Armory Sponsor
Griffin Armament DUAL-LOK 5 AM suppressor test (Page 1 of 4)
Posted: 2/14/2026 5:17:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Green0][Edited]
|
Someone commented that they would rather we talk about the can than show them a test with data. I think I'll try to work something in, as that is perhaps, a salient point. This can is the most quiet 5.56mm muzzle can I have ever tested peak A muzzle. It also had the lowest flash signature of anything I've tested thus far on the 12.5" gun we used for testing. Our flash standard was evolved to this very harsh standard that looks at the muzzle face of the can at a 45 degree angle, due to work with the low pressure military cans showing no flash at 90 degree angle of incidence to the muzzle- the high speed camera low light standard had to evolve to have relevance in the new world of super low flash suppressors. The tested config for the can was on its included EZ brake. Two mics below 140 linear is really shit hot performance. It's not normal, it's exemplary. This is a great can for a right handed shooter who wants a low pressure can. For the lefty who's face is stuffed in the ejection port, we have a HRT 5 AM coming. We call this can "managed pressure" and the HRT 5 AM "low pressure". The distinction is between right and left hand shooter experience objectives. The material the suppressor is printed in is Nickel 625X, a material we developed because we wanted a higher strength alloy than the inconel family of alloys offered us- this move is for high strength and durability without non-competitive weight. I talked to Doug Olson - a legend in suppressor design last year for maybe 15 minutes on the phone and on that call he also mentioned Inconel is a lot of things but it is not very strong- which was interesting to me, because that was my take on inconel also. The Nickel 625X is the subject of a pending US patent, and as far as we know is the first metal alloy developed specifically for sound suppressors rather than adopted from another industry. The Nickel 625X has greater yield strength than that of room temperature additive 625 inconel when it is at 1200F, and greater yield strength than room temperature 625 inconel cold formed wrought material, when Nickel 625X is compared at 1472F compared to the other material at room temperature. Nickel 625X is more expensive than inconels 625 and 718, and has only 1.5% iron (similar to Haynes 282 in that regard), and has the highest corrosion resistance of the 4 aforementioned materials with a PREN number ~57. We had intended to test the can also against the Silencer Co Velos, but a distributor cycled our order into the trash due to our FFL/SOT with them being expired without contacting us, and we lost like 3 weeks waiting for the can before we checked status, found out the order wasn't even moving, and that got it moving finally, and it showed up yesterday, the day we published the video at 4 weeks from the date of the order. So I guess we'll test the Velos later against something else.  Dead Air® Lazarus 6 vs DUAL-LOK® 5 AM | Sound Testing Overview |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
|
Originally Posted By SpankMonkey: That was impressive. Most youtubers never use real equipment for their so called sound testing. Thank you. Look forward to more. Appreciated. The testing method at this point is kind of a workup- a lot of time goes into that. Someone was just talking to me yesterday about a video from a new manufacturer using a radioshack meter and numbers in the low 100's. The real equipment is more expensive and cumbersome to operate- for example the 5 seconds between shots is related to the sheer amount of data moving through the lan and getting processed by the computer in the time- that's as fast as the computer can process the work and reset. A similar phenomenon happened with 3D design to support the printed suppressors- early in development I emergency migrated a computer because rebuild time in Solidworks was like 2.5 minutes- so every time any edit occurred it would hang 2.5 minutes and I was watching my time just go into the toilet- good time to analyze design, but poor investment in getting the job done. It reminded me of working with drafted polymer parts which demand a lot of resources. The migrated machine which is a very high performance machine with like 164 gig of ram, high end processor, solid state memory and liquid cooling etc, is still doing maybe 45 second rebuilds. The parts are challenging the technology to handle them. A single prototype is often like 12 hours of CAD work. I just put in 2 weeks on a unique item to support a government request with a major firearms company and that's just initial 2 prototypes. Struggling with cad on really complex models is not my favorite thing to do (more like least favorite thing to do), but it's integral to the work at this point. For many years I was minority time involved with Cad and very involved in supporting manufacturing and now it's kind of tilted back and I'm in CAD constantly again. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
