Griffin 3-lug on an Octane...Yes

[LawBob]

think of where the end of the 3-lug muzzle is with the SilCo mount vs the Griffin mount...

[kbinmt]

Still, I am doing it. It sounds good, and I have more confidence in the mount. I think it much less likely to be involved in a baffle strike. I really would like to hear the person who knows the most about the octane weigh in on whether the proximity of the muzzle to the first baffle would be harmful to the can. If the swr mount was designed to be external for maximum suppression, super. Or, was there a concern with having the barrel too close to the baffles?

[Bendersquint]

Still, I am doing it. It sounds good, and I have more confidence in the mount. I think it much less likely to be involved in a baffle strike. I really would like to hear the person who knows the most about the octane weigh in on whether the proximity of the muzzle to the first baffle would be harmful to the can. If the swr mount was designed to be external for maximum suppression, super. Or, was there a concern with having the barrel too close to the baffles?

The closer the muzzle is to the blast baffle the more wear/erosion/damage there will be to it.

Stick your hand afoot in front of a propane torch.....now move it to 2 inches. The closer the muzzle is to the blast baffle the more wear/erosion/damage there will be to it.

[kbinmt]

Given. But now we are talking about the excellerated wear of a replaceable component. far from a catastrophic failure.

This is what you commented on in your second reply, bender. You are being consistent.

[Fireman1291]

Still, I am doing it. It sounds good, and I have more confidence in the mount. I think it much less likely to be involved in a baffle strike. I really would like to hear the person who knows the most about the octane weigh in on whether the proximity of the muzzle to the first baffle would be harmful to the can. If the swr mount was designed to be external for maximum suppression, super. Or, was there a concern with having the barrel too close to the baffles?

The closer the muzzle is to the blast baffle the more wear/erosion/damage there will be to it.

Stick your hand afoot in front of a propane torch.....now move it to 2 inches. The closer the muzzle is to the blast baffle the more wear/erosion/damage there will be to it.

Indeed. Baffle erosion is what I was thinking for worse case. Especially with FA fire schedule. As for the OP, Silencerco "might" replace the baffle due to wear if you told them what 3-lug you actually used. A baffle to them is not worth a lost customer. They have great customer service. But anything is up on the air if you are using a competitors 3-lug on their can.

Let us know what you find after you run it awhile.

[kbinmt]

Back to an earlier question for the industry professionals. Does griffin stating that "Titanium Nitride baffle coating increases wear resistance 5 times" alleviate concern for the revolution with 3-lug?

[mpallett]

Still, I am doing it. It sounds good, and I have more confidence in the mount. I think it much less likely to be involved in a baffle strike. I really would like to hear the person who knows the most about the octane weigh in on whether the proximity of the muzzle to the first baffle would be harmful to the can. If the swr mount was designed to be external for maximum suppression, super. Or, was there a concern with having the barrel too close to the baffles?

I think you will be fine but I'm not the one that has to replace it anymore so you are on your own. And in reality, there are a bunch of baffles there, so if you are seeing wear, just rotate them around.

Now ... ammo selection and the crap that is produced these days? We can have an entire pissing match about that.

[kbinmt]

@mpallett - Thanks for the comment about rotating the baffles. I had not thought of it.

@crashpro - I also spent a couple of minutes looking at my fixed mounts and pistons. Taking into account the piston length prior to the vents, and the overall length of the piston/bushing of the Griffin 3-lug (both of which extend beyond the muzzle, but would effectively contain/direct the blast forward) The Griffin 3-lug does put the business end about a .5" closer to the blast baffle. Not sure how much the vents are relieving either. Might be about equal since the piston directs blast all the way to the baffle, with only some relief from the vents.

[karlglen101]

Can we get some pictures of your Octane mounted with the Griffin 3-lug?

Did you see the 1st post?

Actually, I did. I see a picture of the silencer. I see a picture of the 3-lug. I do not see a picture of the two of them together, mounted on a gun. Am I missing it somewhere?

[BearTHIS]

Trust me, I am aware of SWR and the SilencerCo history.

Maybe not.

SWR was initially founded by Joe Gaddini.

Henry Graham, William Ellison, and I (Matt Pallett) took it over and improved, redesigned, grew the business until SiCo bought us out. Henry continued on with SiCo. I suppose I could have as well, but I did not want to move to UT.

