Posted: 4/30/2026 10:18:41 AM EDT
I saw the new M4SD-L AM dropped recently, and in the description it mentions the M4SD-3. Tell me more?
|
| This thread Green0 mentions it: https://www.ar15.com/forums/armory/Griffin-Armament-DUAL-LOK-5-AM-suppressor-test/20-561295/?page=1&#i6259080 |
The plane flew, admit you're wrong and get over it.
Moderate-Length Barrel Evangelist
Joined:
Jun 2022
Posts:
4887
EE: 100% (11)
USA
|
The 3 is an HRT5-AM core on m4sd-L style rear mount. The m4SDk AM is a custom core similar to HRT5K, but with front support ring built in to receive the muzzle device front diameter. The L is similar to a Recce 5 AM core, but different for mating with the L rear mount, and it receives a vented front cap- the emphasis was to keep one lighter. The 3 and the L versions really perform awesome each in their own respective categories. The conventional L is a really tame and high performance conventional can. The K is a great performer in a short can on the newer style hammer comp mount (that I tested it on). The older hammer comp performance was near identical(I confirmed that). I have not tested that can on other mounts. It is stupid short at 4.8” ~ |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
This is up today. The NT4 PRG is the most impressive can from an outside company I’ve used so far, and the velos was pretty decent performance also, of course in a 1.75” x 6.75” can that isn’t quite as impressive.  M4SD-3 AM vs KAC® NT4-PRG vs SilencerCo® Velos LBP® | Sound Test Comparison |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
Moderate-Length Barrel Evangelist
Joined:
Jun 2022
Posts:
4926
EE: 100% (11)
USA
|
Originally Posted By 1168RGR: Make A2s great again! Those new NT4s seem good, too. Impressive first round attenuation on that thing. Oh absolutely. Knights must have a lot of hard work in that NT4 PRG. It is the single most impressive can I've tested from another brand so far in this entire new line comparison testing workup. The Velos was slightly behind that IMO. It was also impressive, but at its 1.75" diameter and 6.75" length, that's not as great as what KAC accomplished in their smaller package with even better flash reduction IMO. The NT4 PRG also had better tone than the Velos, and that helps too. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com
|
Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: @Green0 M4sd-k vs hrt k, how do they compare in performance? The HRT5K is better performing. It is very similar, but it is about .5" longer, and it doesn't have the front support inside. The M4SDK is really only like 4.8" oal, and as you delete length, performance fades. The gap isn't enormous but it is a gap related to volume and length of the system more than anything. If you open the two videos and compare their sound performance and ahaah slides you'll see the difference is there. I didn't think a product doing this much better in sound than an MCQ-1 could be meritless to offer, and the can does provide really decent performance considering- and dosing is about like an old NT4, which is to say "good". So The M4SDK made a lot of sense to offer IMO. Also some guys could be running it on a 14.5 or 16" gun and it's going to perform better on longer barrels too. The 12.5" performance I would say was better than a Hux Flow 556K as far as peak sound. The can is less expensive than that, and made of a more durable material. |
Austin, Managing Partner - www.GriffinArmament.com