TFB EXCLUSIVE: Photos Of OSS Suppressors Allegedly Failing DOD Tests


When we broke the latest installment of the SureFire vs Operators Suppressor Systems (OSS) saga last Thursday, I expressed my devotion to both data and facts over unreliable emotions. Within hours, the comments section, internet forums and my inbox were flooded with unsupported claims ranging from license revocations to an end of business operations within a few months. And after speaking with multiple parties intimate with the situation, none of the allegations seemed to be rooted in fact. That is, until last night.

An anonymous source provided TFB with the following images allegedly depicting OSS Suppressor(s) failing DOD testing. This source reports receiving the images from an unidentified third-party. Although the images were labeled ‘unclassified’, out of an abundance of caution, certain test specifics, some DOD identifying information and individual personal identifiers were redacted – the last thing we want to do is put our Warfighters at any additional risk.

Important note: The authenticity, date/time or origination of the images have not yet been verified. So, even though they look official, the images cannot be be taken solely on face value. Although, OSS does acknowledge one of the pictures below as being a part of prior tests.

I sent a selection of the below images to both SureFire and OSS for official comment. Their responses are below.


We cannot comment on government testing that we had absolutely no involvement with.


As we said in our release the other day…

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.

This picture was one of our prototype flush mount suppressor — and as you can see, the outer housing in this early design didn’t pass this test protocol.

As part of ongoing government and OSS testing like this, metal and geometry modifications were made, virtually identical testing was repeated in January, and our latest design not only withstood the brutal firing table, but delivered the levels of sound and flash suppression and weapon performance far beyond the level required by the test.

As determined by the US Government agency that conducted the January test, the best-in-class baffle suppressor did not.

OSS’s patented Flow-Through™ suppression technology is a disruptive leap ahead of 110 year old baffle suppression technology. Around the world, OEM weapon system manufacturers, military and Special Forces, and others are rapidly recognizing the inherent limitations of baffle suppression. At OSS we fully embrace an honest and open evaluation of our products, and look forward to future reporting by this and other blogs.


One over the barrel and one flush-mount suppressor were tested:







I doubt this will be the final word in the OSS versus SureFire durability testing debate. However, I think it should be. OSS should submit a few suppressors to an independent testing lab for verifiable durability testing. I’m not even sure why they decided to test a SureFire silencer in a head-to-head comparison alongside their product. Let your own tests results stand alone.

I’m not saying OSS should have released the above information, however prudence would dictate caution when calling out your competitor if your product had dramatically failed a similar test in the past.



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


  • Pugnose

    An anonymous source provides images from an unidentified third-party providing no dates. Glad you asked OSS and Surefire about it, but put some work in and report on the context. Damned.

    • Pete spent most of today working on this. The dates were removed as were the names. Just because it says anonymous doesn’t mean he doesn’t know who the source is it just means they don’t want to be identified.

      • Pugnose

        Phil- it says in the post, “Important note: The authenticity, date/time or
        origination of the images have not yet been verified.”

        • Pete – TFB Writer

          CYA. Until I talk to the person who actually pulled the trigger or held the camera, it has yet to be verified.

          See above about analysis. I wanted to only present raw data. Take it or leave it.

          • Bill

            That isn’t raw data. Those are graphics of unknown provenance containing unvetted information of unknown reliability or reliability.

          • Pete – TFB Writer

            OSS acknowledged they were part of the test.

            But I put a prominent label in the story. People can take it or leave it.

          • Bill I’m not sure what you meant in the last part of the second sentence? (unknown reliability or reliability)

          • Bill

            Mea Culpa, that was the exact type of poor proofing I constantly harp on. It should have read “unknown reliability or validity.” My bad. I’ll be in the corner.

        • What Pete said—-

    • Joshua

      Everything I’m seeing says these are official.

      They have all the correct markings of official PowerPoint slides.

  • Simon Spero

    FYSA, some of the documents are marked FOUO, which means For Official Use Only, which means, um, something or other.
    (I’ve seen UNCLASSIFIED // FOUO footers on presentations given at public conferences!)

