Was sitting down to prep for the VENT 1 subsonic technical talk, and had been looking through inventory and I thought holy crap we've evaluated Purposely Induced Porosity (PIP) technology more times than I had remembered.

As I discuss today, I think it's important to remember that's not any one technology or feature of a silencer that dictates the performance. You can use PIP and create things that are not great - I know this because we have evaluated prototypes that never made it to the light of day that behaved..... less than stellar.

It's interesting looking at the spread in the photo. Zastava, Dillon, and PTR all license PIP technology. And if you were just looking at that and didn't know what that meant, you might think "oh, OK, that means all the silencers basically perform the same way and do the same thing" and you would be wrong.

• The VENT series behaves relatively similarly in some ways, across its main three models, but the Spiritus really kicks it up a notch for 5.56 specificity over the VENT 3.
• The Dillon DRC family of silencers is interesting, especially for their size(s) or length(s). However, they have very different behavior than the VENT family from PTR. Not pictured is their .50 silencer that we have not evaluated, and I'm not sure of the recall status on that one but there was an active recall so if you have one and haven't contacted Dillon, please do so.
• Then you have the ZVUK (Zastava) - again, completely different than the VENT and DRC series.

I say all this to just reinforce a point- lattice structures and other design elements can be wonderful features of modern high performance silencers, but like many complex systems, it's the sum of the parts that dictates overall performance. To me (just my opinion), PIP should be viewed as a "power up" to silencers that utilize it. Used intelligently, you can do wonderfully insane things. Haphazardly, I feel that one could waste a lot of time and money.

We shall see how things progress! There are certainly other lattice structure technologies folks are pursuing. Durability, cleaning, and other factors do end up rearing their heads as potential compromises. The question may end up being... when do things like that matter, if at all, and for whom? Which use cases? It's interesting to think about!

VENT 1 subsonic technical talk I hope picks up where we left off two years ago with the 7.62 NATO evaluation and introduces some new folks to this interesting technology showcased again in last week's report!

The photograph contains Silencer Sound Standard Section 6 report numbers, some of which are member research supplements, but you can use this as a key to find things, in addition to the "PIP" metadata tag on the website, also on the podcast page, etc.

From left to right:

Zastava ZVUK

• Report 6.202: 16-in Yugo AK

Dillon DRC556

• Report 6.194: 14.5-in M4

Dillon DRC308

• Report 6.211: 14.5-in SR-25

PTR VENT 1

• Report 6.160: 20-in .308 bolt
• Report 6.238: 8-in 300BLK bolt

PTR VENT 3

• Report 6.135: 10.3-in MK18
• Member Research Supplement 6.169: FLOW 556K, FLOW 762 Ti, WB, Velos, VENT 3, FLOW 556 Ti

PTR VENT 2

• Report 6.131: Full size MP5 (SP5)
• Member Research Supplement 6.184: Phoenix, RS9, CASH 9K, Lithium, VENT 2, MOB, Wolfman long and short

PTR VENT Spiritus 556i

• Report 6.175: 10.3-in MK18
• Report 6.176: 14.5-in M4

Podcast Stuff

Episode 324 of The Jay Situation Podcast is out now on pewscience.com and all major providers.

Direct-download from the website, or use your favorite provider below:

Amazon Music | YouTube | YouTube Music | iTunes | Spotify | Pandora | TuneIn | Direct RSS Link

Today's topic:⠀

1. Sound Signature Review 6.238 – PTR VENT 1 on 8-in 300 BLK bolt-action. Welcome back, VENT 1 and PIP. It’s been a minute. What happens when this high performance 30 caliber silencer gets significantly lower pressure input than it did in the 2024 .308 report? Technical discussion of this high-performance silencer (00:05:55)

a. Re(intro) to the VENT 1 and PIP tech (00:07:41)

b. VENT 1 general overview (00:12:29)

c. VENT 1 silencer design and functional physics (00:18:11)

d. VENT 1 subsonic 300 BLK Hazard Map in Silencer Hazard Map Brief 8.1.35 (00:38:28)

e. Technical performance discussion (00:48:31)

f. Performance Comparisons and Overall thoughts (00:58:50)

As always, thank you so much for listening, and for your support!

Happy Thursday!^(My dudes)

YouTube doesn't seem to have the episode yet this morning.... sometimes that happens (don't know why). All other providers have it though!

USP45T is my main squeeze. I really enjoy the full size Ti-RANT 45. It is a very good silencer and the fact that it holds up so well after all these years is really cool. If anyone wants objective data and analysis on it, they can find that here. Anecdotally, I can tell you that my personal experience aligns with said data and analysis, which is one of the reasons I use the silencer...

The silencer is not made anymore. Folks tell me you can find them every once in a while. If you get a newer modular version, I'm sure you wouldn't be disappointed.

Speaking of modular version - I chose to go a different route, personally. I got very lucky and was able to source a Ti-RANT-S (the FDE silencer shown in the photo). I have not yet shot it on my USP. But test fitting it, boy, the vibes are strong. Very excited.

Will it be louder than the full size? You bet. Are the vibes immaculate? I believe them to be, yes. I bought this off a former AAC employee. We'll throw it in a test program to give all you folks with the modular version the performance info for the short configuration. Should be useful. Should be very neat to compare it with the short configuration of the Obsidian 45.

I like short pistol silencers sometimes because sometimes you don't need super quiet, you just need something more "handy" and you just don't want unsuppressed. Can be a very good thing for a quick critter problem, etc.

Hope you folks had a wonderful Labor Day weekend! Podcast has FOR Systems technical discussion today.

Podcast Stuff

Episode 321 of The Jay Situation Podcast is out now on pewscience.com and all major providers.

