffle suppressor.

This week, some have had questions about the test agency, their methodology, and the results highlighted in our video. For those who are interested, OSS would like to provide additional background and details on the tests, the results and the video.

The Tests:

Last fall, in OSS’s ongoing collaboration with the US Government and Military, prototype OSS suppressors were tested and experienced a handful of heat-related fails to outer housings and internal components.

Armed with the testing data, the OSS R&D team refined and tested material and geometry mods to some suppressor components. Final prototyping was completed at the end of last year, and on January 6, 2016, the US Government agency responsible for determining “the next generation of small arms signature reduction” for SOF and tactical operators conducted a new test.

This test’s protocol and methodology was established by the agency and supervised by the agency’s personnel.  Representatives from the various branches of the US Military were also in attendance and monitored the test.

It was held at OSS test facilities in our Murray UT headquarters. OSS has invested in advanced testing equipment in Murray, and as this state-of-the-art equipment was not readily available to the government agency, they requested that their test be conducted at OSS. OSS personnel participated solely in weapon handling, test firing (as seen on the video), and data recording.

As described in the video, this was a brutal torture test to determine suppression performance under the most extreme conditions – 240 rounds per cycle with eight 30 round mags of semi- and full-auto fire for at least six cycles!

At the request of the testing agency, the commercial off-the-shelf baffle suppressor was purchased, and the OSS suppressors were randomly selected from inventory, as were the Daniel Defense Mk18s.

The Results:

Although only highlighted in the video, the dramatic difference in performance between the OSS suppressor and the baffle suppressor was, in the words of several of the government attendees, “Remarkable.”

The reason is simple.

Baffle suppression creates significant backpressure. And over a firing table like the one used in this test, critical problems can arise:

·       Blocked gas and increased particulate accumulation can create weapon malfunctions

·       As particulate collects on the weapon and baffle suppressor components, sound and flash suppression erodes

·       Expanding energy creates extreme heat, especially under full-auto fire

OSS’s patented Flow-Through suppression does not increase backpressure, and allows for effective expansion of gases, transfer of energy, mitigation of heat, and suppression of sound and flash.

These conditions were witnessed during the test and highlighted in the 3-minute video. The complete raw video of the test cycles is available for viewing via Dropbox here.


OSS’s patented Flow-Through suppression is a leap ahead and undoubtedly disruptive advance over existing baffle technology — the type of advance the US Government is working hard to test, validate and procure across various branches and services (see recent CSASS announcement).

We’re proud to have earned the opportunity to have OSS products tested, improved and proven against the best-in-class competition.

We’re excited to offer the same technology and performance in OSS’s new ELITE line of 5.56 and 7.62/.30 Cal suppressors.

And as more learn about and experience the unmatched performance of OSS, we know they’ll understand what we mean when we say “Don’t Get Baffled.”

About Operators Suppressor Systems

Founded in 2007, OSS designs, manufactures and distributes advanced weapon suppressor systems that meet the demands of military, SOF, tactical and sport shooters around the world.

For more information visit

Media Contact:

Randy Carothers


I’m sticking with my ‘No Drama’ policy: SureFire is a proven industry leader in Military and Law Enforcement suppressors. On the flip side, OSS has received recent fame for being partnered with Heckler and Koch’s (H&K) Compact Semi-Automatic Sniper System (CSASS) contract bid with the U.S. Department of Defense.

What interests me here is the use of Destructive Tests in the firearm industry – real scientific testing. I have been coordinating with a few manufacturers and independent testing laboratories on a TFB story that will focus on the use of destructive testing in guns and silencers and the data they can provide to eventually make better products for consumers.

But in the end, everything has a breaking point. And I’ve reached my drama limit for the week.


LE – Science – OSINT.
On a mission to make all of my guns as quiet as possible.
Twitter: @gunboxready
Instagram: @tfb_pete


  • Zach Haag

    Equal testing, yet the OSS is never fired in FA?

    • More likely it was just bad editing.

      Though for transparency reasons they really should release an unedited video. Surefire is known to sue competitors that attack them in ads. And the unedited truth is the likely best defense.

      • Pete – TFB Writer

        The link to the full video in Dropbox is up. Halfway through their press release.

        • Well then. This isn’t the first time Surefire went “Nuh uh” and a competitor went “Well… Yes!”

      • Joshua

        Transparency, yet it was held at the companies factory with “Military advisors”.

        Sure and I have a bridge to sell you.

  • Sasquatch

    This is everywhere now days with every thing…….

