Unknown suppressors OG testing

[HuntHarder]

I'll agree that them talking about testing a 7mm in the og6.5, doesn't mean its a 7mm can. US is very transparent, almost to a fault.

 

[AZ_Hunter]

You also haven’t been in the silencer game long enough to realize 90 percent of silencer companies make BS claims . You prolly don’t even know about JJFU and his 98 DB claims from 10 years ago . But that’s the point , there’s no standardized testing so there’s no way to prove their silencer didn’t test at a certain DB , under certain conditions , with specific ammo , on a bluebird day . How would anybody ever sue and win like that ?

Oh God, JJ’s infamous football can. What a joke that was. I remember that.

 

[Timjohnson11]

Ok then if it’s not functional/rated for 7mm then someone from UM or (unofficially) Form should objectively state that. It’s been a key input addressed behind my whole question here in the first place, and to this point no1 from UM (including Form) have refuted and corrected this understanding if wrong.

Is the OG 6.5 it functional/rated for 7mm (despite being optimized for 6.5mm)?

Or is it objectively NOT functional/rated for 7mm? and that point will be made clear in product disclaimers?

 

[RWT]

Ok then if it’s not functional/rated for 7mm then someone from UM or (unofficially) Form should objectively state that. It’s been a key input addressed behind my whole question here in the first place, and to this point no1 from UM (including Form) have refuted and corrected this understanding if wrong.

Is the OG 6.5 it functional/rated for 7mm (despite being optimized for 6.5mm)?

Or is it objectively NOT functional/rated for 7mm? and that point will be made clear in product disclaimers?

If the box says 6.5 projectile. I am sticking with a 6.5 projectile. The fact I can stuff 10lbs of crap in a 5 lb bag doesn’t mean it is safe to do so. I am not risking my life or handsome looks based on some dipstick posting an internet video.

 

[waspocrew]

Ok then if it’s not functional/rated for 7mm then someone from UM or (unofficially) Form should objectively state that. It’s been a key input addressed behind my whole question here in the first place, and to this point no1 from UM (including Form) have refuted and corrected this understanding if wrong.

Is the OG 6.5 it functional/rated for 7mm (despite being optimized for 6.5mm)?

Or is it objectively NOT functional/rated for 7mm? and that point will be made clear in product disclaimers?

I wouldn’t chance a 7mm through it “under the right conditions”. If your threads aren’t perfectly aligned, it sounds like you’ll have a bad day.

 

[Moccasin]

It also disincentivizes the hell out of those guys getting a .223 can to market ASAP

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 sir. And to think, as a result of this forum and the associated companies, in the last couple of years we now have rings, stocks, turn-key rifles, multiple suppressors, shooting aids, a pack, and a shooting school. The future will see a scope and a new action. All geared towards hunters. If you ask me, the issue with iteration isn’t on the side of UM, it’s on the side of hunters.

 

[Formidilosus]

Ok then if it’s not functional/rated for 7mm then someone from UM or (unofficially) Form should objectively state that. It’s been a key input addressed behind my whole question here in the first place, and to this point no1 from UM (including Form) have refuted and corrected this understanding if wrong.

Is the OG 6.5 it functional/rated for 7mm (despite being optimized for 6.5mm)?

Or is it objectively NOT functional/rated for 7mm? and that point will be made clear in product disclaimers?

IT IS A 6.5mm CAN.

At no point has anyone stated that it is a 7mm can. ALL US cans are tested or proofed beyond what they are rated for- do you actually think the OG is a 33xc can just because one was proofed through it?
It’s hard to see whether you are constantly trolling, or actually can’t grasp all of this.

The 6.5mm OG is a 6.5mm can. Yes, it is possible if everything is perfect to shoot .277 or 7mm maybe. The 30cal of is also larger than .308- it is possible to shoot a larger bore through it. Not recommended- but possible.

 

[IrkedCitizen]

I still think an original release OG with a 338 bore for a 16" 338arc bolt gun would be awesome.

 

[Dobermann]

I have a radical suggestion for y'all ...

Keep your 30 cal cans for ... 30 cal rifles. Be happy.