Direct-download from the website, or use your favorite provider below:

Amazon Music | YouTube | YouTube Music | iTunes | Spotify | Pandora | TuneIn | Direct RSS Link

Today's topic:⠀

1. Sound Signature Review 6.236 – Front of Rifle Systems MK12 Mod FOR reflex silencer on the 14.5-in M4A1RIII. Once again, cloners rejoice! Or maybe not! Check out this modern adaptation of reflex suppression for the MK12 platform, doing things quite a bit differently than the famous OPS INC 12th model reflex silencer. How does it compare to the Otter Creek Labs OCM5 and OCM6? Technical discussion (00:08:23)

a. Intro and why test on the 14.5-in M4 instead of the 18-in MK12? (00:10:01)

b. MK12 Mod FOR general overview (00:13:57)

c. MK12 Mod FOR silencer design and functional physics (00:20:42)

d. MK12 Mod FOR Hazard Map in Silencer Hazard Map Brief 8.1.33 (00:31:12)

e. Technical performance discussion (00:39:55)

f. Performance Comparisons and Overall thoughts (00:57:05)

As always, thank you so much for listening, and for your support!

Happy Thursday!^(My dudes)

Good morning, folks! Three (and a half?) deliverables for you today. First, two tests of the Rugged Obsidian 45 on the 1911 (long and short). Also, a Hazard Map Brief for a spatial look at the 1911 suppression of both configurations of the silencer. Then, a podcast episode with an Obsidian 45 1911 suppression intro.

Lab Data Stuff

Report 6.234 - Today we examine the high fidelity test results for the Rugged Obsidian 45 silencer, in two configurations (long and short) in the subsonic ammunition combustion regime with Speer Lawman 230gr .45 ACP ammunition fired from the standard full-size 1911 combat handgun

Tools to help you in addition to the report:

• Silencer Hazard Map Brief 8.1.31
• Updated Rankings (filter by .45 ACP, for example)
• Podcast Episode (intro today and deep dive next episode, as is tradition)

CliffsNotes

• Once again, thank you for your patience. itsbeen84years. The Rugged Obsidian 45 was first evaluated by PEW Science in May of 2020 in Report 6.7 on a 9mm pistol. Now that we are progressing with .45ACP pistol research, it returns to its rightful place - on the 1911.
• As I talk about on today's podcast episode, there is a method to the madness. It was very important that the KAC silencer be characterized first. And then, it logically followed the B&T silencer had to be next. And then, of course, the AAC Ti-RANT 45 was the most pivotal next step. Now, the logical progression brings us to the Obsidian 45. Is there an argument there could have been some other stuff first? Sure. But this progression makes sense, technologically. More will come.
• Spoiler alert - the answer to the million dollar question people have asked for years: which is quieter? An Obsidian 45 or a Ti-RANT 45? is....... Ti-RANT 45. Why? Is it the pure muzzle suppression? No. It's the back pressure. Physics is a cruel mistress and the early time flow rate of the Ti-RANT 45 was so ahead of its time it's not even funny. There's a reason a lot of us use a Ti-RANT 45 on our personal pistols. It's not for the nostalgia, trust me. I'm not a cloner. I only use old silencers when they actually work well lol
• As has been discussed ad nauseum in the research pedigree and on the podcast, the Obsidian family of silencers uses a neutered evolution of the original Omega baffle; curved and stepped cones without off-axis annular utilization. The Obsidian exists because Rugged exists because SWR existed. Nonetheless, many of us have enjoyed the Obsidian 45 for many years. It is one of the most versatile and well made pistol silencers out there. That is universally agreed upon, I think.
• The elephant in the room is the previously mentioned back pressure. Was (is) this a really big deal when you are using the silencer in an over-bore condition on a 9mm pistol, for example? Not as big a deal, no. But when you compare appropriate caliber-for-bore performance, and you suppress .45ACP, the lower combustion pressure doesn't save you. And, had we not evaluated the Ti-RANT 45, I'm not sure this point would be driven home hard enough for you, despite other clues being there:
• Speaking of clues, examine what happens with an Obsidian 9 when truncated (when you remove the front of it and shoot it "short") - back pressure generation in early time (in the part of the silencer near where it attaches to your barrel) is high in the classical silencers made by Rugged. This is extremely well studied. Increasing late time flow rate by removing distal baffles increases muzzle blast but only nominally reduces total back pressure. This prevents Obsidian silencers from doing what silencers like the Dead Air Mojave and CAT SC can do - they can somewhat maintain free field operator protection as adjacent risk goes up. Obsidian silencers have pistol shooter's ear Suppression Ratings that tank when you shorten the silencer. This nuance is a proven physical reality that should give you comfort regarding the consistency of the research pedigree, to date; the phenomenon is congruent with reciprocating weapon systems throughout the Standard.
• Will you not enjoy the Rugged Obsidian 45 due to the back pressure? - I wouldn't go that far. Several folks have shot this silencer for a very long time and love it. Can some silencers do things better? Yes. We've shown you one already. One can argue if you take length into account, we've shown you two already.
• Two world wars.
• This is in the report but I'll say it here anyway - we've tested the Obsidian 45 on several different .45ACP pistols. It's shooter's ear Suppression Rating is lower than that of the Ti-RANT 45 on every pistol. The 1911 is the quietest suppressed .45ACP pistol host we have found, and that's why we are using it. So reading between the lines here - this is the best you're going to get out of an Obsidian 45 on a pistol with real full power ammunition. You can take that to the bank.

Commentary:

Huge thanks to everyone that made this possible - consumers, manufacturers, you name it. Very pleased to be able to reconvene 6 years later and hit this silencer again, as intended. Rugged silencers were a big part of the why and how of PEW Science being founded. Perhaps if it wasn't for incessant YouTube influencer marketing, I wouldn't have felt so compelled to set out to prove what silencers actually do. I felt that my hand was forced. Here we are, I guess. All is not negative though; I do think Rugged silencers are incredibly well made and they look cool. And several of them perform very well. I think the timing of their influencer marketing just pushed me over the edge. Could have happened to any blast engineer buying silencers at the time, I guess.

