-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Griffin Enhanced Gas Pocket BCG
- Thread starter Ichi
- Start date
Do you have to use their tube and shortened buffer or can you just drop the bcg in? I tried to listen to that podcast but didn’t make it through, pretty boring and they wouldn’t get to the point.
The carrier itself is completely compatible with regular milspec parts.
From what I gathered the spring and buffer option allows for a slightly longer 'stroke' of the carrier. With the 5.56 bolt (ie the whole package including the buffer and spring) it has a longer stroke of the carrier and the bolt itself so it results in a delayed opening (so the bolt is not opening at peak pressure).
Also the cam pin and firing pin are proprietary. The cam pin they made has a lot more 'meat' on it so it reduces breaking a lot better.
Like I said before though, you can use any buffer and bolt combo, ie you can drop in your own cam pin and bolt (and firing pin) and it still works fine. In other words it's all reverse compatible with everything mil spec. That said another benefit of their bolt is it can run forever without any gas rings. It's a ring less design, however if you have gas rings installed it works better for pure sound reduction purposes.
The other stuff has benefits (ie their bolt and cam pin), but the primary sound reduction comes from the location of the ports on the carrier itself being put on the left side of the carrier instead of the right.
If I recall correctly just by having the ports on the left it reduces the right ear noise by a lot BUT it's dependent on the gas system length. The shorter it gets the less effect it has on reduction of right ear noise.
Rifle length gas= roughly -10DB right ear noise reduction.
Middy= -8DB right ear noise reduction.
Carbine length= -3DB right ear reduction.
Pistol length= no difference/benefit for noise reduction.
I agree. I watched it twice. Once when I half ass listened and once after I got home from work when I could pay direct attention.
They do need to condense everything into a shorter promo video. I agree with that for sure.
You don't have to use anything else other than obviously the carrier itself for the primary sound reduction.
Their bolt and other parts have other benefits, one of which is a delayed opening which is achieved through two additional travel lengths. One is the carrier itself travels farther back by like .25". Their bolt in conjunction with that also has a delayed opening and longer travel stroke.
Those are designed to open the bolt a little bit later so that it's not opening up under peak pressure.
There are several other options as well to the whole package, but all of them are optional. The actual carrier is reverse compatible with anything mil spec so you can get it with the whole package or just the carrier.
Another thing they mentioned that I will paraphrase is that in the past they noticed some weird things over the years of testing other products.
One of which was they were testing a muzzle device (years ago) so they shot the gun a bunch with the bare muzzle. It metered as expected in the high 160's. But when they added a particular muzzle device that had some sort of small ports as part of the design, they noticed that those small ports increased muzzle noise to the low to mid 170's.
In other words, small ports increased the sound signature even though they were small.
Flash forward to this and those little ports on the right side of a regular carrier are increasing port noise just by virtue of them exiting in that format.
Moving those ports to the opposite side and changing their shape creates a baffle and pressure expansion effect for the eject port gas/noise levels.
They also said they ran rifles 3,000+ rounds without cleaning and it had no difference in reliability or function even though gas was being dumped directly into the upper receiver and magazine.
That said I would probably start wiping my mags down every so often, at very least to minimize a mess of carbon from prolonged use.
One of which was they were testing a muzzle device (years ago) so they shot the gun a bunch with the bare muzzle. It metered as expected in the high 160's. But when they added a particular muzzle device that had some sort of small ports as part of the design, they noticed that those small ports increased muzzle noise to the low to mid 170's.
In other words, small ports increased the sound signature even though they were small.
Flash forward to this and those little ports on the right side of a regular carrier are increasing port noise just by virtue of them exiting in that format.
Moving those ports to the opposite side and changing their shape creates a baffle and pressure expansion effect for the eject port gas/noise levels.
They also said they ran rifles 3,000+ rounds without cleaning and it had no difference in reliability or function even though gas was being dumped directly into the upper receiver and magazine.
That said I would probably start wiping my mags down every so often, at very least to minimize a mess of carbon from prolonged use.