|
Originally Posted By Green0: Appreciated. The testing method at this point is kind of a workup- a lot of time goes into that. Someone was just talking to me yesterday about a video from a new manufacturer using a radioshack meter and numbers in the low 100's. The real equipment is more expensive and cumbersome to operate- for example the 5 seconds between shots is related to the sheer amount of data moving through the lan and getting processed by the computer in the time- that's as fast as the computer can process the work and reset. A similar phenomenon happened with 3D design to support the printed suppressors- early in development I emergency migrated a computer because rebuild time in Solidworks was like 2.5 minutes- so every time any edit occurred it would hang 2.5 minutes and I was watching my time just go into the toilet- good time to analyze design, but poor investment in getting the job done. It reminded me of working with drafted polymer parts which demand a lot of resources. The migrated machine which is a very high performance machine with like 164 gig of ram, high end processor, solid state memory and liquid cooling etc, is still doing maybe 45 second rebuilds. The parts are challenging the technology to handle them. A single prototype is often like 12 hours of CAD work. I just put in 2 weeks on a unique item to support a government request with a major firearms company and that's just initial 2 prototypes. Struggling with cad on really complex models is not my favorite thing to do (more like least favorite thing to do), but it's integral to the work at this point. For many years I was minority time involved with Cad and very involved in supporting manufacturing and now it's kind of tilted back and I'm in CAD constantly again. That is absolutely amazing. The amount of time it takes to design a new can. Well the work shows. I wonder if AI can help with the editing. You have to have a huge CPU to keep redrawing the design over and over as you edit. I have been eyeing your new .22 can. It's on my short list for a new purchase. Now this .556 has my interest as well. Thank you for what you do. |
|
Originally Posted By SpankMonkey: That was impressive. Most youtubers never use real equipment for their so called sound testing. Thank you. Look forward to more. As a (former) YouTuber and Rumbler(?), there’s a reason for that. The proper equipment is very expensive. I’d rather offer no hard data than faulty hard data. Austin, nice work…looks great! |
Moderate-Length Barrel Evangelist
Joined:
Jun 2022
Posts:
4781
EE: 100% (11)
USA
|
Originally Posted By SpankMonkey: That is absolutely amazing. The amount of time it takes to design a new can. Well the work shows. I wonder if AI can help with the editing. You have to have a huge CPU to keep redrawing the design over and over as you edit. I have been eyeing your new .22 can. It's on my short list for a new purchase. Now this .556 has my interest as well. Thank you for what you do. I wish the rebuild process could just get shut off, but Solidworks likes to rebuild automatically as features are edited. Also fillets necessary for ideal reduction of stress risers are a bear- so clicking individually 50-100 surfaces dozens of times in a model to mitigate all of those potential stress risers is part of the system lag of model creation. The more of those features that exist the longer rebuild times get. Solidworks in my opinion hasn’t changed much since about 2015. A lot of softwares get kind of stagnant like that. I see it using about 5-7% of cpu resources when I have it custom set to high priority and the Windows registry edited to get around the new green crap of windows that reduces available system resources as if computing power is a secondary goal for Microsoft. The architecture of Solidworks is probably antiquated and not able to harness the power of new processors efficiently. Often this relates to the way the base program code was put together quite a while ago. I don’t believe there is a method of interfacing AI to external software such as Solidworks, and suppressor design is kind of art- where a person learns it over a very long time, and it would be difficult to see AI getting that far into the process because it seems to be transactional and losing informational context and understanding from one conversation to the next. It would have to dedicate thought to the problem and be fed test data and develop a library of information to use to be effective. I’ve spent a little time kind of having a conversation with AI (grok 3/4), and often I find it telling me something that I know isn’t true, and when I mention it is not correct and explain to it why, it realizes and acknowledges it was wrong and moves in the correct direction, sometimes using a different approach to get there that