Oh - one more thing - don't put a 9mm end cap in it and expect not to get strikes. Wrote that down in the 2020 report and left it in the conclusion in the 2026 report too. The meme you guys made about that is not without true cause.

And always remember - it's not "supersonic projectiles" that make things loud. It's not "556" that's "just loud." It's not any of that nonsense. It is blast loads that form the primary hazards from these systems. 5.56 is "loud" because you have blast loads coming out of the ejection port of the AR and the blast loads coming out of the muzzle end of the silencer. .45 ACP pistols are loud because of blast loads. Suppressing .45 ACP pistols is a different sport than suppressing a 9mm pistols. Big hole. Lower pressure. Combine the two and it gets really challenging and super fun!

I hope you folks find the data and analysis useful! Can't wait to test more things on the 1911!

Check out pewscience.com for the Suppression Rating.

Here is a direct link to the reviews.

Here are the updated PEW Science Rankings.

• Rugged Obsidian 45 1911 .45 ACP Pistol Sound (Blast) Testing Results and Analysis
• Silencer Hazard Map Brief 8.1.31

Our silhouette man is now much older that he has a suppressed 1911!

TLDR: Green good, red bad.

Podcast Stuff

Episode 318 of The Jay Situation Podcast is out now on pewscience.com and all major providers.

Direct-download from the website, or use your favorite provider below:

Amazon Music | YouTube | YouTube Music | iTunes | Spotify | Pandora | TuneIn | Direct RSS Link

Today's topics:⠀

1. Sound Signature Review 6.234 – Rugged Obsidian 45 in both long and short configurations on the .45ACP 1911 full size combat handgun. We first evaluated the Obsidian 45 on 9mm pistol back in 2020 in Report 6.7. Now it’s back – can it compete with the legacy AAC Ti-RANT 45? How does it compare with the KAC and B&T silencers? Does back pressure still matter? All of these questions are answered in today’s report. This is an introductory discussion. (00:09:39)
2. Do you still need a Form 4 for personal silencer transfer? Or just a 4473? Great question. Let’s talk about this historic situation we haven’t had to think much about since 1934. (00:43:51)

As always, thank you so much for listening, and for your support!

Happy Thursday!****^(My dudes)

I love it when a plan comes together. MK23 Compact now complete.

Final piece of the puzzle arrived a few weeks back; had sent off my spare USP45T slide to Wright Armory to get their i-DOT system installed. Not cheap. But also, pretty dang cool. I know several folks here have done it before; if you're a hammer-fired HK person like me, and carry one every day... not having a red dot is bonkers in 2026. So here we are! Initial thoughts and the general experience:

• Yeah, it was expensive. But it's a plate system, so you aren't married to one optic pattern. I got both the RMR pattern plate and the ACRO pattern plate (because I wasn't 100% sure which optic I was going to use at the time). I had carried RMR in the past, and the top loading battery of the RMR HD sold me. The bigger window and light sensor is a bonus. I really like the HD.
• Also another reason I didn't blink as much at the cost is the finish. Full nitride. And good nitride. They will nitride over your serial number, proof marks, and date code, so if you one of those super strict folks that care about that, just know. A little HK trivia - when you buy a spare slide from HK, the serial number is inside, on the top (not on the exterior).
• The iron sights they install are plain jane flat black, which is good for optic use I think. Front sight blade a little taller than the stock USP45T night sight. Note that the stock USP45T non-night sight blade is taller than the factory night sight blade. This is something only us silencer nerds really talk about.
• I weighed the factory slide with factory sights and then weighed the slide with the i-DOT and the RMR HD. New setup weighs 0.2 ounces more than the old. I consider that pretty much perfect. Inertial resistance maintained!
• Took 2 months from when they received my spare slide until I had it back in my hands with the RMR plate installed and the ACRO plate in the box. I'd say for a high quality machining job, plate system, and good nitride finish.... worth it (to me).

This is pretty freakin sweet.

Other details because they are cool and I like them:

• Original AAC Ti-RANT 45 is my main squeeze for this pistol. I practice with it at the end of every one of my training sessions.
• Kydex from Next Level Tactical u/ImpossibleArgument. It fits my gat really well and been carrying it every day for months now. I really like it.
• Surefire X300V on the Mr NEIN adapter (make sure to loctite your Mr NEIN screws)
• Old Gemtech silencer pouch because I don't have the AAC pouch for the silencer. Oh well.

.45ACP is so cool. I think (but have not confirmed) that the lower pressure of the .45ACP round is why these particular guns will outlast us all. I don't know the last USP45 I've seen go down. These things are like cockroaches. They'll be here after we're gone.

I did change the durometer on the silencer piston o-ring to a little softer. It kinda made a little difference I think. I believe all piston/barrel o-rings are inferior to the KAC setup. The first person to offer a piston system with an o-ring setup as good as KAC gets a freakin gold star, man.

Deep dive on OCL Infinity 556K today and I briefly touch on the above i-DOT stuff too.

Podcast Stuff

Episode 317 of The Jay Situation Podcast is out now on pewscience.com and all major providers.

