Suppressors Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

[HPLLC]

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JKIVoYs9hjE&feature=youtu.be"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JKIVoYs9hjE&feature=youtu.be" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

The video covers a brief history of Griffin Armament / Hearing Protection LLC.

 

[RollingThunder51]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

Griff, what can I say except that was a very well done and sincere video. I have watched as you have generously contributed on the suppressor threads more than almost anybody else. I always read your pieces and, where I may not agree with some of it, it is clear that you fully grasp the majority of what few take the time to even ponder.

This video helped me to better understand where you and your products are coming from. Much appreciated and I wish you success.

You know what I am going to say next, right? Ceramics.

 

[LtDan]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

Very well done. I'm looking for a replacement for my HVT, what's the timeframe for 30 cal units being in stock?

 

[HPLLC]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Griff, what can I say except that was a very well done and sincere video. I have watched as you have generously contributed on the suppressor threads more than almost anybody else. I always read your pieces and, where I may not agree with some of it, it is clear that you fully grasp the majority of what few take the time to even ponder.

This video helped me to better understand where you and your products are coming from. Much appreciated and I wish you success.

You know what I am going to say next, right? Ceramics. </div></div>

Thanks- I know we have had our disagreements but a lot of that is probably due to my being commercially involved.

There are a lot of places for suppressor technology to go, but really in order to exploit technology such as ceramics, a company would either need to be very large like Surefire or Knights Armament, or to have government research grants which are probably not available.

The work would likely be low profit, theoretical work, possibly into a dead end at the cost of potentially one or two hundred thousand dollars minimum.

The NFA climate and its regulations also make such exploratory research difficult due to regulations and the inability to work with every desired company.

It's possible, but it is definitely outside the budget of a small veteran owned company.

 

[HPLLC]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LtDan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Very well done. I'm looking for a replacement for my HVT, what's the timeframe for 30 cal units being in stock? </div></div>

Thanks for your input. We're looking at probably 3 months to finish manufacturing and are collecting payments currently and have been for 2 months. The suppressors we are making offer value far exceeding their cost, so for people in the market they are really not getting as much attention as they should be.

I've heard other companies run on a 2 fold profit margin or better (66% profit) Some much higher. We're working on about 20% margin here because we have to beat the price of the name brand, offer similar quality, and produce in lower volume, but that lower profit margin is what makes the equal quality at lower price and production volume possible. The best prices are associated with the pre-order which closes when we reach sales objectives or when the suppressors are in stock, whichever comes first. At that point we will continue offering prices lower than comparable market models into the future, but at somewhat higher prices than the pre-order prices.

This low margin high quality production concept is relatively recent for our company. In the past we did some stuff that was a cost compromise to be affordable, but I've come to the understanding that people don't want to own, and probably shouldn't have to own a lower quality product even at a lower price. These most current products are sort of a field of dreams, build it and they will come strategy.

The RSTA for example is a product that could be made for less money if it were not an over the barrel product. But I designed it for gas operated .308 guns specifically and they will benefit from reduced back-pressure associated with over the barrel suppressors, because most of these guns aren't built with adjustable gas systems and are optimized for use without suppressors. The over the barrel mounting also moves the center of gravity of these suppressor systems rearward, compared to muzzle mounted suppressors which is something I didn't really appreciate until I'd handled the M110. These products represent higher cost, and higher quality, at a lower price.

 

[crazy-mp]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

Is this more of the higher quality cans your talking about?

I am glad you spit your chew out for this video, that makes you look a little more professional.

 

[EchozRipple]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

Great video. Much respect to you for what you've done and continue to do. The best to you and your future success. I would love to own one of your cans, but I live in the great state of California. So for now it's out of the question. But keep doing what you're doing and hopefully one day soon I will live in a state that will allow it. Thanks!

 

[HPLLC]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CrazyMP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Is this more of the higher quality cans your talking about?

I am glad you spit your chew out for this video, that makes you look a little more professional. </div></div>

I don't actually chew. In the original video you are citing, the guys (Evan and a Sniper buddy) did chew, and we all drank beer.

