View Full Version : REVIEW: Griffin Armament M4-SD Tactical Compensator
Hello, I was given the chance to test out Griffin Armaments new Tactical Compensator, and in return I had to do a review on it. So here it is! :D First off I would like to thank Jesse for trusting me and giving me the opportunity to test the Griffin comp. I would also like to thank Griffin Armament, for the awesome design, great pricing, and especially the opportunity to test it! I would also like to thank JoeBobOutfitters.com as it was their recommendation to allow Jesse to test!
Before I get into the review, I figure I can give some of my credentials, if that's what you want to call them! I'm a full time Police Officer and have been for approximately 5 years. My AR15 is my go to gun in SHTF situations, so I need the best, not for myself, but for civilians I'm sworn to protect. It rides shotgun with me at all times and is easily accessible. I have approximately 100 hrs of documented professional pistol and 50 hrs of documented professional rifle training. I shoot right around 1k a month by myself and try to stay as active as I can in the USPSA/Pro Am scene. I would like to think that I'm a decent shot and. I'm no veteran, master, or ATAS guy, but I shoot more then the average Joe and am very proficient with my weapons.
The rifle that I tested the Griffin comp on is my duty rifle. It is a hybrid AR15, mixed with a Noveske lower and LMT 16" carbine upper with a 1/7 twist. The previous hider on the rifle was a Micor Industries http://www.brownells.com/1/1/45849-ar-15-m16-flash-suppressor-flash-suppressor-1-9-twist-micor-industries-inc.html . It was what came with the upper when I purchased it. The gun does not have much muzzle rise, but it was noticeable.
Now to the Griffin.
First glance:
It seems to be very well made. It looked much like and I'm sure designed closely to a Battlecomp. From other reviews I've read, it's stronger and heavier, but I can't tell you that for sure. I can't tell you what kind of finish it is, but it looks like it is parkerized. It matches very well with my LMT barrel, if that helps at all? Very heavy duty and seems like it'd work well in my line of work, rain, shine or snow.
Installation:
On a scale of 1-10, 1 being easiest, 10 being hardest, I would rate installation of this a 3. Only because you actually had to put some muscle into unscrewing your old flash/comp. It would probably be a 1 if I had the correct tools, but I didn't! ;) If you can screw in a light bulb, you can install this comp! I was the second person to test the comp, so the original peel washer was included, but used previously. I opted for a new crush washer (Thanks Matt!).
Fitment/Look:
It fit like it should. Nice and snug and it lines up perfect with a crush washer. It looks very good on the rifle and looks factory. It's not flashy like some comps on the market are.
Function:
I was very excited to run the rifle after installing the comp. I honestly did not expect much, as I don't think the 2.23/5.56 round has much muzzle rise/recoil. Let me be the first to tell you, first shot, I stopped and said, "Holy crap! It works!" My rifle stayed completely level, virtually(to me) no muzzle rise. The sight picture was exactly the same, nothing changed. Shot went where I wanted it to go and I could've put a round through the same hole again... VERY FAST. After the first shot, I let about 10 rounds go downrange as fast as I could possibly pull the trigger. SAME SIGHT PICTURE, NO MUZZLE RISE. I couldn't believe it. All I could do was smile :) I was pleasantly surprised and excited! After dumping the mag, I did transition drills with 2 targets, 1, 2, 1. 1, 2, 1. 2 to the body, 1 to the head, etc. Then I did 3 target transitions and on to 4. I could easily track my rifle, get good fast sight pictures with very fast follow up shots. Much faster then before!
As far as recoil goes, the 2.23/5.56 round doesn't "kick" hard at all, but after installing the Griffin, I could feel... not a kick, but a rearward thrust, more then before. It is still very shooter friendly and would be very easy for a child or amateur shooter to handle.
Pros:
It freaking works and it's definitely cheaper then other comparable comps on the market. Nuff said! In my line of work, we all know that LEO are under paid, over worked. Every penny helps! I suggest using Boomer Shooter sponsor, Joe Bob Outfitters. They will treat you right and get your products shipped out FAST! B)
Cons:
The one and ONLY con to the comp was the noise level. It was noticeably louder, especially on my left side. Before I could shoot my rifle with my Surefires, inner tube unplugged, I had to plug it to keep my ear from ringing. In an indoor environment, it will get VERY loud. My thought? It doesn't matter, because if I have to use it on duty, I'm not going to have ear plugs in, and I'm probably not going to hear it because I'll be so focused on the threat. That was the only thing I could find wrong with it. I dunno how it's going to do in a humid, wet environment, but I figure it's going to be much like an AR15 rifle barrel, it probably won't affect it much.
My overall thought is that it's a GREAT buy and again, IT FREAKING WORKS! I will get videos posted soon, hopefully tomorrow, if not, sometime next week. For the meanwhile, here are pics I took of it after I shot it today.
I hope the review helped with any decision making. Good luck to Griffin and thank you!
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l229/yinnhia/photo3.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l229/yinnhia/photo2.jpg
More pics to come.....
joeboboutfitters
06-02-11, 22:44
Unless you are mounting a suppressor on the muzzle attachment and might need more precise alignment you should be good to go with a peel or crush washer, either way.
The reward, more linear "push" is pretty common amongst what other customers have said as well as what I personally experienced in our pre-testing before purchasing any for resale.
Unless you are mounting a suppressor on the muzzle attachment and might need more precise alignment you should be good to go with a peel or crush washer, either way.
The reward, more linear "push" is pretty common amongst what other customers have said as well as what I personally experienced in our pre-testing before purchasing any for resale.
I am not going to be mounting a suppressor. Thank you for the information though!
I also owe you an apology for not including a thanks to you. I did not realize you had a part of the testing process for Jesse! Thank you!
OP, thanks for the write-up. How does it compare to other comps? Does it have any/adequate flash-hiding capabilities?
Do you have any affiliation with the manufacturer, if you don't mind my asking?
It looks familiar!! :p
I was thinking the same thing. Like there may be trade dress/patent issues if BCE has that stuff covered. But, whatever, as long as it does what it claims to.
Also, this thread has already exceeded its quota of exclamation marks.
joeboboutfitters
06-03-11, 10:28
OP, thanks for the write-up. How does it compare to other comps? Does it have any/adequate flash-hiding capabilities?
I was thinking the same thing. Like there may be trade dress/patent issues if BCE has that stuff covered. But, whatever, as long as it does what it claims to.
Also, this thread has already exceeded its quota of exclamation marks.
The product obviously has relation, but the shape and configuration of the Griffin M4SD isn't the same as KAC or Battlecomp, and the amount of ported surface area is in between the two. Their wall thicknesses are different, the accessory grooves are also different and the length from that groove to the front of the unit. Etc. Different means to a similar end, more or less.
The BC and M4E, like most comps/brakes are not a flash hider. If you are looking for solely a flash hider the A2 or Smith Vortex or other choices would be better.
The product obviously has relation, but the shape and configuration of the Griffin M4SD isn't the same as KAC or Battlecomp, and the amount of ported surface area is in between the two. Their wall thicknesses are different, the accessory grooves are also different and the length from that groove to the front of the unit. Etc. Different means to a similar end, more or less.
I didn't imply there are no differences, but it's not hard to see some inspiration there. In more cutthroat markets, I think there would be legal issues, if for nothing more than that trade dress and marks have to be defended to be viable, whether or not the presumed offender is in the right.
The BC and M4E, like most comps/brakes are not a flash hider. If you are looking for solely a flash hider the A2 or Smith Vortex or other choices would be better.
The BC isn't as aggressive a compensator as, say, some of the competition units like the JPs, where flash suppression is not a factor. And though the M4E may not be designed to suppress muzzle flash, the BC is to some degree while still being an effective compensator. This is from the BC Web site:
The BattleComp gives the tactical operator excellent control WITHOUT the excessive concussion and crushing blast produced by most compensators on the market — with flash comparable to an A2 — and all in an A2-sized package.
I think that's kinda the BC's gig. It compromises some of the effectiveness of a pure brake in order to avoid concussion and excessive muzzle flash.
So it shouldn't be out of the ordinary to ask how a unit with a design similar to the BC suppresses muzzle flash. Hell, it may be better at it, hence the question.
I have no dog in the race and don't mean to hijack the OP's helpful thread, but I have a feeling that whenever the M4E is discussed it will be difficult not to have some talk of and comparison to the BC.
joeboboutfitters
06-03-11, 11:54
So it shouldn't be out of the ordinary to ask how a unit with a design similar to the BC suppresses muzzle flash. Hell, it may be better at it, hence the question.
I have no dog in the race and don't mean to hijack the OP's helpful thread, but I have a feeling that whenever the M4E is discussed it will be difficult not to have some talk of and comparison to the BC.
Here is an example of muzzle flash/comparison. They all have a slightly different flash signature. These are 12" barrels with M855:
https://www.joeboboutfitters.com/v/vspfiles/photos/GA-M4-SDCompensator-10.jpg
The BC/M4SD/KAC should all have more concussion and most likely more flash than a standard A2 birdcage. They will probably have less flash than a bare muzzle. Of course there are many variables out there including ammo, barrel length, gas system, etc. This is similar to suppressors, in that some designs might be slightly more efficient on subsonic ammo versus supersonic, or pistols rather than rifles, etc.
They should all have less concussion than a standard muzzle brake and other comps which are extremely loud. More of a "middle of the road" approach, as you said. All of these values are hard to quantify. They are not as easily measurable besides SPL, as say velocity. "How much flash" is based on personal experience or by night-time flash pictures, but that's also pretty subjective and hard to catch exactly.