I just thought of this but you can probably draw a rough equivalent of the total package of bolt/spring/buffer to the rough equivalent of a roller delayed system (if you want it).
It's not mandatory though as everything is completely compatible with mil spec parts.
It's not mandatory though as everything is completely compatible with mil spec parts.
The carrier only option has the standard mil-spec cam path and dwell. There is no change in the carrier travel length. The complete BCG requires their bolt because the cam path is longer and the cam pin is smaller. The complete BCG requires a shorter buffer otherwise the bolt hold open would not function.
SureFire sold an enhanced carrier designed by Jim Sullivan. It had a longer cam path to increase dwell. Jim was trying to create a constant recoil system for the AR15. LMT also has an enhanced carrier with slightly longer dwell but it relies more on gas venting primarily, they are not trying to change dwell for recoil or sound purposes. The GA BCG combines the KAK vent change strategy with SureFire's longer dwell to reduce sound signature and cyclic rate.
Surefires OBC cam path.... you might find this interesting.
https://m4carbine.net/t/surefire-bolt-carrier-group-analysis/326076
Griffin Enhanced Gas Pocket AR-15 BCG
Griffin Armament is an industry leading manufacturer of suppressors, firearms, and parts for discriminating end users
www.griffinarmament.com
The description on the website is a good summary. This looks interesting but wonder if it pushes more gas back to the shooter's face. I'll wait and see how they work before buying one. If you guys don't mind, post up your thoughts after shooting it.
Griffin Enhanced Gas Pocket AR-15 BCG
Griffin Armament is an industry leading manufacturer of suppressors, firearms, and parts for discriminating end users
The description on the website is a good summary. This looks interesting but wonder if it pushes more gas back to the shooter's face. I'll wait and see how they work before buying one. If you guys don't mind, post up your thoughts after shooting it.
I just ordered one for 16" rifle gas 6 ARC and one for an 18" rifle gas for a 223 wylde
I'll let you know what my opinion is. I don't have any measuring equipment for gas or sound but I can give my subjective opinions on it and compare it to a Lantac enhanced carrier that has the vent holes on the other side of the carrier
The cam path map overlay is interesting. There are some errors in there though. The OBC reduces rate of fire by around 10%, which was SF/Sullivan's objective. It seemed like a long way to go for not a lot of return. I would also like to know what, if any, impact the longer stroke length has on the BHO durability/longevity.
Rubber City Armory (RCA) adjustable gas keys work really well for $40 .. just saying
Yes. It does work well for regulating the amount of gas at the carrier location
Some may view the biggest benefit of of the Griffin carrier as lowering the db level at the shooter's ear. 10 db's less at the shooter's ear seems too good to be true. The carrier by itself comes out to about $150 if you use the discount codes you can find. Yes, a little high. But upgraded materials and it is over-sized or flared in the rear section for an accuracy / precision oriented 16" rifle gas 6 arc setup made it a buy plus the added benefit of hopefully a significant db reduction at my ear for night time hunting / training without ear pro
i worry about that it will make ammo and magazines even filthier than they already get when shooting suppressed with a standard carrier
I agree. It's cool they went 3000 rounds with no malfunctions, but why dump it into the system more than it already does? Hell, after a few hundred rounds (+500) with CFE 223 or other dirty powders, that good old Geissele SSA-E stops feelings as crisp.
There's a good thread on the enhanced carrier over on ARFcom, where one of the brothers gives some info and answers questions. I reckon I'm going to pick one of the carriers up to try in one of my ARCs to see how it does on that setup, if it's as effective as it sounds (estimate for the carrier alone was 9 dB) then I'll probably be in for a few more.
Ok. Let's rewind here.
Let's assume you have an AR-15. Let's also assume you have a suppressor.
Now just for conversation let's say your suppressed muzzle produces 138DB every time. At the same time, at the ejection port (where the used brass flings out) it produces 142 DB of noise every time you shoot.
