PTR VENT Spiritus vs. DRC 5.56 Suppressor: Sound, Back Pressure and Velocity Tested

Silencer Analytics put the PTR VENT Spiritus head-to-head with a compact 5.56 suppressor from Dillon Rifle Company, evaluating the two designs on both bolt-action and semiautomatic hosts. The review examined three practical performance factors: perceived sound, added back pressure and changes in muzzle velocity.

The comparison produced a nuanced result. The reviewer preferred the Dillon Rifle Company suppressor for overall sound performance, particularly on the sealed bolt-action host, while the PTR VENT Spiritus generated less back pressure and weighed slightly less. Watch the full video above, or read the complete test recap and results below.

Short Summary

Silencer Analytics compared the PTR VENT Spiritus with a compact Dillon Rifle Company 5.56 suppressor using 16-inch bolt-action and semiautomatic rifles. PMC X-TAC 55-grain full-metal-jacket boat-tail ammunition was used for the velocity testing, with a three-shot unsuppressed baseline of 3,062 feet per second.

On the bolt-action rifle, the reviewer heard a substantial difference between the two suppressors. He described the Spiritus as having a dull tone but sounding somewhat loud, especially on its first shot. The Dillon Rifle Company suppressor made a much stronger impression, producing what he considered full-size-suppressor sound from a compact package. In his subjective evaluation, the DRC suppressor won the bolt-gun sound comparison by a wide margin.

The gap narrowed considerably on the 16-inch semiautomatic host. With each rifle configured at the appropriate gas setting, the reviewer found both suppressors pleasant, but still gave the sound advantage to the DRC model. He described the Spiritus as slightly louder but deep in tone, while characterizing the DRC suppressor as more pleasant overall. His summary was that the DRC suppressor won by a large margin on the bolt gun and by a smaller margin on the gas gun.

The PTR VENT Spiritus performed better in the adjustable-gas back-pressure test. The unsuppressed rifle locked back at gas position 10, while a conventional high-back-pressure benchmark reached last-round hold-open at position two. The Spiritus required position five, compared with position four for the DRC suppressor. Based on his testing scale, the reviewer estimated that the Spiritus produced approximately 12% less back pressure than its competitor.

Neither suppressor caused a velocity loss in this test. The Spiritus produced a three-shot average of 3,087 feet per second, while the DRC suppressor averaged 3,079 feet per second. The reviewer’s overall preference went to the DRC suppressor because of its sound performance, but he also recognized the Spiritus advantages in back pressure and weight.

Putting the PTR VENT Spiritus and DRC Suppressor to the Test

The video covered several new suppressors, but its primary head-to-head comparison involved the PTR VENT Spiritus and a compact 5.56 suppressor from Dillon Rifle Company. The reviewer treated both as compact or near-K-length designs and tested them in the same session against a common velocity baseline.

For the chronograph portion, he used a rifle with a barrel cut to 16.1 inches and PMC X-TAC 55-grain full-metal-jacket boat-tail ammunition. Three unsuppressed shots produced an average velocity of 3,062 feet per second. He then used that figure to identify whether each suppressor increased or reduced the measured velocity.

The review also incorporated two different sound-testing environments. A 16-inch bolt-action rifle allowed the reviewer to isolate sound at the muzzle without the action noise and rearward gas flow of a semiautomatic firearm. A 16-inch gas-operated rifle then provided a more representative look at how the suppressors behaved on an AR-style platform.

These were subjective, shooter-observed sound comparisons rather than instrumented sound-pressure measurements. The reviewer expressly acknowledged that a bolt-action rifle does not reproduce the gas behavior of a semiautomatic system. He nevertheless considered it useful for isolating suppressor sound and evaluating a possible predator- or coyote-hunting configuration.

Reviewer Disclosure and Test Context

During the video, the reviewer thanked East Valley Tactical for supporting the channel, including helping with suppressor availability and expenses associated with previous testing. He also emphasized that he did not have a preferred winner in the comparison.

That distinction matters because the final assessment was not uniformly favorable to one product. The reviewer gave the DRC suppressor a clear advantage in perceived sound, but the PTR VENT Spiritus performed better in his back-pressure procedure and was described as the lighter of the two.

The results should therefore be read as one reviewer’s observations from the firearms, ammunition, gas settings and shooting environment used in this particular test. Sound perception can also be affected by the host firearm, action type, surrounding structures and the shooter’s position.