<span style="font-weight: bold">None of us were making money in the production of that video (no one was paid), and I let the guys do what they wanted to do. We had a good time, and I really don't see any need to apologize for chew or beer.</span>


No. Those were 2008 production- about 25 suppressors, 5 of which went to Army snipers in Iraq as was the point of manufacturing the run. Civilians sales were solely to support economical manufacturing of product for soldiers. Our higher quality stuff is mostly the last years production. Those were good performing suppressors at 32.5DB, but they were ugly. They were sold for $400 and actually cost $425 per unit so I lost $625 on that production run, but that was fine with me because I didn't let my guys down- they got the suppressors they needed.

Our current suppressors improve:
manufacturing techniques
Mounting systems (QD vs thread mounted)
Materials (all 718 inconel baffles as opposed to one as in that product), some 17-4PH which is 3-5 times as strong as 316L SS
Safety factor
Appearance (no visible welds / more aesthetic external design)
Std NFA compliance markings only

 

[HPLLC]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EchozRipple8</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Great video. Much respect to you for what you've done and continue to do. The best to you and your future success. I would love to own one of your cans, but I live in the great state of California. So for now it's out of the question. But keep doing what you're doing and hopefully one day soon I will live in a state that will allow it. Thanks! </div></div>

Hey I appreciate it. I feel for the Californians. I have a lot of friends out there- most of them former Marines. That a veteran of the Fallujah offensive can't own a silencer in his home state, in America, is shame on the government.

 

[-Nick-]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CrazyMP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Is this more of the higher quality cans your talking about?

I am glad you spit your chew out for this video, that makes you look a little more professional. </div></div>

Aesthetic is not important, function is... Does the can work and get the job done efficiently? Can you see the welds at 600 yard, 300 yards, 100 yards? Does whatever your shooting care what it looks like? Was it 1/2 the price of a competitors?


Griff,
Marketing is important, but customer service gets people a LOT farther in this line of business. I never saw an ad for GA Precision, US Optics, Borka, or any number of great businesses that I and others have purchased from, but I sure as hell heard about them from other shooters. Keep working at it and the marketing will develop and grow along with you.

 

[HPLLC]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Aesthetic is not important, function is... Does the can work and get the job done efficiently? Can you see the welds at 600 yard, 300 yards, 100 yards? Does whatever your shooting care what it looks like? Was it 1/2 the price of a competitors?

</div></div>

I appreciate your comments- I also used to think that function was everything, and now I feel that form and function are important. Not that form alone will make the product function better- it won't. We simply live in a world where people judge constantly things based on appearance. So the better product has to also look better.

I sold my KAC NT4 recently.

In truth, I have sentimental desire to own the KAC can, because I used one in the military and it feels like a memory to me.

However, in reality, the M4SD-II outperforms the KAC NT4, looks better than the NT-4, costs less than the NT4, weighs less than the NT-4 and mounts to standard $6 flash hiders, unlike the NT4.

<span style="font-weight: bold">The M4SD II is a better sound suppressor in my opinion. That makes it all the more peculiar to be thanked for selling the used NT-4 for $850 to a customer (no tax reimbursement), when better products are $755 with the NFA tax reimbursement.

But people judge things, and to them, the NT4 is Awesome, and the M4SD-II... they don't understand. </span>

 

[windermike]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

Great video. With an attitude like that how can you do anything but succeed. Thank you for your service. I am waiting on one suppressor right now and as soon as I can scrape a few more nickels together I will give your product a serious look for my next one.

Mike

 

[CastleRocker]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

I recently ordered two suppressors from you (338 and 308), and and I am definately impressed with the one that came in already. (The "big" one).

I don't have it in my hands yet, as I'm still waiting on the paperwork, but I was able to see it. If it works as well as it looks, it will be perfect. Thank you for your service and for the incredible group buy!

Good shooting to you!

 

[HPLLC]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

Thanks guys.

I appreciate it-


---------------------------------------------------------------

<span style="font-weight: bold">Since this weld quality of the 25 unit Bushwacker comment has been a recurrent theme over the years, I figured it was probably time to explain and compare welds. </span>


As stated previously, the Bushwacker suppressor was a 25 unit production run, and we sold them for $400. The Bushwacker is ~32.5DB sound suppressor on a 14.5" M4 carbine. They are strong, and they work. I have shot them side by side with SOF personnel on deployment, and the people present always said the Bushwacker sounded better than the NT-4 (and the NT-4 sounds perfectly great IMO, just not quite as good, and as our $400 unit is not a QD suppressor, it's not really a fair comparison).