Buy a 6.5 cal can for ... 6.5 rifles. Be happy.

And if @Unknown Suppressors come out with a .223 can ... buy one for .223 rifles. Be happy,

Better yet ... buy (whatever-appropriately-sized-as-you-see-it) cans for every single rifle you have. Be happy.

Problem solved.

 

[Kaleb]

I have a radical suggestion for y'all ...

Keep your 30 cal cans for ... 30 cal rifles. Be happy.

Buy a 6.5 cal can for ... 6.5 rifles. Be happy.

And if @Unknown Suppressors come out with a .223 can ... buy one for .223 rifles. Be happy,

Better yet ... buy (whatever-appropriately-sized-as-you-see-it) cans for every single rifle you have. Be happy.

Problem solved.

For the biggest part I don’t think anyone is unhappy or consider it a problem…lol. I think between multiple threads and my dementia(kidding I’m 42) I probably repeated I’ll get the new one/ones and stick the 30 on a 30.

I don’t know if folks are this thin skinned in real life or just look for arguments on the internet? I have to assume it’s just people wanting to argue because I can’t imagine people are really this sensitive. Grown men buy things that were discovered from this forum. Then if you have anything to say that could possibly be considered negative get your flame suits on…haha. It’s just a suppressor. If a man ponied up his money and wants say something negative who cares he’s not talking about your sister.

These are the good ol days with firearms.

 

[doc holiday13]

It’s pretty clear that all of US/UM’s suppressors are “anti-Scythes.” The advertised priorities are roughly:

1. Safety
2. Durability
3. Length
4. Diameter
5. Weight
6. Sound Suppression

They are designed as hunting cans for “high volume shooters.” At least that’s how I interpret the messaging.

PS - you can go back to April or May and see posts where people asked “why isn’t more suppression a priority?” If you bought the OG thinking it would sound quieter than a competitor in a meaningless side-by-side comparison, you have only yourself to blame.

I also don’t care about the “tone.” Not everyone can hear it. Not everyone has the “nails on chalkboard” reaction to tone, and the shooter absolutely cannot hear it.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

You're hitting some really good points. UM and Form cannot control what people's brains do with information. Form and UM have continuously said "tone" "durability" "weight" and I think most people translated that to "quietest" "lightest" "most durable" because they have read the same thing over and over

The requirements were to design a suppressor for the hunting community. I have not shot or heard the OG in person so I can only go off what our main testing sources have said.

Coming out with a lighter, quieter suppressor is the natural order of suppressor development. However, as a consumer, I would be a bit miffed if a OG 2.0(lighter and quieter) was introduced before my OG even left the US shelf. At minimum, i would hope US would offer to "rebuild" a suppressor with the new design for the minimal cost of material and ATF paperwork.

A suppressor can be rebuilt by the manufacturer but it must receive a new serial number. But this can only be done after teh original suppressor was successfully transferred to the end user and the rebuilt one can be shipped directly to the end user, it does not require another stamp/form 4 transfer

 

[Q_Sertorius]

You're hitting some really good points. UM and Form cannot control what people's brains do with information. Form and UM have continuously said "tone" "durability" "weight" and I think most people translated that to "quietest" "lightest" "most durable" because they have read the same thing over and over

The requirements were to design a suppressor for the hunting community. I have not shot or heard the OG in person so I can only go off what our main testing sources have said.

Coming out with a lighter, quieter suppressor is the natural order of suppressor development. However, as a consumer, I would be a bit miffed if a OG 2.0(lighter and quieter) was introduced before my OG even left the US shelf. At minimum, i would hope US would offer to "rebuild" a suppressor with the new design for the minimal cost of material and ATF paperwork.

A suppressor can be rebuilt by the manufacturer but it must receive a new serial number. But this can only be done after teh original suppressor was successfully transferred to the end user and the rebuilt one can be shipped directly to the end user, it does not require another stamp/form 4 transfer

I will reply to your last bit because I think you still miss the point. It is not an “OG 2.0.”

If UM released a true OG 2.0 that was “the same as the OG” but suppressed to 124 dBA, or only added 2” without anything else, or took any magnum cartridge but weighed 6 ounces, I could understand being a bit irritated. But I would also be glad that US/UM brought it to market right away and didn’t just sit on it until next year.