The benefit to these newer style tactical comps, IMO, is the suppressor adaptability, less concussion, and size. They aren't overly wide or very long to add to the OAL. Buying proprietary mounts for suppressor adapters are "ok" but these work well stand alone as well.
Hello,
Are you affiliated with joeboboutfitters.com? And are you afilliated in any way with Griffin Armament? Thanks.
Here is an example of muzzle flash/comparison. They all have a slightly different flash signature. These are 12" barrels with M855:
https://www.joeboboutfitters.com/v/vspfiles/photos/GA-M4-SDCompensator-10.jpg
The BC/M4SD/KAC should all have more concussion and most likely more flash than a standard A2 birdcage. They will probably have less flash than a bare muzzle. Of course there are many variables out there including ammo, barrel length, gas system, etc. This is similar to suppressors, in that some designs might be slightly more efficient on subsonic ammo versus supersonic, or pistols rather than rifles, etc.
They should all have less concussion than a standard muzzle brake and other comps which are extremely loud. More of a "middle of the road" approach, as you said. All of these values are hard to quantify. They are not as easily measurable besides SPL, as say velocity. "How much flash" is based on personal experience or by night-time flash pictures, but that's also pretty subjective and hard to catch exactly.
The benefit to these newer style tactical comps, IMO, is the suppressor adaptability, less concussion, and size. They aren't overly wide or very long to add to the OAL. Buying proprietary mounts for suppressor adapters are "ok" but these work well stand alone as well.
joeboboutfitters
06-03-11, 13:33
Hello,
Are you affiliated with joeboboutfitters.com? And are you afilliated in any way with Griffin Armament? Thanks.
Yes, I am the owner of JBO just responding on here to inquiries. Not affiliated at all with Green0/Griffin besides a buyer/seller relationship.
Please include that disclaimer in your signature line. But, do not link to your website. Thanks.
Yes, I am the owner of JBO just responding on here to inquiries. Not affiliated at all with Green0/Griffin besides a buyer/seller relationship.
joeboboutfitters
06-03-11, 14:02
Please include that disclaimer in your signature line. But, do not link to your website. Thanks.
No problem. How's that?
Jesse Tischauser
06-03-11, 19:12
Great review! It's always good to have someone with LE and a competitive shooting background give their perspective. You guys use your gear for business and pleasure.
Welcome to the two new board members who came here to review/ recommend this product.
RadioActivity
06-04-11, 01:01
Griffin Armament - I would be very surprised if nobody here shared my sentiments:
I can't help but feel that you studied a Battlecomp, and asked yourself how can we make the same thing, but different enough to not APPEAR like we are trying to make the same exact thing.
What is improved on your design over the BC besides it's theoretical strength (which to me, is like selling a hair brush that is 400% stronger)? Lets acknowledge the elephant in the room, did you simply feel you could beat Battlecomp's price on their own design? That would be a slippery slope...Battlecomp has a $150 product available when KAC's $500 inconel product wasn't even obtainable. Their design and machining process is significantly different than KAC's. Battlecomp's product has the ports at the 12 o'clock position that redirect gasses to fight muzzle rise as well as recoil, something the Levang comp design lacks. It appears your product was made to simply under cut a $150 item by a lousy $20 with a minimal design change that improve what? How would you feel if your designs were produced by a Chinese company for $100?
I wouldn't consider myself blindly brand loyal, but I recognize good customer service. Battlecomp has had a presence here on the board as well as having been receptive to the forum's input and suggestions. I concede: "There is more than one way to skin a cat", and yet still only so many ways to skin a cat. I also know that competition is good for the consumer as it drives pricing down. While I keep those thoughts in mind, perhaps you can better explain your product and your intentions when you designed it? What does it do better than existing products that look remarkably similar?
I can't help but feel that someone looked at Battlecomp, and said how can we make the same thing, but different enough to not APPEAR like we are trying to make the same exact thing.
What is improved on your design over the BC besides it's theoretical strength (which to me, is like selling a hair brush that is 400% stronger)? Lets acknowledge the elephant in the room, did you simply feel you could beat Battlecomp's price on their own design?
It sure appears that this is the case. They go out of their way to compare themselves to BCE and no one else.
I have to agree 100%. It will be interesting to see how this progresses. Having actually shot the Battle Comp I think it's a great idea and it works.
Griffin Armament - I would be very surprised if nobody here shared my sentiments:
I can't help but feel that you studied a Battlecomp, and asked yourself how can we make the same thing, but different enough to not APPEAR like we are trying to make the same exact thing.
What is improved on your design over the BC besides it's theoretical strength (which to me, is like selling a hair brush that is 400% stronger)? Lets acknowledge the elephant in the room, did you simply feel you could beat Battlecomp's price on their own design? That would be a slippery slope...Battlecomp has a $150 product available when KAC's $500 inconel product wasn't even obtainable. Their design and machining process is significantly different than KAC's. Battlecomp's product has the ports at the 12 o'clock position that redirect gasses to fight muzzle rise as well as recoil, something the Levang comp design lacks. It appears your product was made to simply under cut a $150 item by a lousy $20 with a minimal design change that improve what? How would you feel if your designs were produced by a Chinese company for $100?
I wouldn't consider myself blindly brand loyal, but I recognize good customer service. Battlecomp has had a presence here on the board as well as having been receptive to the forum's input and suggestions. I concede: "There is more than one way to skin a cat", and yet still only so many ways to skin a cat. I also know that competition is good for the consumer as it drives pricing down. While I keep those thoughts in mind, perhaps you can better explain your product and your intentions when you designed it? What does it do better than existing products that look remarkably similar?
Rattlehead
06-04-11, 02:06
I can't help but feel that you studied a Battlecomp, and asked yourself how can we make the same thing, but different enough to not APPEAR like we are trying to make the same exact thing.
What is improved on your design over the BC besides it's theoretical strength (which to me, is like selling a hair brush that is 400% stronger)? Lets acknowledge the elephant in the room, did you simply feel you could beat Battlecomp's price on their own design? That would be a slippery slope...Battlecomp has a $150 product available when KAC's $500 inconel product wasn't even obtainable. Their design and machining process is significantly different than KAC's. Battlecomp's product has the ports at the 12 o'clock position that redirect gasses to fight muzzle rise as well as recoil, something the Levang comp design lacks. It appears your product was made to simply under cut a $150 item by a lousy $20 with a minimal design change that improve what? How would you feel if your designs were produced by a Chinese company for $100?
Agreed, I'm looking forward to a reply on this comment.
This thread isn't about customer service, but it is nice when the products you use are backed up with the manufacturers/owners actually taking the time to reply to questions on an open forum. Maybe it's just me, but it leaves a weird taste in my mouth when someone comes out of (seemingly) nowhere and starts advertising on the forums.
I hope for the sake of Griffin Armament, that this isn't what it appears to be.
I have to agree 100%. It will be interesting to see how this progresses. Having actually shot the Battle Comp I think it's a great idea and it works.
I disagree. The post you quote rationalizes BC using an "inspired design", but then is rather hostile to GA for likely doing the same thing. If "prior art" is good for the goose, why not the gander?
I should've added that I have absolutely no affiliation with either Griffin or JoeBob. I understand that I'm pretty new and have made no post prior to this. I just haven't felt a need to post since Ive joined. If you google my SN, you will find that I'm from Oklahoma, frequent a local OK gun forum and am a member at numerous gun forums, all having an extremely low post count, other then from that local OK site.
I simply made a promise to my friend Jesse that I would test and review the product, wether it good or bad. Jesse is a competitive shooter, in USPSA, 3 gun, etc., and is just a busy man. I have been looking at BC and even have a buddy who is sponsored by them, but haven't had a chance to test out their product. I mean no disrespect to any other comp manufacturer by making this thread.
You lost me?
I disagree. The post you quote rationalizes BC using an "inspired design", but then is rather hostile to GA for likely doing the same thing. If "prior art" is good for the goose, why not the gander?
It looks familiar!! :p
It sure as hell does!
Jesse Tischauser
06-04-11, 08:01
Griffin Armament - I would be very surprised if nobody here shared my sentiments:
I can't help but feel that you studied a Battlecomp, and asked yourself how can we make the same thing, but different enough to not APPEAR like we are trying to make the same exact thing.
What is improved on your design over the BC besides it's theoretical strength (which to me, is like selling a hair brush that is 400% stronger)? Lets acknowledge the elephant in the room, did you simply feel you could beat Battlecomp's price on their own design? That would be a slippery slope...Battlecomp has a $150 product available when KAC's $500 inconel product wasn't even obtainable. Their design and machining process is significantly different than KAC's. Battlecomp's product has the ports at the 12 o'clock position that redirect gasses to fight muzzle rise as well as recoil, something the Levang comp design lacks. It appears your product was made to simply under cut a $150 item by a lousy $20 with a minimal design change that improve what? How would you feel if your designs were produced by a Chinese company for $100?
I wouldn't consider myself blindly brand loyal, but I recognize good customer service. Battlecomp has had a presence here on the board as well as having been receptive to the forum's input and suggestions. I concede: "There is more than one way to skin a cat", and yet still only so many ways to skin a cat. I also know that competition is good for the consumer as it drives pricing down. While I keep those thoughts in mind, perhaps you can better explain your product and your intentions when you designed it? What does it do better than existing products that look remarkably similar?
Isn't capitalism great?!?! Hopefully a few more companies will start chucking up a chunk if metal in their CNC mills and we can get the price on battle comps down to about $30 so we can all run one on our $600 M4's instead of those tupid flash hiders.
