Anyone have any real hands-on experience with both? I have seen some rather bold statements as to one being far superior, in light of Sig's recent announcement about their new low-pressure cans.
I was just reading on Sig's site, about the SLX. I could be wrong, but I think the thermal image they use is laughable. It compares the ejection port emissions of their new can to a "conventional" one. Funny thing is, it appears the SLX is on a MCX (piston), and other image is of a DI. WTF.
I pointed it out to a friend, and he went so far as to message Sig about it. We'll see if they respond.
Sig has posted replies to questions about these silencers that were asked after my friend inquired about the integrity of their thermal image. That more-or-less confirms the suspicion that it is disingenuous. Why not post a picture of both cans on the same gun? MCX or DI would be fine, so long as it's the same.
I can't speak to the other two, but I've been happy with my OSS cans so far.
I have one 762ti mounted to an AR15, and a .22 RAD can that gets moved between a bolt gun and an M&P15-22. They've seen about five hundred rounds each. The former set up in a Sentinel Concepts class this last spring.
Zero complaints. I believe they do what they claim regarding reduced blow back. The bolts seem to cycle normally and I get no noticeable crap to the face when shooting left shoulder.
I ain't qualified to claim it's the end all, be all, but I would purchase it again.
I have an OSS as well, and I think low back pressure designs are important. I have also been curious lately about Surefire silencers, as they may actually have low back pressure properties as well, according to some things I have read. I should receive a Larue SURG kit sometime early next year, which will be interesting to compare to other low-pressure designs as well. I have been pleased with my OSS so far. I have admittedly not put too many rounds through it, but it is almost immediately apparent that it does work as advertised.
|Powered by Social Strata|