The OG is perfect for a magnum rifle below .30 caliber with a 20-22” barrel. For those who want more velocity and sub-140 suppression, it does that without giving you a rifle as long as a WW I infantry rifle. As Form said, it keeps a 20” 300 Win Mag below 140 SE dBA with only a 4” addition to the length. That’s the important bit. No other suppressor does that. If that is not important to you, then buy another suppressor.

A consumer can get more suppression out of six inch cans. And could back in June too. If saving two inches of length wasn’t as important as more suppression, then the consumer should have bought the Nomad XC Ti (or something similar).

US/UM and Form made that abundantly clear. You can go back in this thread and see where I, and others, complained and asked why they did it the way they did. You can go watch the podcasts where they explained it. A consumer who feels like they got a bait and switch from US/UM is an expert in self-delusion.

If, despite all that public information, a consumer bought an OG out of enthusiasm to put on a 16” 6mm ARC or 18” 6.5mm Creed or whatever, and valued more suppression over length and durability, then I am afraid that burden is on him. For those for whom more suppression was the priority, there were better suppressors for that role back in June.

If I was US/UM, I wouldn’t have called it the “OG 6.5.” I would have come up with some new name. Because it isn’t the “updated version of the OG” or the “OG 2.0.” It is a new OTB suppressor that is more capable in some regards and less in others.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[Timjohnson11]

IT IS A 6.5mm CAN.

At no point has anyone stated that it is a 7mm can. ALL US cans are tested or proofed beyond what they are rated for- do you actually think the OG is a 33xc can just because one was proofed through it?
It’s hard to see whether you are constantly trolling, or actually can’t grasp all of this.

The 6.5mm OG is a 6.5mm can. Yes, it is possible if everything is perfect to shoot .277 or 7mm maybe. The 30cal of is also larger than .308- it is possible to shoot a larger bore through it. Not recommended- but possible.

Thank you for clarifying it.

Does anyone know why the OG 6.5 was pulled from the UM website? It was up for pre-orders until today, now it's gone. Pre-orders sold out already?

 

[Hondo64d]

Which one of those do you put at the top of the list?

Ordering a Reaper. My muzzle diameter is too big for an OG and I didn’t want the 14oz of the OGL.

John

 

[WyldGoose]

Thank you for clarifying it.

Does anyone know why the OG 6.5 was pulled from the UM website? It was up for pre-orders until today, now it's gone. Pre-orders sold out already?

Not sure, but I know the description needed editing. The sound specs on the 6.5 were copied/pasted from the 30 cal OG specs.

 

[HuntHarder]

I will reply to your last bit because I think you still miss the point. It is not an “OG 2.0.”

If UM released a true OG 2.0 that was “the same as the OG” but suppressed to 124 dBA, or only added 2” without anything else, or took any magnum cartridge but weighed 6 ounces, I could understand being a bit irritated. But I would also be glad that US/UM brought it to market right away and didn’t just sit on it until next year.

The OG is perfect for a magnum rifle below .30 caliber with a 20-22” barrel. For those who want more velocity and sub-140 suppression, it does that without giving you a rifle as long as a WW I infantry rifle. As Form said, it keeps a 20” 300 Win Mag below 140 SE dBA with only a 4” addition to the length. That’s the important bit. No other suppressor does that. If that is not important to you, then buy another suppressor.

A consumer can get more suppression out of six inch cans. And could back in June too. If saving two inches of length wasn’t as important as more suppression, then the consumer should have bought the Nomad XC Ti (or something similar).

US/UM and Form made that abundantly clear. You can go back in this thread and see where I, and others, complained and asked why they did it the way they did. You can go watch the podcasts where they explained it. A consumer who feels like they got a bait and switch from US/UM is an expert in self-delusion.

If, despite all that public information, a consumer bought an OG out of enthusiasm to put on a 16” 6mm ARC or 18” 6.5mm Creed or whatever, and valued more suppression over length and durability, then I am afraid that burden is on him. For those for whom more suppression was the priority, there were better suppressors for that role back in June.

