B5 Systems

SureFire Responds To Competitor Suppressor Video

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 osssuppressors.com at the bottom of the landing page.


80 Responses to “SureFire Responds To Competitor Suppressor Video”

  1. jbgleason says:

    Definitely some marketing mojo going on in that video as they try to make it appear the “test” is run by and at a government agency and not in their shop. Reminds me of medical studies funded and run by doctors who invented the medical device being studied. No surprise the device always seems to work.

  2. Chuck says:

    So how about the video of Surefire’s suppressor outperforming the OSS suppressor? Not saying it doesn’t, but Surefire has done their fair share of marketing magic as well.

  3. #hashtag says:


  4. Alex says:

    They say DD MK18 but is it with the military spec CQBR gas port size or commercial spec gas port size? What buffer is being run in the rifle?

    The commercial spec ports on the DD MK18 uppers are large for reliability with cheap .223 ammo that civs can expect to shoot out of the rifle but that means more blow-back with a suppressor.

    • Chuck says:

      Really good point. Let’s get some standards for these tests.

      • SSD says:

        There are standards. There is a standard for one agency that was used in this demonstration for this program, there is a USSOCOM standard and there is a new different standard for SURG.

        I don’t believe any of the standards are open source so I am not going to share them here.

        • Chuck says:

          So, hopefully buffer weight and gas port size are covered in the standards. Thank you for the follow up.

  5. Slow Joe Crow says:

    Except I know one of the observers of the test personally. The new SOCOM test is brutal. To be clear the “agency” in reference is not SOCOM, but the testing agency is simply using SOCOMs latest combat reliability test.

    To insiders it is a known fact, OSS passed the “agency” test, and surefire did not. Same is true for what happened with CSASS. Surefire can failed, OSS won the contract (with hk).

    You won’t see surefire release a video conducting the test because they won’t pass, and they know it.

    • Stephen says:

      Well I’ve heard the internals off OSS suppressors flying 100 yards forward due to bad threads on the housing. Surefire is a fully welded can that is not user serviceable thus decreasing the likelihood of a failure, there mounts are still my favorite out of ’em all. I’m not a fanboy, but their badassery speaks for itself.

      • 50bmgGuy says:

        Not to get picky, but EVERY can has been known to fly 100 yards down range when enough heat and pressure build up. Surefire is no different. 1 incident doesn’t speak for an entire product line or manufacturer. Unless this is happening all the time, and there are numerous reports of it.

        OSS hasn’t been around long enough to make any claims about their suppressors. In fact, to those who have them, they speak only good about them. Which isn’t surprising because everyone likes to speak highly of their investments, including those who bought surefire…

        • BillC says:

          ^^This guy gets it. I don’t have a dog in the fight. While a suppressor owner, I don’t have either. I have heard both great and bad things about both, but just though shit talking on forums. It amazes me how much these two brands can chum the waters since the vast majority of people and suppressor owners have neither of these products, but want to have an emotional stake in it.

    • Jamie Wiedeman says:


      I know exactly who you are. Should I post your real name here? Funny how the real units using the SureFire 762 and 556 for a decade, including NATO countries have no problems. Next time I see you I will have a word with you that is long over due, you and your friend. You should be ashamed of yourselves for the way you operate. I suggest you get an education about weapons and suppressors, becuase talking with you it’s obvious you have some learning to do, but that doesn’t suit your agenda. Give me a call, you know my number.

      I am proud of the work I do everyday to support the warfighters. We work hard to make soldiers safer and more effective. I have nothing to hide, and SureFire has nothing to hide. Our products perform everywhere except in YouTube videos done by our competition. Pick up the phone, I’m sick of turning the other cheek and letting guys like you off the hook.

      Jamie Wiedeman
      VP Military Division
      SureFire, LLC

      • jbgleason says:

        And Boom.

      • Arrow 4 says:

        I have worked with SureFire suppressors for the last 7+ years. I have personally shot SureFire suppressors that had over 100,000 rounds through them and have never seen a bad suppressor come out of SureFire’s shop. I put my complete faith and trust in them, period.