Direct-download from the website, or use your favorite provider below:

Amazon Music | YouTube | YouTube Music | iTunes | Spotify | Pandora | TuneIn | Direct RSS Link

Today's topics:⠀

1. Sound Signature Review 6.233 – Otter Creek Labs Infinity 556K on the MK18 with three different end caps. Bonus silencer tone study for PEW Science Members. How does the OCL Infinity technology behave when it has a more dedicated bore for the 5.56 cartridge? Any improvements over the larger 30 caliber Infinity? Technical discussion with an advanced analysis of “tone” physics that are always included in the Suppression Rating. (00:09:44)

a. Intro and recap of this monster project (00:16:09)

b. Infinity 556K general overview (00:17:35)

c. Infinity 556K silencer design and functional physics (00:27:04)

d. Three Hazard Maps in Silencer Hazard Map Brief 8.1.30 (00:38:18)

e. High level performance discussion and “tone” – why does it matter? (00:45:06)

f. Performance Comparisons and Overall thoughts (01:04:40)

2. Wright Armory i-DOT on the USP 45 Tactical. Worth it? Initial thoughts on daily carry with this interesting option to modernize your beloved HK USP. (01:11:50)

As always, thank you so much for listening, and for your support!

Happy Tuesday!^(My dudes)

Good morning, folks! Six deliverables for you today. First, large testing and analysis case study on the Otter Creek Labs Infinity 556K with all three of its end caps. PEW Science Members get an in-depth tone analysis case study too. Also, a Hazard Map Brief for spatial looks at blast overpressure hazard reduction for all three end caps. Then, a podcast episode with the T&K Vorix 30 Ti technical deep dive and the Infinity 556K intro.

Lab Data Stuff

Report 6.233 - Today we examine the high fidelity test results for the Otter Creek Labs Infinity 556K silencer with all three end caps in the supersonic ammunition combustion regime with 5.56 NATO M193 fired from the standard untuned 10.3-in barrel MK18.

Tools to help you in addition to the very large report:

• Silencer Hazard Map Brief 8.1.30
• Updated Rankings (filter by MK18; Record Numbers 270, 271, and 272)
• Podcast Episode 316 (intro today and deep dive next episode, as is tradition)

Does "tone" matter? Yes. Always has.

CliffsNotes

• The Infinity 556K is just like the larger .30 caliber Infinity, except it's made out of Haynes 282 instead of Inconel, it's around an inch shorter, it is a .243 caliber silencer, and the blast chamber venting is slightly different. You can check out our .30 caliber Infinity research here. (there's a lot)
• The Infinity line continues to push 5.56 NATO suppression from Otter Creek into advancement. The intro section to the report compares all of their other AR silencers on the MK18, with the exception of the Universe-36. You can see our Universe-36 report here. The point is that it started with the Polonium, and each successive iteration has changed the performance, learning has occurred, and the Infinity 556K is the most balanced silencer for suppressing 5.56 that Otter Creek has created, so far. It behaves like a Polonium with lower back pressure, basically, without losing performance anywhere, if you want to sum it up in one sentence.
• There are three different end caps available. The silencer only includes one end cap - the partially vented variant. As it turns out... on an untuned MK18, that variant had the highest performance in our test program.
• "But how could that be? How could the partially vented end cap have a higher muzzle Suppression Rating than the solid end cap if it has higher blast pressure and impulse measurements?" Because the Suppression Rating doesn't just look at peak pressure and impulse. It considers the entire signatures and all the signature components. Keep reading.
• There is a tone analysis in the full Member version of the report. Not a PEW Science Member? That's OK. Hope we can earn your support in the future. I'll just give you the bottom line so you feel no pressure to support our lab: the partially vented end cap only vents from the annulus (it doesn't provide additional primary bore venting) and as a result, the higher flow rate drops signature frequency in a certain band and rides the line such that healthy human ears should perceive it as a little more boomy but not as harsh. It's technically safer, by a little bit. Also in the research supplement - if you have your audiograms handy from your ear doctor, and you know if you have hearing damage in certain frequency ranges, you will be able to see which configurations of the silencer will sound different to you and why. This advanced analysis is not new to PEW Science. We have done this for years and all Suppression Rating calculations include tone because it's baked into the math. We couldn't remove tone even if we wanted to. It's not possible to remove tone from the Suppression Rating dynamic analysis calculations. The Suppression Rating simplifies the science by taking what you think is "subjective" regarding tone and objectively quantifying it with math.
• The Infinity 556K controls blast propagation better than the .30 caliber Infinity because it's not as over bored for the cartridge. This report is chock full of continued evidence that dedicated bore silencers are superior for suppression performance, something PEW Science has been telling you for years, publicly documented, starting when the silencer industry told you otherwise.
• As shown in the Hazard Maps, does it really matter to you which end cap you pick, from a blast hazard perspective, with the Infinity 556K? Maybe not. Maybe you should pick the version that gives you the least gas blowback in your face based on your particular weapon system. PEW Science doesn't care what you buy and we will never (and have never) recommend a silencer to anyone. So do what is appropriate for you.

Commentary:

You can get the silencer with and without a mount. We tested it with the mount option you can purchase with it - the Rearden Atlas + Single Port Brake (SPB). OCL told us it gave the best performance, so that's what we tested it with because that's what they asked us to do. What happens when you use a direct thread mount? I would guess it slightly drops performance with this particular silencer. Go experiment and tell us. Anyone selling mounts and telling you their mount is optimized for all silencers is either misunderstanding what they are saying or they are lying to you, or both.

Big thanks to Otter Creek Labs for continuing to trusting us to perform these 3rd party laboratory performance validations. OCL has come a long way in 5.56 suppression since the Polonium.

I hope you folks find the data and analysis useful!

Check out pewscience.com for the Suppression Rating.

Here is a direct link to the reviews.

Here are the updated PEW Science Rankings.

• Otter Creek Labs Infinity 556K Sound (Blast) Testing Results and Analysis on the 5.56 MK18
• Silencer Hazard Map Brief 8.1.230

Our silhouette man needs to pick an end cap and stick to it!

TLDR: Green good, red bad.

Podcast Stuff

Episode 316 of The Jay Situation Podcast is out now on pewscience.com and all major providers.