Henry and I worked on the Octane and they were starting to ship just as SWR became SiCo. Henry took the can to the next level (CTA baffles in place of the Omegas as well as booster changes).

This site was initially called Silencertests. ALL of the testing was done under my personal license. I employed the founder of this site so the testing could happen.

I do mostly know what I'm talking about. Just because I don't want to go into why / how things are done publicly in the industry doesn't mean I don't know what is going on / what I'm doing. Silencer folks really are an odd bunch and we don't like to share unless you are part of the group. There are reasons WHY it was done the way it was done and the interactions between space / booster / 3 lug / fixed mounts / internal / external all play a part in it. It is a large puzzle and takes effort to get the best overall performance over multiple hosts.

Just out of curiosity, how does it make you feel that Griffin made an almost exact replica of the Octane?

Love it. I laughed when I saw it at SHOT this year. He missed several subtle things though (no I won't say what they are). The 3-lug is almost an exact copy of the YHM internal 3-lug.

What will happen if you use it? Performance might be the same, it might suck on a 9mm AR it depends. Will anything happen to the can? Maybe nothing, Or maybe something like this if the tolerances are slightly off:

With all due respect, and I mean that genuinely & acknowledge that you've forgotten more about silencers than I know about them, I've read in a few places (no, can't remember exactly where or have links at the moment) that the Revolution 9 meters better than an Octane 9. Maybe they missed something, but maybe they improved something.
Further Disclaimer: I own an Octane 9, not a Revolution 9. I love it.

[mpallett]

With all due respect, and I mean that genuinely & acknowledge that you've forgotten more about silencers than I know about them, I've read in a few places (no, can't remember exactly where or have links at the moment) that the Revolution 9 meters better than an Octane 9. Maybe they missed something, but maybe they improved something.
Further Disclaimer: I own an Octane 9, not a Revolution 9. I love it.

Sigh. Now I will need to buy one to see. If you look at the baffles, they just changed the cut to a notch. Again, it is an overall game. Gun / ammo / etc. / temp / elevation above seal level / blah / blah / blah ... So when you compare with testing if one is quieter than the other you can always figure out a way to make your product look better on that specific host with that ammo on that day.

[Crash_pro]

Trust me, I am aware of SWR and the SilencerCo history.

Maybe not.

SWR was initially founded by Joe Gaddini.

Henry Graham, William Ellison, and I (Matt Pallett) took it over and improved, redesigned, grew the business until SiCo bought us out. Henry continued on with SiCo. I suppose I could have as well, but I did not want to move to UT.

Henry and I worked on the Octane and they were starting to ship just as SWR became SiCo. Henry took the can to the next level (CTA baffles in place of the Omegas as well as booster changes).

This site was initially called Silencertests. ALL of the testing was done under my personal license. I employed the founder of this site so the testing could happen.

I do mostly know what I'm talking about. Just because I don't want to go into why / how things are done publicly in the industry doesn't mean I don't know what is going on / what I'm doing. Silencer folks really are an odd bunch and we don't like to share unless you are part of the group. There are reasons WHY it was done the way it was done and the interactions between space / booster / 3 lug / fixed mounts / internal / external all play a part in it. It is a large puzzle and takes effort to get the best overall performance over multiple hosts.

Just out of curiosity, how does it make you feel that Griffin made an almost exact replica of the Octane?

Love it. I laughed when I saw it at SHOT this year. He missed several subtle things though (no I won't say what they are). The 3-lug is almost an exact copy of the YHM internal 3-lug.

What will happen if you use it? Performance might be the same, it might suck on a 9mm AR it depends. Will anything happen to the can? Maybe nothing, Or maybe something like this if the tolerances are slightly off:

Matt, thank you for your response, that was some pretty interesting information. I was aware of part of the history but not the entire product development. I am a huge fan of the CTA baffle design hence why I’ve bought so many silencers that use these design. Speaking of Henry Graham, are you still in contact with him? I see he’s starting a new company called Rugged Silencers, not sure of when they will be released though.

