In light of seeing more Obsidian posts. Here meme.

Hub mount failed on ocl polo k sending it 70 yards down range. 2nd time this has happened. First time there was no baffle strikes and ocl send me a new mount super fast. I love this can and have tens of thousands of rounds through it.

Chopped 10G - personal gun

I am sitting in a Dr. office with nothing to do so you have the privilege of receiving my ramblings today.

I have been in the market for a can and went down the same rabbit-hole I'm sure many here have experienced. I was torn between a Tisha and Rhodie 6k. Both seem like great cans. SAW seems like a great company that is having trouble scaling. Ridgeback has mixed reviews and is often criticized here for how they handle certain things. The Rhodie 6k is significantly cheaper, especially when on sale.

PewScience is a fantastic resource, so it was one of the first places I looked. The Rhodie is not on pewscience. I am now aware of the controversy and drama surrounding that.

TL;DR - Ridgeback and some other companies, not so eloquently came out against PewScience. Their main arguments being that they had to pay for a review, and they felt they had better ROI spending their funds elsewhere. There were also some complaints about PewScience hiding/obfuscating certain metrics/criteria/methods. The hivemind has sided against Ridgeback here, for both valid and invalid reasons from my perspective, which I'll get into.

There have been many accusations that Ridgeback and that associated group are lying about PewScience and slandering their business. I see on reddit that there is a common theme of actively avoiding buying or recommending suppressors that aren't on PewScience. Even going as far as specifically recommending others NOT to buy a suppressor because it is not on PewScience.

I recently had a conversation in a thread with Jay from pewscience where he also continually directly and indirectly insinuated that these groups are lying about his business. This is where things get murky. Jay makes repeated, intentionally crafted statements that frame the situation in a way you would think that everything Ridgeback & co says has no basis in reality. When pressed, however, he actively avoids addressing what I view are the core criticisms against him.

Let's focus on the main to allegation, costs of a review -

The specific allegation from Ridgeback & co is that in order to get a suppressor reviewed by PewScience, you must pay $6000-$25000, depending on services requested. In my discussions with Jay, and what I've read online, he repeatedly says the fees publicly mentioned are "completely made up". He also states that Ridgeback never received a quote from him.

The problem here is Jay is heavily implying that these quoted prices have no basis in reality, without actually making any definitive statements. He also never directly refutes the accusation. Ridgeback never claimed to have a direct quote. They received pricing information from another suppressor company that did have a quote. This fact is never hidden. Jay makes many statements trying to discredit this claim, entirely avoids directly addressing it, and only talks around the issue with intentional vagueness. In my discussion with Jay, the conversation ended when he refused to answer if $6000-$25000 MAY reasonably be the price a company would pay for his most popular review 'packages'.

With all of the information I've seen, $6000-$25000 does seem generally accurate for the cost of getting a review with PewScience. That itself might be fine if it was clearly disclosed. If this is the case, it seems like this entire drama could be ended by saying "Ridgeback thought our services were too expensive, we think they provide excellent value. We'll agree to disagree, the end". For some reason, that hasn't happened. There continues to be what I perceive as intentional obfuscation around this topic. I have trouble understanding why he needs to go this route.

The situation gets more unclear from here.

In this thread Jay makes a comment about how his paid subscribers enable them to do testing independently as well. In response to this, multiple different people enthusiastically offer to let him test their rhodie 6. Jay, however, appears to never take anyone up on this offer. In response to a user following up asking if Jay is testing, one volunteer who tried to work with jay offline to loan him a rhodie replied "He’s not interested.". Hmm. Thats... odd.

As I see it, here is the current state of what we reasonably know to be true:

1. Ridgeback seems to be run by some immature bros

2. PewScience does excellent suppressor reviews

3. Reddit treats PewScience as the golden single source of truth

4. PewScience does seem to charge for their reviews, and those typically fees do seem to fall within $6000-$25000. This has never directly been disputed, and Jay refuses to directly address this.

