User Panel
|
Quoted: If you have a 3 gun stage that runs through 10 mags, if the rate of fire exceeds 28 rounds a minute for that stage of 300 rounds, I think I would recommend an M4SD-K, or a Recce 5, or HRT- one of the heavier models. 28 rounds a minute is really fast for something getting over 100 rounds which is pushing into a sustained category, and 10 magazines is a lot of heat generation. This answer also applies to an 11.5” barrel. If you have a 16” barrel the fire schedules that are more aggressive are not as hard on the suppressor because the pressure is lower, and the heat generation is lower. If you see red (glowing) in daylight that’s a time to reduce a rate of fire on the Explorr. View Quote yah it was a totally hypothetical scenario, just trying to think of something that quantified what i meant by 'spirited' semi auto and those clips of folks running around banging away at targets seemed a good example, sounds like sustained semi is more the term I'm looking for though. what sort of fire regimen is advisable for the heavier cans (and will the coming DL5 count as one of 'em) you mentioned in a sustained semi-auto scenario? |
|
Quoted: on that note and to get back on topic, how does that tubeless explorr rate in terms of durability with spirited semi-auto fire? like say you've got a 3-gun stage that runs through 10 mags, does it survive? View Quote I’m not trying to be a dick, I’ve not participated in formal 3-gun comps just some 2-guns at the local HTF range (300 rounds, or 10 30rd mags, is unheard of for us), but how common is 300 rounds for a single stage? I’ve attended 2 day carbine courses where the round count didn’t exceed 1k rounds, so 300 for a single stage seems excessive. |
|
300 rounds seems way excessive. I think you would have a hard time finding a stage that exceeds 100 rounds, unless you have a few extended range shots and exchanged sight picture for hope.
|
|
Quoted: I’m not trying to be a dick, I’ve not participated in formal 3-gun comps just some 2-guns at the local HTF range (300 rounds, or 10 30rd mags, is unheard of for us), but how common is 300 rounds for a single stage? I’ve attended 2 day carbine courses where the round count didn’t exceed 1k rounds, so 300 for a single stage seems excessive. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: I’m not trying to be a dick, I’ve not participated in formal 3-gun comps just some 2-guns at the local HTF range (300 rounds, or 10 30rd mags, is unheard of for us), but how common is 300 rounds for a single stage? I’ve attended 2 day carbine courses where the round count didn’t exceed 1k rounds, so 300 for a single stage seems excessive. Quoted: 300 rounds seems way excessive. I think you would have a hard time finding a stage that exceeds 100 rounds, unless you have a few extended range shots and exchanged sight picture for hope. see my above, was just a hypothetical to illustrate what I figure is a 'guaranteed worse than I'll ever put it through' scenario, which seems to me the best thing to plan around. |
|
Quoted: yah it was a totally hypothetical scenario, just trying to think of something that quantified what i meant by 'spirited' semi auto and those clips of folks running around banging away at targets seemed a good example, sounds like sustained semi is more the term I'm looking for though. what sort of fire regimen is advisable for the heavier cans (and will the coming DL5 count as one of 'em) you mentioned in a sustained semi-auto scenario? View Quote Our heavier cans are cans like the M4SDK. Sage Dynamics ran the M4SDK harder than anyone else I can think of. He put 500 rounds through the M4SDK in 5 minutes on a 10.5" barreled upper. That really looked heinous and a bit dangerous to me, but the can made it through that and he is still running the can and that was maybe 2015? I think that's a good example of something the can can take, but not a good example of something someone should esteem as something safe or smart to do. The DL5 I did run in testing 4-28 round mags full auto, followed by 28 rounds a minute for 9 minutes (13 mags at 28 a recon basic load in 11minutes 20 seconds, when the par time I had established for it was 9minutes 40 seconds). I had ~4 failures to eject on my 11.5" gun, a couple mags after the full auto portion- the 4 FTE's sprinkled infrequently throughout the remainder. I think those were to excessive extractor tension in the weakened high temperature state of the ejector spring. The whole gun was too hot to hold after the first 4 magazines. I probably should have pulled the rubber insert and just run the spring and O-ring and then the balance of the extraction and ejection forces would have worked better together. The FTE's were all stovepipes with a fresh round mostly in the chamber and the rifle was very hot, so I didn't want to look in the ejection port for concern I might have a cookoff and shoot myself with a case head because I know one guy who shot himself through the hand that way clearing an M249, and have heard of people killed that way. So more or less blind malf clearance ended up putting me about 1 minute 40 seconds behind schedule for my objective time. The can was cooling during the 28 rounds per minute part of the test, so it has a good rate of cooling. It did glow through 4 baffles in daylight on the fourth mag of full auto and I don't think that is a good temperature range, so I would recommend more like 2 mags of full auto followed by the at or less than 28 rounds a minute as that keeps you from peaking into the 1600F+ range which is not good. In