Unknown Suppressors OG-M maybe?

Would you be interested in this?

  • Yes

    Votes: 23 88.5%

  • No

    Votes: 3 11.5%
  • Total voters
    26
Harvey_NW said:
Based on the roadmap it looks like the Big Stick is the primary 338 can, but muzzle forward. Not sure if it's a legal no-no, but US/UM might be able to ream out an OG-M to accommodate 338 if you ask nicely.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestion. We will see how things go over the rest of the year. Maybe during testing, the OG-M will be upgraded to .338. Fingers crossed!
 
Unknown Suppressors said:
This is the idea for the OGM! Don’t know what the final dimensions will actually be but, this is the idea!
Click to expand...
I’m curious…what about the OG but just an inch longer for more baffles? 4” OTB & 5” out front? I’d go for that over a larger diameter or less over the barrel.

But, I know nothing about suppressor design.
 
Hurley88 said:
I’m curious…what about the OG but just an inch longer for more baffles? 4” OTB & 5” out front? I’d go for that over a larger diameter or less over the barrel.

But, I know nothing about suppressor design.
Click to expand...

Ive never claimed to be a physics expert, but from a volume perspective, increasing diameter (or radius) has more of an effect than increasing the length (or height of a cylinder).

There’s probably more to it than that though.
 
Yeah I was debating the width & surface area of the baffles vs number of baffles when I posed the question, but tbh what I really want is a 5” 22LR diameter can on a 300 PRC that gives 125dbA to the shooter’s ear so decided to ask about the skinnier one.

Seems like the one Form showed had to get quite a bit longer for not much change, seems there’s a reason they landed on the specs that they did.
 
waspocrew said:
Ive never claimed to be a physics expert, but from a volume perspective, increasing diameter (or radius) has more of an effect than increasing the length (or height of a cylinder).

There’s probably more to it than that though.
Click to expand...
Could be, but if you look at specs for the top "quiet" contenders that don't exceed 7" in chamber length, most are at least 1.625-1.7"+.
 
gtriple said:
I wonder what the point of diminishing returns is on the reflex length? Does decibel reduction increase proportional to an increase in reflex length?
Click to expand...
I shot a prototype OG at the S2H class on my 25western. It was a baby with maybe 2" behind the muzzle and just a small portion in front. Maybe 2 baffles? Form could quote the specs. It seemed about half as long as the normal OG. It worked but I would want more suppression personally.

I own an AB Raptor 10 Stack with a 3" reflex module. It was the first can I purchased 4yrs ago, I'm up to 7 now but this AB is still one of my favorites. I spoke with the AB team before I purchased and they said the 3" reflex was the best option and the point of diminishing returns on their cans.

Here's the thing, the OG is a purpose built hunting can to minimize weight and length in front of muzzle. If you want ultimate suppression, it's not the can for you and it's not marketed that way. Personally, I'm not counting ounces when I hunt and I'm up to take a bit of a weight/length penalty for some more suppression.

With that in mind, the perfect can to me is around 6" in front of the muzzle. For me and my tastes, I think the Raptor 8 stack is damn near as close to as good as it gets for a one can to do it all type setup.

I'm with @wind gypsy, I would want more than 5" in front of the muzzle for a true magnum can. I'm even more willing to give up some length and weight for more suppression when it comes to magnum cans.

From what I've learned over the years, cans are about as subjective as rifles. There's not one that fits everyone's needs perfectly and that's when it comes to being honest with what you're really wanting out of something.
 
SloppyJ said:
Here's the thing, the OG is a purpose built hunting can to minimize weight and length in front of muzzle. If you want ultimate suppression, it's not the can for you and it's not marketed that way.
Click to expand...
But it was marketed as being hearing safe with a more pleasant tone, which was great until the feedback from unbiased users was reported and they said it was perceivably louder than competitors, and made their ears ring from a single shot. That's a bit of a clash, IMHO. I personally want both of those design benefits, which is why I'm advocating for testing a similar design with more volume.
 
Harvey_NW said:
But it was marketed as being hearing safe with a more pleasant tone, which was great until the feedback from unbiased users was reported and they said it was perceivably louder than competitors, and made their ears ring from a single shot. That's a bit of a clash, IMHO. I personally want both of those design benefits, which is why I'm advocating for testing a similar design with more volume.
Click to expand...

I think we're mixing testable attributes with a lot of subjective opinion here and that's where it gets muddy. Is it hearing safe? Sure. Is it louder than the competitors? I think there are a lot of variables there. What's it competitor? Where are you taking the measurements in relation to the muzzle?

Tone is completely subjective without metering it and again changes with the testing position.

I completely understand where you're coming from but this has been the sticking point of suppressor reviews since the dawn of time. It's the reason that people have tried to create unbiased testing platforms but don't get me started on that nonsense and that guy.