Direct-download from the website, or use your favorite provider below:

Amazon Music | YouTube | YouTube Music | iTunes | Spotify | Pandora | TuneIn | Direct RSS Link

Today's topics:⠀

1. Sound Signature Review 6.232 – T&K Vorix 30 Ti on .308 and 300 BLK bolt-action rifles. Multi-cartridge testing for this lightweight and compact bolt-action rifle silencer, to fully characterize its behavior. Technical discussion of last week’s report (00:07:22)

a. Intro and recap – hunting silencer? (00:08:52)

b. Vorix 30 Ti general overview (00:11:55)

c. Vorix 30 Ti silencer design and functional physics (00:16:18)

d. Hazard Map Brief 8.1.29 (00:24:07)

e. Vorix 30 Ti silencer performance with .308 and 300 BLK (00:33:18)

f. Performance Comparisons and Overall thoughts (01:01:54)

2. Sound Signature Review 6.233 – Otter Creek Labs Infinity 556K on the MK18 with three different end caps. Bonus silencer tone study for PEW Science Members. How does the OCL Infinity technology behave when it has a more dedicated bore for the 5.56 cartridge? Any improvements over the larger 30 caliber Infinity? Introductory discussion for today’s big report on this variable back pressure hard use silencer with an advanced analysis of “tone” physics that are always included in the Suppression Rating. (01:08:13)

As always, thank you so much for listening, and for your support!

Happy Wednesday!****^(My dudes)

Good morning, folks! Four deliverables for you today. First, testing and analysis report of the T&K Vorix 30 Ti silencer on both .308 and 300 BLK. Also, a Hazard Map Brief for spatial looks at blast overpressure hazard reduction for both cases. Then, a podcast episode with the LayerX Strake 9 technical deep dive and the Vorix 30 Ti intro.

Lab Data Stuff

Report 6.232 - Today we examine the high fidelity test results for the T&K Vorix 30 Ti silencer in both the supersonic and subsonic ammunition combustion regimes with 7.62 NATO M80 and subsonic 190gr 300 BLK ammunition fired from 20-in and 8-in barrel bolt-action rifles, respectively.

Tools to help you in addition to the double-header report:

• Silencer Hazard Map Brief 8.1.29
• Updated Rankings (filter by .308 and/or 300 BLK)
• Podcast Episode (intro today and deep dive next episode, as is tradition)

Multiple combustion regimes? The humanity!

CliffsNotes

• A lot of folks are certainly making silencers. Here's a hunting gear company joining the mix. This is a purposely designed bolt gun silencer - light weight and somewhat compact.
• The Vorix 30 Ti is HUB compatible, 3D printed titanium, weighs a little over 10 ounces without a mount, and interestingly is a little less than 1.5 inch diameter.
• The PEW Science laboratory was asked to characterize this silencer in multiple combustion regimes, so that T&K Hunting could understand the range of personnel hazards, consistency, and performance, that their users may experience; and they wanted to understand the physics of their design and double-check their own testing. That is the reason for the two-test study today.
• We were very intrigued. One of the main reasons is that despite being 3D-printed, this silencer is not exotic inside. In fact, a strong argument could be made that this could be traditionally machined. However, what we have learned is that rapid prototyping and design optimization is a significant benefit of additive manufacturing. What you see with this Vorix report is an example of that. Very optimized traditional design.
• As described in detail in the report, they are essentially relying on highly optimized porting to relieve stagnation with the lower expansion volume without off-axis or annular re-routing. In plain English - they made the silencer smaller and still work well by designing it better through optimization. Again, more information in the report.
• Surprisingly high performance (to us, at least). And some of the physics were actually very interesting, including the almost rapid stabilization once things want to run away during initial high pressure jetting. For you silencer physics nerds out there, we have no doubt that this report is going to scratch your itch.
• We talk a lot about "silencer fingerprints" at PEW Science and being able to identify silencers by their signatures. An interesting tidbit about today's report is that the fingerprint of the Vorix 30 Ti has features that manifest across combustion regimes - in both .308 and 300 BLK. That is really neat.

Commentary:

It's not often that we find the testing and analysis of a conventional design exciting. However, studies of optimized conventional designs can prove very rewarding! For example - take a look at the Half Nelson from Q. Look at its subsonic 300 BLK performance. Then compare it to the Vorix 30 Ti. The report has a paragraph on this that you should read. Volume increases with the square of the diameter. And yet.... the Vorix wipes the floor with the Half Nelson in overall suppression and FRP control. How do you explain that? Design optimization. When designs get more advanced in pure technology or optimization, volume can be a poor predictor of performance. It is great to see yet another example of this known phenomenon.

Big thanks to T&K Hunting for trusting us to perform this 3rd party laboratory performance validation. They set out to make a hunting silencer and it looks like they did.

I hope you folks find the data and analysis useful!

Check out pewscience.com for the Suppression Rating.

Here is a direct link to the reviews.

Here are the updated PEW Science Rankings.

• T&K Vorix 30 Ti Sound (Blast) Testing Results and Analysis with .308 and 300 BLK
• Silencer Hazard Map Brief 8.1.29

Our silhouette man is hunting rabbits!

TLDR: Green good, red bad.

Podcast Stuff

Episode 315 of The Jay Situation Podcast is out now on pewscience.com and all major providers.