our experience 1200F and below is a good temperature range to run cans at or below. I know a guy who was in Marine Recon in the Falujah offensive and he said he nearly got through his 13 mag basic load in 4 hours of combat running a longer 14.5" barrel that would be lower pressure and temperature, and that's 1.5 rounds per minute sustained. This is a critical point to make. That was considered the most intense urban combat since Hue City in Vietnam in 1968. People get far too rapped around the axle on durability and cans get far heavier than they need to be for practical and optimal use. Food for thought is this note from the KAC M4QD SS-NT4 manual that appears in two places in the relatively brief manual: "WARNING Firing should be limited to: semiautomatic or burst fire except in emergencies. Never subject the model QD suppressor to more than 90 rounds of continuous automatic fire. If this limit is reached, allow the unit to cool before resuming fire if the tactical situation permits. Up to 15 rounds per minute of continual fire is acceptable. Extraordinary full automatic firing will cause premature loss of performance." The same can is being supplied on a contract that specifies 36 rounds a minute for 16 minutes 40 seconds without failure. So recommendations, and torture tests will differ. The Note makes a lot of sense. The Sustained ROF for the M4 carbine is 12-15 rounds per minute. The can appropriate for the M4 carbine should not need to exceed this ROF, because that's abusing the gun, and territory where the companion product shouldn't need to go logically speaking. I bet I would have had zero malfs in my test if I ran 12-15 rounds per minute, because my rifle would have been able to deal with that level of heat appropriately. Obviously there are things like the Army's M4A1 skilled paratrooper (something like that) Rapid rate of fire for 0-300 meter combat, which is something like 46 rounds per minute. There are a whole bunch of different rates of fire, but applying those is intended to be within the amounts of permissible time, which I'm assuming is only maybe 2 or 3 minutes for that rate of fire. Maybe I would know what exactly it is if I had the corresponding TM that broke that out. These are essentially various guidelines intended to inform war fighters of the operational parameters the service branches feel are maximum thresholds for equipment and also at times guides for regulating the application of effective fire. |
|
Quoted: Our heavier cans are cans like the M4SDK. Sage Dynamics ran the M4SDK harder than anyone else I can think of. He put 500 rounds through the M4SDK in 5 minutes on a 10.5" barreled upper. That really looked heinous and a bit dangerous to me, but the can made it through that and he is still running the can and that was maybe 2015? I think that's a good example of something the can can take, but not a good example of something someone should esteem as something safe or smart to do. The DL5 I did run in testing 4-28 round mags full auto, followed by 28 rounds a minute for 9 minutes (13 mags at 28 a recon basic load in 11minutes 20 seconds, when the par time I had established for it was 9minutes 40 seconds). I had ~4 failures to eject on my 11.5" gun, a couple mags after the full auto portion- the 4 FTE's sprinkled infrequently throughout the remainder. I think those were to excessive extractor tension in the weakened high temperature state of the ejector spring. The whole gun was too hot to hold after the first 4 magazines. I probably should have pulled the rubber insert and just run the spring and O-ring and then the balance of the extraction and ejection forces would have worked better together. The FTE's were all stovepipes with a fresh round mostly in the chamber and the rifle was very hot, so I didn't want to look in the ejection port for concern I might have a cookoff and shoot myself with a case head because I know one guy who shot himself through the hand that way clearing an M249, and have heard of people killed that way. So more or less blind malf clearance ended up putting me about 1 minute 40 seconds behind schedule for my objective time. The can was cooling during the 28 rounds per minute part of the test, so it has a good rate of cooling. It did glow through 4 baffles in daylight on the fourth mag of full auto and I don't think that is a good temperature range, so I would recommend more like 2 mags of full auto followed by the at or less than 28 rounds a minute as that keeps you from peaking into the 1600F+ range which is not good. In our experience 1200F and below is a good temperature range to run cans at or below. I know a guy who was in Marine Recon in the Falujah offensive and he said he nearly got through his 13 mag basic load in 4 hours of combat running a longer 14.5" barrel that would be lower pressure and temperature, and that's 1.5 rounds per minute sustained. This is a critical point to make. That was considered the most intense urban combat since Hue City in Vietnam in 1968. People get far too rapped around the axle on durability and cans get far heavier than they need to be for practical and optimal use. Food for thought is this note from the KAC M4QD SS-NT4 manual that appears in two places in the relatively brief manual: "WARNING Firing should be limited to: semiautomatic or burst fire except in emergencies. Never subject the model QD suppressor to more than 90 rounds of continuous automatic fire. If this limit is reached, allow the unit to cool before resuming fire if the tactical situation permits. Up to 15 rounds per minute