Unknown suppressors OG testing

Can you say what you believe proper testing and refinement of a novel suppressor design would be?




Optics- and then answered repeatedly. And then you continuing to say it over and over in the face of reality. Unless, you believe everyone is lying and it was all done on purpose?

First, I have no idea. It's not my job or area of knowledge or expertise and as a consumer it's something I would expect to be told and shown from a producer such as UM.

Second, I stand by my initial question of whether or not is right for a company to undercut their hyped, inagural product launch with a second and "way better" iteration right as initial customers are receiving their products. Everyone who has chimned in (outside of Q) has said they would rather have the OG 6.5. You can't argue with that Form. And that was my whole question here in the first place. Not trying to blow up a thread about whether UM is good or bad, or whether the OG is good or bad, but instead solely asking the question of whether or not there was anything @Unknown Suppressors could do to help their intial supporters who are receiving an already inferior product.

Third, you make a valid point about "over and over" and for that i'll bow out of this thread on this. But first, I want to make myself clear once again that I don't believe "everyone is lying" and "it was all done on purpose" as you just implied. Every single one of my posts on this thread is consistent with the message that I believe UM has good intentions in all this. And it's because of my belief of @Unknown Suppressors's good intentions that I posed the qeustion of whether or not there was anything they could do to help original OG owners upgrade to the new, way better iteration given how quickly it all happened. If any company would do something, I would expect it to be one of the good ones like UM. That is all, I'm out..
 
First, I have no idea. It's not my job or area of knowledge or expertise and as a consumer it's something I would expect to be told and shown from a producer such as UM.


You keep suggesting they should have “done more work” as it were.

Let’s start at the very beginning.

For years I have tried to get multiple companies to make a 4” muzzle forward, sub 11oz, 1.5” diameter OTB can in 30cal that is sub 140 dBA SE. In all cases it was rejected as there was “no real way” to get those specs.

Then, when US started, they were willing to do it.

The original design parameters were:

4” muzzle forward
4” reflex
Sub 140 dBA SE
30cal
10’ish ounces

Through over 60 different printed designs and models, that all was achieved- something that multiple good suppressor companies said would not happen. Not only that, it got down to 132-134 dBA SE. That’s way under the stated goal.


There is not a single company that makes hunting suppressors that designs, builds, tests, and iterates like US. What you get is companies that make a design, shoot it a couple of times then say that’s it. No testing, no actual iterating, nothing. Just BS the consumer- they even admit that haven’t or “won’t actually test their cans “because it will ruin a demo” can. And people eat it up. Then those same people “just can’t understand” why products break and fail- ala Scythe, and others.

I was asked to help them establish their “testing” and use cases so that doesn’t happen to US products- as I have done for other companies.


Second, I stand by my initial question of whether or not is right for a company to undercut their hyped, inagural product launch with a second and "way better" iteration right as initial customers are receiving their products


Again- how are you comparing a 30cal can to a 6.5mm can?

And, no one “hyped” anything. The OG does exactly what it was set out to do- read the lists above, then go look at the very first lists about it, the very first podcast about it, and let me know which aspect you believe it doesn’t meet.

But because I have been accused of being “biased” apparently I also need to eval cans. So not just scopes, actions, triggers, stocks, rangefinders, packs, clothing- I now have to get a sound meter kit to “show” that I am not lying.




. Everyone who has chimned in (outside of Q) has said they would rather have the OG 6.5. You can't argue with that Form.

Why do I care that they would rather have something now, that didn’t exist? That’s child level thinking. It didn’t exist. And it wasn’t for lack of testing or experimenting- NO hunting suppressor company has done more of that than US for their cans.


And that was my whole question here in the first place. Not trying to blow up a thread about whether UM is good or bad, or whether the OG is good or bad, but instead solely asking the question of whether or not there was anything @Unknown Suppressors could do to help their intial supporters who are receiving an already inferior product.

How is it inferior? Dude- it’s exactly what it was set out to be. It is 30cal can, not 6.5m can. You are not even being surface level logical. A 30cal can MUST be able to take large 30cal cartridges safely. Making a 30cal can that is limited to 308 is a surefire way to have cans destroyed and get sued. The OG can take the largest 30cal cartridges made safely. It’s also sub 140dBA SE from 20” barreled 300Win mag. What is inferior about that?

Better- show a single better performing, by whatever metrics you want to use- 30cal 4” muzzle forward can.




Third, you make a valid point about "over and over" and for that i'll bow out of this thread on this. But first, I want to make myself clear once again that I don't believe "everyone is lying" and "it was all done on purpose" as you just implied. Every single one of my posts on this thread is consistent with the message that I believe UM has good intentions in all this. And it's because of my belief of @Unknown Suppressors's good intentions that I posed the qeustion of whether or not there was anything they could do to help original OG owners upgrade to the new, way better iteration given how quickly it all happened. If any company would do something, I would expect it to be one of the good ones like UM. That is all, I'm out..