provides the necessary adaptation to more or less work. So it’s a little bit like having a conversation with a student you are teaching something. After many hours of back and forth you can tune Grok inside the context of a single conversation to be more right and useful about the subject matter but first of all, that isn’t the same as talking to something that itself was more intelligent, and also AI will generally reset between conversations so it loses contextual understanding and would need to be taught whatever was taught to resolve the problem again and again. There are also IP considerations of talking to AI, so it is better for things that aren’t a professional company pursuit. Where I have found Grok useful is in sentence structure- it seems very strong in English and writing. If I write a paragraph and ask grok to weigh in on it, it can make my statement more concise and more properly formatted generally without losing any of the contextual objective delivery details. For record I’m not using it here in this response as that process takes time and makes more sense for something really important. It can also accomplish long form scientific math at great speed and that can save time. However don’t expect it to correctly access the required math formulas. Aka in logic and reasoning it is weak (such as applying the correct scientific math equation to the problem) but in basic tasks such as the conduct of solving the correctly applied scientific mathematical formula it is strong. Google AI is good for basic questions on matters that would require a lot of internet research so you can use it to get to information faster than plugging your own searches. I have discussed AI with engineers from other industries such as defense turbofans and rockets, and additive manufacturing, and they have similarly mentioned interest and exchanges and similar comments have been normal for them as well. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
|
Originally Posted By 1168RGR: Yeah, people don’t understand that bad intel is worse than no intel. Thanks for the video. Completely agreed. This is kind of like watching a guy in the desert on a flat range shoot cans with a microphone that makes them all sound the same, in an environment where nothing can echo back. Its bad intel. It makes everything sound the same, when in person or with a better microphone, and especially indoors or in more typical environments they should all sound more different. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
|
Here's a link to a data sheet Nickel 625X data sheet The basic concept is that you have a much stronger alloy in nickel 625X for rifle and pistol suppressors, where high strength and temperature compatibility allow lighter suppressors to be manufactured. When Haynes is used, the weight should be heavier, because it is not as strong. The ideal application of Haynes 282 would be belt fed machine gun suppressors- where the designs are generally going to be heavier to soak more heat before they reach high temperatures, and where the use will take the suppressor to a temperature over 1500F. The advantage of haynes is over 1472F, and probably under 1700F (a temperature where gamma prime begins to coarsen). So it's kind of a narrow window not applicable to rifle cans, and a place where rifle suppressors shouldn't typically be operating. Anything over 1300F is not ideal in a tactical sense as the can is emitting light in daylight, and thus is a great target indicator. People talk about flash all the time and at 10,000 frames muzzle flash is about 28 frames or 1/357 second / 2.8 milliseconds total length, from smallest trace to smallest trace of light. If the can is lit up like a lightbulb, that's just constant- much greater thread to safety. Every second of illuminated can, is like 357 muzzle flashes of exposure time. Material science is interesting, as I have been told by Eos and by subcontract manufacturers that the NGSW cans are 625 inconel, and that's not as strong as 718, but has greater corrosion resistance, as well as greater stability. Like 625X it is a solid solution strengthened alloy, so if it had for example been age hardened (very uncommon for 625 but something we do to 625X), and was cycled over 1300-1400F the Gamma double prime precipitates may reset, but the high niobium/Molybdenum content is still locked in the matrix, providing a strong foundational "floor" to strength in the alloy. So it is healthier atmospherically at an extreme temperature like 1850F than 718 inconel which has a lot more iron and a lot less corrosion resistance, and also lacking the solid solution strengthening mechanisms. So I guess if what I was told is true, they use 625 on the NGSW cans because they need the material that can be 1850F without corrosion problems and without dramatic strength loss. Also I hear 718 alloy with its 19% iron, and high temp perishable Gamma double prime mechanism, it becomes brittle if it is cycled over 1300F. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