of continual fire is acceptable. Extraordinary full automatic firing will cause premature loss of performance." The same can is being supplied on a contract that specifies 36 rounds a minute for 16 minutes 40 seconds without failure. So recommendations, and torture tests will differ. The Note makes a lot of sense. The Sustained ROF for the M4 carbine is 12-15 rounds per minute. The can appropriate for the M4 carbine should not need to exceed this ROF, because that's abusing the gun, and territory where the companion product shouldn't need to go logically speaking. I bet I would have had zero malfs in my test if I ran 12-15 rounds per minute, because my rifle would have been able to deal with that level of heat appropriately. Obviously there are things like the Army's M4A1 skilled paratrooper (something like that) Rapid rate of fire for 0-300 meter combat, which is something like 46 rounds per minute. There are a whole bunch of different rates of fire, but applying those is intended to be within the amounts of permissible time, which I'm assuming is only maybe 2 or 3 minutes for that rate of fire. Maybe I would know what exactly it is if I had the corresponding TM that broke that out. These are essentially various guidelines intended to inform war fighters of the operational parameters the service branches feel are maximum thresholds for equipment and also at times guides for regulating the application of effective fire. View Quote well i guess I'm being a bit heavy on the 'better safe than sorry' strategy. In that case on a 16" semi gun, X rnds for X minutes, what's safe for the explorr? how much cooling needs to follow? |
|
LOL
I see that shit never changes. I will never own a Griffin or recommend them. |
|
|
Quoted: well i guess I'm being a bit heavy on the 'better safe than sorry' strategy. In that case on a 16" semi gun, X rnds for X minutes, what's safe for the explorr? how much cooling needs to follow? View Quote Conversations of rates of fire seem to be kind of a rabbit hole where the longer you think about the problem the more durable you want the can to be, regardless of any real world need for it to be so. I can take a Recce 5 out and shoot 196 rounds on a 14.5" gun in about 3 minutes and the can never glows in daylight in that amount of time, and takes that like a champ. If we strictly convert for weight, you could probably run about 150 rounds in the same time with an Explorr can. At the point at which you reach 1200F, the Explorr can probably shoot more rounds per minute than the Recce 5 because it will cool faster. So there are pros and cons to being heavy. There is a major benefit to being tubeless in that the thermal pathway of all parts to the outside is clear and relatively short. Tube over cans transfer heat a little less optimally in terms of speed. This is stuff that goes for all cans. The more high performance the silencer, often that means it heats toward the higher end of the spectrum. Every round you fire creates heat at approximately 7-15 degrees per round (more when cold, less when hot). You can only shed heat efficiently when the can gets hot, because it takes a temperature gradient that is high to create cooling speed- the gradient is the space between ambient air and the temperature of the can. That might be 550F+ per minute at a constant 1200F can temperature, with a 90degree ambient atomosphere, on a really excellent can like these are for cooling speed. The heavier the can you shoot, in general the slower they heat, and the slower they cool because they have more mass to cool, and generally similar surface area to cool it with. The more mass at temperature, the more stored heat to cool. As the can cools, the gradient is getting smaller, and the cooling speed is reducing with the diminished gradient. So down at 250F, a can might have 70F per minute of cooling speed. 27 seconds into this video, you see a Surefire on a 14.5" gun executing a 60 or 90 round full auto dump (I can't tell which mag), and you can see the tube is glowing hotter and hotter in the daylight, that's a force that eventually will blow out the tube if the cyclic rate of fire were to theoretically continue because heat would continue to stack at that staggering speed with nowhere to go. The tube can't hold pressure beyond a certain temperature and glowing in daylight is like 1500F. That glow populating rapidly in a localized area, is the tube heating much faster than it can move the heat around or cool off. The parts under the tube are going to be even hotter and in a surefire they are insulated by the outer tube that they kind of float underneath with a space of ~.030" of air in the middle. Pretty much nobody has a problem with the Surefire, because pretty much nobody shoots over a hundred rounds at cyclic with a Surefire. Again these conversations go to irrational places. SureFire High Capacity AR Magazines - 60 & 100 Round Mags |
|
Quoted: well i guess I'm being a bit heavy on the 'better safe than sorry' strategy. In that case on a 16" semi gun, X rnds for X minutes, what's safe for the explorr? how much cooling needs to follow? View Quote Unless you have a machine gun or just out there banging away as fast as you can without purpose, you will be fine…and honestly, if you are that worried about smoking your can, you probably don’t have the ammo spend tolerance to do so. Trying to have the manufacturer hold your hand on a firing schedule is an exercise in futility for both of y’all. |
|
Some seriously wadded up panties around here. Y'all need to chill. Go outside and enjoy life.