Now let's assume you changed nothing else on the rifle at all except for swapping out your current bolt carrier group and you changed it out with this one being discussed here.
Now, without any other modifications, when you shoot a bullet the muzzle noise is 138DB still, BUT at the ejection port that is right by the shooter's right ear, the recorded sound is now 132DB on each shot.
No new NFA items. No waiting for tax stamps. Your rifle still functions exactly like a normal semi auto rifle.
So to join the conversation please start there. That's what this entire thread is about.
this thread is about $150 new tech that once installed you’ll still be wearing ear pro . I’m saving $150 . But whoever else gets one I hope it’s the best thing you’ve ever bought for $150
For me, I'm hunting more and more with suppressed ARs, and I usually don't use ear pro for the one or two shots while hunting. If I can get a 9 dB (~64%) reduction in sound pressure at my right ear and less gas to the face with a carrier swap, that's worth $150 for me to try. I'm probably going to pick up a low back pressure can for $1400 in the next couple of months to try to do something similar for my ARs, so....
Actually that's your choice to not purchase, but at the same time no one asked if you wanted to or not at least not with that attitude.
In the event that you don't want to buy something generally speaking the etiquette for threads is to give a thoughtful response as to why not or why it doesn't apply to you. That kind of stuff is actually very valuable in threads because a lot of the time it leads by example because it's done in a way to critically analyze a particular thing.
For someone brand new or maybe even not brand new that's where a lot of learning takes place. That is provided it's done in a decent way.
I have one on the way now, so I'll have to go do some side by side yard pops when it gets here swapping the carrier with a standard one to see how it compares.
It’s like someone looked at every enhanced carrier ever offered then combined it all into one product.
What caught my eye was the gas rings "intruding" into the larger diameter space.
If you mean what I meant which is going out and taking a few shots side by side at the house instead of running down to the shooting range, it was last week. Why do you ask?
Yep. That's what has me interested. Supported carrier tail, improved carrier material, and plasma nitriding the bolt (which won't mess with temper). Definitely going to try one out. I don't own a suppressor (yet), but this still has benefits.
Got mine a few minutes ago. I got just the carrier without any of the other stuff. For a quick and dirty test, I swapped the bolt to the new carrier and shot exactly 12 full power rounds through a 16" AR in 5.56.
It's unquestionably quieter. For shooter hearing protection this is a must have (based on my 12 rounds so far). There was zero discomfort and zero (even minor) ear ringing. That said, an AR is still loud, but I would say you could probably shoot a 30 round mag without ear protection with no real issues.
Again, 16" AR-15 with 55gr ammo. 12 test shots, zero ear protection, zero ear ringing, zero discomfort. If anything the LEFT ear is a slight bit louder but not by much.
I will try my 6ARC tomorrow when I have more time. Plus that one has a longer gas system.
From first impressions in a 10 minute test, definitely worth it.
It's unquestionably quieter. For shooter hearing protection this is a must have (based on my 12 rounds so far). There was zero discomfort and zero (even minor) ear ringing. That said, an AR is still loud, but I would say you could probably shoot a 30 round mag without ear protection with no real issues.
Again, 16" AR-15 with 55gr ammo. 12 test shots, zero ear protection, zero ear ringing, zero discomfort. If anything the LEFT ear is a slight bit louder but not by much.
I will try my 6ARC tomorrow when I have more time. Plus that one has a longer gas system.
From first impressions in a 10 minute test, definitely worth it.
The only thing I would ask the guys at Griffin is when they were planning on modifying one of these for tailored use on a shortie.
As for now, I'm definitely impressed. And keep in mind I tested at the middle of the capabilities of the carrier, IE with a shorter gas system rifle. If the marketing is correct I will get another 3-4 DB reduction in the longer rifle.
As for now, I'm definitely impressed. And keep in mind I tested at the middle of the capabilities of the carrier, IE with a shorter gas system rifle. If the marketing is correct I will get another 3-4 DB reduction in the longer rifle.