The KAC QDSS-NT-4 Retails for $1300-$1500 online from what I can tell VIA Google shopping. The NT-4 is ~29DB sound suppressor on an 14.5" M4 carbine. It is an excellent sound suppressor- DOD has purchased 40,000-60,000 as far as I'm aware, and this comparison is just an effort to confront this argument that low quality welds were used in our product. I've not seen any comments about ugly welds on KAC suppressors that I can recall. I've also not seen anyone suggest that KAC suppressor welds look like a Tech school project. These kinds of arguments have surrounded our suppressor, however and are the reason welds are now dressed in our current/future products such as the BEAST .338LM, RSTA 30 cal, and M4SD-II.

<span style="font-weight: bold">This comparison is valid IMO because both these units have some undressed filler rod TIG welds, where some of the other suppressors on the market have Fusion TIG welds that use no filler rod. Fusion tig will almost always look better than filler rod TIG because no rod is added so the component geometry is controlled by the machined parts. Filler rod TIG welds are typically stronger, despite their lower quality aesthetic appearance.</span>

We'll start with a baseline- our rear cap filler rod weld. This is an actual picture of an actual unit I had my hands on TODAY- not a potentially photoshopped picture from the internet used to smear our products.

Our welder was a 20 year journeyman subcontracted for the job, so I'll sustain that whatever isn't pretty about this weld is probably related to my design geometry not being ideal for welding with good appearance. This weld was TIG fusion welded at the root, with a second pass using filler rod, so that we could get 100% of the .125" thick material welded, and then some given the filler rod is ~.01" high of the rear of the unit. It also has been spot faced and there is a slight burr on the non-critical outside edge of the spotfaced area.

To start we'll compare the rear cap weld to the tube- this is probably TIG fusion welded without rod so it's not completely apples to apples.

Here are the front cap welds of the KAC product. These look like TIG fusion welds without rod also.

This image shows the Filler Rod welds that turn the bent perforated sheet metal into the "Girdle". Also visible are some of the resistance spot fusion welds of the baffles to the tube (these are under the girdle). The resistance fusion spot weld is similar to technology used in the Auto industry for assembling stamped panels into doors- etc if I'm not mistaken.

There is a single small spot weld on the girdle adjacent the fusion welds that might be where the flash hider indexing pin hole was drilled and the pin installed (or might not)- at any rate it looks like a weld.

This image shows the girdle from the front of the suppressor. Evident here is that the girdle is not concentric to the tube. Spacing on the left side is about .010". Spacing on the right side is about .03-.045". The filler rod welds on the front of the girdle are not all similar in length.

 

[crazy-mp]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

Why don't you make the exterior without any external welds? It seems like that would be the easiest way to solve that problem. I have seen several suppressors that have the inside of the tube threaded, then the end cap is Rocksett in.

Just because another company does not care about the appearance of their product does not mean you have to sink to that level too.

 

[HPLLC]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CrazyMP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why don't you make the exterior without any external welds? It seems like that would be the easiest way to solve that problem. I have seen several suppressors that have the inside of the tube threaded, then the end cap is Rocksett in.

Just because another company does not care about the appearance of their product does not mean you have to sink to that level too.

</div></div>

<span style="font-weight: bold">Our Current M4SD II and RSTA will have no visible welds, by virtue of post process machining operations.</span>

KAC only concerned themselves with durability and performance, and that was all the DOD needed or cared about. It made them Millions of dollars and kept our troops well supplied.

The major compromises KAC made were in aesthetic appearance, smaller compromises in manufacturing techniques for cost effective production, and those are areas that can be improved, but not without added cost.

It is more expensive to weld and turn the outside of the unit clean after welding, but that way the sound suppressor is one aesthetically perfect, monolithic unit, transferring thermal energy rapidly from hotter component geometry to cooler component geometry. Transferring energy to the outer tube and allowing it to dissipate into the atmosphere makes a sound suppressor more durable by virtue of keeping the component heat normalized at a lower temperature over the lifespan of the device.

