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.

Edit: With the advent of the B&T RBS in the US, I have changed the tone of this thread to one that considers low-backpressure cans in general.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

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.

TFB posted an article about the B&T RBS silencer. Their "test" subjects it to 1000 rounds of belt fed fire on a MK46 5.56 machine gun. Considering the performance I have seen from my OSS silencer, low pressure designs interest me, and B&T makes it that much more appealing, considering their Swiss origin. I do take issue with one part of the article, and am curious what others think. The second-to-last image supposedly shows the blast baffle; I don't think it actually is the blast baffle. It seems far to close to the rear of the silencer, to be the blast baffle. I know that a flash hider on a M249 snugs against the face of the barrel, and that's the surface I think is being touted as a blast baffle, in the TFB article image. This is largely based on my depth perception of the photo they include in the article, which I know can be tricky. What do others think?

https://www.thefirearmblog.com...cer-saturday-bt-rbs/

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
TFB posted an article about the B&T RBS silencer. Their "test" subjects it to 1000 rounds of belt fed fire on a MK46 5.56 machine gun. Considering the performance I have seen from my OSS silencer, low pressure designs interest me, and B&T makes it that much more appealing, considering their Swiss origin. I do take issue with one part of the article, and am curious what others think. The second-to-last image supposedly shows the blast baffle; I don't think it actually is the blast baffle. It seems far to close to the rear of the silencer, to be the blast baffle. I know that a flash hider on a M249 snugs against the face of the barrel, and that's the surface I think is being touted as a blast baffle, in the TFB article image. This is largely based on my depth perception of the photo they include in the article, which I know can be tricky. What do others think?

https://www.thefirearmblog.com...cer-saturday-bt-rbs/

That’s clearly the first baffle inside of the can, which is the blast baffle. What else could it be? Most cans only need a tenth of an inch or two between the muzzle to function. There was no flash hider on the M249 used in this test. The article clearly says they used a direct thread mount, so all you had was the threaded barrel. The DT mount on the end of the can looks pretty deep, so I doubt the muzzle actually went that far into the can body, if at all. I don’t see anything that supports a theory that it’s not the first (blast) baffle.

I recall looking for info on the B&T RBS suppressors after the TFB video last year, and was wholly unimpressed with the weight. For machine guns they make sense, I suppose, but for me it killed my interest.

Surefire RC2's are supposed to be lower backpressure designs, I think because the military favors complete flash elimination, minimal POI shift and reliability in DI guns more than absolute sound reduction.

Surefire's 300SPS which is designed for subsonic 300BLK has greater sound reduction, but reports say that it has more backpressure. It does a good job with supersonic rounds too.

I am reluctant to buy a Sig can due to the normal issues of obsolescence and support. I have an MPX-K and a Rattler and I hate the tapered barrels that (of course!) favor Sig suppressors with tapered mounts. Yes it's a solid mounting method and yes, Q does something similar, but it generally means a dedicated can for each gun. I would not invest in Sig QD mounts for the obvious reasons.
So it's RC2's and SOCOM mounts for me. Pretty sure they will be around a while, and when the mounts go off patent, other companies will make them too. Going through the process now on two - 5.56 RC2, and 7.62 RC2.

Putting an SF3P 7.62 on a Rattler is iffy though, it's a bit long and increases the OAL a lot more than the factory FH. And you need to use a taper donut adapter to have a flat surface for the timing shims. And I'm a little concerned about all the stack ups leading to misalignment and possible baffle strikes.

Dwill, I understand it is a direct-thread mount. The threads that interface with the muzzle threads are down in that pocket, and there is a split collar that is tightened on the barrel behind the muzzle threads, using a cross-bolt. It seemed to me that what they are referring to as the blast baffle may actually be the "seat" for the muzzle of the barrel, inside the muzzle thread pocket. It appeared very shallow, when compared to other blast baffle depths I have seen. Typically the initial chamber is oversized, compared to the remainder of the expansion chambers. This can is of course of an unconventional design, so anything's possible. It seems to me that the blast baffle is at the weld that is clearly visible in the image of the huge flash, which would pout it much deeper, unless it has an aggressive conical shape.