I also read your post and wonder why on this forum in particular there always seems to be someone that feels the need to jump on the negativity band wagon when someone is simply trying to relay information about a product or tactic that they find effective. It really doesn't do any of us any good to keep doing this to each other.
Okay, I see where everyone else is coming from, and again I have zero affiliation with Griffin. This is my first official review of anything and after testing out the comp, I felt that the world needs to know about another product. I was not a believer in comps because I've never tried one. I'm sure Battlecomp has a strong showing at national boards, hell I've even emailed them, and I have a friend who is sponsored by them. I'm not here to compare them to any other comp, I'm here to post a review as I promised I would.
This is one reason I rarely post at national boards, peoe always find something to pick at. If the mods think I'm affiliated or that this review is out of line, please delete it. As long as I kept my promise and stated how I felt about the comp, that's all that matters.
Eli
Wormydog1724
06-04-11, 09:36
It may not make much difference to some since I too don't have a high post count, but I personally know Eli & Jesse and they are both firearm enthusiasts just like us. Jesse is a wildcat competitive shooter and Eli is a pho-lovin Asian LEO. I can't speak for JoeBob but I have purchased products from him/them and they're gtg in my book.
Yes I know Eli and I am the one that is "sponsored" by BCE. I have seen the Griffon comp and it is SIMILAR to the BC. Performance wasn't as good as the BC, to me!
Its a great review Eli and thank you for sharing.
M4C, don't be so quick to pass judgment and shoot the messenger. It's not always some evil company trying to deceive the masses into buying more of their products.
-Jeremy
ETA: just wanted to add, I visit this site everyday numerous times a day. I mainly check pic threads, general AR, technical AR, and the classifieds. I saw Eli's review and didn't feel the need to comment until some false accusations were introduced. He did not ask me to stick up for him. He's Asian. He can use Kung Fu and stick up for himself.
polydeuces
06-04-11, 10:50
Thanks for the info. I may actually get one - need all the help I can get...
Addressing solely the functionality and design concept, whether this looks like or functions like product X, or appears to be a copy with marginal changes/improvements of product Y is neither here nor there.
Form follows function.
They're all big boys, and if somehow some patent got infringed, it will be handled - don't think anyone cares how we feel about that.
All we should give a rats ass about is whether it works or whether its crap. If it works better or the same, at a better price, people will buy it. If their service sucks, people will stop buying it and they will go down.
It's called free enterprise and capitalism.
On the other hand of course, as we have site sponsors, it obviously makes sense they protect their turf. I'd do the same thing. But this should not get in the way of giving a product, any product worth while, an objective review.
Edit: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=78915
Comparison is already being discussed and BC appears to have a provisional patent - this will become very interesting, changing a rectangle to a square makes not a new design me thinks.
I believe this board has locked threads in the past when persons who were first time posters suddenly popped up to make review/ recommendations.
Regardless of how legit the review is or isn't, when someone comes to a board for no reason other than to promote a product, its obvious that its going to be looked at with suspicion.
If ef9turbo had been posting since he joined, I don't think anyone would question his review, though the similarities to BC would obviously be mentioned.
ef9turbo- If you are a LEO now, stay safe, and post more, especially if you like to shoot pictures. :)
Stick,
I completely understand what everyone is saying/thinking, I honestly do. Ive been here for over a year and have made purchases here. I just havent has a reason to post anything. I've actually followed you quite a bit and read a lot of your reviews. I'm also a member at weapons evo.
Yes I'm a current LEO and had planned to join the LE forum when I first joined the site, I just never got around to it. I plan on being more active so hopefully sometime in the near future this can be something forgotten. If it matters I frequent oklahomashooter dot com, and anyone there can verify that I have never posted or had any thing about Griffin, other then review I made. Thanks
Eli
I believe this board has locked threads in the past when persons who were first time posters suddenly popped up to make review/ recommendations.
Regardless of how legit the review is or isn't, when someone comes to a board for no reason other than to promote a product, its obvious that its going to be looked at with suspicion.
If ef9turbo had been posting since he joined, I don't think anyone would question his review, though the similarities to BC would obviously be mentioned.
ef9turbo- If you are a LEO now, stay safe, and post more, especially if you like to shoot pictures. :)
Okay, I see where everyone else is coming from, and again I have zero affiliation with Griffin. This is my first official review of anything and after testing out the comp, I felt that the world needs to know about another product. I was not a believer in comps because I've never tried one. I'm sure Battlecomp has a strong showing at national boards, hell I've even emailed them, and I have a friend who is sponsored by them. I'm not here to compare them to any other comp, I'm here to post a review as I promised I would.
This is one reason I rarely post at national boards, peoe always find something to pick at. If the mods think I'm affiliated or that this review is out of line, please delete it. As long as I kept my promise and stated how I felt about the comp, that's all that matters.
Eli
It seems to me that you did a fine job reviewing a new product on the market. It's one of the things that M4C is good for, user reviews of gear people might be interested in. I read back through the thread and didn't find anyone calling you out as a shill or anything, but it's hard not to be suspicious when someone's first post is a good review of a new product followed by posts from a vendor of said product. So try not to take the discussion comparing the M4E to the BC personally. M4C welcomes any user who takes the time to share their findings with the other users here.
BCE has been quite active on this board and has supported those here as we have supported them. They put out a quality product and have exemplary customer service. Given the wide variety of relatively unique compensator and brake designs on the market, when one comes around that looks and is given to act much like the BC, as opposed to one of a new or original design, people here will likely point that out, in part because of BCE's rep and the user loyalty they have earned, and in part because, well, it's an obvious comparison.
Again, your review is not in question here. I think it is done well and is informative. The subsequent debate, which is about the product in question and not your review of it, should not keep you from participating in this or any other discussions on the board, nor should it keep you from posting further reviews of other products you use.
BTW Stick, those pictures I took were with lots of sunlight, approx noon with my iPhone 4 ;). Nothing compared to your pictures but decent for what I had at the time.
I do semi amateur photography and will try to get pics up later
Eli
Thanks. I understand that and stuff like this does tend to keep me away from national forums, but not completely.
M4C has provided me with a TON of useful information in the past and I will continue to use what is offered here as long as I can.
No offense taken. Thanks
Eli
It seems to me that you did a fine job reviewing a new product on the market. It's one of the things that M4C is good for, user reviews of gear people might be interested in. I read back through the thread and didn't find anyone calling you out as a shill or anything, but it's hard not to be suspicious when someone's first post is a good review of a new product followed by posts from a vendor of said product. So try not to take the discussion comparing the M4E to the BC personally. M4C welcomes any user who takes the time to share their findings with the other users here.
BCE has been quite active on this board and has supported those here as we have supported them. They put out a quality product and have exemplary customer service. Given the wide variety of relatively unique compensator and brake designs on the market, when one comes around that looks and is given to act much like the BC, as opposed to one of a new or original design, people here will likely point that out, in part because of BCE's rep and the user loyalty they have earned, and in part because, well, it's an obvious comparison.
Again, your review is not in question here. I think it is done well and is informative. The subsequent debate, which is about the product in question and not your review of it, should not keep you from participating in this or any other discussions on the board, nor should it keep you from posting further reviews of other products you use.
SomeOtherGuy
06-04-11, 14:58
The review is interesting and appreciated. However, a more useful review would have compared it against some similar devices on the market, such as the Battlecomp, KAC Triple Tap, PWS FSC-556, etc.
The Griffin obviously looks very similar to the Battlecomp, but I'm curious which comp of this style should be considered "the original." The Battlecomp is similar in concept to the Triple Tap, and both are very similar to the inside of a suppressor (or a car muffler) but without the outer can and packing. Where was the original concept? Not arguing, simply asking a question. Spike's of course has their "Dynacomp" coming soon, which looks extremely similar to both the Battlecomp and the Griffin. I have an FNH bolt rifle with a factory brake that is basically nothing but an enlarged cylinder with a number of roughly 1/8" holes drilled around it - is that derivative? Which came first?
I'll be interested if/when Battlecomp gets a patent on their design, and what features of it get patent protection. My personal view is not to buy something I think is infringing a patent and likely to get taken off the market, but if it's a copy of a concept that isn't patented (or better yet, on which the patent expired) then it's absolutely fair game and I simply look at price and value, not brand or marketing.
militarymoron
06-04-11, 15:33
Where was the original concept? Not arguing, simply asking a question.
i can think back to the 80's/early 90's where muzzle brakes with holes in them were already available for the AR. i still have a DTA mil-brake, and another tunable one based on the browning BOSS system.
i can think back to the 80's/early 90's where muzzle brakes with holes in them were already available for the AR.
I know Olympic Arms does this, or at least used to.
You lost me?
It just struck me that the poster you quoted seems quite sensitive to the notion that Griffin Armament knocked off another product, which he concedes was a knockoff of another product (which in turn was likely inspired by something else years before, and so on).
While I too would like to hear more about this product, I don't think that people are owed some explanation as to the nature of the designer's inspiration. (especially when the purpose of asking seems as equally motivated by a desire to confirm someone's bias, as actually learning about a new product)
I bought one of these comps when 1st released for their introductory cost IIRC of $95.
I have not tried it yet but it seems to be a quality part at an attractive price point.
If it works as well as I hope, it will have a permanent home on my training/beater carbine.
Hello,
I apologize if my review was not up to your standards. As I posted earlier, this is my first formal review of anything AND my first time ever trying a comp on my duty rifle. I shoot my pistol a lot more then I do my rifle, so I don't shop too much for my rifle as I am very proficient with it the way it was before testing the comp.
If I had access to the other comps out there I would've done side by sides, video comparisons, etc. If I had the correct tools, I would've gone further into detail, but I didn't. I was on duty when I tested the comp, so time was limited, hence not having video or better photographs.