I appreciate the info Green0 provides to the forum, and their continued innovation at Griffin. I currently have a recce 5, recce 7, revo 9, and happy with all of them. Looking seriously at the explorr taper mount 224 or 300, and also upgrading the baffles on my recce 5. Not because it needs it, just because why not. I'm interested in the newer generation of suppressors. |
|
Quoted: Some seriously wadded up panties around here. Y'all need to chill. Go outside and enjoy life. I appreciate the info Green0 provides to the forum, and their continued innovation at Griffin. I currently have a recce 5, recce 7, revo 9, and happy with all of them. Looking seriously at the explorr taper mount 224 or 300, and also upgrading the baffles on my recce 5. Not because it needs it, just because why not. I'm interested in the newer generation of suppressors. View Quote The baffle upgrades are great on both if you shoot .300blk subsonic. If you don’t, the recce 5 is the only one worth the money. Its like a new can for closer to the cost of the stamp. Thanks for your business and for the kind words. |
|
Quoted: The baffle upgrades are great on both if you shoot .300blk subsonic. If you don’t, the recce 5 is the only one worth the money. Its like a new can for closer to the cost of the stamp. Thanks for your business and for the kind words. View Quote how does 17-4 maintain it's heat treat when it gets above the treat temperature of 900? |
|
Quoted: how does 17-4 maintain it's heat treat when it gets above the treat temperature of 900? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: The baffle upgrades are great on both if you shoot .300blk subsonic. If you don’t, the recce 5 is the only one worth the money. Its like a new can for closer to the cost of the stamp. Thanks for your business and for the kind words. how does 17-4 maintain it's heat treat when it gets above the treat temperature of 900? It's fine I don't have pictures but at Cola warrior PA hosted at the Geissele range, my M16 became the king of the show at the open range time... It has an Explorr 224 on it. I had to dump bottles of water on it and the barrel every few minutes. It got abused. |
|
Quoted: It's fine I don't have pictures but at Cola warrior PA hosted at the Geissele range, my M16 became the king of the show at the open range time... It has an Explorr 224 on it. I had to dump bottles of water on it and the barrel every few minutes. It got abused. View Quote oh yah i don't mean it like that, i actually think I've already chanced my mind to grabbing a recce, this is just curiosity. metal is interesting magical stuff |
|
|
Quoted: (snip) You are somewhat non objectively implying we don’t have character. I am a combat veteran. This company is owned by two combat veterans. There are several veterans that work here. We often hire veterans. (snip) View Quote Do the other veterans at your company a favor and reevaluate how you speak about your competition. The snide remark in this thread isn't that big of a deal, but it's the trend. Consumers tend to develop an image or association with a company, and it'll vary person to person. Someone says Dead Air, my first thought is the Mask. Someone says Energetic Armament, my first thoughts are Nyx, Vox, and kedmeister. Someone says TBAC, my first thought is the Ultra series, precision rifle suppressors. Someone says Griffin, and honestly my first thought is "that guy on ARF who frequently shits in the threads of his competition and makes disparaging remarks about them"; and I'm certainly not the only one. |
|
Quoted: Do the other veterans at your company a favor and reevaluate how you speak about your competition. The snide remark in this thread isn't that big of a deal, but it's the trend. Consumers tend to develop an image or association with a company, and it'll vary person to person. Someone says Dead Air, my first thought is the Mask. Someone says Energetic Armament, my first thoughts are Nyx, Vox, and kedmeister. Someone says TBAC, my first thought is the Ultra series, precision rifle suppressors. Someone says Griffin, and honestly my first thought is "that guy on ARF who frequently shits in the threads of his competition and makes disparaging remarks about them"; and I'm certainly not the only one. View Quote Did you vote for brandon in 2020 because mean tweets made you cry? |
|
Quoted: Do the other veterans at your company a favor and reevaluate how you speak about your competition. The snide remark in this thread isn't that big of a deal, but it's the trend. Consumers tend to develop an image or association with a company, and it'll vary person to person. Someone says Dead Air, my first thought is the Mask. Someone says Energetic Armament, my first thoughts are Nyx, Vox, and kedmeister. Someone says TBAC, my first thought is the Ultra series, precision rifle suppressors. Someone says Griffin, and honestly my first thought is "that guy on ARF who frequently shits in the threads of his competition and makes disparaging remarks about them"; and I'm certainly not the only one. View Quote +1. And no, @KalmanPhilter - I voted for the mean orange man. |
|
Quoted: Did you vote for brandon in 2020 because mean tweets made you cry? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Do the other veterans at your company a favor and reevaluate how you speak about your competition. The snide remark in this thread isn't that big of a deal, but it's the trend. Consumers tend to develop an image or association with a company, and it'll vary person to person. Someone says Dead Air, my first thought is the Mask. Someone says Energetic Armament, my first thoughts are Nyx, Vox, and kedmeister. Someone says TBAC, my first thought is the Ultra series, precision rifle suppressors. Someone says Griffin, and honestly my first thought is "that guy on ARF who frequently shits in the threads of his competition and makes disparaging remarks about them"; and I'm certainly not the only one. Did you vote for brandon in 2020 because mean tweets made you cry? Grow up. You haven't been around long enough to understand what PA452 is talking about. |
|