        • 50bmgGuy says:

          I hate comments like this… Dude, ALL CANS FAIL.. even yours. Enough heat and pressure will kill all suppressors.

          Look… proof:


          • G8 fanboy says:

            Of course all suppressors fail if you push them past their designed requirement. I didn’t need to see whatever the hell that redneck bullshit video was to know this because one of us in this conversation is a school trained combat developer who has worked weapons and suppressor programs while assigned to USASOC G8 and one has not.

            Continuing to repeat that all cans fail has nothing to do with meeting established protocols and independent 3rd party testing.

            All guns fail
            On a long enough timeline everyone’s life expectancy is zero
            If the queen had a dick, she would be the king…

            A proper suppressor design is one where random production suppressors can be pulled by the US GOVERNMENT, sent to Crane or a contracted third party test facility and successfully pass the USG’s test protocol. One of these companies has a record of random lot acceptance testing successes, one does not at this point.

            • BillC says:

              Woah, relax. I don’t he was stating anything to the contrary. You just extrapolated for the benefit of a tirade. He never said all cans fail within a design envelope, he simply said all cans fail, Mr. School Trained Combat Developer.

          • Arrow 4 says:

            50bmgGuy – Read what I said….”I have never seen a bad suppressor come out of SureFire’s shop” – I never said SureFire cans are incapable of failure. I have been around hundreds if not thousands of SureFire suppressors…I am only reporting my personal observations.

        • Steve says:

          The same could probably be said about the Knight’s cans that came before the SureFire contract…

          I’ve got both the NT4-QDSS and SOCOM556-RC and frankly, I still prefer everything about the NT4 with only a slight edge going to the SF can in the QD mechanism. It might be a dB or two louder when measured with a meter, but the tone of the NT4 is just infinitely more tolerable.

          My biggest complaint about SureFire (suppressors) is the frequent revamping of QD systems – I’ve probably spent over $600 on muzzle brakes and flash hiders across 3+ platforms only to have the corresponding suppressor go discontinued before I managed to scrape enough cash together to purchase it. AAC is no better in this department aside from a marginally lower price tag on the cans.

          As curious as I’ve been about the OSS cans, I just don’t see myself ever buying one.

      • JMar says:

        Where’s the “Like” button?

      • Cov says:

        I appreciate Surefire and thier products, but I think personally directed threats of posting information and slinging nicely worded insults is probably not the professional response I would expect.

        • Go to a safe place and have a good cry and get it out of your system. I admire the fact that somebody is standing up to the anonymous Internet expurts.

      • Microphone drop….

      • Mike Smith says:

        I talked to a guy who said he was on the original selection committee for the SOCOM suppressor contract. Full disclosure, he was also working in sales for OSS at the time. He told me that AAC would have won that competition but somebody at AAC screwed up and didn’t have the right parts on hand or something like that so they got disqualified on a technicality. He says AAC did a lot better than Surefire in that competition. Is that true? If it were true, would you admit it or would you just keep riding the gravy train of that SOCOM contract as long as you can?

        • SSD says:


          When a company submits without all of the required items, they aren’t even evaluated. The government stops right there.

          Take for example Orion Design Group during the US Army Phase IV Camo solicitation. They didn’t submit the right digital file formats. They weren’t even evaluated.

          Likewise, Robinson Arms during SCAR. They forgot to send an accessory required to be submitted with the rifles. They weren’t considered. It’s not uncommon.


          • Jose Gordon says:

            One little important piece of information…more like an important question…”I talked to a guy who said he was on the original selection committee for the SOCOM suppressor contract. Full disclosure, he was also working in sales for OSS at the time.” How can that be??? You can’t work for a vendor and be on a giver meant Source Selection Board (SSB). THATS ILLEGAL!!! Am I missing something here?