<span style="font-weight: bold">So thread assembly is a good cost effective means of achieving a pretty product, but it is an inferior assembly method as it pertains to product strength, durability, and service life. </span>Some companies weld at two ends of the tube, and this too is a compromise with regard to cooling efficiency.

A blast baffle might weigh .75 ounces as an example. This component is relatively quickly heated and damaged in aggressive use without effective thermal pathways for cooling. Once welded effectively over a great amount of surface area, the same blast baffle has the greater cooling mass of the entire 18.5 ounce sound suppressor. Rather than a 4.5 ounce mounting system that is DEAD WEIGHT, the 4.5 ounce mount is a massive and effective heat sink for pulling off excess thermal energy.

I once saw a picture ADCO took of an OPS Inc sound suppressor bore after a lot of full auto use- the ring around the aperture of the blast baffle was glowing red- probably from the effect of unburned powder abrasion- This demonstrates the concept- that critical material at the bore aperture had reached a higher temperature than the rest of the unit, and had sustained that long enough to be photographed. Effective thermal pathways work to remove that heat before it compromises component strength, allowing the unit to be damaged.

The Ops is a fairly durable unit, with baffles welded to spacers and other baffles, but not to the tube. The Surefire is another similar design. It is a design more durable than most, however it still insulates the core to an extent because carbon on the walls of the suppressor tube body insulate, and contact of core spot welds to carbon lined outer tubing isn't as efficient at moving heat as welded contact to the outer tube such as KAC.

 

[crazy-mp]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

There is no question about pressures or how hot a suppressor can get, you can melt a suppressor if you have enough ammo. If you want to increase surface area go to a thicker walled tubing and add flutes, dimples or a unique design like Thompson Machine did with there "Zombie" or bio-hazard can where it makes a textured surface.

Turning a exterior weld down will not hurt the suppressor in performance, but improper welds such as amps being too high or feed rate being too slow can hurt the suppressor, I have seen warped tubes from manufacturers getting the tube hot, the suppressor shoots just fine, but when you put the suppressor in a lathe it has a noticeable wobble.

***Photos are from tenpound monkey, not my pics***

 

[DP425]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

I am no expert welder- shoot, FAR from it. But I did take some classes...

I could care less if welds have been dressed or not- Actually, seeing a weld with nice penetration and no porosity just goes to tell me the product is well assembled. Some people will never get over the "looks" of a product. But as they say, form follows function... make it work, make it reliable, make it strong... you don't have to make it beautiful.

Well... apparently for some people you do...

 

[crazy-mp]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

So I guess this is not considered a well made end cap because there are no welds showing?

 

[DP425]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CrazyMP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

So I guess this is not considered a well made end cap because there are no welds showing?

</div></div>

Okay since you have a problem with reading comprehension... did I say welds <span style="text-decoration: underline">must</span> be showing to know it's well made? No- I said being ABLE TO SEE good welds would indicate it's well made. That does not mean nor imply that not seeing good welds indicate it's poorly made. It means only what it is read to mean... nothing more, nothing less.

Besides, that's a removable end cap- if there were welds it would kind of defeat the purpose don't you think?

You are obviously that type person I was talking about who must have something pretty above all else; I can't think of any other reason you would distort what I said.

WTF is your problem anyway?

 

[RollingThunder51]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

Before we go spinning off like a top, there is absolutely nothing wrong with seeing welds. It all depends on the materials, application and owners wants. Plenty of contract cans have very visible welds, they look little better than a cheap muffler.

There is a full spectrum of welding and finishing out there.



In titanium, deep penetration welding can allow for some remarkable finish work without in any way compromising the structural integrity of the can. In fact, in Ti there are very real harmonics and frequency advantageous to deep 100% circumferential welding. It all depends on the application and the willingness to spend $$$.

Fully sealed 6.8 titanium can.

 

[HPLLC]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

The AWC suppressor is a great example of a welded product that gets the benefit of rapid cooling, greater strength and durability, without a poor surface finish. That's exactly what I'm talking about here.