This is the Hotwash of the test.  DUAL-LOK 5 AM vs DeadAir Lazarus 6 - Hot Wash |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
|
Originally Posted By Green0: Here's a link to a data sheet Nickel 625X data sheet The basic concept is that you have a much stronger alloy in nickel 625X for rifle and pistol suppressors, where high strength and temperature compatibility allow lighter suppressors to be manufactured. When Haynes is used, the weight should be heavier, because it is not as strong. The ideal application of Haynes 282 would be belt fed machine gun suppressors- where the designs are generally going to be heavier to soak more heat before they reach high temperatures, and where the use will take the suppressor to a temperature over 1500F. The advantage of haynes is over 1472F, and probably under 1700F (a temperature where gamma prime begins to coarsen). So it's kind of a narrow window not applicable to rifle cans, and a place where rifle suppressors shouldn't typically be operating. Anything over 1300F is not ideal in a tactical sense as the can is emitting light in daylight, and thus is a great target indicator. People talk about flash all the time and at 10,000 frames muzzle flash is about 28 frames or 1/357 second / 2.8 milliseconds total length, from smallest trace to smallest trace of light. If the can is lit up like a lightbulb, that's just constant- much greater thread to safety. Every second of illuminated can, is like 357 muzzle flashes of exposure time. Material science is interesting, as I have been told by Eos and by subcontract manufacturers that the NGSW cans are 625 inconel, and that's not as strong as 718, but has greater corrosion resistance, as well as greater stability. Like 625X it is a solid solution strengthened alloy, so if it had for example been age hardened (very uncommon for 625 but something we do to 625X), and was cycled over 1300-1400F the Gamma double prime precipitates may reset, but the high niobium/Molybdenum content is still locked in the matrix, providing a strong foundational "floor" to strength in the alloy. So it is healthier atmospherically at an extreme temperature like 1850F than 718 inconel which has a lot more iron and a lot less corrosion resistance, and also lacking the solid solution strengthening mechanisms. So I guess if what I was told is true, they use 625 on the NGSW cans because they need the material that can be 1850F without corrosion problems and without dramatic strength loss. Also I hear 718 alloy with its 19% iron, and high temp perishable Gamma double prime mechanism, it becomes brittle if it is cycled over 1300F. Looking at available data, 625X appears to start encountering embrittlement at T < 1110°F, but what's your experience? |
|
Originally Posted By Master_Blaster: Looking at available data, 625X appears to start encountering embrittlement at T < 1110°F, but what's your experience? We have had zero experience with embrittlement. It is a nickel superalloy and they are known for incredibly high elongation. That helps as additional strength reduces elongation but not to problematic levels. 17-4 printed material has very low elongation and high strength and cans like the flow 556k show it has worked really well in the field. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
|
Originally Posted By IHTFP08: ive got a recce 5AM coming for a customer and interested in the performace. I would recommend getting an opportunity to hear it in the factory configuration with the included muzzle device. The can sounds phenomenal. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
|
Originally Posted By gunner76: Would you say that this can has low enough back pressure to be lefty friendly and not require a bunch of gun tuning? Also, can the minimalist FH be used with this can, I didn't see it listed as an option in the description. The minimalist FH can be used with pretty much everything. This can has a blast chamber plenty long. |
|
Originally Posted By gunner76: Would you say that this can has low enough back pressure to be lefty friendly and not require a bunch of gun tuning? Also, can the minimalist FH be used with this can, I didn't see it listed as an option in the description. I would recommend the HRT 5 AM to lefties. Both cans take all mounts except the bayonet flash hider. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
|