I put the 30 round comment because I m not a doctor. I don't know enough about hearing to make a qualified statement on it. A 16" AR is still loud but a lot of that was sonic crack I assume. Spending a day with no ear protection would probably be questionable, but I personally think I would try to keep it within reasonable limits.
In 30 rounds or something like that, there wouldn't be any type of ear ringing. If anything, my left ear might have a minor amount of sound exposure but that could be because I was standing about 3 feet from a metal barn when I tested it.
In 30 rounds or something like that, there wouldn't be any type of ear ringing. If anything, my left ear might have a minor amount of sound exposure but that could be because I was standing about 3 feet from a metal barn when I tested it.
Thanks, that is my concern. I'm not understanding where this gas is going I guess. Waiting to see how this works out before I jump on it.
Shooting suppressed dumps gas and crud back into the receiver and magazine. Full stop.
90%++ of that has zero to do with the gas system or gas tube. For example, in an imaginary scenario you have a pipe with vents on each end. Now pump that pipe full of air to 50,000 psi.
Which end does the gas escape from first? (Bonus points for explaining why).
Long story short in a total worst case scenario this new BCG would increase the amount of gas/crud by single digit percentages.
If you could figure out the absolute volume of an 18" AR barrel vs the absolute max volume of the gas tube, that's kind of a rough comparison (not perfect but just for illustration purposes).
While I get the question/sentiment about extra gas in the receivers, in reality the 'amount' of the difference can be more than offset by different brands of ammo or powder types.
In other words if you run a traditional BCG with dirty gas ammo, your gun will be way more dirty that way than "adding 10%" with a bit cleaner of ammo.
In short, show me the inside of any suppressed AR-15 ever fired by anyone in all of history and tell me if the inside is clean or not.
90%++ of that has zero to do with the gas system or gas tube. For example, in an imaginary scenario you have a pipe with vents on each end. Now pump that pipe full of air to 50,000 psi.
Which end does the gas escape from first? (Bonus points for explaining why).
Long story short in a total worst case scenario this new BCG would increase the amount of gas/crud by single digit percentages.
If you could figure out the absolute volume of an 18" AR barrel vs the absolute max volume of the gas tube, that's kind of a rough comparison (not perfect but just for illustration purposes).
While I get the question/sentiment about extra gas in the receivers, in reality the 'amount' of the difference can be more than offset by different brands of ammo or powder types.
In other words if you run a traditional BCG with dirty gas ammo, your gun will be way more dirty that way than "adding 10%" with a bit cleaner of ammo.
In short, show me the inside of any suppressed AR-15 ever fired by anyone in all of history and tell me if the inside is clean or not.
The main thing about this BCG is that the carrier itself has a pocket on the side of it. The ports are one thing, but that pocket is equally important. That pocket provides an expansion chamber so to speak BEFORE that gas is released into the atmosphere. It's like a step in between being fully contained and being dumped directly into the outside air.
Typically what causes a big boom is when you have 3,500 degrees F hot gas being dumped directly in the 50 degrees F outside air.
I don't think a product like this will have any bearing on gas to the face. There are probably 100 other much more significant factors inherent to the specific gun and ammo that contributes to gas face.
No offense intended at all... but given KAK's testing about gas to the face differences with their K-Spec BCG and a standard BCG, I can't help but wonder if the Griffin Enhanced BCG will do the same thing.
So again no offense intended, but why do you think it wouldn't help in context to gas to the face.
Thank you ahead of time.
KAK's K-Spec....
Last edited:
KAK was so close to achieving this level of innovation and then gave up at coating and porting. As a company, I like them better than Griffin, but there's no denying this thing's potential
My extensive research about the KAK product started about 10:35am (today) when I initially heard about that product. Can you share what their conclusions were so I don't have to dig through 800 pages of the WWW to figure it out?