I agree with Rollingthunder- there is nothing wrong with visible welds, but aesthetic machining, while expensive and less than critical, will result in a better looking product.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CrazyMP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I have seen warped tubes from manufacturers getting the tube hot, the suppressor shoots just fine, but when you put the suppressor in a lathe it has a noticeable wobble.
</div></div>

I had two of the Advanced Armament Corporation 7.62SD's that Larue had a rant about with an indicator. They had bores .055" eccentric at the front cap and would spin with a lot of runout as they were put on the adaptor. They worked fine, but obviously aesthetically suffered and AAC has made changes to their welding process to reduce the warpage.

Regarding your question about the obviously thread assembled suppressor with no obvious construction welds:

This argument is only applicable if the suppressor is a centerfire suppressor (as we are talking about centerfire suppressors). It probably works fine (it is rather large), but a by-product of not being welded is inferior strength to weight ratio, poor cooling rate, and reduced durability over suppressors of equal size and weight for the same caliber.

This isn't crap I just dreamed up. I tested a thread assembled suppressor for heating in 90 rounds of full auto fire, and cooling over 1 minute on a 10.5" 5.56mm barrel.

930F peak and 70F of cooling in one minute.

The same day a fully welded suppressor got 120 rounds of full auto fire and the same test on a 10.5" barrel.

1180F peak and ~400F of cooling in one minute.

The welded suppressor was cooled to 200F in 7-8 minutes total time. The non welded suppressor took ~22 minutes to get there (lower peak temp, longer cooling time).

<span style="font-weight: bold">That is significant in that it means the thread assembled unit would tolerate ~6 rounds per minute sustained, where the welded suppressor could possibly tolerate as high as 40 rounds per minute sustained. </span>

The reason for choosing 90 rounds was that I was not interested in destroying the thread mounted suppressor- but even at 90 rounds the blast baffle was pretty cauliflowered up compared to the 120 round welded unit which had barely sustained visible wear.

Both of these tests were abusive, but they do illustrate that welding helps suppressors cool, and that welding reduces wear.

 

[crazy-mp]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body">



Besides, that's a removable end cap- if there were welds it would kind of defeat the purpose don't you think?

You are obviously that type person I was talking about who must have something pretty above all else; I can't think of any other reason you would distort what I said.

WTF is your problem anyway? </div></div>

My problem is you are wrong plain and simple, that is <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">NOT </span></span> a removable end cap, that picture was a illustration (means example) of another manufacturing method that does not require welding.

If you can remove that end cap with a spanner wrench, you can also open fire mains with your bare hands and take car lug nuts off with 2 fingers.

 

[DP425]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CrazyMP</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body">



Besides, that's a removable end cap- if there were welds it would kind of defeat the purpose don't you think?

You are obviously that type person I was talking about who must have something pretty above all else; I can't think of any other reason you would distort what I said.

WTF is your problem anyway? </div></div>

My problem is you are wrong plain and simple, that is <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">NOT </span></span> a removable end cap, that picture was a illustration (means example) of another manufacturing method that does not require welding.

If you can remove that end cap with a spanner wrench, you can also open fire mains with your bare hands and take car lug nuts off with 2 fingers. </div></div>

Well, it certainly appears removable... if it's not, then I'm wrong- it isn't the first time. That however isn't really important; that fact that you're having a problem with your reading comprehension is the issue.

 

[KYS]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

You're wasting your breath. This CrazyMP guy has been here for 3 months and already trying to challenge everyone and everything.


Have a drink and relax, dude.

 

[KYS]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CrazyMP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

So I guess this is not considered a well made end cap because there are no welds showing?

</div></div>

Why are there spanner wrench attachment points but yet it is not removable? What is this new fan-dangled manufacturing process you speak of?! Was it developed by TMSA?!

 

[RollingThunder51]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

Some important points being raised.

Suppressors can be constructed through a variety of means. You would be amazed at the creativity employed by builders at almost every price point.

Cans can be welded, tacked, glued, torqued, crimped, screwed, pinned, etc.

The photo above, the one of the end cap showing no visible signs of being a "sealed" or welded can appears to employ a transition technique that started in the 70s. In the 70's Sionics had come to the conclusion that whereas cans could be user serviceable, not every user had the..how shall I say this?...skills to properly reassemble the internal stack. What did they do? They torqued the end cap on very tight and used industrial adhesives (high temp) to hopefully keep out users. Many would be astonished to see how many cans are still essentially glued today. It is not rare.