Back in the day, AAC was always spicy toward their competition. Unless there is outright misrepresentation involved, who gives a shit? I'd rather buy a superior product from a company that is unashamedly proud of what they've created. Perhaps manufacturers should just offer participation awards and not promote the superiority of their product. That would fix it
Apparently, no one wants to discuss the technical specs or refute the results of the test. The Explorr 224 is scarcely longer than K cans, lighter than many of them, and performs better than any full-size 5.56 can that comes to mind other than the latest Recce 5. Also, it has an included flash hiding endcap for those of us that shoot under NODs a lot. Assuming that no numbers have been fudged here, that is incredible and a big win for suppressed 5.56 shooters. We finally have a new crop of 5.56 cans after years of mostly 30-458 cal releases. Haters are gonna hate, but Griffin's new stuff over the last couple years has been flipping incredible. |
|
Quoted: Back in the day, AAC was always spicy toward their competition. Unless there is outright misrepresentation involved, who gives a shit? I'd rather buy a superior product from a company that is unashamedly proud of what they've created. Perhaps manufacturers should just offer participation awards and not promote the superiority of their product. That would fix it Apparently, no one wants to discuss the technical specs or refute the results of the test. The Explorr 224 is scarcely longer than K cans, lighter than many of them, and performs better than any full-size 5.56 can that comes to mind other than the latest Recce 5. Also, it has an included flash hiding endcap for those of us that shoot under NODs a lot. Assuming that no numbers have been fudged here, that is incredible and a big win for suppressed 5.56 shooters. We finally have a new crop of 5.56 cans after years of mostly 30-458 cal releases. Haters are gonna hate, but Griffin's new stuff over the last couple years has been flipping incredible. View Quote Right? So what if you dislike that one of the MFGs posts here...ignore button. Let's see other companies do a similar video with expensive testing equipment if their products really are so much better. Or is that something a few people will say "more ethical" companies don't do? Actually on topic: If I read their site correctly, the baseline 16" used may have a heavier buffer setup even though Green0 is correct in saying it's "stock." No AGB I believe. It seems to be a little optimized for running suppressed anyway, but if that's the case, competitors will also benefit to a point. As for meter placement debate, there's some material out there discussing the nature of the bullet's supersonic wave and theoretical distance for it to reach peak loudness (i.e. a shot at contact distance to a solid object will effectively have "none.") Placing the meter forward of the muzzle will have some sort of adverse affect as it will be "outside" the supersonic cone vs. the shooter being inside of it and subject mainly to reflection of the crack from the air or terrain. |
|
Quoted: +1. And no, @KalmanPhilter - I voted for the mean orange man. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Do the other veterans at your company a favor and reevaluate how you speak about your competition. The snide remark in this thread isn't that big of a deal, but it's the trend. Consumers tend to develop an image or association with a company, and it'll vary person to person. Someone says Dead Air, my first thought is the Mask. Someone says Energetic Armament, my first thoughts are Nyx, Vox, and kedmeister. Someone says TBAC, my first thought is the Ultra series, precision rifle suppressors. Someone says Griffin, and honestly my first thought is "that guy on ARF who frequently shits in the threads of his competition and makes disparaging remarks about them"; and I'm certainly not the only one. +1. And no, @KalmanPhilter - I voted for the mean orange man. Boom! You cut the wrong wire. Happy Independence Day! |
|
Quoted: Actually on topic: If I read their site correctly, the baseline 16" used may have a heavier buffer setup even though Green0 is correct in saying it's "stock." No AGB I believe. It seems to be a little optimized for running suppressed anyway, but if that's the case, competitors will also benefit to a point. View Quote The mk1 rifles used in the test are bone stock. They do have our proprietary buffer, our over the beach receiver extension and stock, and our barrels- those parts are standard on those guns. But they do run unsuppressed like all quality di guns. If we were to do R&D, on a gun that had an adjustable gas block we would be cheating ourselves and our cans would fail to perform optimally on customers guns. We do all our development on our own quality, di guns, because that allows our performance to correlate to customer firearms in the field. The mic placement debate is more or less moot when we compare the other cans to the same standard. Happy fourth of July everyone. |
|
|
I don't have any metering equipment but I did notice a substantial difference between two 16" mid-length hosts same ammo with only difference being one had an adjustable gas block that was tuned to minimum gas for locking back on empty mag (+1 more click open after that for added reliability). Can is a Recce 5 Mod 4.
|
|
Quoted: I don't have any metering equipment but I did notice a substantial difference between two 16" mid-length hosts same ammo with only difference being one had an adjustable gas block that was tuned to minimum gas for locking back on empty mag (+1 more click open after that for added reliability). Can is a Recce 5 Mod 4. View Quote that's cool, what barrel on the non adjustable? how heavily gassed is it unsuppressed? I'd actually planned on grabbing one of those riflespeed gb's anyhow, i like the thought of being able to adjust the rifle for extreme temp change without messing with buffers/springs, would be pretty cool if i could beat that already impressive 132db number though. |
|
I never intended to own a Griffin can but after this thread / video I really never want to buy one.