Eli
The review is interesting and appreciated. However, a more useful review would have compared it against some similar devices on the market, such as the Battlecomp, KAC Triple Tap, PWS FSC-556, etc.
The Griffin obviously looks very similar to the Battlecomp, but I'm curious which comp of this style should be considered "the original." The Battlecomp is similar in concept to the Triple Tap, and both are very similar to the inside of a suppressor (or a car muffler) but without the outer can and packing. Where was the original concept? Not arguing, simply asking a question. Spike's of course has their "Dynacomp" coming soon, which looks extremely similar to both the Battlecomp and the Griffin. I have an FNH bolt rifle with a factory brake that is basically nothing but an enlarged cylinder with a number of roughly 1/8" holes drilled around it - is that derivative? Which came first?
I'll be interested if/when Battlecomp gets a patent on their design, and what features of it get patent protection. My personal view is not to buy something I think is infringing a patent and likely to get taken off the market, but if it's a copy of a concept that isn't patented (or better yet, on which the patent expired) then it's absolutely fair game and I simply look at price and value, not brand or marketing.
i can think back to the 80's/early 90's where muzzle brakes with holes in them were already available for the AR. i still have a DTA mil-brake, and another tunable one based on the browning BOSS system.
Back then we used standard A2 hiders with a baffle made from welding a plate on the end with a hole in it.
I am not affiliated with any of the companies mentioned here.
I do currently own the KAC Triple Tap. And have been looking at both the battle comp and Griffin comp for a new project
Let's face it. Not everybody can afford or has a specific purpose for the KAC Triple tap
You don't need to buy a $10,000 dollar broadcast quality HD video Camera if you're only going to be using it to film your kid's soccer games.
The tool should match the Job where possible. Of course if you have the money and don't mind spending it that's ok too. :D
The Significant Advantage of the Griffen Compansator that I can see and have been researching for myself is that the GA will accept a suppressor.
According to Griffins website "compatibility with a plethora of sound suppressors including but not limited to our M4-SD, Gemtech’s Halo, SRT’s Typhoon with Atlas mount, Quicksilver’s QD223, Coastal’s FDX-FHM [A2 mount], and AAC’s discontinued Omni."
The battle comp at the time of this writing does not as far as I have I have been able to find.
Personally, I would love to have a suppressor that would mount to their (Battle Comp) .308 comp but nothing is available as of now.
Approximately ($1400.00 for the KAC can + $440 for The Triple Tap = $1840 before TAX STAMP)
$650 for GA M4-SD CAN + $150 for the Comp = $800 before TAX STAMP
I don't know about anyone else but I see that opens a lot more flexibility for the money. (assuming money is your only factor in your decision making)
Thanks for reading
Griffin Armament - I would be very surprised if nobody here shared my sentiments:
I can't help but feel that you studied a Battlecomp, and asked yourself how can we make the same thing, but different enough to not APPEAR like we are trying to make the same exact thing.
What is improved on your design over the BC besides it's theoretical strength (which to me, is like selling a hair brush that is 400% stronger)? Lets acknowledge the elephant in the room, did you simply feel you could beat Battlecomp's price on their own design? That would be a slippery slope...Battlecomp has a $150 product available when KAC's $500 inconel product wasn't even obtainable. Their design and machining process is significantly different than KAC's. Battlecomp's product has the ports at the 12 o'clock position that redirect gasses to fight muzzle rise as well as recoil, something the Levang comp design lacks. It appears your product was made to simply under cut a $150 item by a lousy $20 with a minimal design change that improve what? How would you feel if your designs were produced by a Chinese company for $100?
I wouldn't consider myself blindly brand loyal, but I recognize good customer service. Battlecomp has had a presence here on the board as well as having been receptive to the forum's input and suggestions. I concede: "There is more than one way to skin a cat", and yet still only so many ways to skin a cat. I also know that competition is good for the consumer as it drives pricing down. While I keep those thoughts in mind, perhaps you can better explain your product and your intentions when you designed it? What does it do better than existing products that look remarkably similar?
joeboboutfitters
06-05-11, 00:54
Maybe it's just me, but it leaves a weird taste in my mouth when someone comes out of (seemingly) nowhere and starts advertising on the forums.
I hope for the sake of Griffin Armament, that this isn't what it appears to be.
We (JoeBobOutfitters.com) had no idea he was going to post anything regarding the griffin comp here on M4C. He was not given product, nor promised any favors or money for posting a review. That's not how we roll, period.
We have relatively advanced tracking software that tracks inbound links for our website as well as referrals for customers on our website in real-time. Due to this, we saw the post very quickly on here. While I could see how it makes it look somewhat suspicious, with us responding in a pretty quick manner, it just proves one thing: That "Big Brother" JoeBob is always watching :D.
We DO give out product to customers at times. HOWEVER, if we send it out the customer has no idea it is about to show up on their doorstop. It is simply that, a free product with no strings attached. We send out new products occasionally to some of our better customers that we know will give the product a run for it's money and give us honest feedback. We generally send stuff out to those we have experience with similar products to give them a good comparison, and will put it through its paces. Whether it be LEO or 3gunners, they are going to be a higher user than the guys with safe queens posting on forums. We want to know what the power user consumer thinks of a product. We don't want to invest time and energy selling a product that get returned to us because they are unsatisfied.
With that said, we have had products that were given away for free come back with negative objective reviews. One customer of ours received a new to the market sling and really didn't care for it. He gave reasons for it, and they all made sense for his situation. His situation was not a one-size fits all, but it gives us more feedback and helps us guide our customer base products depending on their specific needs. He's even posted negative comments on forums regarding that same product. It doesn't change our relationship with him however, and we passed his insight on to the manufacturer.
It looks familiar!! :p
Somewhat....I thought it looked like a KAC triple tap as well ;)
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=78915
Comparison is already being discussed and BC appears to have a provisional patent - this will become very interesting, changing a rectangle to a square makes not a new design me thinks.
These are not square versus rectangle arguments, nor was the BC "first" in making a muzzle attachment. We have probably close to 2 dozen muzzle attachments in stock that do all approximately the same thing. They all thread on to a muzzle and modify the flash, recoil, and report. They of course all do this in a slightly different manner. The Smith Vortex flash hider essentially does the same thing as an A2 flash hider, correct? Possibly....but it does it better.
Every manufacturer looks at the other and says "I want to do something similar, but better". Competition in a market keeps prices in check, and keeps manufacturers on their toes. This is tough for manufacturers and retailers, but creates better products over the long haul and a more competitive market price for consumers. Look at how much more "advanced" comps and supressors have gotten in the last 10 years? There's a reason. Nobody reinvented the wheel, they just kept up R&D and continued improving on current technology.
With that said, BC makes a great product. They wouldn't have a following if they didn't. We looked at carrying BC's. We swung by their booth at SHOT this spring and missed the BCE guys, but did give our card to one of their distributors. We exchanged a few emails with a couple of the BCE guys in February. The only thing that made us look towards the griffin comps OVER the BC's, was more suppressor compatibility. I, as a consumer, valued that higher.
From a retailer standpoint, BC had an advantage with a marketing machine behind them, many more models, and thousands and thousands in the hands of consumers. They're a tried and true brand and product. Griffin comps are new, and just getting their feet wet in comparison. BC's have multiple versions, calibers, and pinned models. The comparison between the two companies and their current market share is completely opposite. We use all the products we sell. I wanted to go after what I felt was better for me, the consumer. I live in a free state that allows us to have suppressors :D.
Griffin Comps are compared to BC's and KAC triple taps and A2 flash hiders because you need a known constant to compare an item to. Any manufacturer can say they make a good product, but a consumer wants to see how it stacks up against the competition. This isn't anything but a compliment to BC for making a good product to have people compare their product to it. I have yet to see a car commercial that compares a Dodge versus a Kia or Geo or.....
The review is interesting and appreciated. However, a more useful review would have compared it against some similar devices on the market, such as the Battlecomp, KAC Triple Tap, PWS FSC-556, etc.
The Griffin obviously looks very similar to the Battlecomp, but I'm curious which comp of this style should be considered "the original." The Battlecomp is similar in concept to the Triple Tap, and both are very similar to the inside of a suppressor (or a car muffler) but without the outer can and packing. Where was the original concept? Not arguing, simply asking a question. Spike's of course has their "Dynacomp" coming soon, which looks extremely similar to both the Battlecomp and the Griffin. I have an FNH bolt rifle with a factory brake that is basically nothing but an enlarged cylinder with a number of roughly 1/8" holes drilled around it - is that derivative? Which came first?
I'll be interested if/when Battlecomp gets a patent on their design, and what features of it get patent protection. My personal view is not to buy something I think is infringing a patent and likely to get taken off the market, but if it's a copy of a concept that isn't patented (or better yet, on which the patent expired) then it's absolutely fair game and I simply look at price and value, not brand or marketing.
There are quite a few tactical comps coming onto the market in recent history: the BC, M4SD, and Dynacomp are all popping up within the last few years. All of these have substantial differences. From a non-educated consumer looking at them, yes, they all appear to be somewhat similar. They all have holes and thread on the muzzle.
Their smaller differences when looked at from an engineering standpoint, or a caliper, are what add up to suppressor compatibility, strength (yes, strength matters on a muzzle attachment when you put it inside a suppressor with extreme temp and pressures), and performance. Obviously, real world performance of an item is ultimately what it boils down to for the average consumer.
It just struck me that the poster you quoted seems quite sensitive to the notion that Griffin Armament knocked off another product, which he concedes was a knockoff of another product (which in turn was likely inspired by something else years before, and so on).