            • Jose Gordon says:

              God damn spell-fucking-check!!! I meant a government source selection board (SSB)

            • Mike Smith says:

              Sorry if my language wasn’t clear. OSS (at least in the original form before the recent breakup) had a lot of former military working there, including a lot of elite guys who spent time in special ops units. I was talking to the guy after he retired and went to work for OSS–at that time he was traveling the US in their RV doing sales events at dealer locations. He was a guy who spent time in special ops and sat on the selection board while he was active duty. (also, to be clear–it’s been a few years so I can’t remember if it was him or somebody else at OSS we were talking about, but the story wasn’t just an Internet rumor, it was pretty close to 1st hand)

              • Jamie Wiedeman says:

                That was Johnny Primiano.

                • Mike Smith says:

                  The story may have come from Johnny–20 seconds of googling turned up a story that says “A year and a half of his enlisted time was spent as senior selection board member in charge of writing the current requirements for SOCOMs suppressor and muzzle device programs”.

                  I don’t think that was the guy I was talking to–this guy was short and jacked and looked either hispanic or maybe asian.

          • Mike Smith says:

            Eric–just to be clear, the story was not that AAC never competed. They did compete and were doing much better than Surefire until they got to the point where the parts were missing and that disqualified them. The OSS rep I was talking to said that there was no question that if he were going to buy something other than OSS it would be AAC. Of course, that was several years ago and the market has changed a lot since then, but the point was that Surefire probably doesn’t deserve the image they gained when they won the SOCOM competition.

            I found the same story repeated here by user rockingsince1984:


            • SSD says:

              So, the government lost the parts?

              • Mike Smith says:

                I wasn’t there, I don’t know anything about what the competition involved, but here’s what the guy on that reddit page I linked to said:

                “SOCOM only awarded the silencer contract to Surefire because during the MK18 evolution of the testing AAC did not send over the right flash hiders (the MK18 needs an extended FH to clear the handguard), and they were unable to test the M4-2000 and failed that evolution, and the contract was awarded to Surefire even though the AAC can was more durable on every platform they ran it on”

                I understand your point about how if the submission is incomplete the applicant is dq-ed before it starts. Maybe they didn’t realize they had the wrong part in hand until they got to that point in the process? I dunno… should be an easy story to verify for anybody who’s on the inside in that world.

      • Marcus says:


        That is all.

    • Franklin says:

      CsASS you speak of…is that the Gen4 OSS can or the Gen5 that doesn’t make weight, or DB reduction, and is requiring HK to go with a traditional flush mount version versus the tested and approved over the barrel….hmmm that’s a major change in my book, why was it needed?
      I’m no fan of the choking gas from the Surefire can, and I personally like the technology advancements from the OSS, but I’m guessing the human factor at OSS is lacking…#rejectedbylupy

  6. orbits says:

    Well let’s see video released because pain is good mumble mumble mumble…pipeline mumble mumble….
    I’m sure the experienced and highly knowledgable staff at OSS (most senior guy has only been there since March) will be along shortly to answer this…or wait no, just the marketing intern will answer any questions.
    But hey if you need answers on optics call OSS…

  7. Nucky says:

    Why is ssd posting surefires bullshit response. If they have a video to prove there claim i wanna see it. Hopefully oss contines to embarass them

    • jbgleason says:

      SSD is around for exactly this reason. Not the drama but the inside industry scoop and developments. The only bullshit here is your inane comment.

  8. vereceleritas says:

    After watching the video a couple of times, it looks like they start doing full auto firing with the Surefire as soon as the third cycle. We don’t see full auto firing through the OSS until the twelfth and final cycle, where the suppressor gets glowing hot as you would expect. There’s no way to be certain without seeing an uncut video of the tests or seeing an actual test procedure, but it looks a little fishy to me.

    And as someone else has already pointed out. A Daniel Defense MK18 is not mil-spec. They’re known to have oversized gas ports.

    • Lee says:

      I noticed the exact same thing. Full auto of the OSS wasn’t shown until later cycles and even then, only briefly.

    • Jeremy says:

      Definitely stuck out to me as well. Until they release full videos of the entire test, I’m going to mark this down as marketing schlock.

    • Mike Smith says:

      Could just be the way the edited the footage together–they weren’t trying to prove the legitimacy of the test, they were trying to make a good marketing video.