Personally I think its a bit unprofessional for a company to test their products against the competition and then post it on here then jab the competition with certain remarks. That's why things like this should be left to third parties. Anyways that's my .02 cents just my opinion of course. |
|
Quoted: that's cool, what barrel on the non adjustable? how heavily gassed is it unsuppressed? I'd actually planned on grabbing one of those riflespeed gb's anyhow, i like the thought of being able to adjust the rifle for extreme temp change without messing with buffers/springs, would be pretty cool if i could beat that already impressive 132db number though. View Quote Daniel Defense 16" government profile with mid-length gas and factory gas block. The suppressed ejection pattern wasn't wildly forward or anything but I do not have any non-subjective data off hand. A Recce 5 Mod 4 on a 16" 5.56 AR with adjustable mid-length gas is bliss That can was my eighth centerfire rifle can across five big name silencer manufacturers but the first one that was not uncomfortable to occasionally shoot w/o ear pro on a 5.56 AR15. My brother and I were stunned by its performance as well as that of his new GP NATO. People writing them off over "mean tweets" mystifies me. The M14 was also selected over the objectively superior FAL, so stranger things have happened. Oh well, their loss. |
|
Quoted: I never intended to own a Griffin can but after this thread / video I really never want to buy one. Personally I think its a bit unprofessional for a company to test their products against the competition and then post it on here then jab the competition with certain remarks. That's why things like this should be left to third parties. Anyways that's my .02 cents just my opinion of course. View Quote Thinking out loud here. Hasn't griffin shown videos of their cans getting beaten too? |
|
Quoted: Daniel Defense 16" government profile with mid-length gas and factory gas block. The suppressed ejection pattern wasn't wildly forward or anything but I do not have any non-subjective data off hand. A Recce 5 Mod 4 on a 16" 5.56 AR with adjustable mid-length gas is bliss That can was my eighth centerfire rifle can across five big name silencer manufacturers but the first one that was not uncomfortable to occasionally shoot w/o ear pro on a 5.56 AR15. My brother and I were stunned by its performance as well as that of his new GP NATO. People writing them off over "mean tweets" mystifies me. The M14 was also selected over the objectively superior FAL, so stranger things have happened. Oh well, their loss. View Quote awesome, only difference for me is i have the lightweight profile; that definitely seals the agb purchase. |
|
Quoted: I never intended to own a Griffin can but after this thread / video I really never want to buy one. Personally I think its a bit unprofessional for a company to test their products against the competition and then post it on here then jab the competition with certain remarks. That's why things like this should be left to third parties. Anyways that's my .02 cents just my opinion of course. View Quote well, I'm glad they did. gave me just enough food for thought to get me to reevaluate my criteria benchmarks, which as it turns out i'd been a bit overzealous on, ended up saving me enough money to snag a blem mk16 rail, and got me on the line to grab something that i think i'll be much happier with as my first suppressor. there was literally one line with some sass in it in the first post, nbd. eta: not that the sierra seems a bad option, i prob would've still been happy with it, and do like the look of the attachment system better, but for a first can if everything else is either equal or close enough, which it seems to be, a notably quieter option sounds like the rite decision. |
|
Quoted: I didn't know so many people bought cans based on politics of a company, seems like a lot of whining in here -- I'm just looking for performance View Quote Same type of people who also have no problem still spending money at places like BRCC, Dicks, CTD, Botach, Disney etc. because it's convenient or there's a sale. |
|
Quoted: Thinking out loud here. Hasn't griffin shown videos of their cans getting beaten too? View Quote Not sure. but I am also wondering if there are any legality issues with Griffin comparing their cans with other direct competition? Trade marking and all that.... You don't see other big name companies doing that then boasting about it on ARF.... Hmm... For instance look at commercials... you don't ever see a company comparing their product to another companies product with their exact name on it.. ie pepsi vs coke.. ford vs dodge vs chevy. And if they do they presumably pay a hefty price to do so Which reverts to my comment about leaving it to third parties doing the testing. Like with what I said above, there are handfuls of third parties that do reviews and comparisons with vehicles in similar classes of vehicles. Vehicle manufactures can't legally do what those third parties do that I am aware of please correct me if I am wrong because I very well might be as I am not a lawyer. Those are waters I don't want to enter and that's another reason why I don't want to ever buy a Griffin can... who knows if they will be around 5-10 years from now. I personally don't think they will be with the approach they currently have and have had in the past. |
|
|
Quoted: they absolutely do and have since the dawn of time https://preview.redd.it/lw8ru5ja1o891.jpg?auto=webp&s=3a288663a47f3334713e580504ac1713951d6441 pepsi ad, coke responce, both real https://miro.medium.com/max/988/0*66ETOdasAbyiSQqd.jpg i think this one actually aired during the superbowl one year https://tfltruck.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Chevy-vs-Ford.png View Quote Yep And I am pretty sure they pay a fee for it.... which I included in my comment. Trademark laws are a thing. Like I said I am not a lawyer just am questioning the legality of it. |
|
Quoted: Yep And I am pretty sure they pay a fee for it.... which I included in my comment. Trademark laws are a thing. Like I said I am not a lawyer just am questioning the legality of it. View Quote Trademark law says you can’t advertise for sale, an item using the name of another registered trademark in the same industry space / USPTO classification. Pepsi for example can’t copy and sell coca cola using the same label on the can. They also can’t put pepsi in a coca cola brand can and sell that as their product, because that would cause market confusion that would harm coca cola which has protected itself with a registered trademark, which is a protection they purchased from the federal government’s USPTO. So for another example, IF Sierra 5 is a registered mark for the 013 class (I believe thats the class for firearms but I admittedly am not involved in registering our marks, which other people at the company and lawyers who represent us are involved in), THEN we can’t sell a firearm grip for example, and call it a Sierra 5 grip without potential legal problems. But that wouldn’t stop General Motors from calling their next truck a sierra 5, or even registering that mark in whatever class passenger trucks fall into. Sony could probably also register it as the name of their next pair of ear buds in whatever class that would be. I am not causing confusion by calling another brand product by its brand and trade name. That is written on the side of the unit. Thats just a fact. There is nothing confusing about stating facts. What you’re saying is sort of like people might be in legal trouble for saying that red can of soft drink is a coca cola. |
|
Griffin and TBAC are the only companies here that spend their own time and money benchmarking their cans on video and posting the results good or bad. I appreciate these manufacturers doing this to help consumers make decisions on which silencers best fit their needs. Pew Science is great, but in order to have a successful business model, he must throttle the release of data which means you may be waiting three years to find out how a new can performs. Griffin and TBAC are helping out the consumers by spending their own time and money benchmarking the new cans on the market so we can make educated decisions on our lifetime purchases.