While I too would like to hear more about this product, I don't think that people are owed some explanation as to the nature of the designer's inspiration. (especially when the purpose of asking seems as equally motivated by a desire to confirm someone's bias, as actually learning about a new product)
Again, every manufacturing sector (EVERY) builds off of their own and others technology to improve on it. Griffin saw the good, and bad in the BC's, Triple Tap, and other comps/brakes and wanted to improve on it.
Ford started up the first assembly line, and the first gas powered automobile? I believe Chevy (obviously not the first automobile) had the first form of EFI? I'm pretty sure Ford just came out with EcoBoost which will most likely be in my next car, and truck when I replace my Fusion and F150 at some point. Hmm...;)
Griffin Armament - I would be very surprised if nobody here shared my sentiments:
I can't help but feel that you studied a Battlecomp, and asked yourself how can we make the same thing, but different enough to not APPEAR like we are trying to make the same exact thing.
What is improved on your design over the BC besides it's theoretical strength (which to me, is like selling a hair brush that is 400% stronger)? Lets acknowledge the elephant in the room, did you simply feel you could beat Battlecomp's price on their own design? That would be a slippery slope...Battlecomp has a $150 product available when KAC's $500 inconel product wasn't even obtainable. Their design and machining process is significantly different than KAC's. Battlecomp's product has the ports at the 12 o'clock position that redirect gasses to fight muzzle rise as well as recoil, something the Levang comp design lacks. It appears your product was made to simply under cut a $150 item by a lousy $20 with a minimal design change that improve what? How would you feel if your designs were produced by a Chinese company for $100?
I wouldn't consider myself blindly brand loyal, but I recognize good customer service. Battlecomp has had a presence here on the board as well as having been receptive to the forum's input and suggestions. I concede: "There is more than one way to skin a cat", and yet still only so many ways to skin a cat. I also know that competition is good for the consumer as it drives pricing down. While I keep those thoughts in mind, perhaps you can better explain your product and your intentions when you designed it? What does it do better than existing products that look remarkably similar?
See suppressor compatibility. It doesn't matter to some, but to others it's a big deal. In terms of strength...short barreled rifles/pistols have quite a bit of erosion issues with muzzle attachments, as well as muzzle attachments inside a suppressor are under quite a bit more stress than the average A2 birdcage. It may not matter to you, but if it's an engineering "leg up" then it's something that's worth marketing.
On that note, I'm sure BCE is watching. Can you please post up your actual RC Rockwell hardness of your BC1 and BC2?
I have heard that the BC2's (through someone else) are harder than the BC1's? How hard? I have asked the question on the new Spike's Dynacomps on the Spike's forum and haven't gotten an answer from them yet. Comparing apples to apples is good for consumers.
SomeOtherGuy
06-05-11, 20:42
There are quite a few tactical comps coming onto the market in recent history: the BC, M4SD, and Dynacomp are all popping up within the last few years. All of these have substantial differences. From a non-educated consumer looking at them, yes, they all appear to be somewhat similar. They all have holes and thread on the muzzle.
(edited by author)
As for similarities, those three comps as well as the TT all have a single large expansion chamber with a large number of very small vent holes around the chamber and a single front baffle on which the expanding gases push. This is different from most other brakes on the market, which have between one and three expansion chambers and baffles, each typically with only two or sometimes three huge vent holes, and from virtually any flash suppressor.
Their smaller differences when looked at from an engineering standpoint, or a caliper, are what add up to suppressor compatibility, strength (yes, strength matters on a muzzle attachment when you put it inside a suppressor with extreme temp and pressures), and performance. Obviously, real world performance of an item is ultimately what it boils down to for the average consumer.
Yes, real world performance is important. As for compatibility and strength, my state flat out bans suppressors, so that's not a concern for me. Erosion of the brake is a concern since that's a durability and cost issue, but I don't see anyone other than AAC really talking about or seemingly trying to address erosion. (Although I have to imagine that the Inconel in KAC's $450 TT should last a while.)
joeboboutfitters
06-05-11, 20:57
Excellent job on the snide insult "non-educated consumer".... I'll remember that before I place another order with your company.
As for similarities, those three comps as well as the TT all have a single large expansion chamber with a large number of very small vent holes around the chamber and a single front baffle on which the expanding gases push. This is different from most other brakes on the market, which have between one and three expansion chambers and baffles, each typically with only two or sometimes three huge vent holes, and from virtually any flash suppressor.
Yes, real world performance is important. As for compatibility and strength, my state flat out bans suppressors, so that's not a concern for me. Erosion of the brake is a concern since that's a durability and cost issue, but I don't see anyone other than AAC really talking about or seemingly trying to address erosion. (Although I have to imagine that the Inconel in KAC's $450 TT should last a while.)
Whoa. Definitely wasn't a "snide" comment. There was no disrespect meant towards you or anyone in this thread. Sorry if it came across that way. My comments were a generalization as in, there is more to a comp than just OAL and threading. My apologizes, again. Just a generalization on my part.
If suppressor compatibility isn't high on your list then both are probably pretty close to each-other. IMO, the downside to the Griffin Comps right now is the lack of caliber selection, thread choices, pinned models, etc. Not a one size fits all option, by any means, but no muzzle attachment is. Hopefully that "line" of comps will continue to grow to encompass more.
We have relatively advanced tracking software that tracks inbound links for our website as well as referrals for customers on our website in real-time. Due to this, we saw the post very quickly on here. While I could see how it makes it look somewhat suspicious, with us responding in a pretty quick manner, it just proves one thing: That "Big Brother" JoeBob is always watching :D.
On that note, I'm sure BCE is watching. Can you please post up your actual RC Rockwell hardness of your BC1 and BC2?
I have heard that the BC2's (through someone else) are harder than the BC1's? How hard? I have asked the question on the new Spike's Dynacomps on the Spike's forum and haven't gotten an answer from them yet. Comparing apples to apples is good for consumers.
1. I call BS on your tracking software.
2. BCE doesn't call out other manufacturers or competitors. They make good products, have great customer service, and never run down competition.
3. Why is hardness important? What is the magic RC for muzzle comps? Does anyone but you care?
4. You will get no business from me (and I suspect alot of people who read this thread).
joeboboutfitters
06-05-11, 22:19
1. I call BS on your tracking software.
2. BCE doesn't call out other manufacturers or competitors. They make good products, have great customer service, and never run down competition.
3. Why is hardness important? What is the magic RC for muzzle comps? Does anyone but you care?
4. You will get no business from me (and I suspect alot of people who read this thread).
1. So are you calling myself (OIF 06-08 Veteran), and the LEO who started this thread liars or? :confused: Where is your proof? I'd really like to see it. Question someone's integrity, flat-out, and you're probably going to need to have something else to bring to the table. This isn't a pissing contest last I checked. This is simply a customer review. Others responded with questions regarding said products of which OP did not have an answer to. We chimed in, solely to respond.
Here's some screenshots of some real-time tracking, FYI. We don't have to prove ourselves to anyone, but regardless, here you go.
http://www.joeboboutfitters.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/url-joeboboutfitters.jpg
(Top 35 today, delayed a few hours)
http://www.joeboboutfitters.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/chartbeat-joeboboutfitters.jpg
(Real time)
http://www.joeboboutfitters.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/tracking-joeboboutfitters.jpg
We can obviously track every IP address on our website as well in real time, but that was chopped out real quick.
2. BCE is a good company with good products and nobody ever said anything otherwise in this thread. I'm actually LinkedIn "friends" with one of the BCE guys last I checked. BC's MAP is very close to the M4SD's MSRP. Not a night and day difference by any means.
3. The hardness matters, to some, but perhaps not you. An official hardness gives customers an objective look on the strength of a product. You can then compare it to an A2, M4SD, and others. Obviously this is arguably more important in product such as knives but applies to these in the same respect. The material, heat treating, and testing in which a product is manufactured does matter, last I checked. Hence why most look very closely at barrel/BCG material and HPT/MPI testing. I'm by no means an engineer, or expert on the matter, but it is a tool in which to gauge products objectively. The "magic" number, IMO, should be at or better than an A2 flash hider. Generally speaking, "mil spec" means a minimum standerd and anything above that is good to go. I've never seen an A2 flash hider broken or harmed on ANY M16 or M4 I've shot or been around in my military time, so it must be hard enough to withstand soldier abuse and muzzle erosion.
4. Our intentions were not to ostracize ourselves, or anyone. Just provide information that other posters requested/brought up. This wasn't meant to drive sales, but purely for information. Again, we were not even notified of this thread nor requested it.
For clarification's sake, do you have any affiliation with any of the companies mentioned in this thread?
1. So are you calling myself (OIF 06-08 Veteran), and the LEO who started this thread liars or?
I'm a veteran and a LEO, so are plenty of other posters here. What does that have to do with anything?
This post continues its spiral.
joeboboutfitters
06-05-11, 22:33
I'm a veteran and a LEO, so are plenty of other posters here. What does that have to do with anything?
This post continues its spiral.
Just a question. This was a baseless claim against our integrity, and the OP. I believe the LEO/Military in general holds themselves (generally) to a higher standard. There are obviously exceptions to the rule, but I would say it's a higher standard than the general population.
SWATcop556
06-05-11, 22:42
Let's get this one back on track. And quick.