As far as regular old gas to the face (and how to minimize it) has a whole lot of factors that cause it, hence relying on a single product from a different company to offset issues that are the combination of everything else in a particular rifle isn't a good approach at all. In fact a lot of the products that people complain about in regards to gas issues were designed 20+ years ago and were designed to conquer certain problems but on the other hand they didn't even address some of the other issues that people would complain about now.
For example if you got a suppressor 25 years ago you were already a rarity and would probably be strutting around like Jamiroquai just by virtue of ownership alone. Literally no one was asking about flow through technology geared towards primary use on an AR-15 at the time.
Point being is you cannot expect a bolt carrier group or a charging handle to offset the original problem there. The parts are not always optimized to work together best, especially when a specific goal is desired.
In other words there is a thing called "tolerance stacking" and while we are not specifically talking about physical manufacturing procedures or physical measurements in this post the concept still exists. For example if you have an old gassy suppressor and then you pair that with a barrel that may or may not have a less than optimal gas port, you are essentially compounding the problem in terms of say wanting less gas in the face. The thing is each of those things might be legendary in a good way on their own but either they might not play with each other very well or they never even considered the effect of gas face when designing any of them.
You can literally go from tip to tail on a rifle and come up with optimal or less optimal parts or combinations of parts to get to a goal. All that being said, there are the Internet ninjas that have a gun with a whole host of other issues that all contribute to the stated problem (in this case gas face). Those same people will then buy a charging handle and when it doesn't fix everything else, they get pissed off and start saying something like "it doesn't work! Total scam!" or something else along those lines when talking about that charging handle they bought.
There are also quite variable factors that are not always hardware related. Ammo type is a massive example. If you put 87 octane straight from the 7-11 into a formula 1 car, what happens? If no one was willing to consider the fuel choice, you could have that car taken apart and put back together 100 times and still not know what the problem is. Some people however experience this type of thing but come to the conclusion that "formula 1 cars suck".
Rate of fire is another variable. If you fire fast enough it will generate more gas. This is compounded if you shoot on a calm no wind day from inside of a small enclosed deer stand.
That clone correct (or even original) bad ass 1987 machine gun is still bad ass, just don't expect it to all of the sudden have excellent gas face properties. Even if you do get a new charging handle or bolt carrier it might not be enough to "fix it".
Can you share more information on what the KAK BCG is or what they were going to do with it in terms of design and all that?
KAK did dual ejectors on the bolt, sand cuts, enhanced coatings including nitride, DLC, TiN, NP3 and Chrome, and put the gas ports facing down effectively doing the same as the Griffin with regards to port-pop. Probably more effective at reducing gas to the face, but that's purely conjecture on my part.
The Griffin adds an enhanced gas key (like POF & LWRC), flared carrier tail (the work on showing this can contribute to accuracy was pioneered by Joe Carlos), Enhanced cam path (Like VKTR Industries/Paul Leitner-Wise) and enhanced carrier material (like Sharps Rifle Company, Bootleg/PWS, and JP Enterprises) in addition to changing the gas port position, adding dual ejectors, and sand cuts. From an innovation standpoint, it's very, very interesting and highlights what Griffin does best (if you know...)
there is nothing wrong with consolidating all of other people's good ideas into one product lol
i think the market will appreciate it
i don't know how much of a difference it makes if the vents are one the bottom or on a "pocket" the opposite side of the ejection port
In the podcast about the Griffin BCG they said they had previously tested a BCG with the gas vents facing down but they could only get it to reduce sound by 7 or 8 DB under optimal conditions with specific rifles.
That's why they moved them (or part of the reason). The other half of the equation that netted another 3-4 DB (for a 10+average reduction) was to design and develop the relief cuts and to introduce the pockets that are milled on the side of the carrier itself. The port location was half of the equation.
Other than that I don't doubt KAK developed a lot of cool stuff. In that same podcast they addressed that concept saying that they did something similar to what Hornady did in regards to 6 ARC. That being they didn't develop the 6mm bullet or really many of the other things. They just put those various things together in a way that works better.