    • Pete – TFB Writer

      We heavily researched FOUO prior to launch. We went even further to redact additional specifics.

      • PK

        Frankly, it doesn’t say “Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited”, so… unclass or not, distribution (such as publication on a website) may not be the best of ideas.

        • Pete – TFB Writer

          Even when you FOIA unclassified documents or redacted documents, “Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited” isn’t an official stamp or marking.

          • PK

            Fair point.

          • Pete – TFB Writer

            Believe me, the last thing we wanted to do was violate any rules/regs or jeopardize anyone’s safety. Which is why we took the additional steps of further redacting the images.

          • PK

            I believe you were spot-on with that thinking, as well. Just in case. In time, if this is official as it appears, it will appear with the rest of the unclass on DTIC.

          • Sua Sponte

            Spot on. FOUO is an official caveat. Without the additional caveats for release it actually shouldn’t have been released. Regardless of whether or not you can find this information open source is a non-point as everything would be covered by the SCG (Security Classification Guide) and in this case for 1st SFC (Special Forces Command).

          • Pete – TFB Writer

            Anyone can mark a document FOUO whereas the security coordinator actually marks classifications.

            (I think we are agreeing here)

          • Sua Sponte

            Yes, yes we are. Although the individual compiling the document would refer to the SCG and eventually it would pass through the FDO (Foreign Disclosure Office/Officer) for a final. Now that’s not an across the board step, but, that’s how I did it while working in the futures branch at USASOC.

          • Pete – TFB Writer

            Thanks for the input. Much appreciated.

    • Kivaari

      WE did that I LE. It was silly how some people thought the information was so extremely sensitive that even our recently dismantled bomb tech was considered an outsider. Even though he was a LT, running the department at the time. I’ve been to official training that was simply silly in how they felt security had to be extra-tight. Picking up a magazine at the local Walmart had more information.

  • Konflict7993

    Surefire 2
    OSS 1

  • Berend Baas

    Looks like the M-16 Arctic tests all over again…B

  • d_grey

    So…which is the better suppressor then? :/

  • kzrkp

    fight fight fight fight

    • Austin

      Kiss kiss kiss

  • c4806503

    Anyone who actually understands engineering could immediately tell from looking at them that the OSS unit is likely to have more reliability problems. In the simplest terms, silencers are functionally little more than baffles inside a pressure vessel. There’s a reason you don’t see a lot of octagonal propane tanks.

    • My understanding is the octagonal exterior doesn’t actually hold pressure, it’s just a sleeve. It looks to me like it failed from heat.

      • c4806503

        It’s fairly obvious from the bulging/blowout in the photos that whatever actually *does* hold the pressure has failed, and the fact remains that the SureFire unit (operating under the same pressures) did not.

        The only two logical conclusions are:

        1) The OSS unit had inferior metallurgy to the SureFire unit.
        2) The OSS unit had equal/superior metallurgy to the SureFire unit, but with a design that exerts greater stresses on the components.

        Neither of these makes me want to run out and buy one of their products. I have already thought for a long time that these looked like yet another case of tacticool snake-oil, and this isn’t helping. Nor is the fact that apparently the only test OSS has actually passed thus far is the one performed at *their* facility, under *their* testing conditions.

        Frankly, that sort of test should never have happened. Even if OSS is 100% honest and in the right, it’s just not the professional thing to have done.

        • Actually, it looks to me like the housing’s welds split from heat.

          Not saying that OSS suppressor iteration doesn’t have problems, but they look primarily metallurgical.

          I have a hard time believing the configuration is what has the problems, considerating that jet turbine engines work.

          • Giolli Joker

            I find your analysis on metallurgy as possible cause of the issue quite plausible, with the limited data that we currently have.
            However I wouldn’t really stress much the analogy with jet turbines.
            There are more differences than similarity.