If I was US/UM, I wouldn’t have called it the “OG 6.5.” I would have come up with some new name. Because it isn’t the “updated version of the OG” or the “OG 2.0.” It is a new OTB suppressor that is more capable in some regards and less in others.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

You clearly love your OG and some guys don't. Continuing to argue semantics is a long boring road. I feel like you have taken on a role of "Form/US defender." Let it go, some guys are miffed. Bfd. It's their situation to deal with. You have clearly stated your position, maybe 20 times over the last 5 pages. In January, those guys who are miffed can hopefully, trade off or sell their Og's.

 

[JGRaider]

Ordering a Reaper. My muzzle diameter is too big for an OG and I didn’t want the 14oz of the OGL.

John

Good to know, that one sounds good. I meant to ask though, which criteria is most important to you.....suppression, length, or weight?

 

[Q_Sertorius]

You clearly love your OG and some guys don't. Continuing to argue semantics is a long boring road. I feel like you have taken on a role of "Form/US defender." Let it go, some guys are miffed. Bfd. It's their situation to deal with. You have clearly stated your position, maybe 20 times over the last 5 pages. In January, those guys who are miffed can hopefully, trade off or sell their Og's.

Apparently it does bear repeating, since people seem to think - or have outright stated - that US/UM mislead, misrepresented, or lied about the OG and its abilities. Hell, there’s one person here who says that US/UM straight up lied about the suppression rating, another says the new can is the “OG 2.0,” and another who has accused US/UM of using customers to “beta test” their cans.

None of those things is true.

Pointing out that the people who promoted the OG from December 2024 to June 2024 clearly stated what it would be, what it would not be, and delivered exactly that is just setting the record straight. At no point did anyone suggest that the OG was the “can for everyone” and would make everyone happy.

I do find it funny to argue about this, because the OG is not what I thought I wanted back in May and June. I wanted the OG to be the Reaper or a 3d-printed, one-piece AB Raptor 8 w/2” reflex. And I argued at length that it should be that. But when I compared it with the alternative 4” cans available at the time (basically the AB Raptor 2 w/ 4” reflex or the 4 w/ 3” reflex) I decided I liked it better.

I don’t “love” any of my suppressors. They are all compromises. But to argue that US/UM owes consumers a refund, money back, or whatever is ridiculous [unless someone proves that they did actually misrepresent everything above].


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[HuntHarder]

Apparently it does bear repeating, since people seem to think - or have outright stated - that US/UM mislead, misrepresented, or lied about the OG and its abilities. Hell, there’s one person here who says that US/UM straight up lied about the suppression rating, another says the new can is the “OG 2.0,” and another who has accused US/UM of using customers to “beta test” their cans.

None of those things is true.

Pointing out that the people who promoted the OG from December 2024 to June 2024 clearly stated what it would be, what it would not be, and delivered exactly that is just setting the record straight. At no point did anyone suggest that the OG was the “can for everyone” and would make everyone happy.

I do find it funny to argue about this, because the OG is not what I thought I wanted back in May and June. I wanted the OG to be the Reaper or a 3d-printed, one-piece AB Raptor 8 w/2” reflex. And I argued at length that it should be that. But when I compared it with the alternative 4” cans available at the time (basically the AB Raptor 2 w/ 4” reflex or the 4 w/ 3” reflex) I decided I liked it better.

I don’t “love” any of my suppressors. They are all compromises. But to argue that US/UM owes consumers a refund, money back, or whatever is ridiculous [unless someone proves that they did actually misrepresent everything above].


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

Keep on Keepin' on.

 

[Hondo64d]

Good to know, that one sounds good. I meant to ask though, which criteria is most important to you.....suppression, length, or weight?

I’m coming from a 7.6” 12oz suppressor, which is just too long for the barrel length I like to shoot in the conditions I like to shoot, and it is much louder than either of the OGs or the Reaper. If an OG would fit my barrel, I would have gone that way. I wasn’t willing to go 14 oz of the OGL to get the short length, so I went with the Reaper. Even though I couldn’t get exactly what I wanted, I expect the 1.6” reduction in length and substantial increase in suppression over my current can will be a big improvement.

John