Velocity Results With 55-Grain 5.56 Ammunition

The unsuppressed three-shot average was 3,062 feet per second. With the PTR VENT Spiritus installed, the reviewer recorded an average of 3,087 feet per second, representing a 25-foot-per-second increase over the baseline.

The Dillon Rifle Company suppressor produced a three-shot average of 3,079 feet per second. That was 17 feet per second above the unsuppressed average and eight feet per second below the Spiritus result.

The reviewer did not treat the small difference between the two suppressors as the deciding factor. The important result was that neither caused a velocity decrease with this rifle and ammunition combination.

Bolt-Action Sound Comparison

The bolt-action test produced the clearest perceived sound difference. Because the action remained closed during firing, the reviewer could focus on the suppressor’s muzzle signature without the additional mechanical and port noise associated with an autoloading rifle.

His first shot through the PTR VENT Spiritus did not make a particularly strong impression. He described it as “a little bit on the loud side,” although its tone was dull rather than sharp. The following shots sounded somewhat better to him, but he continued to characterize the overall result as near the upper limit of what he wanted to hear without protection.

The DRC suppressor produced a markedly different reaction. The reviewer said it “sounded like a full-size suppressor out of that little K,” describing its report as both quiet and pleasant rather than merely deep in tone. Based on what he heard from the bolt-action host, he considered the difference between the DRC design and the Spiritus substantial.

The reviewer was especially impressed by the amount of perceived suppression coming from the DRC suppressor’s compact size. He later compared its bolt-gun sound favorably with the much larger PTR VENT 1, which he regularly uses as a reference for strong sound performance.

This conclusion remained explicitly subjective. It represented the reviewer’s unaided listening impression, not a measured decibel or suppression-rating comparison.

Semiautomatic Sound Performance

After completing the back-pressure portion, the reviewer returned to sound testing on a 16-inch semiautomatic rifle. Each suppressor was tested with the adjustable gas system set to match its last-round-hold-open result. This helped avoid sending unnecessary gas into the action and made the comparison more representative of a tuned host.

The DRC suppressor sounded very good to the reviewer and did not bother his ears during the short evaluation. He considered its combination of compact size and perceived sound performance particularly noteworthy.

The PTR VENT Spiritus was also favorably received on the gas gun. The reviewer described it as definitely louder than the DRC suppressor, but deep in tone and broadly similar in overall character. Unlike the pronounced difference heard on the bolt gun, the semiautomatic comparison was much closer.

His final sound assessment preserved that distinction: the DRC suppressor won by a large margin on the bolt-action rifle, in his opinion, but only by a small margin on the semiautomatic host. He also acknowledged that another listener could reasonably consider the two suppressors similar on the 16-inch gas gun.

PTR VENT Spiritus Back-Pressure Test

Silencer Analytics used an adjustable-gas last-round-hold-open procedure to compare the amount of gas each suppressor returned to the operating system. The reviewer first established the lowest gas setting at which the rifle would reliably lock open after firing its final round.

Without a suppressor, the rifle locked back at position 10 but not at position nine. That made position 10 the unsuppressed baseline for the day.

A direct-thread SilencerCo Omega 300 with a 5.56 end cap served as the conventional high-back-pressure reference. That configuration continued to lock the action open at position two but failed at position one.

The PTR VENT Spiritus achieved repeatable last-round hold-open at position five and failed at position four. The reviewer placed that result midway between the unsuppressed position-10 baseline and the high-back-pressure position-two reference. Under his test methodology, he interpreted the Spiritus as producing approximately half the back pressure of the conventional benchmark suppressor.

With the DRC suppressor installed, the rifle locked back at position four but not at position three. The reviewer also noticed more aggressive movement and some gas at his face during the process, although the final result was not as high in back pressure as his initial impression led him to expect.

On this scale, a lower setting indicates that the rifle can operate with less gas from its adjustable system, meaning the suppressor is contributing more pressure to the action. The Spiritus therefore produced less added back pressure than the DRC suppressor.

The reviewer estimated the difference at approximately 12% to 13%, based on the eight-position range between the unsuppressed and benchmark settings. He did not portray that advantage as overwhelming, noting that many shooters might consider the difference relatively minor when weighed against the DRC suppressor’s perceived sound advantage.