            And saying this:
            “I have a hard time believing the configuration is what has the problems, considerating that jet turbine engines work.”
            It’s like saying that a Nambu Type 14 should work properly because a naval cannon does.

            Figures of speech aside, you can have a sound concept and configuration but still have failed in some areas of the design, with catastrophic results.

            (I work in a workshop that repairs (land based) gas turbine components.)

          • I was speaking very generally, not necessarily meaning OSS’s specific execution, but the concept of a baffle-less suppressor in general.

            You’re right, there’s no reason (that I know of) to believe that OSS’s suppressors specifically have figured out the optimum version of that design.

          • Kivaari

            Perhaps a silicon exhaust sleeve bought at West Marine would have handled it better.

        • Anonymoose

          Yeah, I think I’ll also stick with Silencerco and Gemtech, thanks..

          • jp2336

            Might I recommend handling and shooting one before writing them off. Finally got mine (albeit that it’s in jail currently) and it is hands down a great system. Just a recomendation as I have other cans and while the goal is the same, the means to get there has been effectively managed via OSS cans.

        • Mike Smith

          Go back and look at the photos again–it looks like the outer octagonal part has split off and revealed a cylinder underneath that does not appear to be split. I’m guessing that’s the pressure-containment vessel. If I had mine in hand I’d take it apart to verify, but it’s still in ATF lockup. 🙁

          • Kivaari

            “Heat damage”, sounds like a weld failed and it leaked. If the outer sleeve was not for pressure containment, it should not be there. Perhaps they need to use a REAL pressure sleeve and a stronger interior tube/baffle system.

          • JumpIf NotZero

            If I had mine in hand I’d take it apart to verify, but it’s still in ATF lockup.

            🙁 Ah, so I was right. That is why you’re here defending them with every post under multiple names.

            Well, I understand, no one likes to get shafted with NFA. But you should start a lot of your posts with “Full disclosure, I bought OSS cans so my opinion is biased”

      • Kivaari

        If it wasn’t for pressure containment, then why was it there? No function but cool looks?

        • Mike Smith

          They say it helps reduce the heat mirage when it heats up–probably not a concern for civilian shooters but certainly could be a benefit for military combat applications.

    • In the SSD comments, there is some background information on the SOCOM test.

      At the time of this testing, this was the first time applying this firing schedule. And the OSS can was built more toward being light weight. Remember the old rucking adage ounces equal pounds, and pounds equal suffering. If they both survived the firing schedule it was likely that weight would be a consideration.

      They probably revised the design, convinced a government agency to bless the test to prove that they can pass it.

      • Pete – TFB Writer

        But why include SureFire? It takes away from the actual testing and makes it a marketing stunt.

        • Oaf

          Because Surefire holds the contract and is what the OSS should be compared with?

          • Pete – TFB Writer

            Then invite SureFire to the test or have and independent test of both. Plenty of good test labs out there.

            If you are running the test yourself, reduce the sample to one variable: your own product.

            Even if the test was fair and balanced (and I’m not saying it wasn’t) it gives the impression that the whole deal is a marketing gimmick. Which is fine, but call it for what it is. Marketing not testing.

        • Because Surefire is probably their biggest competitor in the LE/MIL/GOV space. And unlike say in the car industry with 0-60 or 1/4 mile times, there is no standard which they can’t just do a bare test as there are no baseline results openly available to compare against.

          Honestly I don’t understand why so many people get up in arms with competitive tests. In other industries it happens all the time. For example when Chevy wants to prove that their steel bed is better than the aluminum bed on the new Ford F-150, they do a commercial dropping common items in the two beds and showing the results. When Mobil wants to prove that their motor oil is better than Penzoil they do a side by side test of a car running non-stop until destruction.

          But when someone in the firearms industry does it everyone loses their freaking minds. I think it has to do with the fact that firearms are all luxury items to most users so there is a ton of fan boyism. I know that people have complained to my sponsors when I give my honest opinions on a product I’ve used even in spaces where I have no sponsors.