Direct-download from the website, or use your favorite provider below:

Amazon Music | YouTube | YouTube Music | iTunes | Spotify | Pandora | TuneIn | Direct RSS Link

Today's topics:⠀

1. Sound Signature Review 6.231 – LayerX Strake 9 MP5 testing. It’s been about 3 months since you’ve seen the MP5! Welcome back, subgun friends. This is the relatively light and compact Strake 9. Hybrid designs and low back pressure – what happens when the silencer is small? Can this beat the HUXWRX Cash 9 at its own game? Technical deep dive for the report published last week. (00:10:12)

a. Intro and recap – what is this silencer for? (00:11:59)

b. Strake 9 general overview (00:14:50)

c. Strake 9 silencer design and functional physics (00:17:49)

d. Hazard Map Brief 8.1.28 (00:24:39)

e. Strake 9 silencer performance (00:30:58)

f. Performance Comparisons and Overall thoughts (00:40:46)

2. Sound Signature Review 6.232 – T&K Vorix 30 Ti on .308 and 300 BLK bolt-action rifles. Multi-cartridge testing for this lightweight and compact bolt-action rifle silencer, to fully characterize its behavior. A little under 1.5-in diameter, and less than 8 inches long… yet bringing the performance? Pleasant surprises seem to becoming more commonplace in today’s silencer market, which is great! Let’s take a look at these interesting physics in this introduction to the report published today. (00:46:16)

As always, thank you so much for listening, and for your support!

Happy Wednesday!****^(My dudes)

MFMD technical deep dive on the podcast today. Going through all of the data and all of the questions from folks about this silencer system, I think probably one of the biggest discussion points was the weight. Somewhere, someone said there was titanium as a possibility later but I haven't seen that, nor spoken with Strategic Sciences about it, so I'm not sure.

I do know that the durability wouldn't be the same as the Inconel, but also, the way blast loads expand into the silencer could perhaps prolong the time before erosion starts. These things do heat up very quickly though, due to how efficiently the gasses expand throughout all the cavities, so if you did make them out of titanium.... not sure how that would go under heavy firing schedules. Just some thoughts about that.

Also regarding heat, I suspect (and have heard reports) that mirage may be killer. Not sure if there are covers available.

Last thing about heat - since both of the systems in the photo are reflex designs that we evaluated, we've also heard two anonymous people say they've had groups open up as the barrel gets really hot, but we haven't seen any actual data on that. If anyone out there has some real experience to share, let me know. We'll probably shoot for groups with long strings to see if we can get things to open up, just too see. I'm curious! It could be a reflex-centric issue (could happen with any reflex silencer, theoretically), or it could be a complete non-issue that people are just parroting. The internet would do that?? lol - I mean, at the end of the day, all silencers will heat the end of your barrel muzzle, significantly.

edit: someone chimed in with professional experience on group size, here.

Tried to hit all the technical things and all the major performance factors for this system on today's episode for you folks, to accompany last week's report. When we show you the semiauto research, I think it will help a lot with the whole picture.

Hope this helps in the interim!

Episode 313 of The Jay Situation Podcast is out now on pewscience.com and all major providers.

Direct-download from the website, or use your favorite provider below:

Amazon Music | YouTube | YouTube Music | iTunes | Spotify | Pandora | TuneIn | Direct RSS Link

Today's topic:⠀

1. Sound Signature Review 6.230 – Strategic Sciences MFMD + SDX on 20-in .308 bolt-action. One of the most interesting silencer systems we have evaluated in the research, to date. The multifunction muzzle device, like all silencers, suppresses recoil, flash, and blast. How does the MFMD compare with other things on the market? Are reflex designs making a comeback? Technical discussion to accompany last week’s report. (00:08:58)

a. Intro and recap – what’s the point of this system? (00:11:14)

b. MFMD + SDX overview – size, weight, oh my! (00:18:58)

c. MFMD + SDX silencer design – what in tarnation? (00:41:42)

d. Hazard Map Brief 8.1.27 (00:51:43)

e. System performance Blast? Sound? Recoil? Flash? Barrel heat? (00:59:54)

f. Overall thoughts (01:19:37)

As always, thank you so much for listening, and for your support!

Happy Wednesday!^(My dudes)

Good morning, folks! Three deliverables for you today. First, testing and analysis report of the MFMD + SDX silencer on 20-in .308 bolt action rifle. Also, a Hazard Map Brief for spatial looks at significant blast overpressure hazard reduction. Then, a podcast episode with the Tuna Cans deep dive and Strategic Sciences intro.

Lab Data Stuff

Report 6.230 - Today we examine the high fidelity test results for the Strategic Sciences MFMD + SDX silencer in supersonic ammunition combustion regime with 7.62x51mm NATO ammunition fired from a 20-in barrel bolt action rifle.

Tools to help you in addition to the report:

• Silencer Hazard Map Brief 8.1.27
• Updated Rankings (filter by .308)
• Podcast Episode (intro today and deep dive next episode, as is tradition)

Something I am typing in these comments is tripping a Reddit filter, so I am slowly adding text for you folks, sorry.

CliffsNotes

• There are a lot of things about this silencer system that we learned during the program through our testing that we are excited to educate the public about. This post hits the high points. The report contains more in-depth information, as will future reports.

• This is the Multifunction Muzzle Device (MFDM) system from Strategic Sciences, and we tested it with the Suppressor Device, Extended (SDX) module clipped into the front of the assembly. The PEW Science laboratory has also tested the system without the SDX installed. We have also tested the 5.56 version of the silencer on the M4, with and without the SDX installed. All of this data and analysis is forthcoming. Today you get the MFDM + SDX on .308.

• The performance is not normal; it is extreme. The system has very high blast overpressure (sound signature) suppression, flash suppression, recoil reduction, and back pressure reduction. When blast loads enter the silencer, they do some very desirable things. More about this in the report.

• All in, this weighs 41.7 ounces. Recoil is reduced through gas dynamics, but.... it's also because of the mass. Of course. Oh, and it's Inconel 718. The weight helps with not only recoil, but also thermal mass and durability. You can run this on a belt-fed machine gun, a lot.

• Suppression Rating, through the risk field, is the highest we've ever seen on this host weapon platform. Human hazard, when shooting this thing, is low. The Hazard Map should really give you an easy to view feel for how absolutely insane the blast overpressure suppression is. It's so quiet that it makes the internal combustion in the bolt-action chamber meaningfully demarcated on the map.