      They’ve since posted the unedited video for anybody who wants to watch it–hopefully SSD will link to that and their response to SureFire.

  9. Patrick Bateman says:

    Isn’t OSS the one with some fairly recent troubles where many of the employees left with the former owner? On the surface, it smells of desperation.

    • 50bmgGuy says:

      Not so much, company founders always struggle when their “baby” grows and gets bigger and they are less important. OSS’s case was no different. Dude quit, and the company is likely doing better without him as most companies do.


      This is one example of the problem. Research courses required for MBA degrees, and you’ll find there are chapters and sections on this topic.

      Founders can be known to struggle deeply when they loose control of everything.

      • Don Duffer says:

        They became owned by a larger fish who wanted to make changes with the company and its product. Leader didn’t agree and his employees who grew it to what it was also didn’t agree and followed their leader. And now that bigger fish rebranded them and makes videos like this so I’d say they made the right call.

        I stand by those who left and respect their integrity.

  10. Ryan Hey says:

    Basically OSS pulled a JJFU. Cool.

  11. Ground Pounder says:

    LOAD NOISES! Pun intended

  12. Chuck Steak says:

    Interesting how no one has noticed the OSS bulged at the end of the video. Because that never happens with their design….

    • 50bmgGuy says:

      Not sure its a bulge, often camera lenses have a difficult time with red hot or other glowing surfaces.

      Watch other cans on youtube get red hot, and you’ll think they are bulging often, only to find out after they cool down that they didn’t bulge.

      Only stating that there isn’t any good evidence in the video to conclude the OSS can bulged.

  13. Den says:

    The OSS video is clearly manipulative. Official looking documentation, “US Gov’t Test”, giving a date of the test, testers wearing lab coats, using language like “controlled test environment”, etc. The lengths they went to make this look official and objective are laughable.

    Too bad they seem to show the same super secret controlled test environment in another video of theirs (“Founder Russ Oliver on tech, OSS mission and demos Flow-Through suppressor”, 3:16 mark).

  14. Chris Citidel Grad says:

    Bulge? Have to go back and check, didn’t see that in the first viewing. Any chance it’s angle thing? I did like how the cans glowed orange…scopes have bulges and still work, I know that’s all I ever have done.

  15. Rob says:

    Anyone know a technical reason the video producers switched from color to black and white at 2:40? There are also no color shots showing the OSS can after a FA string of fire. Might be artistic reasons, but it seems odd.

  16. EODe says:

    What an interesting set of responses, man. Wow. Can’t say we gun (and suppressor) owners are not of opinions. I can’t imagine what the new service hand gun commentary will be.
    There just has to be a way to both arrange and execute a test schedule that’s non-bias. As sensitive as this subject is, it’s going to leave a lot of folks sore if it isn’t.
    The probability that the delivery systems is part of the testing grief can’t be minor. Was this rifle designed to be put under these conditions when it was fielded? Is the rifle in essence “can friendly” to a margin of acceptability? Backwards compatibility is in itself a science, as noted by the previous comment to adapters. Didn’t help much if the critical linkage is sub-optimum.

  17. Jose Gordon says:

    To slow joe crow (I think that’s the handle joe used). Let’s be clear…there is no ESTABLISHED firing protocol. We’ve argued this for years. There is a proposed one in review that is not brutal but realistic which is being reviewed. I was at the CDR with you last July and personally witnessed the OSS not perform as advertised. My Unit fielded the SF FA 556k in February/March of 2010 after a competition and down select of 12 offerings. We eliminated the OSS during our market survey early on because we saw it as a panacea not a real prospect. We’ve since then updated to the SOCOM FA556. We have had ZERO failures and our guys shoot a lot. I personally have never taken my M4A1 out of the arms room without drawing my 556k and have been using it on my gun every time I go out and shoot or deploy and have had no failures at all. So, I’m here to say that suppressor technology is what it is the same as external ballistics has no magic to it. We’ve know this since Maxim built the first suppressor. OSS has led people down this primrose path for years that they have solved everything with Suppressors from back pressure to mirage mitigation (with their octaganol shaping which is utter bullshit). I personally think it’s too complicated and not very open to operator every day use which is why I think that suppressor won’t be fielded to people who know. I taught a Supressor class to the Danish Army last week and learned they are also moving away from the OSS because of the “reverse” advertising – and that’s the Danes for Gods sake…they know as much about guns as I know about brain surgery. Remember, Picatinney PM-SW fielded the OSS on the CSASS and they also picked the 417 which your requirement mates on this coast are going away from and are competing it as we speak. So let’s not give PEO-S and MCOE any props for fielding a bad product…

