PTR Spiritus 5.56 Suppressor Review: Sound, Gas and Flash Compared
Juicey Media put the PTR Spiritus through a multi-part 5.56 suppressor test covering perceived muzzle sound, tone, gas behavior and muzzle flash. The Spiritus was evaluated alongside the Dillon 5.56, Centurion Maximus L and CAT WB, giving the reviewer several established reference points rather than a standalone shooting impression.
The video also revisits the creator’s earlier experience with the Spiritus in a different shooting environment. He explains why that first session sounded unusually quiet and why this follow-up provides a more representative comparison. Watch the full video above, or read the test recap and results below.
Short Summary
Juicey Media’s review compares the PTR Spiritus with the Dillon 5.56, Centurion Maximus L and CAT WB. The test focuses on the factors shooters commonly consider in a 5.56 suppressor comparison: perceived muzzle sound, tone, gas behavior and visible flash. The creator states that PTR did not pay him for the review and that he covered his own tax stamps and ammunition.
In a blind listening exercise, the reviewer heard only small differences among the first three suppressors. He ranked the first sample as having the least overall sound signature, placed the third sample very close behind it with a different tone, and described the second sample as slightly louder with noticeable first-round pop. The transcript does not reveal which models occupied those three blind-test positions, so those observations cannot reliably be assigned to an individual suppressor. When the CAT WB was tested afterward, the reviewer considered it considerably louder than the other three, although he still described its sound as good and not entirely unpleasant.
The planned back-pressure test had to be modified because the Agency Arms GPR host locked back on the lowest of its 12 gas settings even without a suppressor. Instead of producing a lock-back ranking, the reviewer fired 10 rounds through each suppressor with the rifle held at gas position one and used the visible and felt gas as a qualitative comparison. Based on that session, he considered the CAT WB, Centurion Maximus L and PTR Spiritus very close, while the Dillon appeared to produce somewhat more gas. He emphasized that this was an initial impression that needed confirmation through a more conclusive test method.
In his final assessment, the reviewer said the Spiritus did not reproduce the exceptionally quiet impression from his earlier video, but still sounded very good, produced less gas than he expected and had a deeper tone than he remembered. He found the Spiritus and Dillon nearly identical in perceived sound when fired side by side, with the Spiritus presenting the deeper tone. His broader conclusion was that the Spiritus, Dillon and Maximus L were too close in sound suppression for him to direct viewers toward a single winner. He continued to describe the PTR Spiritus as a suppressor he liked and considered “a very, very good can,” while also recognizing strong performances from the Dillon and Centurion.
Revisiting the First PTR Spiritus Video
Before beginning the comparison, the reviewer directly addresses his earlier Spiritus video. In that initial session at a Las Vegas range, he had fired the suppressed rifle without hearing protection and found it comfortable. He says the microphone and settings matched those used for his other suppressor videos and that the recording reflected what he heard in person. In his words, the rifle had sounded “like an airsoft gun.”
He nevertheless characterizes that first video as misleading. The shooting environment appeared to reduce the perceived muzzle report, and he experienced no apparent port pop even though port noise originates close to the shooter. He could not explain that result and did not present an unsupported technical theory. He also had only the Dillon and a few other suppressors available at the time, limiting the usefulness of the comparison.
That clarification matters because this video is not framed as confirmation of an extraordinary first impression. It is a new test in a different environment, using multiple comparison suppressors and a more cautious interpretation of subjective sound. The creator also states that he was not paid by PTR and had never received payment from the company. He says he paid for his own tax stamps and ammunition, while expressing appreciation for the earlier private demonstration.
The 5.56 Suppressor Comparison
The lineup consisted of the PTR Spiritus, Dillon 5.56, Centurion Maximus L and CAT WB. The reviewer’s normal format included a sound test, a modified gas test and a flash test. These portions were observational rather than instrumented: the video captures the shooting sessions, while the conclusions reflect the reviewer’s experience behind or near the rifle.
That distinction is especially important for suppressor sound. The reviewer later explains that when he calls a 5.56 suppressor “quiet,” he is referring specifically to muzzle sound suppression rather than sound at the firearm’s ejection port. Barrel length, gas-system behavior and firearm tuning can all change the shooter’s experience at the port, so he separates the suppressor’s perceived muzzle performance from host-dependent port noise.
Blind Sound Test: Signature, Tone and First-Round Pop
For the blind comparison, an assistant fired three rounds through each of three suppressors while the reviewer listened without knowing which model was installed. The CAT WB was excluded from the blind portion because its mounting procedure would have revealed its identity and because the reviewer already regarded it as audibly louder than the other three.
The first blind sample sounded good to the reviewer and produced what he described as a crack rather than a boom. He did not find the report painful. With the second sample, he noticed that the first shot was louder and identified a first-round pop. Although the following shots improved, he still considered that suppressor minimally louder than the first.
The third sample seemed approximately level with the first in perceived loudness but had a different tone. The reviewer heard less of a pure crack and more of a boom combined with the crack. His provisional ranking put the first sample at the top for the smallest perceived sound signature, the third sample a very close second, and the second sample third. He stressed that the first two were extremely close and were separated more by tone than by a large difference in volume.
The supplied transcript does not disclose which suppressor corresponded to each blind position. Accordingly, the ranking is useful as evidence that the PTR Spiritus, Dillon 5.56 and Centurion Maximus L were closely grouped in this listening exercise, but it does not support assigning first, second or third place to a named model.
