AR Sponsor
Posted: 12/20/2024 8:39:38 PM EDT
|
The Colt magazine compatible 9mm full ambi forged 7075-T6 Griffin MK2 is available now. This is the first Griffin carbine to have the Griffin Armament adjustable 2-stage trigger which right now is ~4.75lbs. We are pursuing a spring that would allow ~3.9lb pull in the next 4 weeks or so. These are a pretty fun platform.  Griffin Armament MK2 9mm AR Series |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
|
Originally Posted By Switchback_Arms: Yeah I just figured I'd get that out of the way  I like Griffin stuff, looks cool Yeah we liked the classic looks of the Uzi/Colt mag, and we didn't like the sheet metal rube goldberg device that allows the stupid luger angle Glock mag to sit in the way front of the AR lower. Colt picked the mag that suited the platform. The Glock 33rd mag is a good reliable mag, and if they had put an AR mag catch slot in it, it would make a better case for the gun, but it still wouldn't be as sexy as the Colt vertical stick mag. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
|
Yes, the Glock mags look stupid. But the Colt mags annnd the sculpted mag well are sex-y. Plus ambi controls and the adjustable trigger, I want one. I got the email with the 15% off this evening and have been trying to justify putting the lower on the already clapped out credit card. It already gonna hurt anyway right? What's three hundred more bucks at 28% anyway? Its Christmas. |
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
113
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
First, can't wait to see what your 2-stage triggers are like. I'll be picking up one once they are available. I see adjustment screw is at the front of the trigger, and it looks to me like it limits over-travel. This replicates the functionality your safeties provide, or am I mistaken? Are the initial release triggers (due 1/1/2025 from https://www.griffinarmament.com/griffin-adjustable-2-stage-ar-trigger/ ) going to have the 4.75 lb or the 3.9 lb pull? The trigger's webpage could use some of the detail the mk2 9mm pages have. Second, you REALLY have some animosity toward Glock lowers, don't you? Your webpage provides more than sufficient history and engineering reasoning to really educate your customers about your product design. So you clearly have good reasons for your manufacturing decisions, but when an owner/spokesperson(?) of a company who manufactures precision parts repeatedly calls a different technology "stupid" when it is mentioned, it says less about the technology and more about the speaker. Your arguments are more convincing if you don't stoop to name calling. I asked a question a while back about 9mm PCCs, and IIRC, your response was about the same, language included. The name calling seems defensive, and that makes me feel like there's something you're trying to hide. You probably aren't, but as a customer, getting that feeling from a company spokesperson is no bueno. As someone who owns and uses several Glock lowers, I don't mind reading why an alternate 9mm magazine approach is better. The Glock lowers certainly have their imperfections. But as you call equipment I own and use stupid, it doesn't really make me feel your company desires MY business. If you gain more customers than you push away with that attitude, I guess you got a successful marketing approach and don't mind me. That all said, I support my local businesses, including Griffin. I would be more more supporting (purchasing from) them if I didn't come away from reading a product announcement post feeling insulted. |
|
Originally Posted By PreacherOfGadget: First, can't wait to see what your 2-stage triggers are like. I'll be picking up one once they are available. I see adjustment screw is at the front of the trigger, and it looks to me like it limits over-travel. This replicates the functionality your safeties provide, or am I mistaken? Are the initial release triggers (due 1/1/2025 from https://www.griffinarmament.com/griffin-adjustable-2-stage-ar-trigger/ ) going to have the 4.75 lb or the 3.9 lb pull? The trigger's webpage could use some of the detail the mk2 9mm pages have. Second, you REALLY have some animosity toward Glock lowers, don't you? Your webpage provides more than sufficient history and engineering reasoning to really educate your customers about your product design. So you clearly have good reasons for your manufacturing decisions, but when an owner/spokesperson(?) of a company who manufactures precision parts repeatedly calls a different technology "stupid" when it is mentioned, it says less about the technology and more about the speaker. Your arguments are more convincing if you don't stoop to name calling. I asked a question a while back about 9mm PCCs, and IIRC, your response was about the same, language included. The name calling seems defensive, and that makes me feel like there's something you're trying to hide. You probably aren't, but as a customer, getting that feeling from a company spokesperson is no bueno. As someone who owns and uses several Glock lowers, I don't mind reading why an alternate 9mm magazine approach is better. The Glock lowers certainly have their imperfections. But as you call equipment I own and use stupid, it doesn't really make me feel your company desires MY business. If you gain more customers than you push away with that attitude, I guess you got a successful marketing approach and don't mind me. That all said, I support my local businesses, including Griffin. I would be more more supporting (purchasing from) them if I didn't come away from reading a product announcement post feeling insulted. The adjustments provided in the trigger are overtravel and disconnector engagement. The disconnector engagement determines the amount of creep allowed for the trigger to have