AR Sponsor
Posted: 9/25/2014 7:05:37 PM EDT
|
I've been using the AFAB for a while now and always wondered if I should have gone with the Flash Comp.
I've been testing these out all week and wanted to do a quick write up with my thoughts: I have to say the AFAB just looks better in my opinion. It reminds me a bit of the KAC triple tap but with flash suppression prongs. The finish on it is definitely more durable. After dozens of trips to the range, it looks brand new on the outside: 
After three trips to the range, the finish on the flash comp is starting to wear a bit: 
Its difficult to tell with the cell phone pics but the Ionbond is holding up much better than the black oxide. At the range, I tested flash suppression using XM855, and PMC bronze 223 on an overcast day late in the afternoon. The PMC flashes a good amount and was able to use it to compare. The AFAB has the advantage here. The flash appeared contained within the blast chamber until those light conditions, with none spilling out the sides. With the flash comp, a bit of flash could be seen out the ports, somewhat comparable to an A2. Both the Flash Comp and the AFAB showed about the same amount of flash out the front. The XM855 showed the same results, however was muted a bit as it did not flash as much as PMC. Unsurprisingly, blast and noise yielded similar results, although it was not as prevalent. I noticed slightly more blast with the Flash Comp when next to the muzzle, as well as when shooting it next to a wall. However the difference was very subtle, and I doubt I would have noticed had I not been looking for it. I know most people here will care which one controls the muzzle better, unfortunately, I was not able to come with a clear conclusion on that one. The rifles they were mounted on were set up completely differently. The Flash comp was on a 6920 upper using an Vltor A5 buffer system. The AFAB was on an intermediate gas length barrel (KAC SR-15e3 barrel) with a carbine buffer and spring. The rifle with the AFAB was smoother shooting, but no idea how much of that was due to muzzle device. Both rifles held the muzzle at a very neutral height, I couldn't tell the difference between the two. During firing, the reticle moved to the right a bit, but not so much that I couldn't get back on target quickly. This target was shot using both rifles from standing at 50 yards. Rate was fire was easily 1 shot per second, probably a good bit faster, but I didn't have a shot timer. I'm sure a few shots were off paper, but you can clearly see how it grouped. I figured that wasn't bad for blasting at 50 yards. 
Both devices provided very good compensation abilities. I was able to shoot a 16" rifle with a surefire muzzle brake during one of the trips, and it definitely held the muzzle on target better than either of these, but there was significantly more blast, noise, and flash. If I had to choose between the two, it would be the AFAB mostly due to looks.  However, I wouldn't feel at a disadvantage in any way with the Griffin Flash Comp.
Picture of the two side by side for size comparison: 
Precision Armament just came out with the EFAB, which is supposed to be even better than the AFAB, but its more expensive as well as being larger and heavier. The KAC MAMs also comes to mind to compare with these, but I haven't had a chance to try it due to $$$. |
|
Great write up, Lenny. I have the Flash Comp and do see minimal discoloration after shooting.
I also have a post about its flash; the ports keep it level when shooting but do emit a larger flash at night. It wasn't a crescendo fireball but a quick burst. I was able to keep my night vision and NODs not affected (the smoke from my friend shooting hurt the NVGs more than the flash). These are the two best values on the market right now for all around muzzle output. Looking to try the MAMS soon. |
AR Sponsor