          Personally as long as the test is objective there should be no issue. Sure the test might not be relevant from certain perspectives but that is a whole separate discussion.

          • Jwedel1231

            I agree. Stand-alone testing is ego stroking at it’s finest, since you have nothing to compare it to. “My widget completed 600 cycles without failure!” Without a data point to compare to other widgets, that means absolutely nothing.

          • Pete – TFB Writer

            I feel the exact opposite is true. Most scientific testing is not done on a head to head basis. If the test is designed properly, it doesn’t matter if you test both at the same time or two weeks apart.

            That is the essence of scientific testing.

          • Cymond

            I really like comparison tests of suppressors. It’s a way to control variables like temperature, humidity, altitude, etc. It also gives the opportunity for commentary on subjective issues like ease of disassembly/cleaning.

    • jp2336

      One question to ask: have you held, dis/ass’d and shot an OSS can? I have. I have one. I also have access to others. Once you look at it, inside and out and have it IN YOUR HANDS and shoot it, I suspect many would change their minds and see the technology for the innovation it is. It beats traditional COTS systems available. Simple as that.

  • Before we get ahead of ourselves, let’s think about the problem for a moment. An OSS suppressor is basically a turbulence generating device essentially similar in concept to a turbine, except instead of using the gas to spin something to create power, it is just static and its sole purpose is to slow the gas down.

    Now, we know from the aerospace industry that turbines are high-temperature items, and we’d expect an OSS suppressor – especially on a full auto platform – to also be a high temperature item. Certainly standard suppressors can get quite hot, as well. Now, in aerospace, the lifespan and durability of a turbojet or turboshaft engine is very closely related to its metallurgy: The more sophisticated and heat resistant the materials used, the longer the engine will last, all things being equal.

    So then, I am guessing what we’re seeing here isn’t an issue specific to the OSS design, but rather a metallurgical one. That makes sense, these tests were full auto torture tests where each cycle a set number of rounds were fired through the suppressor (although we don’t know how many). If OSS were using materials not as well-suited to thermal stresses such as those generated by the test, then their suppressor would fail earlier than another that did.

    Having said all that, great reporting Pete.

    • Pete – TFB Writer

      Thanks for the analysis. I appreciate it.

      All I really wanted to do was lay out the raw data as presented. There is only a limited amount of context and my analysis (guessing) might having taken away from the actual data.

      I’ll leave it to the big brains like Nathaniel to weigh in.

      • Patrick R. – Staff Writer

        Nice job Pete!

        • Pete – TFB Writer

          Thanks brother. Great support from Phil.

    • aka_mythos

      I think this largely a fluid flow thermodynamics problem. A conventional suppressor attempts to induces a laminar flow where the gas takes a delayed and greater travel distance in exiting. The OSS design induces turbulence to slow gas expansion and reduce the expanding pressure differential that generates a bang. Conservation of energy, a reduction in pressure from turbulent flow means an extreme heat dump in the form of turbulence induced internal friction into the components of the OSS suppressor. I think there is a strong likelihood that these are failing because they’re getting too hot under sustained fire conditions, softening materials to the point that operational pressures can cause material failure. It would be extremely telling to see IR images and temperature readings over the course of fire.

      • d_grey

        Based on the explanation you provided, I see more of a fluid dynamics problem than a largely thermodynamics one.

        • aka_mythos

          On the photographed components of the failed suppressor there is recognizable heat damage. In all likelihood it’s just a very localized spot that’s getting too hot but it is distinctly there. In a system like this it could be something as simple as the transition between two distinct tool cuts is to rough or uneven

          • d_grey

            That makes sense, but could the type of material used in the construction or a certain wrong angle in the shape also be a possible cause? I’m also trying to figure out what could be the possible reasons for the damage.

      • Mike Smith

        I’m no scientist or engineer, but OSS has made a big deal of the fact that their design doesn’t heat up as much as a conventional design. They have a video on their YouTube channel demonstrating that, and users who have measured the external temperature during use have reported that it’s much cooler after firing (as much as 2/3 less) than baffle designs. So simply based on that and the fact that many years and a lot of money has gone into developing and testing the design concept, I’m leaning more toward what Nathaniel said. This could have simply been an experiment with different materials that didn’t work out so well initially.