|
|
Quoted: Thinking out loud here. Hasn't griffin shown videos of their cans getting beaten too? View Quote Yep. Video from a few months back shows the Nomad 30 edging out the Explorer 300 on 5.56 and 308 hosts. I have a Recce 5 in jail, but would like to see Griffin do a comparison between the GP5 and other similar cans on the market. |
|
Quoted: Not sure. but I am also wondering if there are any legality issues with Griffin comparing their cans with other direct competition? Trade marking and all that.... You don't see other big name companies doing that then boasting about it on ARF.... Hmm... For instance look at commercials... you don't ever see a company comparing their product to another companies product with their exact name on it.. ie pepsi vs coke.. ford vs dodge vs chevy. And if they do they presumably pay a hefty price to do so Which reverts to my comment about leaving it to third parties doing the testing. Like with what I said above, there are handfuls of third parties that do reviews and comparisons with vehicles in similar classes of vehicles. Vehicle manufactures can't legally do what those third parties do that I am aware of please correct me if I am wrong because I very well might be as I am not a lawyer. Those are waters I don't want to enter and that's another reason why I don't want to ever buy a Griffin can... who knows if they will be around 5-10 years from now. I personally don't think they will be with the approach they currently have and have had in the past. View Quote We get it, you don’t like Griffin, and you hope against all hope they did something wrong. The problem with third party in this industry is that there’s too many options to test without massive financial resource so that really is going to limit the number of tests and testers. Why WOULDNT a company show why they’re a good option versus one of the best in the business? Normally the mods are good about keeping tech forum posts on track but this is getting wild. |
|
Quoted: Not sure. but I am also wondering if there are any legality issues with Griffin comparing their cans with other direct competition? Trade marking and all that.... You don't see other big name companies doing that then boasting about it on ARF.... Hmm... For instance look at commercials... you don't ever see a company comparing their product to another companies product with their exact name on it.. ie pepsi vs coke.. ford vs dodge vs chevy. And if they do they presumably pay a hefty price to do so Which reverts to my comment about leaving it to third parties doing the testing. Like with what I said above, there are handfuls of third parties that do reviews and comparisons with vehicles in similar classes of vehicles. Vehicle manufactures can't legally do what those third parties do that I am aware of please correct me if I am wrong because I very well might be as I am not a lawyer. Those are waters I don't want to enter and that's another reason why I don't want to ever buy a Griffin can... who knows if they will be around 5-10 years from now. I personally don't think they will be with the approach they currently have and have had in the past. View Quote Most marketing is based on psychological manipulation rather than facts (lifestyle marketing dominates all product classes). SilencerCo is notorious for it with their video puff pieces. Suppressors are the high heels of the gun accessory world. It’s really enlightening to see hardmen bitching about companies copying stylistic elements as if they were patentable technology. Griffin has a far more diversified gun accessory product line than most suppressor manufacturers, and owns actual manufacturing capability. I suspect they, like YHM, would be viable in market conditions that would stress most poorly diversified suppressor mainstays. The silencer world is ripe with weirdos on the spectrum. It’s funny how one self appointed loner is a suppressor savior and others get the lunchroom cold shoulder. A nice guy(s) can lie out the ass materially and weave and dodge while the guy who points out the pink elephants makes many see red. Every generation throws a hero up the pop chart. I personally don’t own any Griffin suppressors but use and appreciate a lot of their other products. Their suppressors I’ve tried have owners that are happy with their quality and value. Comparing suppressors on the same host and conditions is useful, especially if you look at ejection port gas, cartridge ejection, muzzle flash if any, and gas plume duration as potential indicators of function. Not all videos display all possible indicators but Griffin’s dry, documentary approach often does. |
|
Quoted: Griffin and TBAC are the only companies here that spend their own time and money benchmarking their cans on video and posting the results good or bad. I appreciate these manufacturers doing this to help consumers make decisions on which silencers best fit their needs. Pew Science is great, but in order to have a successful business model, he must throttle the release of data which means you may be waiting three years to find out how a new can performs. Griffin and TBAC are helping out the consumers by spending their own time and money benchmarking the new cans on the market so we can make educated decisions on our lifetime purchases. View Quote Thanks, I also believe that multiple data points are helpful in terms of letting customers check an independent or distributor review, or compare one testing protocol to another. This will reduce the ability of any one authority to influence reality because for example TBAC could test one of these products tomorrow, and many companies have similar equipment for testing. Multiple testing sources increase the data accuracy. Testing will also influence companies to care about performance and to do real development work. Behind the scenes it is obvious some entities in the distribution or even dealer pipelines have desires to increase sales momentum of one company or another. Sometimes that is evident also in the form of working to reduce sales of another brand. Sometimes the root issues can be as simple as ego or desire for market control. The reasons for sales bias can also be relationship reasons. Sometimes it can be more direct like x company wined and dined us and we like them more than y company, or they support dealer sales with regional reps. The size of a product line or the presence of dealer sales support can influence bias. Reasons that may have nothing to do with the product being great or not so great for the end user customers and that’s a place where company testing can help show people something that isn’t sales bias. When people assume manufacturers are biased, there is some lack of perspective in that there can be bias in sales or distribution or in independent testing as well. None of the areas is immune from that. |
|
The mental gymnastics people are performing to try to turn this test into a bad thing for Griffin is reminiscent of how the hypocritical liberal media contorts things. Meanwhile, TBAC posts comparison videos and people are overwhelmingly supportive (myself included, because these tests are great for consumers).