between the second stage and the break point. The take-up is about 40% reduced from a standard two stage by a geometry contacting the nose of the trigger up front on a surface of the hammer. We originally planned for another screw for take-up, but decided each screw would scare more customers away from the product, and also know that some law enforcement studies indicate a component of safety is trigger travel distance so it may not be responsible to pursue customer adjustment of take up, as that could result in a lot of people without knowing that, reducing takeup 95% or something to the extent they have a trigger which is set up to surprise them a lot more often than one with a reasonable amount of takeup. Ultimately the second stage can already be adjusted to be out of play, (which is not the intended use of the adjustment nor would that be a safe way to set it up), and if we also provided takeup adjustment, that would also allow the takeup to be removed leaving a trigger around 2.2 lbs that fires within ~.01” of touching the trigger bow. The triggers come preset in matched sets. So the trigger will drop in and work as intended and the owners who want to refine adjustment to their specific lower receiver will be moving .062” allen keys in the #6-40 set screws about 22.5- ~135 degrees to obtain a more perfect adjustment for their particular lower (for example fire control pockets mil spec vary I believe.01” in depth total, meaning we have to set for the most shallow pocket. This also allows a very high round count trigger to be re-adjusted for any wear that may have occurred over thousands of cycles. The 9mm guns were being held up by the triggers, which have been in development two years now, so we are releasing the trigger product itself with two trigger return springs, one that currently achieves 4.75lbs, and the other that achieves 5.75lbs. We are manufacturing for testing a fourth revision disconnector spring which we hope to drop these two weights to 3.9 and 4.9 lbs. if that works it will become std equipment at that time. It is my personal opinion that 3.5-4.5 lbs is the ideal weight for an AR trigger, but I have a mk11 that breaks at 5lbs 11 ounces and It can be shot to about 1.2moa in my hands, so I feel there is an obviousness to the superiority of say 3.5lbs being perhaps 1/10mil advantage from a bipod. Milspec single stages break around 6.5-7 lbs and as single stage they don’t give the same warning of proximity to firing that the second stage of a two stage does. If people choose to take offense to this issue of objectively looking at the two magazine options, that is their choice to make the analysis feelings oriented. On 9mm AR magazines, the issue is as simple as the magazine that better suits the AR15 platform. The Glock with its tilted luger inspired angle that has no relationship to human anatomy, places itself closer to the chamber and further from the bolt catch. The design doesn’t do a good job of supporting the bolt catch or magazine release to keep the manual of arms similar to the 556 and larger caliber AR counterparts. Form matters as does function. The form is even superior with the Colt magazine. So the major advantage of the Glock mag would be inter-operability with a pistol, which compromises the manual of arms and the form factor of the firearm. So in this regard it is a question of which set of compromises you want- do you want to compromise the manual of arms for the interoperability of magazines? The PCC should be a reduced cost training platform for the larger guns, or operationally a reduced sound and penetration option. The interoperability of magazines is not the larger emphasis in play. To your something is being hidden comment, glock lowers hide a long linkage to last round bolt hold open up in the front left corner of the magazine (a place that isn’t remotely intended to support the AR bolt catch), and a lack of a geometry for allowing the normal manual of arms magazine catch to engage the magazine. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
|
Originally Posted By neight: Will a standard mil spec trigger, like a Schmitt, work in the interim? I also have a newer Colt trigger I got out of a flat top 9mm when I bought the upper. Originally Posted By neight: Will a standard mil spec trigger, like a Schmitt, work in the interim? I also have a newer Colt trigger I got out of a flat top 9mm when I bought the upper. Our trigger is getting released Jan 1. Any AR trigger would work with the lower as the lower pins and fire control pocket are a standard mil-spec pocket. Schmidt makes a working two stage trigger that is very affordable and 4.5-5.6 lbs, but has about 5/16" of total trigger travel so a lot of travel, and it doesn't have adjustable overtravel or disconnector engagement, but a product like our selector can give you the overtravel adjustment with a Schmidt. Colt would work, but is ~7lbs (FN for example advertises a range of 5.5 to 9 lbs for the M4 trigger) and single stage, having no overtravel adjustment. Originally Posted By SEAN10MM: Very nice. I have to be the one that asks, but are there going to be any large frame pattern carbines made like 10 mm?... or I could settle for 45 Auto if need be. We have no plans for other pistol calibers. We saw 9mm as the major use case for suppressors, plinking etc. in the pistol caliber space. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
| Maybe if sales of the initial model are good, we could make a flat model. The cost of tooling before producing any parts for a different trigger only without the other parts being re-tooled is about $24,000, so it would be a better idea to sell some product first. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
120
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