Why do you care? It’s weird that you don’t own one, but you feel like you need to keep suggesting it’s F’ed up that something different is made later, and keep asking UM to give something away? I would say this if it was about any company- unless a product performs widely below what they stated, asking them to “give” anything to anyone is absurd.
 
I bought one and it’s as advertised. It wasn’t ever advertised to be the most quiet but the sound/tone part was mentioned a lot. I can’t tell that it sounds any better than my other suppressors but it is 2” shorter. I can’t complain.

Like most people in this group almost all of my rifles are 22 and 24 caliber. Would I rather have a lighter and according to them quieter can? Well sure…lol. I’ll treat the OG like the scythe. I don’t trust the scythe on my 300 so I keep it on a 223. Totally fine and it has to have a can anyway. I’ll put the OG on the 300 because I have full confidence in it. Will my next one be a OG? No not if I have multiple options that are said to be better. I’ll keep saving my money and get the 6.5 the airlock or if things go well both.
 
I have an OG. It does what it is advertised to do, no complaints. I am not going to criticize a company for continuing R&D and determining they can make a lighter, quieter, and less universal version. I appreciate the transparency and dialog in the R&D process. Especially in an industry where most companies just release a video edit of them mag dumping into trash when they release a new product.
 
I wanted to put this discussion of bore size and sound levels with OTB cans in some perspective.

Based on what is publicly available and what I’ve found. There is one other company making OTB cans in the US and that is AB Suppressor. AB had some YouTube videos that looked at the effect of the end cap hole size on dB levels for smaller calibers and reported that it had little effect on noise levels. It’s my understanding that this was only looking at the end cap and not the relationship between projectile diameter and the baffle vent size. They were only swapping end caps on 30 cal cans. To my knowledge no company has presented anything publicly on the effect of baffle vent size for smaller calibers on dB for OTB cans.

The “common knowledge” from the internet on muzzle forward cans has always been “buy a .30” and use it for everything under that. There aren’t a lot of companies who’ve made titanium direct thread bolt gun cans for smaller calibers. Most of the smaller cal cans that have been available were “hard use” cans for ARs. There are some like the wolf hunter from DD, but I’ve not seen anything from those companies touting improved performance over larger caliber cans. Most of them are focusing on weight and size.

TLDR on all that is that, right or wrong, at least Unknown is trying to innovate and is reporting what they are finding. If anyone feels cheated because they bought a 30 cal OG can before US came up with the 6.5 OG, keep in mind that if any other companies are doing this sort of experimentation they aren’t sharing their findings publicly with you on internet forum.

If anyone on here is aware of public sources I have not seen, please feel free to share them.
 
I’m not implying @Unknown Suppressors shouldn’t innovate and improve. Their improvements benefit me after all as a potential customer intrigued by the OG 6.5.. But undercutting your flagship product spec-wise in 2 months feels very hard to stomach if I was an initial OG buyer, as well as signal of a potential mistake by @Unknown Suppressors to take the OG to market when they did and not further test/refine first. This isn’t remotely close to a natural product cycle, nor is the OG a normal product (NFA status), complicating upgrade prospects more.

I would guess the vast, vast amount of OG buyers (80% or more?) would prefer an alternative scenario where there was a bit more testing and product refinement done by US prior to launch, and the OG 6.5 was the can in their hands today. They would have gladly waited two months for a can that is “way better”. Again not trying to stir the pot but genuinely curious if there is anything @Ryan Avery and the @Unknown Suppressors crew can do here for initial OG buyers?

And I hear your arguments on versatility, but if the OG 6.5 covers 223, 6mm, 6.5mm, and is even functioning on their 7mms (see their podcast comments), it feels like that should have been their initial flagship launch all along. Especially if it’s “way better” (again, their words not mine).
As a initial OG buyer you read my mind. I'd be lying if I said it didn't feel like a bit of a gut punch to see this follow so closely behind the OG.
 
I'd be lying if I said it didn't feel like a bit of a gut punch to see this follow so closely behind the OG

The speed of iteration that comes from 3D printing makes it possible to do R&D cycles in days what used to take months.

So, let me get this straight...these guys iterate like crazy, come up with a better product in weeks that would have taken a year or two before...

...and people are pissed that they offered it up as soon as they could?
 
The speed of iteration that comes from 3D printing makes it possible to do R&D cycles in days what used to take months.

So, let me get this straight...these guys iterate like crazy, come up with a better product in weeks that would have taken a year or two before...

...and people are pissed that they offered it up as soon as they could?
Yes the crybabies are crazy!
 