Those are my words not theirs, but they did say something like 'we took the top 3 or 4 good ideas that were available to use and just put them into one BCG, then tried to improve upon that'.
I finally got around to trying my carrier on my 6 ARC that has a 24" barrel.
Holy smokes. Very large sound reduction. Impressive.
Holy smokes. Very large sound reduction. Impressive.
And for those wondering, I actually think there is a lot less gas and stuff going to the trigger area of the lower. Less than a regular BCG at least. The particular rifle I was shooting today was very clean before I started. I did some minor work on it a few days ago so I wiped everything down and hadn't shot it yet.
6ARC is not a clean round to shoot either.
I might be tempted to say there might be less stuff getting in the trigger using this carrier vs a traditional one.
The reason I think this is because this carrier is not trying to prevent gas but rather is changing it's direction. With a traditional carrier the gas is in chaos mode just looking for any space that's available.
As we all know, energy takes the path of least resistance. Gas is no different. On the side of the carrier that pocket and the relief cuts provide a generous space for gas to go. This provides a definitive area of least resistance, a designated path if you will, and it's big enough to not be overwhelmed by the system.
Does gas get down into the receiver? Into the magwell is the primary spot, but not so much the trigger area. If you have a really gassy suppressor then your mileage may vary but for a general concept, I would probably say that is my new hypothesis going forward.
6ARC is not a clean round to shoot either.
I might be tempted to say there might be less stuff getting in the trigger using this carrier vs a traditional one.
The reason I think this is because this carrier is not trying to prevent gas but rather is changing it's direction. With a traditional carrier the gas is in chaos mode just looking for any space that's available.
As we all know, energy takes the path of least resistance. Gas is no different. On the side of the carrier that pocket and the relief cuts provide a generous space for gas to go. This provides a definitive area of least resistance, a designated path if you will, and it's big enough to not be overwhelmed by the system.
Does gas get down into the receiver? Into the magwell is the primary spot, but not so much the trigger area. If you have a really gassy suppressor then your mileage may vary but for a general concept, I would probably say that is my new hypothesis going forward.
So would you say less gas to the face as well? I have a supressor that’s not supposed to be super gassy, and a barrel with a proper size port, but I still notice the gas to the face vs my unsuppressed. (Standard bcg)
FWIW , The owner of GA, mentioned he would try to do a Hi Speed camera roll of the gas differences "maybe" after Shot Show".
This is hard to say as there are too many variables across each rifle. In theory maybe some. There is also several types of "gas" that people complain about.
One scenario is they are shooting indoors or in a not very ventilated area. In this case the shooter literally sits in a cloud of gas and it causes them to tear up so bad that they can't see to shoot. This scenario is about like putting your car in the garage with the door and windows shut and letting it run. Most of the gas in this situation is from the muzzle (in addition to what is going backwards). None of it has anywhere to go. The only way to fix that is to either stop doing it or figure out a way to ventilate the air better.
Another scenario is people are literally getting a puff of wind to the face, especially on the cold bore shot. Depending on where you are at, for example me, I am in super humid Texas that has thick heavy air. That air is thicker and heavier than the gas the gun produces when shooting. Especially on the first shot that air is getting pushed out of the way forward and back. Especially with a suppressor attached that first shot can be different than subsequent shots in the way of 'gas to the face'. Depending on "stuff" that first shot can exaggerate things and even be louder than subsequent shots.
A variation of scenario two there is constantly getting peppered with crap and dirty blackish gas. This case can leave the shooter with a carbon moustache.
Add into the mix the firing schedule at any particular time and there's just too many variables out there.
The causes to each of those scenarios (and possibly several more that I didn't think of) are all from different things. To try and legit say a BCG will solve everything is not going to be true. It could be crappy dirty burning ammo or a lot of other factors working together either for or against you.
As for this BCG I think it can help with some of the factors, but not all of the factors. To really manage it takes a lot more than one rifle part. A wholistic approach will be better generally speaking. That means you have the components to make it easier to manage it but knowing that those things can only do so much on their own.