• All the weights and dimensions are in the report. Beats all the 7.7 inch silencers in pure suppression, and all the longer ones too.

• You'll see semiauto data from us at a later date. This silencer exemplifies high early time flow rate (low early time back pressure) and controlled distal momentum (low late time flow rate). Recently, you saw the FOR Systems Predator 6.5 behave with a similar description. The Strategic Sciences MFMD is a whole other level. Not the same sport. When you put this on an AR, it's really something else...

• The overall size/weight of this thing is definitely important to note. Definitely not for everyone. But if you want to put a lot of rounds through a weapon, and be quiet, and have low back pressure, and basically do it all..... this is probably on your short list. It kinda has to be, based on the pure physics of what is happening with it.

Commentary:

All silencers reduce recoil, blast overpressure (sound), and flash. Few do all of that, with low back pressure, to the degree of the MFMD. The basic method by which they approached the problem is much different than a lot of (most) silencers. It takes a bit of outside the box thinking and a little bit of recklessness to try something like this.

Russ Oliver created this design. For those of you who don't know him or who he is, he is the creator of OSS (now HUXWRX). A personal anecdote: PEW Science tested OSS silencers many years ago with internal funding as part of a really interesting research project, then published the results, and to our knowledge, was the first public entity to show their efficacy and give them a fair shake with real test data and engineering analysis. Later, after seeing how we were able to characterize the silencers, the company became a client of our lab, just as they changed their name to HUXWRX. Never got to perform work directly for Russ until now, so it is really cool for me personally to have the opportunity to work on this project. Things tend to come full circle; you never know!

Big thanks to Strategic Sciences for trusting us to perform this 3rd party laboratory performance validation. It was cool to see our data and analysis conclusions align with those from the U.S. Government laboratories.

I hope you folks find the data and analysis useful! It's a good time to be into silencers!

Check out pewscience.com for the Suppression Rating.

Here is a direct link to the reviews.

Here are the updated PEW Science Rankings.

• Strategic Sciences MFMD + SDX Sound (Blast) Testing Results and Analysis
• Silencer Hazard Map Brief 8.1.27

Our silhouette man now has a heavy but quiet and soft shooting rifle!

TLDR: Green good, red bad.

Podcast Stuff

Episode 312 of The Jay Situation Podcast is out now on pewscience.com and all major providers.

Direct-download from the website, or use your favorite provider below:

Amazon Music | YouTube | YouTube Music | iTunes | Spotify | Pandora | TuneIn | Direct RSS Link

Today's topics:⠀

1. Sound Signature Review 6.229 – Tuna Cans 5.56 XL and WRMFZY 5.56 on the 14.5-in M4. Two silencers from the new breed of economical manufacturing that is occurring in the industry. Well-understood traditional and conventional baffle designs. How does varying length and volumetric expansion vary performance, if at all? Deep dive into last week’s multi-silencer case study report. (00:08:15)

a. Intro and recap (00:09:54)

b. Tuna Cans overview (00:15:11)

c. Tuna Cans silencer design (00:23:33)

d. Hazard Map Brief 8.1.26 (00:31:31)

e. System performance (00:35:29)

f. Overall thoughts (00:55:44)

2. Sound Signature Review 6.230 – Strategic Sciences MFMD + SDX on 20-in .308 bolt-action. One of the most interesting silencer systems we have evaluated in the research, to date. The multifunction muzzle device, like all silencers, suppresses recoil, flash, and blast. How does the MFMD compare with other things on the market? Are reflex designs making a comeback? Introductory discussion for this very high performance system. (00:58:17)

As always, thank you so much for listening, and for your support!

Happy Wednesday!^(My dudes)

Good morning, folks! Three deliverables for you today. First, testing and analysis report of the Tuna Cans 5.56 XL and WRMFZY 5.56 silencers on the 14.5-in M4. Also, a Hazard Map Brief for spatial looks at the similar risk from these two silences. Then, a podcast episode with a FOR Predator 6.5 deep dive with 6.5 PRC.

Lab Data Stuff

Report 6.229 - Today we examine the high fidelity test results for both the Tuna Cans 5.56 XL and WRMFZY 5.56 silencers in the supersonic ammunition combustion regime with 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition fired from the 14.5-in barrel midlength gas M4A1.

Tools to help you in addition to the report:

• Silencer Hazard Map Brief 8.1.26
• Updated Rankings (filter by M4 or 5.56 and drill down)
• Podcast Episode (intro today and deep dive next episode, as is tradition)

CliffsNotes

• There is no shortage of new silencer companies in the space, and there is most certainly no shortage of demand for 5.56 silencer evaluation. That being said, this is an excellent learning opportunity (old hat to some of you, but very new to many of you). This should be considered an excellent case study for those new to silencers. In that respect, it's exciting!
• These two silencers use the exact same type of technology - straight notched cones with ribs. The ribs increase turbulence and surface area which increases the efficiency of heat transfer and helps suppression. The differences between the two silencers? Length, diameter, manufacturing methods, and modularity. Performance differences? Almost none. This may surprise some of you.
• The 5.56 XL was tested in its full 12-baffle configuration. It is modular (see photo). Use all, none, or some baffles. It is stainless steel and weighs 29.5 ounces as shown and 9.25 inches long.
• The WRMFZY 5.56 is 3D printed and weighs 24.2 ounces as shown and is 6.93 inches long.
• We understand how this technology works and have for many years. FRP is significant. Average suppression will scale with length and volumetric expansion (hence the similar performance when you shrink the length and make it fatter). Back pressure will remain high. What happens if you remove baffles? Back pressure will remain high. Why? Early time flow rate remains restricted. Can't change that with a baffle count change. Again, we learned this long ago.
• Is the performance higher than you thought it would be? Maybe, maybe not. At the muzzle, these silencers suppress exactly how we would expect them to, on average, given their size. FRP is severe, in both cases. At the shooter's ear on the over gassed M4, you will experience severe back pressure. It is highly recommend that you tune your gun for these silencers. The manufacturer also recommends that.
• How bad is the back pressure? Think OCL Polonium, SilencerCo Saker, original AAC M4-2000. If you want quantitative details about this back pressure, it is present in the full version of the reports for the Tuna Cans silencers and the aforementioned silencers and has been on the website for years. Not speculation, guessing, or subjectivity. Real measured blast data.
• You may be asking yourself if the shooter's ear Suppression Rating is sitting at the low 20s on the M4, does that automatically mean a silencer has very high back pressure and the user will experience blowback in their face? The answer to that question is: no. It does not mean that. Back pressure occurs in a time continuum in the silencer and blow back (and ejection port blast, which are two different things) occurs as a result of how that continuum interacts with the weapon system. You can have a silencer on an over-gassed M4 get a similar shooter's ear Suppression Rating that has much lower back pressure than these Tuna Cans. Examples: Dillon DRC556 and CAT ST. It is not as simple as some people make it. This is why, sometimes (a lot of the times) reading the actual reports is important.
• There are three main high level performance conclusions you should probably read in the first section of the report. They are under Figure 1. These Tuna Cans are compared with the Top 5 M4 silencers.