5. PewScience will not independently purchase and test Ridgeback products

6. PewScience is apparently not interested in testing Ridgeback products provided for free by the community.

So, we have our golden source of truth independent reviewer declining to test one of the most popular current suppressors, apparently under any circumstance, unless they receive substantial payment from the manufacturer, despite also having a direct revenue stream from consumers, and products readily and freely provided by consumers. That seems like a problem to me. Seems like a big problem.

To be clear, I still like the service pewscience provides. I think it is a valuable resource. However, are we really comfortable with the community essentially telling manufacturers they have an OBLIGATION to pay a third party a substantial amount of money for a review? And when that reviewer goes out of their way not to review one of the most popular current items, because they did not receive payment, and do not like the manufacturer, we're just fine with that, and actively use this as an argument to not buy that product?

Jay has a right to deny a review, but given the circumstances around it, he can no longer also be viewed the "golden source of truth", in my opinion.

There are valid reasons not to buy ridgeback products. Namely, the owner apparently being a tool. Not being reviewed by PewScience, in my opinion, is not a valid reason, and that cannot be the precedent we set.

I could certainly have details wrong. I am open to changing my opinion. I just want reviews of ALL of the products that I can trust. Maybe we need more sources of detailed independent reviews. The current state does not work.

If you are annoyed by the length of this post, blame my Dr. I've been waiting for over an hour. This is ridiculous.

Edit: The amount of you that read all of this and your takeaway is that I'm saying "pewsciences services aren't a good value" is pretty impressive. I don't know how to help you. I'm done replying. Read the post until you understand it. Read betterer.

Edit 2: it was just pointed out to me that this post just dropped 40 60 upvotes and counting in the period of a few minutes. From overwhelmingly upvoted to sitting near 50%. Looks like I must've struck a nerve with someone with a financial interest. Wonder who that might be. Definitely organic. Reddit sucks. I'm gonna go outside. You should too.

Edit 3: Jay is definitely astroturfing this sub and using bots. He couldn't have just made it any clearer, wow. Maybe look into that, mods. Anyway, actually going outside this time.

A lot of mixed feelings and responses to my message yesterday but how about you just spend $20 to support a good cause and help the people that are fighting for us and add an extra layer of protection as a plaintiff in the lawsuit that sparked all of this. I'm sure you will still have plenty of excuses against doing it but just more peace of mind for those that are interested.

First time ever shooting suppressed and it was so much fun, I can’t wait to take it out again when I get a new cap. I’m gonna try replacing my mount too, I have a cam lok but I’ll try the ez lok

State attorney for the eighth circuit of Florida sends guidance memo regarding short barrel rifles, short barrel, shotguns and suppressors to police and sheriffs departments in his district.

https://alachuachronicle.com/current-legal-status-of-short-barreled-rifles-short-barreled-shotguns-and-suppressors/

But when you find a 6k in stock locally, I think it deserves its day in the sun.

Just want to say thanks to everyone who participates in this subreddit. It made navigating the whole process super easy and expiedient even with a speed bump. I had to get a upin but took care of it that day because I had already looked up what to do here if I got delayed.

Had this at the range today and it was awesome! Even got a compliment from another kuna owner on how nice the can sounded.

Posted a week or so ago asking for opinions on what to do about my barrel threads being flush with the handguard. Ended up cutting the handguard by about an inch. Went smooth. Only had OD green rustoleum on hand so I sprayed the exposed metal with that instead of black. Does the job 🤷. Anyways, here’s the setup for how. Budget setup but able to hit steel at 150ish yards pretty easily. About as far as I’d like to take this one out. I’m hoping tomorrow this freedom slinger makes it out to the range and see how it cycles. Anybody have some advice on what buffer / spring combo to run? I don’t have anything special in this one.

