FirstSpear TV

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 current 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 hereNote: we’ve removed the link to the dropbox due to PERSEC concerns of images of government personnel attending the event and caught on film.


    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.”

    For more information visit

    This OSS press release is in response to a press release earlier this week by SureFire.


    13 Responses to “OSS Video Of US Govt. Agency Torture Test – Part 2”

    1. Non-Operator says:

      Oh boy, here we go. Does the agency’s test protocol require a control group of another rifle without a suppressor for the weapon malfunction comparison or no?

      • jbgleason says:

        Don’t even start trying to apply scientific principles to this “test” because it isn’t one. No matter how many times they say “A Government Agency” and “SOCOM”. SSD did a piece a couple of years back about this very thing. Maybe Eric should reprint that in light of this fiasco.

        As far as OSS and SF go, your Marketing folks need to step back from the keyboard and really take a look at how this quibbling reflects on your brands. I did dig Jamie’s rant though but only because I have met him and know it wasn’t idle chat. He really intends to take that other guy aside and have a talk.

    2. vereceleritas says:

      I don’t see this as a legitimate test at all. It’s a promotional and marketing video or, at most, a manufacturer’s product demo. There’s just too many red flags here.

      The manufacturer is allowed to administer the test on their own product, with their own personnel, at their own facility?

      The manufacturer was asked to purchase a competitor’s product out of pocket for comparison? The competitor wasn’t notified their product was being “evaluated”?

      A commercial spec MK18 was used instead of a government MK18.

      One firearm was used for both suppressors. And only one of each suppressor was tested.

      If this was just a marketing video, I wouldn’t have any problem with it but trying to make this seem like an actual test and vaguely mentioning an “agency” in an attempt to give it legitimacy is just silly. If this is the length they go to for publicity, it’s no wonder the founder of the company had a falling out and left.

    3. BillC says:

      “Test”, it was seems to be a pure and simple a demonstration for the purpose of advertising.

    4. Justsomedude says:

      Dear OSS,

      At some point you need to learn and listen. One way to get the SOF community to not support a product is to bash current pieces of kit that are fielded. Especially when it is one used by the top echelons of the SOF community, chosen by trail and choice. Also no one really cares…well maybe airsofters, internet pontificators, and support guys…whether or not your product is a jet engine in Reverse, the gas travels 26.noonecares feet before it exits, or that it doesnt baffle you. Does it work? Does it make me more lethal? Will it last? Thats really all we care about. Quit being douche. You seem to have a innovative product, its a shame its all getting washed away because of asshattery on your part.

      – the SOF community.

    5. AlBloch says:

      I hoped it wouldn’t come to this, but the only solution I see is for OSS to send me 3 cans, surefire to send me 3, Daniel defense to ship me at least 3 mk18s and someone to send me at least 20000rnds of at least 3 different types of ammo and I will spend the time to do a truly objective 3rd party test.
      The sacrifices I’m willing to make for good science…

      • If a test cannot be repeated, it’s worthless. Clearly I’ll need all of the above as well, along with camera equipment necessary to film it in HD at 20,000FPS

    6. Stevefromutah says:

      Kind of think this is all moot because from what I’ve heard from couple former employees OSS will be closed by beginning of 3rd quarter

    7. Somebody who watches Mythbusters could have put together a more objective and scientific test.

      Add this to huge shakeup OSS had and I really begin to wonder what their future is.

    8. mud says:


    9. Jose Gordon says:

      Although this is a great press release, it does list a few discrepcies that need to be corrected. I hate to geek out on programmatic shit (which isn’t my lane in the first place) but we need to stop this back and forth ridiculousness surrounding a little information that has a foundation of truth but might have been stretched a little to achieve an agenda. A couple of corrections…the agency in question isn’t a “government test agency”. Although it is a very successful and effective government agency, that moniker only applies to those government agencies who have the warrant to conduct mandated T&E and then provide a “peer reviewable” report that is then accepted by the government acquisition authority. The other thing is, the agency in question isn’t responsible for acquiring the next generation of signature reduction systems. That responsibility lies directly with the appropriate acquisition executive (for SOCOM that would be NSWC-C or Big Army/USMC it would be PEO-S/MARSYSCOM). The agency in question is a provider of limited proof of concept programs which sometimes evolve into Programs of Record. This “limited assessment” was done to support that program…

    10. Stumpfenhammer says:

      So much lame in one video, especially if you have at least a passing knowledge of test design and implementation:

      How is 1440 consecutive rounds in what appears to be a combination of rapid and full auto fire a realistic duplication of a worst case firing schedule for an M4? Answer: It’s not, and if it’s not for the host platform, it isn’t an appropriate standard for the suppressor either. But it is the kind of superfluous requirement a non-engineer pogue would draw up. The kind that adds time and cost to programs without a tangible benefit to the end user, the kind that keeps some manufacturers from bothering to compete, also to the detriment of the end user.

      But let’s say the OSS can does outperform the SOCOM in some parameters. The next questions to ask are….do those parameters matter and to what degree, and if so, what is the additional cost relative to any gains. I’ve examined an OSS can and it looked like it would require significantly more machine time to manufacture compared to a baffle can. More cycle time = more cost.

      That vid makes OSS look desperate. I do think it was stroke of genius to bring a 70’s porn director out of retirement to direct it though.