PTR Spiritus, Dillon and Centurion Compared With the CAT WB
After the blind portion, the reviewer listened to the CAT WB from the same general position. He immediately described it as drastically and considerably louder than the preceding three suppressors. That was not presented as a blanket criticism: he added that the WB was not entirely unpleasant and “sounds really good,” but its sound level was clearly separated from the other group in his subjective assessment.
In his final recap, he returned to the same distinction. According to the reviewer, the PTR Spiritus, Dillon 5.56 and Centurion Maximus L were all considerably quieter at the muzzle than the CAT WB in this test. Among those three, however, the perceived differences were too small for him to name a decisive sound-suppression winner.
Modified Gas and Back-Pressure Test
The reviewer planned to evaluate gas behavior with an Agency Arms GPR equipped with a 12-position adjustable gas block. His intended method was to identify the setting at which the rifle locked back with each suppressor, following the general style of testing used by Silencer Analytics. The host rifle prevented that approach: even without a suppressor, it locked back at position one, the lowest gas setting. Every suppressor therefore would have produced the same lock-back result and no useful separation.
Rather than treating that limitation as quantitative data, the reviewer converted the segment into a visualization. He kept the gas block on position one for the entire comparison and fired 10 rounds with each suppressor. Viewers could observe gas leaving the ejection port and the front of each suppressor, while the reviewer also considered his shooting impressions.
His qualitative conclusion placed the CAT WB, Centurion Maximus L and PTR Spiritus at roughly the same gas level, with very little difference among them. He thought the Dillon produced somewhat more gas than the other three. Importantly, he characterized this as an opinion based on the shooting session and said he intended to confirm it later with a more conclusive method. The result should therefore be understood as a comparative observation, not a measured back-pressure value.
For the Spiritus specifically, the outcome exceeded the reviewer’s expectation. In his final thoughts, he said it was “better on gas than I had anticipated.” Within the limits of this modified test, the Spiritus appeared competitive with the CAT WB and Maximus L in gas behavior.
Muzzle Sound Versus Port Noise
The reviewer makes a useful technical distinction between sound at the muzzle and sound experienced by the shooter. In the test environment, he said few rifles were comfortable for the shooter to fire without hearing protection because port pop remained present. By contrast, he felt he could stand beside the Spiritus, Dillon or Centurion and listen for an extended period because their muzzle reports were comfortable to him as a bystander.
He did not recommend firing them without hearing protection. His point was that perceived suppressor performance depends on listener position and firearm configuration. A rifle tuned to use only enough gas to cycle might change the shooter’s experience, but this test did not establish a separate port-sound ranking or hearing-safe threshold.
PTR Spiritus Sound and Tone
The most direct named comparison came when the reviewer discussed the PTR Spiritus and Dillon side by side. He found them nearly identical in perceived sound, but heard a deeper tone from the Spiritus. That tone differed from what he remembered from his earlier Spiritus session and helped explain why the suppressor did not sound exactly as expected in the follow-up environment.
His comments also reinforce the narrow margins within the leading group. The Spiritus, Dillon and Maximus L all performed closely enough in subjective muzzle sound that he declined to tell viewers to buy one over the others. Instead, he encouraged them to consider their own needs along with other reviews and available data.
The reviewer also noted that the Dillon surprised him, particularly given its size, and that it appeared to pull ahead somewhat on shorter-barrel testing. The transcript does not provide the barrel lengths, configurations or a detailed ranking for those shots, so that observation remains a limited but relevant part of his conclusion. He likewise praised the Centurion Maximus L as an impressive first suppressor from Centurion and expressed interest in the manufacturer’s future designs.
Flash Test Without a Declared Winner
The video includes a dedicated flash test, but the transcript contains no narrated shot-by-shot observations or technical results. After completing it, the reviewer asks viewers to decide who won and share their conclusions. He does not identify a flash-performance winner himself.
Because the written transcript does not establish a result, no named suppressor can be credited with superior flash reduction from this source alone. The embedded footage is the appropriate reference for readers who want to make their own visual assessment of the muzzle-flash portion.
The Reviewer’s Final Verdict on the PTR Spiritus
Juicey Media’s final assessment is positive but deliberately measured. The PTR Spiritus did not sound as exceptionally quiet as it had in the creator’s earlier shooting environment. In this more comparative test, however, he still found that it sounded very good, had a deeper tone than the Dillon and produced less gas than he expected.
The larger conclusion is not that the Spiritus won every category. Rather, the reviewer placed it in a tightly matched group with the Dillon 5.56 and Centurion Maximus L for subjective muzzle sound, while considering all three clearly quieter than the CAT WB in this session. In the modified gas comparison, he judged the Spiritus, Maximus L and CAT WB to be nearly even and thought the Dillon showed somewhat more gas. The flash segment remained open for viewers to evaluate.
Taken together, those observations show why the follow-up matters. It replaces an unusual first-range impression with a broader comparison and separates sound level, tone, port noise and gas behavior instead of treating “quiet” as a single universal result. The reviewer ultimately continued to describe the PTR Spiritus as “a very, very good can,” while making clear that the final choice among closely performing suppressors depends on the shooter’s priorities and on evidence beyond one subjective test.