Originally Posted By Master_Blaster: AI yielded these comparative weights: Haynes 282: 8.27 g/cm³ (0.299 – 0.300 lb/in³) Inconel 625LCF: 8.44 g/cm³ (0.305 lb/in³) Nickel625x (which has no relationship to lcf which isn’t a slm material [vim material]) is 8.46g/cm3 but is almost twice the strength of as built Haynes 282, which allows it to reduce the weight of a suppressor. Mass is one attribute and strength is another involved in practical weight derived by a material. How much we can reduce weight is not completely deducible to a single number as that is a function of operating temperature, and durability desired. As you reduce weight you increase operating temperature for a given fire schedule. That pulls down the advantage of a significantly stronger material vs what strength alone would imply. Currently I believe the suppressors are about 18% lighter compared to similar models in haynes 282 at typical to high operating temperatures, which is a conservative engineering approach. It would take significant R&D to determine if a higher percentage of weight reduction could be realized, and operating conservatively is our current and historical approach to design. We would rather a product is overbuilt than under-built. This is like how 17-4 allows lightweight suppressors to exist despite being similar weight to 316 stainless steel. 17-4 could probably reduce weight ~20-25% at similar strength, which is a comparison of lower temp materials than inconel and haynes so this isn’t an identical application but a similar lightweighting case study. 17-4 has a strength advantage that at room temperature is much greater, but heat needs to be considered. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
|
Originally Posted By Green0: Nickel625x (which has no relationship to lcf which isn’t a slm material [vim material]) is 8.46g/cm3 but is almost twice the strength of as built Haynes 282, which allows it to reduce the weight of a suppressor. Mass is one attribute and strength is another involved in practical weight derived by a material. How much we can reduce weight is not completely deducible to a single number as that is a function of operating temperature, and durability desired. As you reduce weight you increase operating temperature for a given fire schedule. That pulls down the advantage of a significantly stronger material vs what strength alone would imply. Currently I believe the suppressors are about 18% lighter compared to similar models in haynes 282 at typical to high operating temperatures, which is a conservative engineering approach. It would take significant R&D to determine if a higher percentage of weight reduction could be realized, and operating conservatively is our current and historical approach to design. We would rather a product is overbuilt than under-built. This is like how 17-4 allows lightweight suppressors to exist despite being similar weight to 316 stainless steel. 17-4 could probably reduce weight ~20-25% at similar strength, which is a comparison of lower temp materials than inconel and haynes so this isn’t an identical application but a similar lightweighting case study. 17-4 has a strength advantage that at room temperature is much greater, but heat needs to be considered. Originally Posted By Green0: Nickel625x (which has no relationship to lcf which isn’t a slm material [vim material]) is 8.46g/cm3 but is almost twice the strength of as built Haynes 282, which allows it to reduce the weight of a suppressor. Mass is one attribute and strength is another involved in practical weight derived by a material. How much we can reduce weight is not completely deducible to a single number as that is a function of operating temperature, and durability desired. As you reduce weight you increase operating temperature for a given fire schedule. That pulls down the advantage of a significantly stronger material vs what strength alone would imply. Currently I believe the suppressors are about 18% lighter compared to similar models in haynes 282 at typical to high operating temperatures, which is a conservative engineering approach. It would take significant R&D to determine if a higher percentage of weight reduction could be realized, and operating conservatively is our current and historical approach to design. We would rather a product is overbuilt than under-built. This is like how 17-4 allows lightweight suppressors to exist despite being similar weight to 316 stainless steel. 17-4 could probably reduce weight ~20-25% at similar strength, which is a comparison of lower temp materials than inconel and haynes so this isn’t an identical application but a similar lightweighting case study. 17-4 has a strength advantage that at room temperature is much greater, but heat needs to be considered. Understood. My AI search is equating 625x, 625 LCF, & Inconel 625, & I wasn't sure if this is an error, but it did yield this: Inconel 718 offers superior high-temperature strength and fatigue resistance (used up to ~700°C), making it ideal for aerospace engines. Inconel 625 provides exceptional corrosion resistance and weldability (up to ~1000°C), preferred for marine and chemical processing Also found this at SS: Both Inconel 718 and HAYNES 282 are high-temperature superalloys used extensively in aerospace/propulsion contexts, turbocharger components, and other extreme temperature use cases. They are among the most heat-tolerant, most durable materials ever used in firearm silencers, and their real-world performance is fairly similar. Choose Inconel 718 for maximum resistance to erosion and the ability to handle rapid heat/cool cycles. It is very durable and ideal for short barrels, bursts of full-auto fire, and general abuse. Choose HAYNES 282 if your priority is prolonged, extreme temperature resistance. For longer barrels and sustained fire, HAYNES 282 has better strength when kept at elevated temperatures. There does seem to be relatively scant 625x data for AI to dig up at this time. |