In regards to your comment “Silencer folks really are an odd bunch and we don't like to share unless you are part of the group.” This is very true!! Even though I just became a member, I’ve been stalking the site for many years but I lived in the People’s Republic of Illinois and was unable to own silencers so therefore didn’t have any insightful knowledge to share and never created an account. Once I moved to MO I took part in a few Form 1 cans just for fun and I was always looking for information on baffle designs, expansion chambers, etc. I would always come across post and you could tell the person knew what they were talking about but held onto their knowledge like they possessed trade secrets. While yes some may work or own a silencer company, but many were clearly just other Form 1 builders yet they refused to share their design. That I never understood... The forum is here to share information and experiences with others and if you aren’t going to patent your design, then what’s the purpose of keeping it a secret? I would think you would want to share it, show it off or help others do the same or improve upon it, but who knows. FYI not like it matters but one of the cans I designed but didn’t have the technically capability to make looked just like the new Gemtech GM-22! When I saw that last year I about crapped myself. I of course bought the first one I saw in stock.

I do have a Rev 9 pending Form 4 so I will examine them together to see if I can tell the subtle differences. I just bought it to keep in the K config. In regards to sound difference, according to Silencers Shops YouTube videos and testing the Revolution 9 is close but Octane won. The numbers below were from the most recent Octane Series video where they test every model in the line up including the new Oct 45k just posted within the month. However in Nov they posted videos of the Revolution and Octane 9, since they were uploaded around the same time you may argue it’s a better representation, the Revolution beat the Octane since it had an average of 126.9dB compared to the Revolutions 125.2 db. Just goes to show the numbers can change day by day.

Regardless I think they are very similar in design and performance.


Shot 1 2 3 4 5 Average Avg dB Reduction
Octane Series
M&P 9 UnSup 156.4 156.4 156.8 157.2 157.2 156.8
Octane 9 122.2 124.6 123.9 123.0 123.7 123.5 33.3

Shot 1 2 3 4 5 Average Avg dB Reduction
Revolution
M&P 9 UnSup 157.6 157.9 157.5 158.1 157.5 157.7
Rev 9 126.8 124.2 124.8 125.3 124.7 125.2 31.6
Rev 9k 132.9 126.0 128.0 128.8 125.7 128.3 28.5

[renegade]

Nice to see the history of SWR is not lost.

I was an early SWR customer, had many of his first cans HEMS, QD3K, GS9K, SPECWAR, etc. I even have to this day a Warlock with the FCPT serial prefix. I am sure Matt knows what that means and this history behind and what happened.

When I asked Joe why his 3 lug was external he stated, external makes it not a silencer part. It was obvious there was more to it than that, but back in those days things were more secretive and his Omega stack was new to the market. Same with the pistons. I asked why he did not port his piston like the other guys, same answer - ATF compliance. Well obviously times changed.

Here is another tidbit. Most folks never really knew what SWR stands for. Not even dealers or ATF. Here are two approved forms with different names!

[rotortuner]

@mpallett - Thanks for the comment about rotating the baffles. I had not thought of it.

@crashpro - I also spent a couple of minutes looking at my fixed mounts and pistons. Taking into account the piston length prior to the vents, and the overall length of the piston/bushing of the Griffin 3-lug (both of which extend beyond the muzzle, but would effectively contain/direct the blast forward) The Griffin 3-lug does put the business end about a .5" closer to the blast baffle. Not sure how much the vents are relieving either. Might be about equal since the piston directs blast all the way to the baffle, with only some relief from the vents.

Did you ever do a back to back comparison with the two mounts to see how they compare in suppresion? I have an octane 45 and looking to put it on my 3 lug AR. seriously considering going with the griffin over the external mount to save length. from the looks of it the change in stand off from the blast baffle should not cause any major erosion. That stainless steel is some very durable stuff.

[kbinmt]

I am happy with the performance without having done the back to back comparison. I bought two swr/SilCo 3-lug mounts, and I did not like how either of them fit to the 3-lug barrel. A bit too much play for me. Rather than worry about it, I am going to stick with the griffin. Sounds good to me.

[rotortuner]

I am happy with the performance without having done the back to back comparison. I bought two swr/SilCo 3-lug mounts, and I did not like how either of them fit to the 3-lug barrel. A bit too much play for me. Rather than worry about it, I am going to stick with the griffin. Sounds good to me.

OK thanks. Yes the fitment and slop on the 3 lug is probably the most important. Im going to put it on a TROS 3 Lug AR barrell. Ill just start with the griffin and hope it fits nice and snug. Thanks for the thread and info.

[tommyid1]

what is the change in overall length with the sico 3lug mount vs the griffin 3lug mount on an octane 9hd2

[Crash_pro]

what is the change in overall length with the sico 3lug mount vs the griffin 3lug mount on an octane 9hd2

Prior to buying the SilencerCo 3 lug i scoured the internet to find the same answer but didn't see it posted anywhere.