  • vereceleritas

    This whole test just seems strange. What government agency allows the manufacturer to administer any legitimate test on their own product at their own facility and then allows them record video and publicly release it? Then this agency asks them purchase a competitor’s product to test against, without a representative from the other manufacturer to observe this test. And they also allowed a commercial spec MK18 (Daniel Defense), to be the host weaponas, opposed to a government MK18.

    This whole situation just doesn’t pass the smell test for me.

    • Joshua

      Agreed, I have never once heard of SOCOM going to a manufacturers host building and allowing them to perform durability tests.

      This is just something that does not happen.

      • BillC

        It wasn’t SOCOM. They used SOCOMs “testing standard”. Problem is, there is actually no official testing standards, yet.

        • Joshua

          Then who was it? Last I checked big Army didn’t use surefire suppressors.

          That a USSOCOM thing.

          Fact is the Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force aren’t going to be using suppressors on the M4 ever.

          So that leaves SF and SoF.

          • Rob

            Sniper Platoon was issued KAC NT4 in the vanilla Marine Corps for their M4’s. This was 2008-2010 time frame. Recon had them as well and they are outside the SOCOM umbrella.

          • JumpIf NotZero

            Marines absolutely use SF.

          • Joshua

            Well I wasn’t a Marine, but how wide spread was the issuance of suppressors?

            I was speaking on more of a broad range general issue item that everyone gets.

          • BillC

            No, you aren’t reading correctly. The “U.S. Government Agency” that OSS is referring to was not SOCOM. You then, quote, ” I have never once heard of SOCOM going to a manufacturers host building and allowing them to perform durability tests.”
            It wasn’t them. Who it was extactly, OSS is not saying. But it wasn’t SOCOM or AWG. No one ever said SOCOM doesn’t use Surefire. I have no idea where you got that from.

          • Joshua

            I was guessing they were trying to imply it was someone from somewhere within the SF or SoF community due to them stating the Surefire contract being unfair and that they were now showing how much better they are.

            Though I could be reading way to much into it.

            I mean

            “US Government agency responsible for determining “the next generation of small arms signature reduction” for SOF and tactical operators conducted a new test.”

            Sounds like OSS is saying the decision makers for SoF were using their facilities to test the OSS suppressors.

          • BillC

            And you are thinking too narrowly, as well. There are way more groups than Big Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force and SF and SoF. Way more.

          • Joshua

            I know, I didn’t feel like typing everyone one that exists out.

    • 11b

      More than likely someone from OSS had a friend at this ‘agency’ (maybe the TSA?) and set up this demo for them. They showed up, watched the dog and pony show, said “Neat”, then left. There is no way the govt would reach out to OSS and have them set up what amounts to a marketing video.

    • BillC

      It wasn’t a test. Anybody with half a brain and a high school science and math class can see it. This wasn’t a “test”, it was pure demonstration and demonstrations done the right way can have the results anybody wants to portray.

    • RocketScientist

      I haven’t ever worked with SOCOM, but my company does a LOT of business with the DoD, selling aerospace components for a lot of aviation, space and defense products. I work in one of our test labs currently. Virtually all of our product testing is done in-house, using our equipment, our personnel, our facilities. Sometimes there are customer witnesses from the prime contractors, The Army/Air Force/Navy/Corp, MDA (missile defense agency), etc, but more often there is not. We test per industry standard practices/procedures, we have excellent documentation, metrology practices, etc. We deliver a test report, they review it, and unless there are issues its accepted. We get audited routinely to make sure we are in compliance with all that, but its not AT ALL unusual, industrywide, for suppliers to DoD or other gov’t agencies to do all their own testing in-house.

    • Mike Smith

      Perhaps you are reading too much into what OSS is saying. They didn’t say this was an official test on which a contract would be based or anything like that. They just basically said that after their prototypes didn’t do so well in the original test, they set up and facilitated another test session with their improved product, supervised and monitored by a certain government agency and observed by other interested official parties.

      • vereceleritas

        You are probably right. It just rubs me the wrong way when they make vague references to a government “agency” and try to make this seem like more than it is. If this was a straight up torture test video, similar to the Vickers DDM4 test, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.

    • its probably more of a demo with govt folks in attendance rather than a “test”

  • ProudAmerican

    It sure would be appreciated if OSS would get ordered suppressors to SOT’s BEFORE THE JULY 13 DEADLINE!

    • JumpIf NotZero

      Did you just not read the same thing I did?

      They admit that they products they’ve been shipping fail. And that only “the new product” can pass “socom testing”.

      • ProudAmerican

        Did you just not read the same thing I did? It sure would be appreciated if OSS would get ordered suppressors to SOT’s BEFORE THE JULY 13 DEADLINE.
        Let me make it super simple for you: “Fix the problem and get the product to customers BEFORE THE DEADLINE.” That wasn’t really that hard, was it?