For anything that is going to see lots of unplated bullets going through it, especially .22s, there is an argument that at least the first couple of chambers should be accessible. Having said that, I personally have seen .22 sealed cans still operating with 45,000 rounds through them and doing a good job. Again it depends on what you are putting through them and, most importantly the stack purge characteristics. I have strong feelings about centerfire cans coming apart.

Folks, the most expensive operation on the floor is welding, especially in the more exotic materials. As a result, many shops want to limit or avoid it altogether. When welded, it is a matter of market targeting as to what constitutes the right finish..the strength always has to be there. Many of us have had, or are aware of the loose baffle, broken/cracked spot weld, etc. In many ways, when it comes to welding, you get what you pay for.


All these a welded end caps. All function in there duties. They are very different price points. They have very different suppression values.

 

[HPLLC]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Many of us have had, or are aware of the loose baffle, broken/cracked spot weld, etc. In many ways, when it comes to welding, you get what you pay for.
</div></div>

If you take a look at a the Sound Tech 50 caliber suppressor in the photo here:

The X-ray shows evidence of as many as ~8 spot welds on a baffle. The larger image prior to posting is easier to see. The second baffle has 3 visible welds in a pattern that would suggest 8 on the circumference). No Tube Spacers for secondary support.

The stress on those 8 welds will be pretty severe, even for chrome moly steel which is a stronger material that stainless steel.

When there are weld failures, as you are describing, they are mostly going to be the result of weak welding plans and design inadequacies such as the omission of supporting tube without an adequate number of supporting welds.

The Ops and Surefire designs on top use 8 Tig filler rod spot welds per baffle/spacer combination. The key there being they did use spacers and don't depend on 8 spot welds to secure the baffle alone. This is where Surefire gets the marketing term "redundant welds". There are other companies making suppressors with baffles and spacers that have no welds.

Other companies will say fully welded when they are only Tig welding end caps, or laser welding end caps.

<span style="font-weight: bold">You don't get what you pay for, because some of these two circumferential weld companies 5.56 cans are as high as $1200! </span>

You get what you buy, and what the manufacturer paid for. With Surefire or Ops Inc, that's as 95-125 welds. (not a cheap welding plan)

With KAC that's ~70-80 welds (given the high surface area of KAC's weld configuration, this is a very strong welding plan).

Individual welds are not very expensive (maybe $5 for a pair of circumferential welds), but when the welding configuration reaches 80-100+ individual welds, that small cost per weld compounds to a significant overall cost. Our product has an extensive welding plan that is a significant cost per unit. We're not welding 2 caps and calling our product fully welded.

 

[RollingThunder51]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

Turning into one hell of a thread, Griff.

Here is the problem I have. If I start talking about the cans above in detail, explaining the very real differences between multi-spot and true 100% circumferential, or say the very real difference between gas jet interaction with stamped, formed, pierced, off axis discs as compared to a fully machine fashioned, face featured, gas porting redirecting conicals, or the very real difference between the flight accuracy we can expect from at least four of the different gas interruptions, dwells and redirects seen above, or the forward purge characteristics or complete lack thereof for heat and/or particulate, all hell is going to break loose.

I'll cede the point that some companies charge too much for too little. And that you are right that there are cans out there that are mind numbingly inadequate.

So, backing up to the door, I'll suggest that the welding I was talking about as to why one gets what they pay for would best be summed up by this grossly unfair comparison.....

Spot vs true 100% (at the time of this ad, already used by others for 13 years)

 

[HPLLC]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Spot vs true 100% (at the time of this ad, already used by others for 13 years)
</div></div>

But then there are advantages to spot welding. Those are reduction of stresses imparted to the suppressor that would influence it to warp when heated. This is directly reflected in the number of military precision shooters who swear by Surefire suppressors (including the Marine Corps, people in the Army Sniper program, and people in SOF)

When AAC ran that ad, they weren't being very fair in that they had torture tested and dissected the Surefire product prior to the comparison photo with the new AAC product.