Commentary

The silencer industry is not shrinking, at least for now. There are a multitude of ways that a new manufacturer/brand may choose to tell you about their product or demonstrate the performance of their product. The former is common and the later is less common and much more difficult to do objectively. We hope that this report helps people understand that physics does not care about your brand, price point, or marketing. These Tuna Can silencers do exactly what people who understand silencers thought they would do. High back pressure, high FRP, and decent overall performance with 5.56. Nothing anyone says about these silencers will change their physical reality and you will not get advanced performance from silencers like this. It is not possible. But that doesn't mean the community doesn't deserve a refresh on how this stuff works. There are enough new silencer people out there that rudimentary technology has to be revisited now and then. The amount of novices, as evidenced by the questions here every day, is direct evidence. If we don't explain how this stuff works, consumers will continue to get fooled by a lot of companies. It keeps happening and our mission includes helping to stop it. I think this is a good thing to be exposed to, once in a while.

Big thanks to Tuna Cans for trusting us to perform this 3rd party laboratory performance validation and for being mature enough to realize physics doesn't care about feelings.

I hope you folks find the data and analysis useful! Suppressing magnums is neat!

Check out pewscience.com for the Suppression Rating.

Here is a direct link to the reviews.

Here are the updated PEW Science Rankings.

• Tuna Cans 5.56 XL and WRMFZY 5.56 Sound (Blast) Testing Results and Analysis
• Silencer Hazard Map Brief 8.1.26

Our silhouette man has really shot a lot of 5.56.

TLDR: Green good, red bad.

P.S. - I don't know what a WRMFZY is. I think they make t-shirts and stickers.

Podcast Stuff

Episode 311 of The Jay Situation Podcast is out now on pewscience.com and all major providers.

Direct-download from the website, or use your favorite provider below:

Amazon Music | YouTube | YouTube Music | iTunes | Spotify | Pandora | TuneIn | Direct RSS Link

Today's topics:⠀

1. Sound Signature Review 6.228 – FOR Systems Predator 6.5 with 6.5 PRC. Hunters rejoice. Killing two birds with one stone – adding pressure and shrinking jet diameter. Please welcome 6.5 PRC to the research pedigree. The FOR Systems Predator 6.5 kicks things off. Technical discussion of last week’s report. (00:10:42)

a. Intro and recap (00:11:50)

b. Predator 6.5 overview (00:17:10)

c. Predator 6.5 silencer design (00:24:56)

d. Hazard Map Brief 8.1.25 (00:31:54)

e. System performance (00:42:13)

f. Overall thoughts (01:06:43)

2. Sound Signature Review 6.229 – Tuna Cans 5.56 XL and WRMFZY 5.56 on the 14.5-in M4. Two silencers from the new breed of economical manufacturing that is occurring in the industry. Well-understood traditional and conventional baffle designs. How does varying length and volumetric expansion vary performance, if at all? Intro to today’s multi-silencer case study report. (01:08:11)

As always, thank you so much for listening, and for your support!

Happy Wednesday!^(My dudes)

Saw this on Twitter this morning.

>The complaint alleges that beginning no later than Sept. 18, 2023, Derrick began using several social media sites to distribute videos of himself making various explosive materials, to include detonators, nickel aminoguanidine perchlorate (NAP), ethylene glycol dinitrate (EGDN), hexamethylene triperoxide diamine (HMTD), hexamine dinitrate (HDN), Research Department eXplosive (RDX), silver acetylide double salt (SADS), trinitroxylene (TNX or R-salt), trinitrotoluene (TNT), pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN), aminoguanidine bicarbonate, and ammonium nitrate/nitromethane (ANNM). In his videos, Derrick provided step-by-step instructions on how to make these explosives.

>According to the complaint, Derrick’s videos were downloaded from his publicly available video sharing accounts and used by Shamsud-Din Jabbar, the individual who conducted an attack in New Orleans on Jan. 1, 2025. Jabbar had created IEDs consistent with Derrick’s instructional videos. The devices placed by Jabbar did not detonate and were subsequently rendered safe by law enforcement. Also, according to the complaint, on May 4, 2026, an explosion occurred at a private residence in Odessa, Mo. Investigators who searched the private residence after the explosion, found two components suspected of being used in explosive devices. The occupant of the residence told investigators that he manufactured explosive devices after watching online tutorials on a social media account that is believed to be utilized by Derrick to distribute information relating to the manufacture of explosives. An investigation of the Odessa explosion is ongoing.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdmo/pr/sweet-springs-missouri-man-charged-manufacturing-explosives-unlawfully-possessing