I figured you were probably joking.  But that was an assumption, and I wanted the policy to be clearer for anyone reading.

There are several people every year who rip off a warning sticker to get to the 30 caliber muzzle device in a Bushwhacker .46 box, and attempt to shoot a .45-70 through the 30 caliber muzzle device for example.  So we are now putting a second warning sticker on the part that is already laser engraved 5/8x24 30 caliber, sealed under a warning sticker.  When you run an operation you can't stop all the not great things that will happen, but you try.

Quantifying is tough we don't have metrology to test it.  I can watch signs in video on the same platform and see that the Nomad and the Explorr 300 have near identical backpressure- AKA low backpressure.

I don't have a CGS helios.  The OSS can has what almost seems to be negative backpressure in that there is a reduction of bolt speed with the OSS Helix HX QD that can induce malfs for some end users.  That is coupled with pretty horrible sound and flash characteristics in the only one I have experience with which is the one without the flash suppressor cap.  In my experience the flash caps don't do all the work either so I don't expect the cap itself to have totally cured the flash issues, and after seeing an end user here with the flow 556K at dusk vs the promo video on night vision, I wouldn't personally trust an OSS promo video to understand where muzzle flash is.  I don't personally think the loud sound is worth the low backpressure.  I would never want to shoot an OSS Helix HX QD without ear pro, based only on how it sounds under ear protection.  Chris in inside sales here owns one from his time at a Texas gun shop and as a range instructor.  He got some kind of deal on the OSS can.  He told me the sound is awful in his opinion, and he believes the can contributes to malfunctions from slowing the bolt speed down on his rifle.  He has multiple times said he regrets purchasing the OSS 556 can.  

He is pretty happy with his RAD 22 though.  I've heard the Rad 22 at a weekend shoot at our outdoor range, and it sounded pretty good to me.  He was shooting it on a .22WMR so its a little harder to say anything but it sounded pretty good since I don't shoot suppressed 22WMR at all.  

I wouldn't pick a Nomad vs Explorr on backpressure. That characteristic is too close to call. I would pick that on weight, size, and durability.

I guess I missed this comment that was totally false and completely misleading in the fray of the personal attacks and garbage of this old thread.  I published the entire equipment list on every video.  I started this series with a video Jan 6, 2020 demonstrating the testing equipment and setup.  This whole testing method is repeatable and could be recreated by a person with a Pulse meter at another site.  It's not fodder.  It's not misleading.  Two B&K technicians, one of them a application level scientist, spent about 6 weeks developing this testing method for us.  They visited us about 5 times in the process, and were pulling from experience setting up other sound suppressor companies in the USA. I believe some of the support they needed came from Europe.  I didn't set up this method myself.  

The only thing that was custom was the ability of the software to export the data in real time to excel for R&D and these videos, fully automated, without misc manual button presses, because we knew how important the transparency was going to be for the community.  I personally find it questionable for numbers to be entered in video post-processing like premier pro, and that's all the other testing in the industry- you are made to believe something that might not have even happened whenever people show you re-typed information, without evidence it came from metrology. That piece challenged B&K and that was why the settup took so long.  We are obviously a maintenance customer of HBK and our software and hardware are fully up to date, and fully supported.

We wanted to recreate what Silencer Co shows with their lower sampling speed labview system.  So that demonstrates we didn't even change the testing process with regard to that- this type of system had already been in use in the industry, and we were just duplicating that type of display of data on the Bruel & Kjaer side of the house where the analyzer product is higher quality with faster sampling speed 262KHZ.