I don't disagree that it was overstated a bit. But that's honestly why I'll never trust a review on ANY can that I buy unless the competitors are shot side by side and I can hear it. I've been playing with them long enough to know that there's no magic button to make a can that's 4" in front of the muzzle with a modest internal volume supremely better than anything else out there. I own a reflex can so I know about that too and I understood that it would deepen the tone but it's not some magic pill that can make up for overall internal volume.

This can fits a niche of shorter, lower shot string, lightweight hunting cans. I already have that niche covered with my Scythe and Wolfhunter. Frankly, I'd rather have the OG than the Scythe, and in my mind, that's one of it's main competitors. From what I saw and heard, I'd say they're close to each other but that was from the shooter's perspective without any sort of testing methodology taken. Just thousands of rounds that I heard over a week.
 
The scythe OG comment is a good comparison. I have both and after the OG fouled up a bit they seem about the same to me(me). The difference to me right or wrong is I have full confidence in the OG’s durability on any rifle I own and I don’t have that with the scythe. I keep the scythe on a small chambering which is totally fine because something has to be on it. I would be upset or concerned if I really needed it for a magnum chambering though.
 
Harvey_NW said:
But it was marketed as being hearing safe with a more pleasant tone, which was great until the feedback from unbiased users was reported and they said it was perceivably louder than competitors, and made their ears ring from a single shot.
Click to expand...

That was one user with ear ringing- correct? I think there has been 2 maybe 3 people say that; versus a bunch say the opposite?

As for “marketed” this is where it gets annoying here- it is hearing safe by the standards the world knows. It meters 132 to 134dBA at the ear- as has been stated from the very beginning.
The very first thread on it stated that the goal was sub 140dBA at the ear with the shortest added muzzle length. The goal was “I want to be able to take shots at animals and not have permanent hearing damage, with the absolute shortest added length to the rifle”. It has not changed, and how people can’t grasp that is baffling.



Harvey_NW said:
That's a bit of a clash, IMHO. I personally want both of those design benefits, which is why I'm advocating for testing a similar design with more volume.
Click to expand...


I think you need to read more of what some people write and get a “feel” for how they think before putting a bunch weight into what they say- including me. I’ve been around well over a hundred different people that have used or heard the OG being shot side by side with nearly all other cans- over half didn’t know anything about the OG or that it was a new can at all. I think @SloppyJ has the most critical view of it of any of those people. The vast majority thought it sounded as good as any other standard length can but with less of a sharp crack, but not as good as 9” long massive cans.
 
SloppyJ said:
I shot a prototype OG at the S2H class on my 25western. It was a baby with maybe 2" behind the muzzle and just a small portion in front. Maybe 2 baffles? Form could quote the specs. It seemed about half as long as the normal OG. It worked but I would want more suppression personally.
Click to expand...

Me too. That can certainly would fill a niche for some if the other option is not suppressed (like the .22 LR can on a 223), but it is too close to “hearing damage” for me on anything but 223’s.
 
Formidilosus said:
That was one user with ear ringing- correct? I think there has been 2 maybe 3 people say that; versus a bunch say the opposite?

As for “marketed” this is where it gets annoying here- it is hearing safe by the standards the world knows. It meters 132 to 134dBA at the ear- as has been stated from the very beginning.
The very first thread on it stated that the goal was sub 140dBA at the ear with the shortest added muzzle length. The goal was “I want to be able to take shots at animals and not have permanent hearing damage, with the absolute shortest added length to the rifle”. It has not changed, and how people can’t grasp that is baffling.






I think you need to read more of what some people write and get a “feel” for how they think before putting a bunch weight into what they say- including me. I’ve been around well over a hundred different people that have used or heard the OG being shot side by side with nearly all other cans- over half didn’t know anything about the OG or that it was a new can at all. I think @SloppyJ has the most critical view of it of any of those people. The vast majority thought it sounded as good as any other standard length can but with less of a sharp crack, but not as good as 9” long massive cans.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, and I'm not knocking the OG at all, I've been in on the idea since you brought up the design concept. I think I may have a bit of buyers regret because of how fast the OG-M idea came to light, and the fact that I'm after the most suppression possible. Oh well!
 
Harvey_NW said:
I'm after the most suppression possible. Oh well!
Click to expand...

The OG is definitely not for you then. But- neither is the can I showed above. I would suggest you look at the AB Raptor 10 with OTB, and the CGS 338 can- or any of the really good 338 cans. US has made a 9” long muzzle forward 1.55” diameter can. It is awesome- one of the best sounding, quietest 30cal cans I have ever used- but I don’t know if they will offer it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Featured Video

Latest Articles

Back
Top