What is not to love when manufacturers post video tests using expensive equipment and stated methodology? |
|
Quoted: The mental gymnastics people are performing to try to turn this test into a bad thing for Griffin is reminiscent of how the hypocritical liberal media contorts things. Meanwhile, TBAC posts comparison videos and people are overwhelmingly supportive (myself included, because these tests are great for consumers). What is not to love when manufacturers post video tests using expensive equipment and stated methodology? View Quote |
|
Quoted: The mental gymnastics people are performing to try to turn this test into a bad thing for Griffin is reminiscent of how the hypocritical liberal media contorts things. Meanwhile, TBAC posts comparison videos and people are overwhelmingly supportive (myself included, because these tests are great for consumers). What is not to love when manufacturers post video tests using expensive equipment and stated methodology? View Quote "There was a lot of hype about this Dead Air Sierra 5. The buildup was like one calendar year complete with "teaser style delayed marketing release. For a company that has never made a 5.56mm suppressor, the Sierra 5 was a decent first attempt" TBAC does it straightforward without the snide remarks |
|
Quoted: Thanks, I also believe that multiple data points are helpful in terms of letting customers check an independent or distributor review, or compare one testing protocol to another. This will reduce the ability of any one authority to influence reality because for example TBAC could test one of these products tomorrow, and many companies have similar equipment for testing. Multiple testing sources increase the data accuracy. View Quote |
|
Quoted: Griffin and TBAC are the only companies here that spend their own time and money benchmarking their cans on video and posting the results good or bad. I appreciate these manufacturers doing this to help consumers make decisions on which silencers best fit their needs. Pew Science is great, but in order to have a successful business model, he must throttle the release of data which means you may be waiting three years to find out how a new can performs. Griffin and TBAC are helping out the consumers by spending their own time and money benchmarking the new cans on the market so we can make educated decisions on our lifetime purchases. View Quote This. Private testing of your own products benefits nobody but the manufacturer. How do you innovate your own products without testing the products of your competitors? And again, keeping that testing private only benefits the manufacturers. There’s no shortage of whiners on the internet. |
|
Quoted: Not sure. but I am also wondering if there are any legality issues with Griffin comparing their cans with other direct competition? Trade marking and all that.... You don't see other big name companies doing that then boasting about it on ARF.... Hmm... For instance look at commercials... you don't ever see a company comparing their product to another companies product with their exact name on it.. ie pepsi vs coke.. ford vs dodge vs chevy. And if they do they presumably pay a hefty price to do so Which reverts to my comment about leaving it to third parties doing the testing. Like with what I said above, there are handfuls of third parties that do reviews and comparisons with vehicles in similar classes of vehicles. Vehicle manufactures can't legally do what those third parties do that I am aware of please correct me if I am wrong because I very well might be as I am not a lawyer. Those are waters I don't want to enter and that's another reason why I don't want to ever buy a Griffin can... who knows if they will be around 5-10 years from now. I personally don't think they will be with the approach they currently have and have had in the past. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Thinking out loud here. Hasn't griffin shown videos of their cans getting beaten too? Not sure. but I am also wondering if there are any legality issues with Griffin comparing their cans with other direct competition? Trade marking and all that.... You don't see other big name companies doing that then boasting about it on ARF.... Hmm... For instance look at commercials... you don't ever see a company comparing their product to another companies product with their exact name on it.. ie pepsi vs coke.. ford vs dodge vs chevy. And if they do they presumably pay a hefty price to do so Which reverts to my comment about leaving it to third parties doing the testing. Like with what I said above, there are handfuls of third parties that do reviews and comparisons with vehicles in similar classes of vehicles. Vehicle manufactures can't legally do what those third parties do that I am aware of please correct me if I am wrong because I very well might be as I am not a lawyer. Those are waters I don't want to enter and that's another reason why I don't want to ever buy a Griffin can... who knows if they will be around 5-10 years from now. I personally don't think they will be with the approach they currently have and have had in the past. Shame. Their Mod4 design is fantastic. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.