        • Jwedel1231

          Other commentors have stated that the external, octangonal sleeve actually slides over an internal sleeve that actually holds the pressure in. If this is the case, then the cooler operating temperatures would be due to the insulating effect of the two sleeves and the air between them, not because of their design. If it is simply insulation keeping the heat in, then that means the internals heat up faster and stay hot longer than on a traditional suppressor, putting the internals under a lot more stress than a traditional design.

    • Kevin Harron

      Agreed. This is the kind of article that got me reading TFB. 🙂 It’s always good to see reporting like this from TFB.

    • Kivaari

      Aren’t the turbine blades simply a costly and fancy marketing device to make it create turbulence, just like baffles of much simpler design and significantly less complex devices doing the same. Don’t all suppressors simply create turbulence to slow and cool gases using various volume containers appropriate to the cartridges escaping gas mass?

      • Mike Smith

        I’m no expert on any of this, I’ve just followed OSS closely for 4-5 years because I’m always interested in anything new and innovative. The way they explain it, the design is intended to provide a lengthy path for the gas to circulate before exiting. Whereas traditional baffle designs just trap the gas, this design gives it somewhere to go as it slows. The number that sticks in my mind is something like 40 inches–that’s the distance the gas travels before leaving the containment of the suppressor. Don’t quote me on that, though–if you’re interested you can find videos of them explaining it.

        The “it’s like a reverse turbine” comment supposedly came when Russ Oliver (founder of the company) was discussing his design with a group of PhD types and one of them said something like “what you’re doing is actually like a turbine in reverse.” Last I checked there’s still a video on the OSS YouTube channel of him telling the story. It wasn’t exactly his design concept when he started as much as an observation by somebody else.

  • Joshua

    The fact that the SF suppressor went 6 cycles on a 10.3″ CQB-R with M855A1 and no damage says it all.

    The fact that the OSS failed after 2 cycles on a 14.5″ M4A1 with M855A1 is just laughable.

  • Harry’s Holsters

    I really want to see the OSS do well. I like the idea of a suppressor with less blowback. I don’t enjoy centerfire as much due to the gas and fact most are still quite loud even if deemed hearing safe.

    • Pete – TFB Writer

      I do as well. Nobody wants any suppressor manufacturer to fail.

      There has to be honesty and integrity in the industry.

    • JumpIf NotZero

      There are NO rifle cans on supersonic semi-autos that are hearing safe.


      Look at the AT EAR measurements, not a single can does under 140db at ear.

      • Harry’s Holsters

        I believe that. I’ve never fired one that hasn’t made my ears hurt a little. I see some of the older people I know with bad hearing and I don’t want to suffer the same fate.

  • I can understand redacting the names of the tester for PERSEC reasons, but the test cycles are hardly OPSEC level of information.

    Knowing how the military thinks each cycle probably represents a combat load which considered to be a maximum 6-10 magazines. How can I guess that? Because almost all Army tests are done based on combat loads that is why you rarely see a carbine test with more than 300 rounds per a cycle. So redacting the test specifics is unneeded, the enemy isn’t going to learn anything new from it.

    • Pete – TFB Writer

      If someone can show me an open source link to the SOCOM Table listed in the image. I’ll redact the redaction. 🙂

      • Your choice. But consider this, how about you justify redacted something that isn’t classified? Tell me what an enemy is going to learn that isn’t already open source?

        Average combat loads are open sourced. The failure rate of the M4 is well documented in various studies in a variety of conditions. Basic tactics that full auto is only used in limited scenarios are open sourced.