As I read this thread I'm once again reminded of why I spend less and less time on this site. It was once known for having tons of great info, however now it seems that if that info is on any product that is new, unproven, or isn't on the current fan list of the forum regulars here you won't find information on it. From what I can see I can understand why some might question the OP's original post, however the way he and JoeBob both were jumped on was a bit childish. JoeBob is a good guy and has done nothing out of line, yet his integriy has been questioned because he explains why he was able to find this thread so fast and simply ask for more data on other products so that everyone can see a better comparison??? Wow, its amazing how its totally okay to question a Spikes, PSA, etc on the specifics of their products, yet asking the same of a forum sponsor is seen as "calling them out" and "running down the competition"???
The way things are going here it seems everyone should just buy a Colt or BCM and call it quits....no need for anymore discussion or research into how to improve the platform :(
I love my BC 1.0, but would like to see what other options are out there and how they compare. I read one review where it says the recoil characteristics are different between the BC and Griffin Comp. Has anyone else seen this or have anything to report?
1. I call BS on your tracking software.
Step 1. Open mouth.
Step 2. Insert foot.
Step 3. Chew vigorously.
This, and several other posts, have managed to peg and subsequently destroy my handy-dandy "Teenage Angst" meter. Good thing they're cheap, else I'd be upset.
The Looney Tunes theme playing in the background when my laptop speakers are set to Mute as it happened, however, was simply unnerving.
Take a breath, calm the hell down, and stop looking for insult where none was implied, much less leveled.
I can fully understand the thrust behind wahoo's first sentence, post above mine. The jackass ratio is getting too high because we are inundated with folks that can't separate the message from the medium, and are sensitive enough that they probably break their fingers running them over the dimples of a golf ball. Use the Report button in lieu of taking all the extra time and keystrokes to get your 2 cents in, they go away faster. In many cases, permanently.
We are our own worst enemies.
Sheesh, my review has gone go complete shit. I apologize that I posted it here. I also apologize to Griffin and JoeBob because this has seemed to question the integrity of your companies. That was not what I was trying to do. My simple promise, to make a review of a product I was given an opportunity to test has seemed to go in the wrong direction.
Eli
..........Wow
As my interest in these style comps is primarily for use on my SBR in conjunction with a Gemtech Halo I am interested in how long these comps will last as a sacrificial blast baffle. The increase in noise is also a concern as I don't want to subject others to excessive blast and concussion when not using a suppressor.
TangoChaser
06-06-11, 03:23
The incinuations of stealing another companies designs is really chapping my ass. Bottom line is this, if a product is is not patented, it can be copied 100% from the original and made and sold by anyone.
Provisional patents only prevent someone else from filing a patent on your product while you wait for your patent to be approved. Went through this process with the AR45.
Patents are divided into different catagories. Design and function are a couple. Design patents usually based on looks are difficult to get and defend. Functional patents are easier to get and easier to defend. If Griffin functions differently than others on the market, then they haven't infringed on any patent despite how they look. Patents can also be had to improve an existing product.
Joeboboutfitters has stated the differences in the Griffin from the BC. Doesn't matter what anyone here thinks of his answer. Without any proof to dispute his claim, the bashers are out of line. The OP stated why he posts little and why he posted this review. Some or you here are calling both of them liars in a roundabout fashion.
I've been the victim of this crap myself and it's disgusting. I've witnessed start up companies fail before they hit the ground because of bullshit bashers and haters labelling the new companies products as crap and tarnishing any chance they have of getting their business running and their products sold.
If BC does not have a current patent for their brake, then the Griffin brake has done nothing illegal, even if it is a direct copy. To blast a new product or company because of some misguided sense of gun parts morality does more harm to the industry than good. If the Griffin is an improvement over an existing product at a cheaper price, we should all pay attention to the reviews and make our own decision. Welcome to capitalisim and the free market.
I've been following the BC for awhile now as a replacement for my miculek. Get too much flak at the range and at DMG matches for the back blast.
After reading this thread, I'm going with the Griffin over BC on my AR and both of my boy's AR's. Couple of reasons for this. One is definitely cost (especially for 3 of them), one is that the reviews have been very favorable, but the other is just the ridiculous way this thread has been handled.
JoeBobOutfitters, expect to see an order for 3 today.
Thanks.
You kids and your silly compensators are all nuts! :jester:
You kids and your silly compensators are all nuts! :jester:
We are!
My boys (13 and 15) keep complaining that I have an unfair advantage with the miculek so we are all going to a level playing field.
I tell them that they have an unfair advantage cause of my age...
1. So are you calling myself (OIF 06-08 Veteran), and the LEO who started this thread liars or? :confused: Where is your proof? I'd really like to see it. Question someone's integrity, flat-out, and you're probably going to need to have something else to bring to the table. This isn't a pissing contest last I checked. This is simply a customer review. Others responded with questions regarding said products of which OP did not have an answer to. We chimed in, solely to respond.
Here's some screenshots of some real-time tracking, FYI. We don't have to prove ourselves to anyone, but regardless, here you go.
http://www.joeboboutfitters.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/url-joeboboutfitters.jpg
(Top 35 today, delayed a few hours)
http://www.joeboboutfitters.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/chartbeat-joeboboutfitters.jpg
(Real time)
http://www.joeboboutfitters.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/tracking-joeboboutfitters.jpg
We can obviously track every IP address on our website as well in real time, but that was chopped out real quick.
2. BCE is a good company with good products and nobody ever said anything otherwise in this thread. I'm actually LinkedIn "friends" with one of the BCE guys last I checked. BC's MAP is very close to the M4SD's MSRP. Not a night and day difference by any means.
3. The hardness matters, to some, but perhaps not you. An official hardness gives customers an objective look on the strength of a product. You can then compare it to an A2, M4SD, and others. Obviously this is arguably more important in product such as knives but applies to these in the same respect. The material, heat treating, and testing in which a product is manufactured does matter, last I checked. Hence why most look very closely at barrel/BCG material and HPT/MPI testing. I'm by no means an engineer, or expert on the matter, but it is a tool in which to gauge products objectively. The "magic" number, IMO, should be at or better than an A2 flash hider. Generally speaking, "mil spec" means a minimum standerd and anything above that is good to go. I've never seen an A2 flash hider broken or harmed on ANY M16 or M4 I've shot or been around in my military time, so it must be hard enough to withstand soldier abuse and muzzle erosion.
4. Our intentions were not to ostracize ourselves, or anyone. Just provide information that other posters requested/brought up. This wasn't meant to drive sales, but purely for information. Again, we were not even notified of this thread nor requested it.
For clarification's sake, do you have any affiliation with any of the companies mentioned in this thread?
1. Not sure how that information let you knwo there was a review on M4C and thus prompted your posting here. I APOLOGIZE FOR TYPING BEFORE THINKING. Doesn't matter if I am wrong. I was below the belt an immature.
2. I made no mention of price.
3. Fair enough. As someone who dabbles in knife making, I see hardness numbers thrown about by people who don't understand them at all and it usually muddies the water. I think an A2 is a reasonable starting point, but lets say BC 2.0's is very soft compared to an A2, does it matter if there are no failures? Same if it is far harder than an A2? IMO its only an issue if its an issue.
4. Again I APOLOGIZE for any implication that there was malfeasance on your part or the OP.
- For the record I have absolutely nothing to do with BCE, other than owning 4 of their products, talking to Alan @ BCE on the phone 1 once for about 2 mins, sending an email that was responded to by Alan in 15 mins on a Saturday, and sending approx 10 PM's on this site to Marty.
Just a question. This was a baseless claim against our integrity, and the OP. I believe the LEO/Military in general holds themselves (generally) to a higher standard. There are obviously exceptions to the rule, but I would say it's a higher standard than the general population.
MIL service or being an LEO has nothing to do with what we are talking about. As I said above, I APOLOGIZE FOR TYPING WITHOUT THINKING. I did not mean to question your integrity but more of the way you presented your message. I wish I had not responded at all.
Let's get this one back on track. And quick.
Sorry for the distraction. I will put more thought into my posts in the future.
Step 1. Open mouth.
Step 2. Insert foot.
Step 3. Chew vigorously.
This, and several other posts, have managed to peg and subsequently destroy my handy-dandy "Teenage Angst" meter. Good thing they're cheap, else I'd be upset.
The Looney Tunes theme playing in the background when my laptop speakers are set to Mute as it happened, however, was simply unnerving.
Take a breath, calm the hell down, and stop looking for insult where none was implied, much less leveled.
I can fully understand the thrust behind wahoo's first sentence, post above mine. The jackass ratio is getting too high because we are inundated with folks that can't separate the message from the medium, and are sensitive enough that they probably break their fingers running them over the dimples of a golf ball. Use the Report button in lieu of taking all the extra time and keystrokes to get your 2 cents in, they go away faster. In many cases, permanently.
We are our own worst enemies.
You are correct. As said before, I will take responsibility for my part and will clean up my act.
RadioActivity
06-06-11, 13:00
The incinuations of stealing another companies designs is really chapping my ass.
Joeboboutfitters has stated the differences in the Griffin from the BC. Doesn't matter what anyone here thinks of his answer.
This has less to do with legal-ese, and more to do with my perception. It appears that Griffin Armament looked at another company's (successful) product and said "We can make that design, charge less, and still turn a profit". It is my point of view, and as I also mentioned, others do indeed seem to share it. So why beat around the bush, if we're thinking it (and we are, clearly) why can't we discuss it? There could be a perfectly legit improvement that I may of missed. I asked for clarification and explanation of design improvements. I understand there is erosion in compensators, but the Griffin product is made of the SAME 17-4 PH heat treated steel, covered in the SAME black oxide coating, and features the SAME A2-accessory-accepting dimensions as the BC 2.0 which has been available since January, earliest release I can find of the M4-SD is May. comparisons to the BC 1.0 seem moot, and it seems to me that the only purpose of this product was to undercut a given price point. Maybe that would factor in to the consumer's buying decision, maybe it doesnt.