Measured additional length is from the base of the silencer with the booster assembly removed, add length from the actual silencer body.
Griffin - 0.25"
SilencerCo - 1.4375"

[Crash_pro]

So for whatever it's worth.. Finally got a chance to do a head to head with the Griffin 3 lug vs the SilencerCo Octane 3 lug. I have two identical Octane 9's, one of each type of mount and was trying to fire a few rounds out of my Sig MPX and then quickly change cans to see if i could tell a difference. The answer is yes... but honestly hard to tell because the MPX's gas piston causes a lot of back pressure with a silencer so I heard a lot of action noise.

The SilencerCo definitely had some of the quietest shots but also some pretty loud ones, not sure if it was first round pop or more back pressure but there were spikes between shots.

The Griffin on average seemed a bit louder but overall more consistent.

I think this is a bad host and i will try the same test on my single shot .38 special pistol which obviously is a much lower pressure round but at least will eliminate action noise and back pressure sounds.

The Griffin spring is much harder and feels more secure on the gun as someone else already mentioned. Although at the same time the SilencerCo is easier to install and also has really nice stops where you can only turn it one way, and when it's in place you hit the "wall". The same wall also lets you know when you're lined up to take it off. The Griffin is just a guess and a few times i just loosened it for it to lock back up on the lugs. Have to put more thought (and muscle) to putting it on and taking it off.

ONE VERY IMPORTANT THING TO NOTE.

This could have been a fluke, but it was very consistent for me across 4 types and weights of ammo. While the Griffin locks up tighter and feel more secure, i experienced horrible and inconsistent accuracy. From 25 yrd at a bench with a red dot, my groups went from 0.50" group to not even all landing on a 9" paper plate. With the SilencerCo mount the groups opened up a bit to about 2". Both cans caused a decrease in accuracy vs just the 3 lug mount, but the Griffin mount was WAY worse! I checked for baffle strikes and everything looks fine. Will try again with a different carbine to see if i get the same results.

[kbinmt]

Nice report. Thanks. I guess the next time I take it out I ought to see if accuracy is effected. I have been having so much fun shooting steel, I could not even tell you how it groups. I have an MP5 RS to sight in now as well, so will see if any noticeable difference there. But first, pronghorn season.

[rimshaker]

Great hands-on review. Makes sense the Silco lug would perform better. It might be longer than the Griffin lug, but the blast chamber volume is more effective.

[N_Parker]

So for whatever it's worth.. Finally got a chance to do a head to head with the Griffin 3 lug vs the SilencerCo Octane 3 lug. I have two identical Octane 9's, one of each type of mount and was trying to fire a few rounds out of my Sig MPX and then quickly change cans to see if i could tell a difference. The answer is yes... but honestly hard to tell because the MPX's gas piston causes a lot of back pressure with a silencer so I heard a lot of action noise.

The SilencerCo definitely had some of the quietest shots but also some pretty loud ones, not sure if it was first round pop or more back pressure but there were spikes between shots.

The Griffin on average seemed a bit louder but overall more consistent.

I think this is a bad host and i will try the same test on my single shot .38 special pistol which obviously is a much lower pressure round but at least will eliminate action noise and back pressure sounds.

The Griffin spring is much harder and feels more secure on the gun as someone else already mentioned. Although at the same time the SilencerCo is easier to install and also has really nice stops where you can only turn it one way, and when it's in place you hit the "wall". The same wall also lets you know when you're lined up to take it off. The Griffin is just a guess and a few times i just loosened it for it to lock back up on the lugs. Have to put more thought (and muscle) to putting it on and taking it off.

ONE VERY IMPORTANT THING TO NOTE.

This could have been a fluke, but it was very consistent for me across 4 types and weights of ammo. While the Griffin locks up tighter and feel more secure, i experienced horrible and inconsistent accuracy. From 25 yrd at a bench with a red dot, my groups went from 0.50" group to not even all landing on a 9" paper plate. With the SilencerCo mount the groups opened up a bit to about 2". Both cans caused a decrease in accuracy vs just the 3 lug mount, but the Griffin mount was WAY worse! I checked for baffle strikes and everything looks fine. Will try again with a different carbine to see if i get the same results.

Just curious, did you ever get around to testing with a different host?