        All that would be learned from releasing the slide with the test procedure unredacted is when the silencers would fail, which the enemy can already guess based on the average combat load. Which I am pegging at 1,200 rounds (960 for an 8 magazine cycle) for the OSS, and the Surefire made it through 6 cycles at 1,800 (1,440 for an 8 magazine cycle) rounds. And involved a mix of semiauto to full auto fire. Probably 2-3 magazines of semi for every full auto.

        • Pete – TFB Writer

          One, I wasn’t totally sure how open source the SOCOM testing standard is.

          Two, even if I can’t think of a reason why it’s worth redacting, maybe someone else has.

          Admittedly I was being overly conservative. Something that has a place when lives are at stake.

          • Consider this then. The military almost automatically classifies anything that can even remotely have real use to the enemy. Yet they felt the need not to classify this.

            And yes typically these test results are held close to the chest not because it is actually useful to the enemy instead because the companies involved wouldn’t want them released. Do you think OSS wants it out there that the can that they sent for this test was destroyed in less than 1,000 rounds of mixed semiauto and full auto fire? Nor do the companies want the exact tests that they passed out there because if their can fails before that it can be used in a lawsuit against them.

            This is similar to the shelf life tests (SLEP) that the DOD does on medicines. The results aren’t classified, but aren’t released for other reasons.

        • He doesn’t have to justify his reasons. He did explain it though which is enough.

          • And I disagree with the entire basis of his reasons. And I gave examples of how something not normally publicly released is done so not for OPSEC reasons, but because of the vendors involved not wanting the information out there.

            But since these two companies are in a spat the full details of the SOCOM test is appropriate to be released. I am willing to bet money that my WAG guesses of the firing is pretty damn close, within 10%. And I have no insider information, simply guessing based on previously publicly released firing schedules and what information that I gleaned from the slides.

        • Don

          I just posted a reply with a link describing what you are looking for, hopefully it won’t get blocked.

    • Sam

      I just made a similar comment before I saw yours… I’d be interested in what these cycles are, for sure.

      • Pete – TFB Writer

        I have a very similar test I’m using in a post on “destructive” testing later in the week. From a manufacturer.

    • GPSrulz

      Technically, it’s FOUO and should have never left government controls in the first place.

  • There seem to be a lot of people who are surprised by the concept of prototypes failing during reliability testing.

    • oldman

      I thought to whole concept behind prototyping and test to destruction was to find the failure points and flaws in the design and then modify to fix the issues.

      • …SORT OF THING.

      • CommonSense23

        So OSS couldn’t run these test themselves? It doesn’t speak much about the company if they can’t find out something as simple as this themselves.

        • The point of these tests seems to have been evaluating a new product in a “worst case scenario” under combat conditions; it’s not at all unreasonable to think that OSS had only tested it previously under conditions likely to be experienced by a civilian shooter who has quite a bit more personal investment tied up in an expensive and heavily regulated piece of equipment, and would therefore be less likely to shoot it until it meltsplodes.

          I don’t actually disagree, I personally would have run the sucker like a rented jalopy until the engraving melted off the sides before submitting it for gummint testing, but when you’re evaluating a prototype– which comes with the implication that changes will be made to the finished product based on the results of those tests– this isn’t really an unreasonable outcome.

          • oldman

            Why do it your self if the government is willing to pick up the cost for you? Running these tests can be costly even in bulk the cost of ammo can be rather high.

        • n0truscotsman

          You would think with the amount of fecal matter they’ve slung across the boards and the calling out of a well-established and respected brand (Surefire), they would have *made sure* for the sake of their credibility.

          I guess not.

        • JumpIf NotZero

          Exactly… It’s like this….

          OSS’s primary defense is “Well, our old product sucked, but we fixed it, and now it works!”

          … Which is AT BEST making them look like jokes. They didn’t know and couldn’t test that their product worked before they started selling them?

          Only NOW does the product not fail under a little stress? Because NOW they’ve tested it and AGAIN they say it’s a good product? Well, sign me up!