|
Nickel 625X is a proprietary alloy we developed and brought to market. It isn't 625. So I think the gap here is realizing that 93.2% compositional similarity by weight to 625, isn't terribly similar. 718 and 625 are 81.5% of typical production composition similar by weight for comparison. Haynes 282 and 625 are 88.4% of typical production composition similar using the same method. 625X is tremendously stronger than 625. It has max mechanical service operating temperature 100F higher than 718. It is a solid solution strengthened alloy, so it has the more imperishable strength quality that 625 has vs 718, which begins to be negatively impacted by temperature exposure around 1250F. At 1250F 625X is being precipitation strengthened. The synopsis of Haynes 282 being better for belt fed, crew served machine gun suppressors is true. That's the throw extra wall thickness weight at it to compensate for the lower strength, it's going to 1650F in service category. The clearly better shoulder fired rifle suppressor material is 625X. There is a reality that we've made belt fed suppressors in 625X for companies specializing in those, and other companies have done the same in both 718 and Haynes 282, so there is some overlap of capabilities between the 3 materials- it's not like we're talking about things that are in terrifically different use classes- they are all high nickel super alloys. Our similarity to Haynes 282 is 87.5% if we compare these two materials rather than each material to regular 625 inconel which we haven't included except as a standard of comparison here. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
|
I think this 200 round belt on a 11.5" Lima 6 is with the new DL5-AM suppressor. I wouldn't recommend this as it isn't really practical use, but it is "use". We've sold a few hundred of these and this is the first video I've seen of one out in the wild. When you're doing something like this, it's kind of impressive for the suppressor to allow the gun to run reliably through that. Red Right Hand has a HRT5 AM and he's run 100 round belt on a video floating around somewhere with it and the rate of fire is lower for that which shows the small difference in the flow rates of the two cans. https://www.reddit.com/r/NFA/comments/1rv9y0m/custom_lima_6_from_harrison_gunworks/ |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
 Griffin Armament Mk2 12.5 - First Impressions  Griffin Mk2 at 50 Yards  5 Round Groups at 7 Yards - Mk2 |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
|
Originally Posted By IHTFP08: I'd really like to see a taper mount, low back pressure can (like the new AM HRT) but coming in at explorr weights. Is that possible? after using the standard explorr for years its hard to go back to anything heavier. It's probably only possible in Titanium which is a lot lower durability than the 17-4 the Explorr was made of. The low backpressure with good sound, is a result of a lot of geometry which means walls and features that add weight. So the low backpressure cans are natively heavier. Red right hand llc just put 300 rounds through a HRT5 in around a minute on a Lima 6 and that video is on their instagram page. If there were no customers that were going to run the HRT 5 to a point of emitting light, we could probably reduce wall thicknesses and drop weight down around maybe 12 ounces. One of the issues here is that the companies don't control how the product is used, so it's good to make the product capable of a lot of abuse, so that it isn't being shown around the internet failing under hard use, causing customers to lose confidence in the product. I would bet within 4 months of dropping weight like that (If we did that), we would have a video of someone ripping 200+ rounds in 30 seconds on something like a short barrel lima 6 and destroying the can. For the record this is not a belt fed can. It is intended to be a hard use carbine can. It is a very durable carbine can, and that's attested to be things like 300 rounds of full auto on a Lima 6 not damaging the can. If we wanted to make a 5.56mm belt fed can, it would likely be more like 32 ounces and would be good for more like 600 rounds of fast abuse. It would become very specialized for that purpose. That just isn't a perceived marketplace, so we haven't developed that for those reasons. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
|