Sound Suppression Versus Back Pressure

The comparison illustrates the balance between muzzle suppression and gas-system behavior. In this particular test, the suppressor preferred by the reviewer for sound was not the one that generated the least back pressure.

The PTR VENT Spiritus produced the better back-pressure result, requiring one more gas position than the DRC suppressor before the rifle reached last-round hold-open. For a shooter concerned about rearward gas, action speed or tuning requirements, that result represents a meaningful Spiritus advantage within the limits of this test.

The DRC suppressor, however, delivered the sound signature the reviewer preferred. That advantage was especially pronounced on the sealed bolt-action platform, where action and port noise were removed from the comparison. On the gas gun, where several sound sources combine at the shooter’s position, the perceived difference became much smaller.

The reviewer ultimately placed more weight on sound than on the approximately one-position back-pressure difference. Another user prioritizing reduced gas-system influence could evaluate the same results differently.

Size, Weight and Handling

Both suppressors were evaluated as compact 5.56 designs. The reviewer described the Spiritus as slightly longer than the DRC suppressor and said the Spiritus weighed a little less.

He did not provide measured dimensions or scale-confirmed weights in the transcript, and he was unsure whether the weight difference would be noticeable in normal handling. Accordingly, the comparison supports only the limited conclusion that the reviewer perceived the Spiritus as the lighter suppressor.

He also commented that he would like to see lighter versions of both designs. At the time of the test, he specifically expressed interest in titanium configurations that could preserve the performance he observed while reducing weight. That statement reflected his preference during the review, not a finding about the durability or construction quality of either suppressor.

How the Spiritus Compared With Other Suppressors

The video included several additional suppressors to establish context, including the Omega 300, PTR VENT 1 and a compact Recce model. These additional shots helped the reviewer recalibrate his expectations for the sound of a short 5.56 suppressor.

The PTR VENT 1 remained one of his principal sound references. He described it as extremely quiet and said its report on the test host was among the best he had heard. Later, he stated that the compact DRC suppressor approached what he considered VENT 1-level sound on 5.56, particularly on the bolt-action rifle.

That observation was central to his enthusiasm for the DRC suppressor. It did not mean he found the two products identical in size, caliber role or construction. Rather, he was comparing his subjective impression of their sound during the session.

The Spiritus did not receive the same sound comparison with the VENT 1. Its strongest result was instead the balance it achieved between compact dimensions, lower weight and reduced back pressure.

The Reviewer’s Final Verdict

Silencer Analytics found that the two suppressors excelled in different areas, with the final preference depending on which performance characteristic mattered most. The reviewer favored the Dillon Rifle Company suppressor for its perceived sound, particularly on the bolt-action rifle, while describing its advantage on the 16-inch gas gun as less pronounced.

His verdict did not erase the Spiritus advantages. The PTR suppressor produced approximately one gas-setting step less back pressure in his adjustable-gas test, which he estimated as a difference of roughly 12%. The Spiritus also weighed slightly less and produced the higher average velocity, although the velocity difference between the suppressors was only eight feet per second.

The review therefore presented a set of tradeoffs rather than a uniform result. The DRC suppressor received the reviewer’s preference for sound, particularly when maximum quiet on a bolt-action hunting rifle was the priority. The Spiritus delivered the better back-pressure result and a modest weight advantage.

Why This 5.56 Suppressor Comparison Matters

Testing the PTR VENT Spiritus on both bolt-action and semiautomatic hosts revealed how strongly the firearm can shape a suppressor comparison. The sound difference that appeared dramatic on the sealed bolt gun became relatively small once action noise, ejection-port sound and gas-system behavior entered the equation.

For shooters evaluating the Spiritus as a compact 5.56 suppressor, the review documented several useful results. It did not reduce velocity with the tested 55-grain ammunition, it produced substantially less back pressure than the conventional benchmark, and its deep tone remained competitive on the semiautomatic platform. Its main weakness in this particular comparison was the reviewer’s preference for the DRC suppressor’s sound.

The reviewer ultimately chose the DRC suppressor because he valued its perceived suppression and compact format more than the Spiritus advantage in back pressure. His testing nevertheless showed that the appropriate choice depends on the application: maximum perceived quiet favored the DRC product, while reduced back pressure and slightly lower weight favored the PTR VENT Spiritus.