          • Mike Smith

            Dude, you missed some critical information in this story. This was a PROTOTYPE that failed. The product that did better in the later test was still a prototype. Nowhere did they say this was a product they are selling. Nowhere is there any indication that the products they have been selling have these issues. I have never heard them indicate there were problems with previous generations of released products which were addressed with future generations. A company coming out with the next iteration of a product line does not automatically mean the previous iteration was substantially inferior… it’s called continuous improvement.

          • JumpIf NotZero

            This test is AFTER they shipped “production” products.

            If anything, their prototype that failed was likely STRONGER than their production units.

            Unless you’re trying to make the argument that OSS shipped a product, then submitted a weaker prototype to be subjected to their idea of Socom testing…

          • Mike Smith

            Nothing personal but you don’t seem to be up to speed on OSS so maybe you should do a little more research before pontificating. They were shipping their current generation of products long before this test was done. They stated this was a prototype. It’s likely they were experimenting with efforts to reduce weight on the next generation of products and it didn’t go so well initially. That’s my speculation based on things that were said by the founder when he left earlier this year.

            We simply know nothing about this test beyond what has been stated in the various statements by OSS. You are making assumptions that go far beyond what is reasonable. If the shipped products had these kind of issues do you really think H&K would be an OEM partner with them for the last several years?

          • JumpIf NotZero

            HK USA. Not HK ghmb.

            You know, the HK that’s bankrupt and for sale.

  • CommonSense23

    Bring back the KAC cans!

    • The_manBEar


    • Joshua

      mmmm Inconel.

  • Badwolf

    Fight fight fight! Competition is good, esp for consumers.

  • Bill

    Do people parse pickup truck commercials to this extent?

  • Mike Smith

    I don’t understand why anybody would think this is significant. If you know the backstory it’s perfectly reasonable. When Russ Oliver left OSS, he said something publicly about how the people in charge wanted to focus on weight over everything else and he disagreed, leading to his departure. This wasn’t a Gen 4 or Gen 5 that was tested and failed–this was a prototype. Reading between the lines, it sounds to me like the prototype was an attempt to reduce weight which didn’t work out so well. They took it back to the lab and did some more work on it, and re-tested with better results.

    I haven’t seen any indication that this test and those photos have any relevance to products currently for sale to civilians or other buyers. Why was this test even conducted? What was the purpose? What happened when the test was done? Was it part of the process of awarding a contract? Was it just basic collaboration between private and government parties working on future tech? Answers to those questions would help us Internet keyboard warriors understand a bit better how to interpret the images.

    Yeah, you would hope a manufacturer wouldn’t submit their product to a test without running the test themselves first, but regardless the failure of a prototype means nothing to me as a potential consumer of the product. Now, if a Gen 5 was run through this same test and similar things happened then we’d have a very different situation. To my knowledge there has been no indication of such problems with products in circulation so far.

    • Pete – TFB Writer

      It’s simply disingenuous to ‘call out’ a market leader based on an in-house test when your product failed a similar, yet independent test.

      • Mike Smith

        Except… there’s nothing disingenuous if the product that failed the test isn’t the same product that performed well in the test the second time around… or are you questioning OSS’s claim that the two tests were essentially performed identically? You saw the unredacted test specs and you have the opportunity to see the unedited video of the second test–you should be able to answer that question for all of us.

        • JumpIf NotZero

          Yea… So how many OSS suppressors did you buy anyhow?

          • John Sheats

            4 all in process… couldn’t resist the amazing prices on Gen 4 closeouts.

            Why do you ask?

          • Pete – TFB Writer

            Multiple Disqus accounts makes your answers suspicious.

          • Mike Smith

            I don’t have multiple accounts–I don’t even have an account at all. Are you aware there’s an option for commenting that doesn’t require a login? I usually try to post under the same name for continuity but forgot on that last comment. If you’d like you can delete it so there’s no confusion.

    • Franklin

      Hmm…well since those are the same cans as gen5 up until the Jan test I would be curious if OSS is recalling all cans made prior to the Jan test….

