PDA

View Full Version : Griffin Armament SN-ACH



JGifford
2 August 2015, 06:37
View down the electrical line paralleling the southern border of my property, offset by about 75 yards, this morning:

http://i59.tinypic.com/2zxw6dl.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvgGLMjQWl8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9od-z9PIN0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s47rYcJdFc4

My honest assessment is that the initial high-pressure gasses that "sting" your eyes/face are the same with the Griffin as any of the others. They simply are too fast/of too much volume to meaningfully channel through a 90* bend at the furthest end of the pressure-vessel (upper/lower) You can see this in the videos, as well as my experience with it as an anecdote. The slow gasses, residual back-wash, etc. and some of the high-velocity initial overpressure does go out the right side. It's like a BLAST. The lever doesn't appear to mitigate it much, really, in my video anyway. It then is dissipated by the environment. This may mean you have a big cloud of it just in front of your face blown back into your face, or not. Who knows?

The best I can relate this to is your shower head. If you poke a 1/8" hole in it, will all the other holes cease to put out water? Will you really notice the lack of pressure to them, if the reason you poked that 1/8" hole was that their little streams were too violent? Likely not. Likely, all you will get is MORE water coming out of the shower head. This is about what I experienced. The little streams still flowed too hard, and now there was just more "water", so to speak (total amount of smoke and gas in front of my face).

Personally, I did not find the Griffin SN-ACH to be any real-world improvement over the BCM regarding "gas in face mitigation", and I didn't really bother to play with the mil-spec because who does, who is also considering a $80+ CH?

No, where the Griffin shone was in its finish. It is a VERY well machined and anodized piece. The ambi levers are very pleasant. It's what the Raptor should have been, IMO.

Is it worth the cost of admission? Yes. As much as any other $80+ Ambi CH.
Is it going to change how you perceive shooting with a suppressor? It didn't for me.

As always, I strive for accuracy and honesty from my point of view. Others may perceive more benefit, or less, depending on their rifle.

This is, also, just my initial assessment. I spent a total of 30 rounds between all 3 CH's. Mostly on the BCM and Griffin. I may change my opinion later as I get more time on the Griffin, but I am reserved on how much room for change their is. I experienced what I experienced. Maybe after a few mag dumps a cumulative effect would be noticed, I don't know.

Regardless, the videos speak for themselves, and I just wanted to add my own perception to the technical aspect that the videos provide.

alamo5000
2 August 2015, 07:08
What gun were you shooting with and which suppressor?

JGifford
2 August 2015, 07:42
What gun were you shooting with and which suppressor?

16.1" DDM4 midlength with 0.073" gas port, vltor a5h2, milspec spring, surefire 556-212 suppressor, firing M855 pmc xtac.

GOST
2 August 2015, 17:08
Thanks for the review, it's very well done. Would be nice to see how the SN-ACH does with subsonic ammo.

GRIFFIN ARMAMENT
3 August 2015, 07:47
I could understant the comment on perception. If you are standing next to the rifle you can watch a puff of gas come out that hole. You can see that in your video but it is harder to see in the frame. That hole is probably equal in size to all the other gaps in the upper and charging handle combined so a little more like doubling the holes in a shower head.

When firing full auto my eyes start to water with suppressors and regular charging handles. I noticed a reduction of that and elimination of carbon mustache as a right hand firer. These are small incremental improvements of course. There is not a lot of surface area to work with there. I guess if you combined these features with a hole through forward assist that might be even better.

Vented gas is nice also for reliability as it will carry some fouling with it.

The mp7a1 is an example of terrible gas regulation. A split charging handle sends a jet of gas right into your eye regardless of eye pro. The firer loses vision during a mag dump due to tearing and stinging acidic residue. That helps as a reference for why improvement is nice to pursue. Ultimately it would be great to eliminate distractions allowing the shooter to focus on shooting.

On rainy days or when oil is heavy proper direction can also keep oil and water from being directed into shooters eyes.

JGifford
3 August 2015, 07:54
I could understant the comment on perception. If you are standing next to the rifle you can watch a puff of gas come out that hole. You can see that in your video but it is harder to see in the frame. That hole is probably equal in size to all the other gaps in the upper and charging handle combined so a little more like doubling the holes in a shower head.

When firing full auto my eyes start to water with suppressors and regular charging handles. I noticed a reduction of that and elimination of carbon mustache as a right hand firer. These are small incremental improvements of course. There is not a lot of surface area to work with there. I guess if you combined these features with a hole through forward assist that might be even better.

Vented gas is nice also for reliability as it will carry some fouling with it.

I remain conflicted on this, because as you note, the Griffin Armament handle has equal or more "blow out" from the bottom/LEFT side as the other charging handles. Ignore the right side, and focus on the LEFT...

I have not gotten any sort of carbon mustache. Dumped 3 mags as hard and fast as I could suppressed, while still hitting the target, and did not experience such, with my Badger Ordinance Gen 3, so I cannot comment on that aspect.

I still noticed smoke coming out of the mag when dropped, etc.

Mainly, I feel like you are using 2 tea-cups instead of 1 to bail out the sinking ship. However, I cannot quantify it scientifically, just based on perception, and I feel that many tolerances and functions of the SPECIFIC weapon come into play, there.

GRIFFIN ARMAMENT
3 August 2015, 15:01
Everyone is going to have a different perception of a product. We focused on reducing gas directed into the shooters eyes. In the eyes, combustion gas has chemicals that irritate eyes and temporarily impair vision in worst case senarios. The groove on the bottom is intended to take rearward linear gas and move it sideways at 90 degrees. The hole is located on the ejection port side likewise redirects gas out of line of sight so it is less likely to end up in shooters eyes, whether left or right handed.

I didn't have a problem with the effectiveness of the PRI M84 handles. I feel our handle is as good as, or better than PRI at what the PRI handle is supposed to do which is constructively redirect gas. We brought ambi compatibility and better feel to a product that basically does what 2-3 classes of products do in one product.

JGifford
4 August 2015, 00:17
Everyone is going to have a different perception of a product. We focused on reducing gas directed into the shooters eyes. In the eyes, combustion gas has chemicals that irritate eyes and temporarily impair vision in worst case senarios. The groove on the bottom is intended to take rearward linear gas and move it sideways at 90 degrees. The hole is located on the ejection port side likewise redirects gas out of line of sight so it is less likely to end up in shooters eyes, whether left or right handed.

I didn't have a problem with the effectiveness of the PRI M84 handles. I feel our handle is as good as, or better than PRI at what the PRI handle is supposed to do which is constructively redirect gas. We brought ambi compatibility and better feel to a product that basically does what 2-3 classes of products do in one product.
I have owned the PRI. I, too, believe your product is more cohesive.