I just watched an interview with an employee of Sig with a goofy mustache. He said that they achieved less toxic fumes "parts per million" with the SLX can on an M4, than the gun emitted in a normal, unsuppressed condition. I don't see how that's possible. All of their marketing for these things seems like bullshit. I am very interested in any flow through, low pressure, reduced blowback designs, because I apparently have a hyper-sensitivity to these emissions; unfortunately there is not a ton of honest feedback on the contemporary offerings. The SLX is currently available; I don't have $1,400 to spend on a gamble. They'd do well to do some honest evaluations, or have someone else do some honest comparisons and reviews. Or maybe people will eat them up on Sig's word that they're amazing.

So, I have made it an odd kind of mission of mine to find out more on the SLX cans. I just got off the phone with Sig; the very helpful fellow that I talked to had no additional information. That wasn't intended to be sarcastic; he was very polite, honest, and as accommodating as he could be. He hadn't shot one himself, and he said the details of the cans are a closely-guarded secret. I pointed out the ridiculous comparison of DI to MCX in their thermal image marketing, and expressed my interest in low-pressure designs in general. He said he'd relay my comments and questions to his supervisor, but didn't guarantee a follow-up. Anyway... Whatever.

Actually heard from the next dude on the totem pole. He did concede that the marketing images aren't really ideal. Unfortunately, he didn't have any real amount of experience with the SLX line either. He had shot one on an MCX on one occasion, and admittedly couldn't offer any comparative feedback; either to other low-pressure cans or conventional cans. He did say that he has purchased one though, for what that's worth. He provided me with this video, which I have not watched yet; he touted it as the most thorough evaluation to date.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3vg8oxTFPQ&t=1998s

The more I consider all the aspects of these designs, the more it becomes apparent that, in mitigating the negative outcomes of silencers, we mitigate the positive ones as well. As with seemingly everything in firearms, it's all about compromise, and choosing the best characteristics in performance, for your specific needs.

I wish more manufacturers would pursue true "integral" weapon designs, as it seems that trying to do everything with the silencer itself is counter-productive.

The video highlights a unique ability granted by silencers: the ability to customize how/where our weapon exhausts, in a tactical context. I had only previously considered it in a weapon performance and gas irritation context.

I agree. It's annoys me only Silencerco has tried to put an integrally suppressed centerfire pistol in the last 10yrs, it seems. I swear, if the majority of shooters were introduced to shooting via suppressors, no one would be shooting unsuppressed. The drastic change it makes on the environment is astounding.

I just can't believe it's taken this long for multiple suppressor companies to attempt true LBP suppressors. Or at least attempting to reduce said pressure in modern designs.

I have been using my OSS on a G36 lately; it has been a great combo. I hadn't used a regular can on that gun ever before, until yesterday. The recoil was noticeably sharper, and there was evidence of increased filth blown back into the receiver. The low pressure cans absolutely work. They're by no means magical, and whether their effectiveness is worth their typically higher price is up to the individual. If you're a silencer enthusiast, and shoot at least three different weapons regularly, I say it's definitely worth having one. It's very likely that it will shine on a particular weapon, and it's definitely neat to compare it's performance to other cans.

This is a very timely thread, as I was just going to inquire about OSS cans because 1) guys at work are looking to run the HX-QD 556 on duty, and 2) I'm looking at grabbing one for personal use to see what the fuss is about (Rad 22 to try out first, since I don't have a rimfire can).

Glad to hear people's experience here is positive with regard to reduced blowback while maintaining sound reduction. I'm going to go with the Rad 22 unless anyone here convinces me otherwise.

Thanks all.

If you are interested in cans with minimal back pressure, you might also look at the LaRue Tranquillo. The can is heavy and generally has a 7-12 month waiting period. But it has almost no back pressure. And, if you've bought a LaRue upper you should be able to pick one up for the heavily discounted price of $399.

Oh cool, didn't know LaRue made cans. I'll go check that out. Thanks.

Well, I ended up ordering the OSS can. Now to figure out a good host for it.