Originally Posted By Green0: We originally planned for another screw for take-up, but decided each screw would scare more customers away from the product, and also know that some law enforcement studies indicate a component of safety is trigger travel distance so it may not be responsible to pursue customer adjustment of take up, as that could result in a lot of people without knowing that, reducing takeup 95% or something to the extent they have a trigger which is set up to surprise them a lot more often than one with a reasonable amount of takeup. [...] If people choose to take offense to [...] Originally Posted By Green0: We originally planned for another screw for take-up, but decided each screw would scare more customers away from the product, and also know that some law enforcement studies indicate a component of safety is trigger travel distance so it may not be responsible to pursue customer adjustment of take up, as that could result in a lot of people without knowing that, reducing takeup 95% or something to the extent they have a trigger which is set up to surprise them a lot more often than one with a reasonable amount of takeup. [...] If people choose to take offense to [...] Emphasis on safety is nice, and I appreciate that. I think I'll be buying one in a few days... any chance that when that next disconnector spring becomes available (I'm presuming you'll succeed), it will be purchasable as a separate item? I was reading through the web pages for these guns, and every one of those PCCs lists:
Is this an error, or are these not direct blowback? The product pages, oddly, do not explicitly mention that it's blowback anywhere, an assumption I had until I saw the above-quoted lines. I'm presuming some copy-paste error, as the bolt in the video looked like a typical blowback bolt design. This info search left me wondering: what's the total reciprocating mass, bolt + buffer? And what's the force needed to fully compress your firing pin springs? All your answers are appreciated; I can say the engagement leads to some of my purchases. And I think we both know it was the pejoratives, NOT the well-written, detail-driven, decision-explaining, and often history-connecting descriptions either you or your website's product pages offer. The latter are excellent. Oh, one last thing I just noticed... I purchased up one of your hammer comps some days back, and just noticed how the Griffin logo is doing an impression of Thor, god of hammers. I love it. Now I am wondering why the flashcomp isn't called a "trident" or "spear" comp, with an appropriate logo variation? (Blast shields are begging for one.) You got a solid logo. Keep leaning into it. (How 'bout a willy-wonka style contest of "find the product with the golden logo to earn a factory tour and become your heir"? And then, on the tour, you can whittle the group down with predictable mishaps due to egregious behavior. Hmm, wait... well, there might be some problems with taking it that far.) |
|
We don’t have plans to sell disconnector springs separately. We are still dialing in a final grind operation on the primary sear, (are 1-2 days from more mass production and assembly/fitting)and that seems to be allowing 4lbs6 ounces for weight currently when lubricated with TW25B. The disconnector spring hopefully will be successful and permit the 3.5lb model to exist, but if you want the lighter model maybe waiting and not purchasing this coming week would make more sense. We are probably 4 weeks or more from those springs. The 9mm carbine is straight blowback- if you see a block listed remember were adding pages using people who are on vacation most of the week. So some of the stuff is like last ten minutes of the week work. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
|
"Colt picked the mag that suited the platform". No. They did no such thing. They used a modified Uzi mag because it was cheap and easy. Besides the modifications to the Uzi mag, that still required two different inserts, the receiver to be drilled and the inserts roll pinned in place. I know that's not how you or others are doing it now but don't give Colt extra credit that they don't deserve. It wasn't some brilliant genius on their part or them using the best or most suitable option. It was just cheap and easy for them. |
|
I think the magazine working with the mag catch is proof it was a more suitable solution than a Glock mag. The AR15 mag is inserted straight up, so is the Colt mag. The colt mag also indexes the bolt catch in back (follower tab) another similarity to the ar15. The Glock follower tab is on the front left side of the magazine- very far away from the bolt catch. Two inserts were only required because Colt wanted to use surplus lowers. And I’ve seen one piece inserts too, but obviously no insert is better. I don’t think every Colt decision was about cheap and easy but some of them like the use of the ar15 lower were. For example they made an entirely different open bolt version of the design fire control system- that is not cheap. That wasn’t off the shelf. That didn’t get selected because it limited sales in the US severely do to ATF opposition to open bolt mechanisms and a lack of a major foreign market for the open bolt version as far as I know. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
$1349 right now so I guess we would have done better in that one metric if they had noticed. We also think the best can for the 9mm PCC is the Sportsman 36 on a 3 lug mount and that's like $750 not as expensive as the Bushwhacker .36 used in the review.  What THEY won't tell you .... Griffin Mk2 PCC Honest Gun Review |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
Barrel and Hatchet did their usually really thorough job reviewing a MK2 9mm carbine.  Failed To Load Title |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
AR Sponsor