Strongly tempted by Gem-Tech Oasis (integrally suppressed Ruger MkII)


November 26, 2006, 04:25 PM
[yes, I realize it's mounted on a MkIII 22/45 in the pic]

I think I'll be ready for property taxes, and still have a bunch of music and gun gear to sell before I get down to "fighting trim".

Am now considering taking that next gun-geek step and hitting up the NFA darkside.

The above item seems really cool, and pretty affordable at $695 +$200. Should drop right onto any of my (many...) MkII lowers.

I did consider getting a separate can, but they're not a ton cheaper, and I don't have much else I'd want to mount them on. If I want quiet from my Marlin 60 or 39A, I'd just use Colibris.

With the Oasis, I figure it'd be a fun plinker, and I could use it for steel matches, Silhouette, and the like, just as easily as using my current MkII.

Plus it has more of a novelty factor than a screw-on can.

Further, with the Oasis, I'd only feel that I'm getting semi-screwed by the NFA. With no legislation, something like the Oasis would still cost at least $400 or so. A $375 detachable can would cost $40 if we didn't have all his bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo.

The main THR advice I've seen on suppressed is: a) Ruger MkIIs are a great platform. b) The reputable manufacturers are all pretty close to the same.

Thoughts? Advice? Screams of "don't do it!!!"?

Anyone around Austin have one that I should try out first?


If you enjoyed reading about "Strongly tempted by Gem-Tech Oasis (integrally suppressed Ruger MkII)" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
November 26, 2006, 04:46 PM
I'd say most of the cans made by the major manufacturers are probably precisely made enough that they'd still cost about the same. Just as there's a difference between a $100 Hi-Point and a $500 Glock, there would be a difference between a $40 cheapo suppressor and a $400 expensive one. A lot of money goes into researching the most effective baffle shape, and the good ones are made of pretty good materials.

As for the Oasis, here's what I've heard about them.

They are slightly louder than most integrals. The barrel is not ported at all, so it won't be as dirty as other integrals (also reason for louder volume). Barrel is something like 3", with a standard silencer permanantly attached ahead of that. Dunno if the barrel is short enough for cheap high-vel ammo to be subsonic, but probalby is. Most integral Rugers shoot at 1050 fps with CCI Mini-Mags. Though some are really slow, like one guy clocked an AWC Amphibian at 890 fps with Mini-Mags. Those AWCs only have about 1.75" of barrel before the porting starts!

The can on the Oasis has all aluminum internals and is sealed, which means that it will fill up eventually. You can't use harsh chemicals or reverse electroplating on the aluminum, which really limits the cleaning you can do. On the bright side, no porting means it won't fill up as fast. Expect it to last about as long as any other all-aluminum sealed .22 can. IIRC, a couple tens of thousands of rounds at most. Maybe ultrasound cleaning would extend the lifespan? Another idea I saw was to put the can in the freezer overnight, then dunk it in very hot water (or to boil it, then dunk in ice water) to crack the carbon and lead off. Though others have said that it's a phenomenally bad idea, as you may end up with big flakes of carboncrete bouncing around inside the can.

Personally, I'd go with an integral with all stainless insides which can be disassembled for cleaning. John Norrell ( and John Tibbetts ( both make those. SRT ( makes one that the can comes off so you can clean the expansion chamber (the dirtiest part on any ported integral), but the can itself is sealed. And I think SRT uses aluminum internals.

Another option if you want higher power than most integrals appears to be HTG. ( Their Ruger integral has a nonported 4.75" barrel. That's probably enough to get a sonic crack with some of the high-vel ammo. The can is all stainless. Dunno if it comes apart though.

Personally, I'm saving up for one of the Johns. I believe Norrell is still using the old M-baffle design, which is more than adequate for a .22, but has some first round pop. Tibbetts has recently switched to a K-baffle design, which improves the first shot by a bit, but not hugely.

November 26, 2006, 04:59 PM
You may want to give OEF_Vet a PM and see what he can do. He owns a suppressor company. I have no idea the costs etc. Just a shout out for another member.


November 26, 2006, 05:47 PM
I think suppressors would be cheaper if it wasn't for the NFA simply because A LOT more people would buy them and then that would cause the price to come down since it would be cheaper to make them.

But back to the point....

I would love that Oasis. Infact I was looking at them the other day. As much as I want to suppress a .45, I still want my 22/45 to get suppressed VERY badly....and the Oasis just looks cool. Plus it won't attract as much attention at the range as someone with a screw on.

November 26, 2006, 09:01 PM
The Oasis would be a great buy.

When you use a screw-on suppressor with a standard MkII, you are pretty much forced to remove the front sight, in order to thread the barrel. That leaves with having to move the front sight back, using a red-dot type scope, or not having a front sight at all.

If you want to use a MkII, and youhave good reason to want to do so, I would recommend an internally suppressed design. If I had such an item ready to sell, I'd love to sell you one. I don't, however, so I'd fully recommend the Oasis.