• Remington, 870 3”
• Briley Chokes, loading port service
• Saftey Harbor Firearms, KEG-12 conversion + threaded for rem chokes
• Wilson Combat, dome Saftey
• Volquartsen, billet extractor
•GG&G, mag tube follower
• DANCO, #94 o-rings (pumpgrip now ribbed for my pleasure)
• SJ Hardware, MCS QD Pachmyer grip
• Grovtec, heavy duty sling loop

CAT ODB Restricted Development obtained during the New Years blowout and recently added a ODB Ti on a 4473 to the stable. The blast chamber on the RDM is already sorta tight but the Jmac Hub micro’s worked well on certain AKs. Ti ODB however has a blast chamber that starts closer to the Hub threads and necks down earlier so even the Micro mounts wouldnt work. Local machine shop turned these down for me so now they all clear the Ti. Quicker and cheaper than waiting for Jmac to restock the Hub zero keep some brake function.

Finally got this thing put together. Had been waiting for a Proof 14.5" 6ARC PXT barrel and managed to get it sent off to u/unclemoak for the MRP conversion. Haven't seen anyone post the AI 6CM on a build either.

The reflex works perfectly with the 13.25 LMT MLR upper and 14.5" barrel.

Currently have an OCL Titanium on my FN 5.7. Is the performance from a dedicated 5.7 suppressor worth the price? Considering the GSL 5.7-22. Titanium takes off the edge, but is still loud and I wish it had the native threads of M10x1 so you don't need the crappy adapter that likes to walk itself loose.

torn between the two. is it worth the extra $200 for the infinity?

Got the Polo K in, is it as gassy as people say it is? Haven’t shot it yet to find out.

Testing PCC #1 this Friday. I have several on the list to test to see how different suppressors perform.

I was thinking of starting with the Banshee, but leaning more towards the Kuna now.

What order 1-5 would you want to see these tested in? The next one would likely be testing in March 2027 and then the others will follow.

I'm also adding the Stribog SP9A3 and the Extar EP9 to the list for budget reasons.

Stacy needed to see her groomer this morning so we stopped on the way home and picked up her mom!

https://youtu.be/QkoXdt-CSus?is=R1U5l6S1YlCSKzDY

My review for the OCL Infinity 556K. Pewscience data exists for this can and I suggest checking that out. My goal for these reviews is to give my opinions on suppressors based purely on documented testing through actual use. I’m not a lab. I’m not sharing data. I’m just sharing my opinions based on shooting a very wide variety of cans over thousands of rounds.

I just received a sandman X with Xeno mount/adapter. I also have a DA428 HUB adapter. The problem is that the Keymo mount won't thread into the suppressor entirely (see picture). I even used the tools it came with and gave a few taps with hard rubber mallet. It almost looks like the tapered wall on the inside of the suppressor is too narrow, or that the un-threaded portion of the DA 428 HUB is hitting that tapered wall inside the suppressor and it's too narrow? I'm 99% sure this is the right adapter. I did notice that the threads on the xeno mount are much shorter while this contains an-unthreaded portion and more total threads.

Am I missing something? I don't want to damage the suppressor threads and/or alignment trying to get the HUB adapter on. My understanding is that they are compatible but maybe I'm wrong.

Any helps thanks

Comparing sound signature between my 3 suppressors with 5.7x28. 3 rounds each, shot into the berm.

First up, AB Little Bird on a psa rock 5.7. This actually sounded the quietest, but it's unusable on the ps90 as it has so much backpressure that it will pop the magazine up after every round.

2nd is a HuxWrx FLOW 762 TI on my XF50/Strike night vision setup. It's a little louder then the Little Bird that was on the pistol. Zero backpressure, glows under nods real fast.

Lastly the Silent Steel Micro Streamer. It ended up being louder than the HuxWrx to the naked ear. With ear pro, it sounds the same. Low backpressure, compact, and worked great with the FRT.

I love my Micro Streamer. Aesthetically, it can't be beat on the p90. Low backpressure, compact, easy to clean, full auto rated. Sound wise, it can be beat lol.