Joeboboutfitters is not the manufacturer of this comp, he is the distributor. He is not who my comments were directed towards (the manufacturer), though he did field some of my questions. I am not calling his integrity into question by any means.
I've been the victim of this crap myself and it's disgusting. I've witnessed start up companies fail before they hit the ground because of bullshit bashers and haters labelling the new companies products as crap and tarnishing any chance they have of getting their business running and their products sold.
If BC does not have a current patent for their brake, then the Griffin brake has done nothing illegal, even if it is a direct copy. To blast a new product or company because of some misguided sense of gun parts morality does more harm to the industry than good. If the Griffin is an improvement over an existing product at a cheaper price, we should all pay attention to the reviews and make our own decision. Welcome to capitalisim and the free market.
You seem to be taking this very personal, perhaps because of the first sentence in the above quote. Step back, try to read my posts in an inquisitive light. I am giving Griffin Armament the ability to explain their intentions when designing their product. What is the product designed to do differently than current offerings. That is a simple enough question. Further, BCE does indeed have patents... but as I stated, my questions have less to do with legal-ese and more with the way a buisness conducts themselves. To some consumers business practices matter, to others they do not and the bottom line trumps all.
I also read your post and wonder why on this forum in particular there always seems to be someone that feels the need to jump on the negativity band wagon when someone is simply trying to relay information about a product or tactic that they find effective.
I get the impression the reviewer feels ambushed, he should not. My comments have nothing to do with him. He is independent of the product being reviewed, and others should (and I think have been) treat him as such.
Last but not least, I feel that all business owners, and perhaps M4C members themselves, should retain thick skin. If you produce something and bring it to the market, you should be ready for the product to be questioned. It's not personal, its consumer research. To THIS consumer, business practices matter.
We've had this conversation before
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=78915
EDIT: Oops, someone already linked to that thread on page 2. My bad.
Also, anything other than hearsay to validate the below statement?
I have heard that the BC2's (through someone else) are harder than the BC1's?
Wormydog1724
06-06-11, 14:21
Also, anything other than hearsay to validate the below statement?
I haven't heard if they're stronger, but when I asked Marty, BCE guy, about the BC 1.0 and Gemtech Halo, he said the BC 2.0 has a larger OD making it compatible for the Gemtech Halo and AAC Omni. Maybe the larger OD implies added strength???
ETA: I guess the actual hardness of the steel was in question. Nvm
joeboboutfitters
06-06-11, 21:54
1. Not sure how that information let you knwo there was a review on M4C and thus prompted your posting here. I APOLOGIZE FOR TYPING BEFORE THINKING. Doesn't matter if I am wrong. I was below the belt an immature.
2. I made no mention of price.
3. Fair enough. As someone who dabbles in knife making, I see hardness numbers thrown about by people who don't understand them at all and it usually muddies the water. I think an A2 is a reasonable starting point, but lets say BC 2.0's is very soft compared to an A2, does it matter if there are no failures? Same if it is far harder than an A2? IMO its only an issue if its an issue.
1. Our software tracks back to forums, websites, and even social media websites whenever someone mentions our business name, hyperlinks to us, etc. In other words, we know relatively instantaneously if a thread is posted on any forum regarding us. Our software alerted us something "new" popped up, more or less. This is very easily tracked and is no different than software to give affiliate websites "referral" money for sales conversions because they can track where the traffic originated from. We use the above software + Google Analytics and Google Alerts (http://www.google.com/alerts). It's really not hard to track incoming traffic, honestly. I guarantee M4C's web software can tell each advertiser how many impressions and clicks were originated from banners on this website.
2. Just continuing stating how nobody in this thread anything negative regarding the BC's (performance, price, or anything otherwise), so no reason to get upset about the thread. It is simply a review (non solicited), that got muddied up by people who were more interested in the politics than the performance of the product in question.
3. An official number makes it a lot easier to compare though, correct? I guarantee I can get exact numbers from Spyderco knives, Benchmade knives, etc. Those are high end "tools" of the trade, primarily geared towards the higher end LEO and .Mil users. These are in the same market, just happen to be on the end of a barrel. When engineering this product they would have set a number to have them all spec'd to.
I never said there were problems with the BC's on hardness, but curious to know an exact number, especially since I heard third party the 2.0's were harder than the 1.0, but that of course is subjective. We can't really say one is harder than the other without knowing a baseline. It's not asking too much, IMO, for a company to provide. If anything, it's a marketing deal if it's high enough to warrant it. If not, then of course it's not worth revealing? A company can claim ANYTHING is better than previous versions or other competition, but concrete numbers are easier to compare than company A versus company B's marketing game.
...
3. An official number makes it a lot easier to compare though, correct? I guarantee I can get exact numbers from Spyderco knives, Benchmade knives, etc. Those are high end "tools" of the trade, primarily geared towards the higher end LEO and .Mil users. These are in the same market, just happen to be on the end of a barrel. When engineering this product they would have set a number to have them all spec'd to.
I never said there were problems with the BC's on hardness, but curious to know an exact number, especially since I heard third party the 2.0's were harder than the 1.0, but that of course is subjective. We can't really say one is harder than the other without knowing a baseline. It's not asking too much, IMO, for a company to provide. If anything, it's a marketing deal if it's high enough to warrant it. If not, then of course it's not worth revealing? A company can claim ANYTHING is better than previous versions or other competition, but concrete numbers are easier to compare than company A versus company B's marketing game.
Maybe I just missed it in reading but I didn't see anywhere where the Rockwell rating was listed for the Griffin comp in this thread?
I never said there were problems with the BC's on hardness, but curious to know an exact number, especially since I heard third party the 2.0's were harder than the 1.0, but that of course is subjective. We can't really say one is harder than the other without knowing a baseline. It's not asking too much, IMO, for a company to provide. If anything, it's a marketing deal if it's high enough to warrant it. If not, then of course it's not worth revealing? A company can claim ANYTHING is better than previous versions or other competition, but concrete numbers are easier to compare than company A versus company B's marketing game.
I remember hearing the 2.0's were stronger too, and found the post i heard it from. PRGGodfather works for BC
Yes, got to see very little of the show itself, but we made a BUNCH of great new friends and contacts; so we are ramping up for more production ASAP. We are taking a page from history, as to how we intend to meet our production goals for the year. You will be seeing more BCE products as OEM standard muzzle devices.
Retail is $165 since we changed to 17-4PH heat-treated stainless. 17-4 PH is harder, stronger, more heat-resistant and perfect for the hostile environment inside a siliencer.
The design of BC2.0 uses more material and takes much longer to machine.
Distributors get first dibs, so we expect to be live on our webstore no later than Friday.
Thanks again!
Best,
Alan
joeboboutfitters
06-06-11, 22:20
Maybe I just missed it in reading but I didn't see anywhere where the Rockwell rating was listed for the Griffin comp in this thread?
The M4SD comp is 17-4 PH heat treated to 45RC
I remember hearing the 2.0's were stronger too, and found the post i heard it from. PRGGodfather works for BC
Marty (Thanks!) from BCE just sent me a PM stating this:
All BCE comps across the board are 17-4 PH heat treated to 45 HRC min.
Marty
This seems to be contradictory to what "PRGGodfather" stayed in your quote. It "sounds" to me like the BC1's used to be made of a different material so the 2.0's price increase's were explained/justified due to additional material/machining costs?
For comparison, the A2 flash is ~26-34 RC, so these numbers are all on the "better" end for consumers buying either tactical comp.
The M4SD comp is 17-4 PH heat treated to 45RC
Thank you. I was just curious since I went back through the thread and there seemed to be a lot of poking and prodding for BCE to share their hardness numbers yet the same info about about the Griffin didn't seem forthcoming.
joeboboutfitters
06-06-11, 22:28
Thank you. I was just curious since I went back through the thread and there seemed to be a lot of poking and prodding for BCE to share their hardness numbers yet the same info about about the Griffin didn't seem forthcoming.
It wasn't meant to be a marketing thing on our end, just conversation back and forth. Nobody asked exact numbers before so they weren't written out here, but they are listed on the specs on our website. They are not listed on Griffin's website, for whatever reason. We are not "Griffin", obviously, but just responding to comments.
Wormydog1724
06-06-11, 22:31
I wish I had a Griffon Comp to compare side-by-side with my BC 1.0 and BC 2.0. I saw a guy shooting his at a rifle match a couple weekends ago (which I still need to upload the video for) but was an idiot and didn't ask to shoot it. Maybe I'll get one ordered from JoeBob this week.
joeboboutfitters
06-06-11, 22:39
Per some more PM's between Marty at BC:
Materials and processes are identical (Between the 1.0 and 2.0). Wall thickness on the 2.0 is slightly thicker due to the larger OD to accommodate suppressor compatibility. The thicker wall does make the the 2.0 "stronger" but this was not the primary reason for the change. The 1.0 is actually 3X stronger than needed for safe operation. Any added thickness for the sake of adding strength is unnecessary and just adds weight. Basic materials science and flow dynamics drove my design. Hope this makes sense!
Marty
Good to have clarification, thanks!
For those interested I found this review http://carolinashootersforum.com/showthread.php?p=622883
ADDENDUM:
I wanted to add to my original post... I missed this on battle comp website.
"The BC2.0 has the same exterior dimensions as an A2, but still has the same precision interior dimensions as the BC1.0 and BC1.5; and the identical performance you can expect from a BattleComp.
Accordingly, the BattleComp 2.0 is compatible with devices intended to integrate with an A2; but the BattleComp 2.0 is still the excellent compensator many of us have grown to love."