        • Stevefromutah

          Doesn’t matter because sources say OSS will shut up shop before beginning of 3rd quarter…….

          • ProudAmerican

            Are these sources from Surefire?

          • Pete – TFB Writer

            “Stevefromutah” You aren’t from Utah, so do you want to tell everyone where you are from or shall I? I’ll give you a bit to decide to come clean or delete your post and move on.

            I don’t take sides, but there’s no room here for dishonesty.

          • Stevefromutah

            Check your email

          • Billy Jack

            Crickets? No update?

      • Mike Smith

        Where did you read something indicating “They admit that they products they’ve been shipping fail. And that only “the new product” can pass “socom testing””?

        They said a prototype didn’t perform well, and they improved the prototype and re-tested it. Nowhere did they indicate what failed was the same product they’ve been shipping to customers. Gen 5 has been out for a long time.

        My guess is they are working on reducing the weight and they didn’t get it right immediately. Somewhere I read in the posts regarding the breakup Russ said something about how all they cared about was weight and he disagreed to the point that he felt forced to resign. I suspect those failed tests had something to do with the conflict.

  • Ambassador Vader

    Ironic the industry devoted to silence has such loud drama

  • Mike Smith

    A dirty little secret story about Surefire’s SOCOM contract I’ve heard in two different places… I was chatting with an OSS sales rep a few years ago. He told me he (or maybe it was the OSS founder? Can’t remember exactly) sat on the selection committee for the original SOCOM suppressor competition. He said AAC performed much better than Surefire, but somebody at AAC screwed up and didn’t have the right muzzle devices on hand at one point, resulting in a disqualification on a technicality. If it wasn’t for that slip-up AAC would have gotten that contract instead of Surefire. Instead, Surefire went on to get the contract and has made money marketing that fact to civilian purchasers ever since. I saw the exact same version of the story posted by somebody who owns a gun shop near Ft Bragg and has SOCOM connections.

    • JumpIf NotZero

      Interesting name you have there… isn’t that also the name of one of AAC’s designers? Cool coincidence.

      The original SF contract was tailor made for AAC, and AAC messed it up. SF stepped in and won fair and square.

      • Mike Smith

        lol no, I just picked a random name–I prefer anonymity on the Internet.

        I never said Surefire won it unfairly–I was just pointing out that Surefire has capitalized on that contract ever since they won, letting everybody believe that it was proof that they were the best out of all the competitors. The real story may be not so simple, assuming what I was told was true. Now, somebody comes along and claims theirs is better and Surefire’s response is basically “we won the SOCOM contract, what else is there to talk about?”

        • mig1nc

          Nice. Reminds me of how the Robinson XCR was kicked from the SCAR trials due to a similar technicality. They didn’t include a blank firing adapter. I’m not saying they had a wining design, just that it sucks when you can’t do a full and true evaluation due to some technicality with the contracting side of things. At the end of the day, not having the most complete testing available mostly hurts the warfighter and consumer. Not the general officer on the selection board.

    • Joshua

      OSS sales rep, certainly no bias there.

      • Mike Smith

        Joshua, he wasn’t mentioning it to support the idea that his was better than theirs. He was actually just telling me which of their competitors at the time was the best. It was a compliment to AAC, nothing derogatory toward Surefire.

  • Gary Kirk

    And the drama continues.. Real question is who’s had both, and which works better? Torture testing is but a part of any military testing. Then you’d also have signature reduction (noise, and flash) ease of mount/unmounting, maintenance, availability, size/weight, shifting of zero… The list goes on, so this may just be a way to get someone in the COC. to even take a look.. Oh and there’s always unit cost in there as well, and I don’t mean what we’d pay…

  • Todd

    I find it funny that OSS sneers at baffles, when their design absolutely uses them. They just add more plumbing (or turbines around them). I want to like what they do, but the marketing claims are just so ridiculous.

  • n0truscotsman

    Shakespeare. Yeah you could say that again.

    One only needs to see what passes for ‘conversations’ over at the various forums. It makes exchanges between Glock and 1911 owners seem like gentleman’s decorum.

    Suppressor companies can also venture into ‘woo meister’ territory as well, with their extraordinary claims.

  • uisconfruzed

    I’m not going to shoot auto, so I’m VERY content with my TBACs and SilenceCo cans.
    Surefire’s brakes are ineffective and overweight like their cans.

  • uisconfruzed

    I’m not going to shoot auto, so I’m VERY content with my TBACs and SilenceCo cans. A Hybrid is on the way for a 45-70 Govt.
    Surefire’s brakes are ineffective and overweight like their cans.