    • Kevin Boland says:

      Come on Joser, what do you know 😉

    • EagleEastcoast says:

      Jose lays it out about right but not exactly….the current gen of suppressor from OSS does solve the back pressure issue associated with all traditional suppressors, this can be confirmed with and of several LE Agencies that have apogee it in the last year. The mirage aspect he calls BS on is legit, heat and physics win that one..(mini-blind works?) The 2010 version, and csass version are not what is on the market currently, many good changes have occurred since then. Has the OSS product failed, yes it has, when it was first tested as in an ultralight version against the new standard test firing cycle which has been published it failed, the one in the video was built to meet the firing cycle specs and passed. Now with all that said, it’s another product in a sea of other companies products…test one for yourself or find someone at an agency that has adopted it that can discuss their testing and their experiences with it…

  18. Chris says:

    There was a test cycle that the “agency” required both surefire and OSS to run. It was somthing like 2 mags on semi, 1 mag dump, and so on. The video is just bad editing. The agency was ASW. The surefire did fail horribly and the OSS passed with flying colors. The test was ran in an official capacity but OSS was not at liberty to use that footage, so they replicated it with same results. OSS is hurting now anyway and it’s sad because they make a good can. It can seem complicated at times with the two piece setup but the gen 5s are spot on. This seems like surefire is just butt hurt because OSS is the new kid taking the “established” .gov contracts from them……..

    • SSD says:


      • Chris says:

        Autocorrect sorry…..AWG

        • SSD says:

          Then no, it wasn’t for AWG

          • Jose Gordon says:

            Chris…I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m in AWG and I’m that guy…we didn’t test OSS. We eliminated the OSS during our market survey and our Analysis Of Altermatives (AOA). So the short answer is we – AWG – DID NOT test an OSS suppressor…I have, however, in my capacity witnessed tests as a technical expert involving OSS and personally watched it not perform as advertised…unfortunately PM-SW did not consult with us (they very rarely do) on our expertise with suppressors. That’s a programmatic decision not my units control. Had PM-SW consulted with us, we would have given our operational observations to ratify our down select and SSB.

            • Chris says:

              This coming from someone who got pushed out of the shooter world and into the T&E world…..hmmmmm. Oss also tested 300 blackout setups with AWG and they fell in love with them.

              • Jose Gordon says:

                Chris…What are you talking about????? We’ve never tested OSS…I got “pushed out of the shooter and into the T&E world”? I’m not in the T&E world. Again…what in the name of great Oden’s Raven are you blabbering about ????? My name is out on this blog…put yours (in full on here) or else I’ll consider you a lier and a coward!!!!!

  19. Chris says:

    The test rifle was what ASW requested it to be……

  20. Dan says:

    I went through three bags of popcorn reading all this.

  21. Ed Hickey says:

    I have one AR suppressor and it’s a Surefire 556RC.

  22. Here is what garners my attention and respect.

    Put out a product, market it well, explain to me how good a product it is, why I should want it, why it is a good value. That gets my attention and respect.

    Here is what does not get my attention and respect:

    Put out a product then run around tearing down a competitor’s product based on your own internal and subjective testing.

  23. Kevp says:

    All this drama over what? Videos of actual independent Government testing aren’t provided to vendors to post on the Internet. Vendors aren’t allowed to observe tests except in certain circumstances. They definitely aren’t allowed to observe other vendors’ products undergoing test. Lots of the people commenting need to know what they’re talking about before chiming in with “knowledge.”