Originally Posted By Green0: It's probably only possible in Titanium which is a lot lower durability than the 17-4 the Explorr was made of. The low backpressure with good sound, is a result of a lot of geometry which means walls and features that add weight. So the low backpressure cans are natively heavier. Red right hand llc just put 300 rounds through a HRT5 in around a minute on a Lima 6 and that video is on their instagram page. If there were no customers that were going to run the HRT 5 to a point of emitting light, we could probably reduce wall thicknesses and drop weight down around maybe 12 ounces. One of the issues here is that the companies don't control how the product is used, so it's good to make the product capable of a lot of abuse, so that it isn't being shown around the internet failing under hard use, causing customers to lose confidence in the product. I would bet within 4 months of dropping weight like that (If we did that), we would have a video of someone ripping 200+ rounds in 30 seconds on something like a short barrel lima 6 and destroying the can. For the record this is not a belt fed can. It is intended to be a hard use carbine can. It is a very durable carbine can, and that's attested to be things like 300 rounds of full auto on a Lima 6 not damaging the can. If we wanted to make a 5.56mm belt fed can, it would likely be more like 32 ounces and would be good for more like 600 rounds of fast abuse. It would become very specialized for that purpose. That just isn't a perceived marketplace, so we haven't developed that for those reasons. interesting psychology standpoint of people who want durability way over their actual use case combined with long wait times (previously) and "buy it for life" mentality. Hopefully this $0 tax can get people to be more realistic when it comes to firing schedules and weights come down. |
www.newnanarmscompany.com
|
Originally Posted By Green0: That should be happening soon. I want to say they got welded, and painted, so were talking erp upload and web page creation to be available at this point. They're posted Why the Dual-Lok 5 & HRT-556? They seem awfully close in specification for the effort. |
|
They are two different designs. The DL5AM was pursuing managed backpressure where the sound was really exceptional. It also was intended to retain compatibility of the Dual lok armorer’s wrench, and to attempt not to lose the identity of the model. The HRT5AM was low backpressure and most durable- a slight loss of ultimate sound performance was needed to get it there. I had talked to a Marine Raider (MARSOC operator) at Modern Day Marine, and he related how he personally wanted the issued can to change, and I moved the HRT5AM in that specific direction. In the military the gear selection people are generally quiet because silence/lack of action protects careers), so getting some actual feedback to act on is rare. The cans were expected to be more separated in performance but the HRT5AM got development cycles ad nausea to the point performance was coming back around. There is still a gap- it is smaller that it once was, but the systems are different. The finned blast baffle and the geometry of the tube added a lot of difficulty to the design of the HRT5AM, but it improves thermal management and cooling when the can is quite hot. We needed a baffle system we could use on the m4SD- a can known to be really tough and people would want to see geometry on the tube diameter of that model. That’s the best explanation I can give you. The model is kind of like a car for a car company. We want to try to keep what made the can desirable, and emphasize that without losing its identity. With the HRT5AM were maybe out of boundaries on that, but as it relates to that system on an M4SD- we’re very much in bounds. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
|
Originally Posted By Green0: The HRT-5 AM. Researching this, I dug up an old thread where the opposite was stated. Is the AM variant different in this regard? |
|
Originally Posted By Master_Blaster: Researching this, I dug up an old thread where the opposite was stated. Is the AM variant different in this regard? The answer I gave you is correct. The AM variants have very little in common with the conventional versions. The intent in designing the DL5 AM was to try to be light, superior sound reduction and lower pressure than the original DL5, and retain the DL armorers wrench compatibility. The weight goal proved kind of difficult in that all the low pressure geometry added weight to the can, but otherwise the goals were achieved. The HRT 5 AM intent was to try to lean in the direction of a needs request of an individual MARSOC operator who spoke to me at the Modern Day Marine Show, and to provide a solution for the core on the M4SD3 suppressor. So thats the path that takes us in a different direction than the conventional predecessors of both models. Your question was about the AM models here, so not the conventional predecessors. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