      • Mike Smith

        How do you know they are the same as Gen 5? The company says they were prototypes–there’s no reason a next-gen prototype couldn’t look like a Gen 5. Do you have any indication they are lying?

  • PK

    “At least in intelligence there isn’t an “Overall Classification” and .ppt slides wouldn’t have it on both the header and footer.”

    I’m staring at an unclass presentation with header and footer both marked as such. Straight from DTIC.

    • Bill

      Ok, maybe my instructor was wrong. It wouldn’t have been the first contradictory, or ultimately inane, thing I learned in the training program.

  • Burnt toast

    If you work in intel, please quit your job.

  • n0truscotsman

    Question for those that know: Isn’t OSS the company that produces the new silencer for the CSASS? or was that a seperate purchase from the CSASS contract?

    • Mike Smith

      From what I’ve seen, it’s assumed that they were part of the package H&K submitted, but I haven’t seen a clear announcement confirming that. OSS has had a relationship with H&K for a long time–the story from the sales guy I heard a few years ago was that H&K was testing and evaluating the product for 2 years before they made it part of a package offering of their MR556SD and MR762SD.

    • Joshua

      Yes, but most likely it won’t be the final suppressor. Just like HK backwards keymod likely wont be the final mounting solution.

  • This seems like one of those issues where everything should be handled by a 3rd party lab like HP White or similar.

  • mazkact

    Provided that one is not making end users a blind Beta testing group, during R&D failure is always an option .

  • Sam

    Why can’t we see round count and cycle count in the second image? I’d think that’s pretty important, but not any kind of sensitive information. I’d be interested to see what these cans went through.

    • Pete – TFB Writer

      I’m considering it. I want to make sure that it is not proprietary information first. Thanks.

  • Patrick M.

    There’s no way those photos didn’t come from SureFire right?

    • JumpIf NotZero

      It’s FAR more likely they came from the ousted OSS founder than SF.

    • Joshua

      Doesn’t matter who they came from. They’re still official.

  • Kivaari

    I simply do not understand why OSS would submit a product for testing that they SHOULD HAVE KNOWN would fail. It should not show up in the DOD testing, considering the parameters were known in advance. I am always surprised and disappointed when a manufacturer of firearms gear submits products, whether to DOD or SHOT Show or customers that fail, sometimes instantly. A sign of poor internal controls. Charter Arms always comes to mind.

  • Kivaari

    Perhaps all we need is a one or two liter soda bottle made out of high temp alloys and get away from all the turbines. I look at most of the very effective suppressors on the market, and if anything, they have become less complex. It strikes me that the biggest failure in the suppressor field is making a solid mount that wont let the can launch like a rifle grenade or droop and take a round for God and Country.

  • Just a Guy

    Wonder why no one other than Randy the marketing guy(was an intern till Jan) is the guy answering questions? Where is Estadt, and his lackey Dennis…Oh thats right neither one of them knows anything about suppressors, in fact, Estadt told a vendor that he knew nothing about suppressors…then why would the leadership put them in sales? Inquiring minds would like to know? OSS seemed like great technology, but it appears poor management and lack of honesty with the industry and public is its un-doing.

  • Not the same test I don’t believe and the video isn’t on that post.

  • There’s a bit more to it than that. There area ton of different reasons for using FOUO. Not all are to keep it out of public hands.

  • JumpIf NotZero

    I like around 3:20 when he’s firing directly into tire bits and then sticks his face near the muzzle.

    30psi blowback vs 300psi…. B U L L S H I T

  • jp2336

    1: It was an earlier OSS protype where overall weight was a design factor. Since corrected to meet and exceed testing.

    B: Surefire IS the largest suppressor competitor, and does this have a hint of marketing thrown in for strategic flavor. Absolutely. But rightfully so.

    And: Technology drives competition, OSS has shown innovation beats older, rarely changed and Surefire (and everyone else in said industry) have every reason to be concerned. Mark my words, watch for similar designs and copies in the future. Then it will become a price war as well.

    Haters gonna hate, professionals keep working to make a better product.