@RockAndSage Pissed no. Bummed out that I made the mistake of jumping on the first design so quickly yes. I didn't need the can immediately once again my mistake. I look forward to what they bring out in the future. Maybe in a few years I'll be in the market for another.
 
@RockAndSage Pissed no. Bummed out that I made the mistake of jumping on the first design so quickly yes. I didn't need the can immediately once again my mistake. I look forward to what they bring out in the future. Maybe in a few years I'll be in the market for another.

I could completely understand someone being bummed at the situation, had they bought a .30 OG early, for a 6mm or something, only to have this new can show up so quickly. But some of the posts here acting like US were somehow jerking people around with the product roll-out...that's severely uncool.

It also disincentivizes the hell out of those guys getting a .223 can to market ASAP.
 
The OG and the OG6.5 are two completely different cans! Two different purposes. The original description on the OG was exactly what it said it is...
I think this has gotten lost in the discussion. I saw the original design criteria for the OG and didn’t want one as I don’t really have any 30 cal rifles. Imho it was heavy for what it offered, although lighter than my AB’s with a reflex, but on the AB I can run without a reflex for hunting and it’s a 375 so no offering from US yet.

I did order a raptor to replace my scythe and am a bit disappointed that the OG 6.5 came out so quick as I might have gone that route as my rifles are 25 cal or smaller. I understand how people who got the OG are a bit miffed that the 6.5 came out so quickly and is quieter. I also understand from a development perspective how US got there. I expect this thread will slow down releases a little, especially since they are probably keeping the printer busy. Imho that hurts us all.
 
I think this has gotten lost in the discussion. I saw the original design criteria for the OG and didn’t want one as I don’t really have any 30 cal rifles. Imho it was heavy for what it offered, although lighter than my AB’s with a reflex, but on the AB I can run without a reflex for hunting and it’s a 375 so no offering from US yet.

I did order a raptor to replace my scythe and am a bit disappointed that the OG 6.5 came out so quick as I might have gone that route as my rifles are 25 cal or smaller. I understand how people who got the OG are a bit miffed that the 6.5 came out so quickly and is quieter. I also understand from a development perspective how US got there. I expect this thread will slow down releases a little, especially since they are probably keeping the printer busy. Imho that hurts us all.
I wouldn’t say completely different and that’s one of the reasons why the optics of all this are a bit complicated. The name ‘OG 6.5’ doesn’t seem to denote that its limited to 6.5mm and below applications based on UM’s marketing to date. Ryan, Cliff and Jake stated that it has so far tested out on 7mms just fine. No1 from UM (nor unofficially Form) has walked this claim back so we can only concur it’s the case here.

The result is seemingly a can that UM is marketing as performing “way better” than the first iteration OG on anything from 223 to 7mm, with the caveat that it can’t be utilized on a 30cal, which we all know was never the intention of the vast majority of OG buyers. Just just feels like a tough pill to swallow.
 
I wouldn’t say completely different and that’s one of the reasons why the optics of all this are a bit complicated. The name ‘OG 6.5’ doesn’t seem to denote that its limited to 6.5mm and below applications based on UM’s marketing to date. Ryan, Cliff and Jake stated that it has so far tested out on 7mms just fine. No1 from UM (nor unofficially Form) has walked this claim back so we can only concur it’s the case here.

The result is seemingly a can that UM is marketing as performing “way better” than the first iteration OG on anything from 223 to 7mm, with the caveat that it can’t be utilized on a 30cal, which we all know was never the intention of the vast majority of OG buyers. Again, I’m not mad at UM for innovation and improvement, just feels like a tough pill to swallow if you jumped to support UM on day 1 only to have them offering a “way better” performer just as you are getting to use yours for the first time.

Testing, under controlled conditions, with a 7mm is very different than it being a 7mm can. Unless they change the caliber restrictions it will be a 6.5 and below can.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”
 
I wouldn’t say completely different and that’s one of the reasons why the optics of all this are a bit complicated. The name ‘OG 6.5’ doesn’t seem to denote that its limited to 6.5mm and below applications based on UM’s marketing to date. Ryan, Cliff and Jake stated that it has so far tested out on 7mms just fine. No1 from UM (nor unofficially Form) has walked this claim back so we can only concur it’s the case here.

The result is seemingly a can that UM is marketing as performing “way better” than the first iteration OG on anything from 223 to 7mm, with the caveat that it can’t be utilized on a 30cal, which we all know was never the intention of the vast majority of OG buyers. Just just feels like a tough pill to swallow.
As I understood the podcast the hole in the can will fit a 7mm projectile and they tested one on 7mm after checking alignment with a bore guide. To me that doesn’t say it’s a 7mm can, but that under the right conditions it may work. I wouldn’t want to trust that in the field.
 
Back
Top