The newest 2.0 version is the same dimensions as an A2 so compatibility with suppressors like the Gemtec Halo are IMPLIED but not specifically stated
Thanks for reading
I am not affiliated with any of the companies mentioned here.
I do currently own the KAC Triple Tap. And have been looking at both the battle comp and Griffin comp for a new project
Let's face it. Not everybody can afford or has a specific purpose for the KAC Triple tap
You don't need to buy a $10,000 dollar broadcast quality HD video Camera if you're only going to be using it to film your kid's soccer games.
The tool should match the Job where possible. Of course if you have the money and don't mind spending it that's ok too. :D
The Significant Advantage of the Griffen Compansator that I can see and have been researching for myself is that the GA will accept a suppressor.
According to Griffins website "compatibility with a plethora of sound suppressors including but not limited to our M4-SD, Gemtech’s Halo, SRT’s Typhoon with Atlas mount, Quicksilver’s QD223, Coastal’s FDX-FHM [A2 mount], and AAC’s discontinued Omni."
The battle comp at the time of this writing does not as far as I have I have been able to find.
Personally, I would love to have a suppressor that would mount to their (Battle Comp) .308 comp but nothing is available as of now.
Approximately ($1400.00 for the KAC can + $440 for The Triple Tap = $1840 before TAX STAMP)
$650 for GA M4-SD CAN + $150 for the Comp = $800 before TAX STAMP
I don't know about anyone else but I see that opens a lot more flexibility for the money. (assuming money is your only factor in your decision making)
Thanks for reading
All the bashing from the scientific "visual" inspection makes me chuckle. This is like trying to say the VW beetle, is the same as the BMW325, which is the same as the F150 because they all have 4 wheels, a roof, and seats. Did anyone do any computational fluid dynamics before bashing? How about some Finite element analysis? But, but, but...they "look" the same. No shit eh? Object threads on one end, has a whole for an exit on the other, and a bunch of gas directing holes in the middle. How damn much variation do you think there should be? How about we make the holes in the middle in the shape of little triangles? As much as I love the battle comp, the fact the griffin has a larger selection of cans it can be used with is a possible patentable feature in and of itself differentiating it from the others. Another analogy is like trying to say every AR manufacturer besides the first, copied the design and should be crucified. If they directly copied features have at 'em. But don't squeel like a stuck pig, just because it's black, shaped like a can, and has some holes in it.
polydeuces
06-11-11, 17:41
So then, where would this one fit?
http://www.aimsurplus.com/product.aspx?item=XSTDCM&name=Spikes+Tactical+Dynacomp+Extreme&groupid=54
It appears the design concept attracts numerous "followers", some probably better than others. I hope the net result is a better product for less $$.
militarymoron
06-11-11, 18:11
as far as putting holes in AR muzzle devices for control, the concept has been around for a while. port size, number, location and shape vary, but the intent is still the same. here are the two devices i mentioned earlier in the thread - one with big holes, one with small ones. the DTA is from the 80's and i forgot what the other one is (anyone remember what this is? i got it in the late 80's or early 90's). it's based on the BOSS system which allows you to change the length of the barrel; changing its harmonics, and you're supposed to be able to find a 'sweet spot' where the group size is smallest.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/militarymoron/brakes.jpg
I am hoping that eventually BattleComp or Griffin comes out with suppressor mount versions for the Surefire Mini and Micro cans.
I posted my review of the battlecomp vs griffin here also:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=970107&postcount=5
The concept has been around for a while, for the last 25 years or so the VIAS brakes have had a excellent rep on bolt action community for recoil redution with minimal increase in flash and noise. The KAC, BC and Griffin are basically all the same design, similar void areas in similar areas. The same can be said for the Dynacomp, although it is longer, not sure how that will effect performance. I wouldn't surprise me to see other comp makers come with cheaper models in the future.
1946 Soviet tank IS-7 tank has a similar muzzle :p
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i314/Duffypoo/800px-IS-7.jpg
SomeOtherGuy
06-13-11, 08:37
1946 Soviet tank IS-7 tank has a similar muzzle :p
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i314/Duffypoo/800px-IS-7.jpg
Great photo. Kinda hard to call any one perforated-cage-brake product for the AR market a clone after seeing this!
Righto. There are but so many means to the same end, inevitably some designs are going to look similar, with some design features overlapping.
Jesse Tischauser
06-13-11, 13:09
1946 Soviet tank IS-7 tank has a similar muzzle :p
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i314/Duffypoo/800px-IS-7.jpg
This picture takes the cake, i mean break. Thanks for pointing out the ridiculousness of the good guy/bad guy copy cat argument.
How about the FG42, this predates the IS-7 tank ;)
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i314/Duffypoo/fg42_typeii_5_wwii.jpg
Seems to me that Battlecomp is also a copycat, patent stealer as well then... Just because they are a forum sponsor and a contributor doesn't make their obvious copying of the KAC TT any less deplorable, and hell, KAC should be hung out to dry as well then. They are not the first to come up with this design either...Death to KAC, them commie bastards...:lol:
I personally think Battlecomp wants way too much for their brake, and even though I think the battlecomp looks more appealing to me than the Griffin, I will be buying the Griffin, just because it will save me approx. $50.00+ in greenbacks over the BCE 2.0 and does the exact same thing!!! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out either.
If: product A = product B
And: product B is cheaper than product A
Then: Buy Product B
I expect the chinese saw this thread, laughed, and will be putting out a Battlegriffin comp version 3.14159265 here soon and sell it for 60.00...:lol:
lifebreath
06-28-11, 15:51
Best post of the day! :lol:
1946 Soviet tank IS-7 tank has a similar muzzle :p
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i314/Duffypoo/800px-IS-7.jpg
Businesses exist to make a profit. Despite what it may cost to produce the actual product, there are so many expenses associated I don't think there's enough in this box to list.
Their very presence here as a site sponsor/manufacturer costs money (we should know, it's well worth it ;)), as does website hosting, employees, service and exchange, engineering time for future product, packaging, then there's the very business unfriendly CA and its taxes.
Good warranty and service cost a great deal of money. BCE has an enviable reputation for both, this money comes from somewhere. In the very beginning, it was probably the owner's own pocket.
Heh, drama.
Anyway...
This comp would look cool nickel/boron coated, just sayin'
- not interested in the product itself, though. I wonder what other new comps are coming to the market from new manufacturers.
ares armor
06-29-11, 04:14
Heh, drama.
Anyway...
This comp would look cool nickel/boron coated, just sayin'
- not interested in the product itself, though. I wonder what other new comps are coming to the market from new manufacturers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21bBEgFR1lY
shaneinhisroom
06-29-11, 05:58
I really like the look of that compensator.
I think the fact more than 1 in-production suppressor can mount to the GA M4-SD comp warrants it a look over the BC 2.0.
I have a BC 2.0 and I'm having a little buyer's remorse now, as I like some of the other "A2" suppressors' locking mechanisms more than the HALO's.
joeboboutfitters
06-29-11, 14:34
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21bBEgFR1lY
I talked to a couple of the guys at Ares Armor (Manufacturer of the Effin-A Comp) earlier today. Here's what I gathered:
Timeline to products being ready to sell: 6-8Weeks
MSRP: ~$100 give or take a little
Features:
-Cap comes off and is threaded 1/2x28 so you can "stack" the compensators or attach any other muzzle attachment you wanted onto the end of the Effin-A
-Porting holes are somehow ADJUSTABLE to tune it to your particular rifle? Not sure quite how this is accomplished, but appears to me that it'd be easiest accomplished by threading the holes and putting in set screws to cap them off?
It does not have any other mounting options to be compatible with suppressors on the market currently. Looks like a pretty decent comp! It'll be interesting to see how it stacks up.
Slvr Surfr
06-29-11, 15:14
I purchased one of the M4SD comps from Joseph at joeboboutfitters.com.
I used it during a 5 day, 1200 round patrol rifle instructor course and absolutely love it. I can only compare it to a A2 birdcage style hider that came with my BCM rifle. I can say the M4SD performs as advertised. Rapid shots with minimal disturbance on the sights can easily be made. When firing the rifle pushes back into your shoulder and stays flat on target. When shooting prone, I did not experience any issues with dirt or dust being kicked up from the blast. We were shooting on a outdoor blacktop range, but it wasn't spotless.
The noise level was on par with that of the A2. At no time during the 5 days of shooting did any of the people shooting next to me complain about side concussion at all. The flash during the night course was fairly significant, but not anything that was overwhelming or disruptive to my sight picture. In all fairness, I did not have any opportunity to fire the original A2 on this particular upper at night. It was interesting to see the flame occurring with other shooters in the course. The A2's on their guns did very little to conceal the flash.
Overall fit and finish of the product is very nice. It does come with a peel washer making installing an indexing a very easy job. This is mounted on my 16" midlength gas upper.
Joeboboutfitters also shipped very quickly. I am seriously considering buying another M4SD when funds allow.
ares armor
06-29-11, 15:46
Don't want to jack your guys thread. If anyone else is interested in the EFFIN-A Comp. We will be answering questions and discussion here.
http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=83991
Lets keep this thread to the topic at hand
I received and installed my Griffin M4SD flash comp yesterday and shot about 200 rounds of WPA this evening. I used a crush washer for the time being. The flash reduction for a comp is very good. The only other muzzle devices I've used are A2, YHM Phantom 5c2, PWS FSC, Rainier XTC and Midwest Industries. It has a does a great job a muzzle rise while still retaining some flash suppression capability. From the view through an Omni VIII PVS 14, flash isn't any worse than an A2 and the Midwest.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.