Thanks

[Crash_pro]

So for whatever it's worth.. Finally got a chance to do a head to head with the Griffin 3 lug vs the SilencerCo Octane 3 lug. I have two identical Octane 9's, one of each type of mount and was trying to fire a few rounds out of my Sig MPX and then quickly change cans to see if i could tell a difference. The answer is yes... but honestly hard to tell because the MPX's gas piston causes a lot of back pressure with a silencer so I heard a lot of action noise.

The SilencerCo definitely had some of the quietest shots but also some pretty loud ones, not sure if it was first round pop or more back pressure but there were spikes between shots.

The Griffin on average seemed a bit louder but overall more consistent.

I think this is a bad host and i will try the same test on my single shot .38 special pistol which obviously is a much lower pressure round but at least will eliminate action noise and back pressure sounds.

The Griffin spring is much harder and feels more secure on the gun as someone else already mentioned. Although at the same time the SilencerCo is easier to install and also has really nice stops where you can only turn it one way, and when it's in place you hit the "wall". The same wall also lets you know when you're lined up to take it off. The Griffin is just a guess and a few times i just loosened it for it to lock back up on the lugs. Have to put more thought (and muscle) to putting it on and taking it off.

ONE VERY IMPORTANT THING TO NOTE.

This could have been a fluke, but it was very consistent for me across 4 types and weights of ammo. While the Griffin locks up tighter and feel more secure, i experienced horrible and inconsistent accuracy. From 25 yrd at a bench with a red dot, my groups went from 0.50" group to not even all landing on a 9" paper plate. With the SilencerCo mount the groups opened up a bit to about 2". Both cans caused a decrease in accuracy vs just the 3 lug mount, but the Griffin mount was WAY worse! I checked for baffle strikes and everything looks fine. Will try again with a different carbine to see if i get the same results.

Just curious, did you ever get around to testing with a different host?

Thanks

Sorry for the late reply, busy time at work is during the fall/winter. Which hasn't left me with much time for testing. HOWEVER I did have a chance to try it on my MPA mini 9mm with custom bull barrel and 5/8x24 thread and Tros USA adapter (same adapters as MPX but different thread). Using the same setup as before however this time i noticed no difference in accuracy other than shooter error (myself) which was increased with the the SilencerCo Mount. Reason being is on such a short gun, with the extended 3 lug adapter and mount, makes for a lot of leverage and hard to balance, harder to stabilize the end of the gun. I did not test for sound as they both sound pretty loud on this set-up.

After a bit of shooting i did come to realize one more fault of the Griffin... since it's internal and there are not any tools yet available to fit the end cap (although looks like i saw some for the 3 lug in their photos of all the Optimums accessories) once it was nice and dirty it was brutal to remove! I couldn't grab it well enough with my bare hand and almost had to grab some tools and risk messing up the finish. I ended up using the leverage of it being attached to the gun to unscrew it (not ideal). The SilencerCo one is made with holes in which you can use a Armstrong 34-204 1-1/4-Inch Pin Spanner Wrench if needed (which I've found it to be very much needed when it gets dirty!).

It is amazing how much shorter it feels with the internal mount but the more i use the SilencerCo the more i appreciate the added touches. I just wish they cut it down a bit because it does seem excessively big although at least it's light.

On the flip side, i also have the Griffin Revolution 9 in K form with the 3 lug on it now, it's shocking how small of a package it is and how well it performs! It's only 6" long with internal 3 lug mount and when you're a few feet away from the gun you can barely tell a difference between it and the full size Octane with extended SilencerCo mount. Works exceptionally well on longer barrels such as my 8" MPX. However when on a pistol from the shooter perspective and from afar there is a noticeable difference between the 2 silencers, Octane is much more pleasant. It's definitely still hearing safe and it balances better, but it's not stealthy quiet like the Octane.

[kbinmt]

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting on the review. I just got to shoot my octane with the Griffin 3-lug along side a revo with a griffin 3-lug. I agree with you that the 6" revo is pretty close performance wise. I am sure it is louder, but a few feet behind the shooter it is pretty hard to tell. Shooting both on my reverse stretch mp5 made me contemplate a do-over purchase. I could have been very happy with a revo, it just didn't exist when I bought the octane.

I almost bought a revo just for the RS, then I saw the Obsidian45. Internal 3-lug, 9mm endcaps, ......check please.