|
Originally Posted By Jakezor: Got mine in today from Capitol Armory and you guys. Some interesting geometry on the blast baffle and your integrated flash hider. Still have to check it with a rod but I'm hoping to test it out this Sunday! Sweet. Yeah the blast baffle was a design element we wanted to keep, and it by itself went through a series of modifications maybe like 9 mods during R&D prior to manufacturing, in the process of getting the can working the way we wanted it to. The fins are effective in cooling the can when it is very hot, keeping a sustained fire schedule higher, but pulling a high enough flow rate with the bi-wall blast baffle with the fins was challenging. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
|
Alright GreenO you got me with this one..got the email the HRT-5K AM was in stock for ship to home and placed an order. This will be my first Griffin can..will be going on my patrol rifle, so will see some hard use in training classes. I shoot left-handed, so the reduced gas to the face is important. Looking forward to the dual-lok..I was going to get the hub but wanted to try this system. any idea what the DB difference is going to be between the 5 and the 5K? PS....can you please hurry up my order 
|
|
The 5 is ~6-7db more quiet than the 5k muzzle and at ears it is more like 3DB difference. The HRT5 AM is a great can. The closest can on market I have experienced to it so far is the NT4-PRG. The NT4-PRG feels fairly reminiscent of our Dual Lok 5 AM from behind the gun. It is the best additive can from an outside company I have shot so far. The silencer co velos full size is the second best competing can I’ve shot. Shot the Mini4 from Surefire yesterday- except for flash I was not impressed. The HRT5K is better. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
Moderate-Length Barrel Evangelist
Joined:
Jun 2022
Posts:
4868
EE: 100% (11)
USA
|
Now that you’ve ventured into additive, do you think you’ll revisit Ti someday, for dudes that shoot a little less per day, with gassier hosts? Something like your Optimus 6 TM, but in Ti. If y’all are going to be selling Hub Dual Loks, (assuming I understood the above comments correctly), what factors should push a buyer in that direction from an Explorr? |
|
Originally Posted By 1168RGR: Now that you’ve ventured into additive, do you think you’ll revisit Ti someday, for dudes that shoot a little less per day, with gassier hosts? Something like your Optimus 6 TM, but in Ti. A titanium Gate-Lok can (maybe with a 625X blast baffle and/or end cap?) would be pretty sweet. I'd also love a titanium Checkmate AM. |
|
Originally Posted By 1168RGR: Now that you’ve ventured into additive, do you think you’ll revisit Ti someday, for dudes that shoot a little less per day, with gassier hosts? Something like your Optimus 6 TM, but in Ti. If y’all are going to be selling Hub Dual Loks, (assuming I understood the above comments correctly), what factors should push a buyer in that direction from an Explorr? It was something someone here asked about. One of the things I don't love about it is that the laser engraving needs to be shielded. I also think titanium is trash for a suppressor other than a bolt action, pistol, or rimfire can, unless the end user is really disciplined with ability to keep fire schedules to like 2 magazines and cool. I feel like it would create a lot of warranty claims with less educated customers, but maybe it could work. The Ti requires a vacuum furnace for stress relief prior to pallet cutoff. That's an expense, another SLM machine dedicated to the powder, and another depowdering machine dedicated to the depowdering of titanium. Then we would also need a laser engraving machine with some kind of shielding gas capability. So many complications of doing titanium properly that aren't there with Nickel superalloys. Many added costs, lower durability, probably more warranty support cost. It's not super attractive from that perspective, but otherwise it is possible. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
Moderate-Length Barrel Evangelist
Joined:
Jun 2022
Posts:
4875
EE: 100% (11)
USA
|
Just an update...ordered the 5-AM on the 30th...contacted by Capital Armory early afternoon on the 1st, and Form 4 was completed and submitted with ATF confirmation about an hour later... This is my first order with Griffin and so far very impressed. Thanks again GreenO |
|
Originally Posted By BlackbirdRider: Just an update...ordered the 5-AM on the 30th...contacted by Capital Armory early afternoon on the 1st, and Form 4 was completed and submitted with ATF confirmation about an hour later... This is my first order with Griffin and so far very impressed. Thanks again GreenO Cool- thanks for your support- I’m glad it’s going smoothly for you. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
Griffin Armament DUAL-LOK 5 AM suppressor test (Page 1 of 4)
Armory Sponsor