AAC has a good method from what I understand- fusion welding thin components without filler rod, using a robot, allows them to reduce per unit welding cost and welding time substantially as there is no need to buy filler metal, no need for an expensive, skilled operator once the machine is set up, and no wasted manufacturing time, which also translates to minimal argon gas useage.

As I stated before, I had one of their first circumferentially welded suppressors (the 7.62 SD) and it had a bore .055" out of true at the front cap. This if anything demonstrates the capacity for the circumferential welded assembly process to result in significant runout.

As it pertains to units in actual use, I con't see any evidence that Surefire is an inferior product. Thermal pathway issues sustained, the Surefire tube as far as I know is 625 inconel- a material with 2-3 times the yield strength of 316L stainless steel at high temperatures 1200-1600F. So while the Surefire gets hotter faster, it probably can sustain those temperatures, and cooling probably is assisted by the temperature gradient which is more severe at 1600F than at ~1200F which would probably be a more safe operating temperature for the AAC product.

The only residual negative of the hotter product is that it has a greater IR and visible light signature under high fire schedule operating parameters. So even when the suppressor is made of more durable materials, higher heat and less efficient cooling is less desireable.

 

[RollingThunder51]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

Griff, I am trying hard here not to use names and stated right at the onset that it was a visual aid only. You are correct in your observation of that ad.

IMO we have to be careful here. As you and I have discussed, a can made for a high firing schedule is different from a can made for, say, a precision low firing schedule. There is so much at play here, so many variables, the material of the envelope, its thickness, the penetration of the welding employed, heat pathing, etc. etc. etc.

It would be a mistake, imo, to suggest that circumferential welding is weaker or less bore accurate. Even when confronted with your very real run out experience. Its all in the set-up, the skill of the programmer, or welder, QC, etc.

All your points are well taken. I was just trying to explain to folks that seeing welds is ok, that welds are more expensive than screwing, adhesives, crimps, pins, etc. and that within welding there are many different types for many different materials and applications.

I know of cans that the welding has to be done by hand in 20 second intervals, hugely expensive. I also know of aluminum cans with crimped over end caps. There is a huge spectrum out there.

 

[HPLLC]

Re: Brief History of Griffin Armament/HP LLC.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

It would be a mistake, imo, to suggest that circumferential welding is weaker or less bore accurate. Even when confronted with your very real run out experience. Its all in the set-up, the skill of the programmer, or welder, QC, etc.

All your points are well taken. I was just trying to explain to folks that seeing welds is ok, that welds are more expensive than screwing, adhesives, crimps, pins, etc. and that within welding there are many different types for many different materials and applications.

I know of cans that the welding has to be done by hand in 20 second intervals, hugely expensive. I also know of aluminum cans with crimped over end caps. There is a huge spectrum out there. </div></div>

Absolutely- I wasn't intending to suggest circ weld assembly can't be done with accuracy or without warpage. I was just suggesting that my experience suggested what other engineers and experts have also raised as concerns - Circumferential welding as a means of assembly provides a benefit but at a cost of a whole set of potential issues.

Expensive heat treatments can reduce stresses, and careful programming changes can reduce warpage, but in the process the company is forced with a decision to scrap $500 weldments, or to sell cosmetically flawed products that represent part of a development program and that's what the AAC suppressors I mentioned represented IMO.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Oh absolutely- any welding is going to be expensive.

Unlike threaded assembly:
It can create scrap
It requires a skilled tradesman, and equipment
Consumables will be used
Welds may need to be dressed to make customers happy and this is additional machining.
Often process controls will cost money- parts that could have been one peration parts will become 2 operation parts.
Instead of welding that cap to machining tolerances you will have to weld it, and machine it to tolerance afterward.
Instead of machining the baffle bore (cheap), the bore will need to be EDM cut after welding.

Welding isn't a cost saving measure as it pertains to sound suppressors- IT IS A VALUE AND PERFORMANCE ENHANCING FEATURE. </span>

 

[LongArm]

They are awesome guys! I buy Griffin products!

 

[mildot326]

I contacted them directly about there flash/comp,they gave me a great deal and were awesome to deal with, I really like the flash/comp. Keep up the good work.