Welcome to the NFA community. It's addictive, trust me. :D :D :evil:

November 26, 2006, 09:41 PM
Gem-Tech: $695 for complete upper (alum internals)
Norrell: $400 to suppress my upper (stainless internals?)
Tibbetts: no price listed
SRT: $545 to suppress my upper (alum internals?)
HRT: $687 on my upper (all stainless internals)

The cleaning/maintenance issue seems to vary.

I've heard of folks plugging the barrel and letting it sit full of SimpleGreen. I've also heard of folks mailing the barrel back to the mfg to have up to a full pound of lead scraped out of it.

By "lifespan", do you mean until it has to go back to the mfg to be rebuilt? Are the all-stainless ones pretty much built to last, compared to aluminum internals?

If it costs me $100 in shipping/transfers/shoptime to have the mfg clean or rebuild it every 10,000 rounds, stainless internals might be worth it. Then again, are stainless-internal cans really heavy?

I'm trying to redirect the "buy more guns" urge into "have a few of the best guns" urge. The MkII is my favorite gun of all time, but I'm not a good enough shooter to appreciate minute improvements in accuracy. I thought that suppressing would be a good way to "improve" on it in a way that I'll immediately appreciate. That and really nice custom grips *grin*.

I need another gun forum like a need a .355" hole in the head, but is there some forum even geekier than this one where folks will have strong opinions as to which MkII I should consider?


November 27, 2006, 12:33 AM
Gem-Tech is hard to beat. Dr. Dater is a stand up man and his products AND customer service is hard to equal.

November 27, 2006, 12:50 AM
I'm not sure if Simple Green would damage aluminum or not, and if not, how effective it would be at removing carbon and lead. Silencers get absolutely filthy because of how they work, and if you shoot bare lead a lot, you can expect a lot of the mess to be soldered lead. Some people clean their (stainless only) silencers by taking the baffles out and bead-blasting them.

The only real difference between aluminum and stainless are weight, and possible user maintenance. With stainless, you can do reverse electroplating, harsh chemicals, bead-blasting, all kinds of crazy stuff. With aluminum, you're limited to ultrasound, cracking, and aluminum-friendly solvents plus a toothbrush.

Lifespan is indeed the amount of time before the can is so full of stuff that it starts to get louder than you'd like. Some manufacturers have a lifetime "you fill it, we fix it free" warranty. Actually, I believe Gemtech is one of those companies. Others will just say "these products have a limited lifespan, buy a new one." You shouldn't have to pay another transfer fee for a repair, since the piece of pipe is the part of the suppressor that is actually registered. And, much like a firearm, if it can't be salvaged at all, the manuf can destroy the original and make a new one with the same serial number.

You are not permitted to own "spare" baffles or other internal parts, however. Which is why cans with wipes and packing and other consumable parts aren't popular. A can that utilizes wipes, like those available in parts of Europe, probably would be $40 for almost the same level of suppression as an expensive domestic one. But you'd need to replace the wipes every couple hundred shots.

Stainless really doesn't add much weight. The baffles aren't that thick, and are spaced fairly far apart. I think about 5 or 6 baffles is typical in a Mk. II. And stainless could be made thinner, since it's stronger. I don't think weight should be that much of a concern for a Mk. II anyway. :)

One forum dedicated entirely to suppressors is the one on

However, moderators there tend to be as laisser faire as possible, so some threads dissolve into snark-fests. The AAC Phoenix is out of production now, so at least you wouldn't have to worry about half the thread being occupied by drama between the owner of AAC and a bunch of other people.

November 27, 2006, 01:18 AM
Sealed 22 cans do clog up. AAC will be releasing the Prodigy very soon. It can be opened up to clean. I am waiting for this one.

November 27, 2006, 01:47 AM
[goes to ARF to read up on AAC Prodigy]

Sounds keen, but it's also a detached can.

I'm mainly interested in integral, to keep is as much like a stock MkII as possible.

Found a neat YouTube clip on the subject:


November 27, 2006, 08:56 PM
Update: got some more good info off of ARF, and trying to register at

Might have to make a trip up to John's Guns in Coleman, TX. Probably a 90 minute drive; I'll con some foreign exchange students into coming with me under pretext of "seeing the TX countryside".

Mainly realizing that there's a lot of little debate over cans that are fundamentally pretty similar.

Still keen on the Gem-Tech, but considering the John's too. Nothing yet has come up to dissuade me from getting an integral can. If detached cans are that groovy, I'll probably end up getting one eventually anyway. The HRT is also really appealing with the ease of cleaning, and supposedly they have some pretty cutting-edge technology.

As classic as the AWC Amphibian is, and as good as their warranty is, it's dang pricey. Also some folks are claiming that they're dated, though to be fair AWC offers affordable upgrades as they improve their cans.

Read this thread on Pretty amazing before/after photos of cleaning out the inside of a .22 suppressor. Dirty little critters, those.

I sold a bunch of gun books today, about enough to pay for the NFA tax. I have more than enough random guns and musical instruments to cover a good integral MkII, some custom grips, and a good holster.

I consider it "distilling", taking a bunch of sorta-cool stuff I don't use much, and turning it into something great.


If you enjoyed reading about "Strongly tempted by Gem-Tech Oasis (integrally suppressed Ruger MkII)" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!