Armory Sponsor
Posted: 6/11/2007 7:07:33 AM EDT
taken from another thread
I cant find anyone who has heard of this test, or knows of it being documented. Anyone have a link to the offical text? The test I keep getting referred to is: DRAFT - M4/M16A2/A4 SUPPRESSOR PD -- DRAFT AR-PD-140 16 DEC 2005 PURCHASE DESCRIPTION FOR THE M4 and M16A2/A4 SUPPRESSOR U. S. Army Armament Research Development & Engineering Center Picatinny, NJ 07806-5000 Prepared for: PM Individual Weapons SFAE-SDR-IW Picatinny, NJ 07806-5000 Prepared by ARDEC Quality Engineering & System Assurance Engineer, Small/Medium Cal Weapons Q/R/S Eng. Group DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited. 4.5.6 Auto-burst firing. Each weapon with attached suppressor shall fire 420 rounds of M855 ball ammunition in 3 round bursts every 2-5 seconds utilizing 30 round magazines. The weapon and suppressor shall not be allowed to cool. Sound pressure level, flash signature, and accuracy shall be assessed at 150 rounds and 420 rounds to determine conformance to 3.7.7. 4.8.1 Reliability. Three weapons with attached suppressor shall be tested for reliability by firing 10,000 M855 ball rounds in each weapon. Firing shall be accomplished with the weapon in a Government approved firing stand using a Government approved timing gage for measurement of cyclic rate of fire. Firing shall be accomplished in 84 cycles using 30 round magazines. One (1) firing cycle shall be as specified below: 30 rounds Burst – one complete trigger pull (3 round burst) every 5 to 8 seconds. 30 rounds Burst – one complete trigger pull (3 round burst) every 2 to 5 seconds. 30 rounds Semi-Automatic – rate of 10 to 30 rounds per minute. 30 rounds Semi-Automatic – rate of 10 to 30 rounds per minute. After each cycle, the barrel shall be allowed to cool to the point that it is capable of being held by a bare hand. Supplemental cooling is permissible in the hand guard area. |
All manufacturers submitting suppressors would have to pass the same tests prior to approval. If the SCAR test was different, there would still be copies of the requirements available. |
I might be mistaken but i was under the impression that the SCAR programme expected the manufacturers to deliver test weapons with a sound suppressor included. It might be possible that FN decided to subcontract AAC on their own. www.militec-1.com/nadeau/scar-lube.html <- this link has some interesting reading on the SCAR-H and suppressors. |
AAC's contract for the SCAR program is with SOCOM, not FN. That is my understanding from reliable contacts (not just from the folks at AAC  ). I am aware of another contract for a certain SF group. I know SureFire was testing cans in the same manner as AAC did with the G5 recently and I wouldn't be surprised if it was because of testing requirements for that contract. I'm not sure I'm at liberty to comment further on that contract though. But, I can say Robert didn't just decide on that particular testing format all on his own because it sounded cool. Potential "customers" asked for such a test. Mark |
Alright, my bad. Thanks for clearing that up! Crazy large-volume fire on the HK platform sounds like a certain group to me.. |
|
Yes, I confirmed the group that was recently looking for some cans wanted this type of test performed. SureFire was also perfroming the same test and will survive it. I have seen the SureFire test for myself. I am sure to have someone call BS on it, but I really don't care; believe me or not.  Mark |
|
DOD is not one big standardized family...different groups will test things differently and to their own sets of specifications. There are limits but SOCOM for example uses different body armor and has SOCOM standards for their armor that are different than the specs for the interceptor vests. Also, many groups prefer to test things outside the public eye because they don't want a lot of BS that comes with public attention and competing procurement projects... |
|
From what I've heard, the SCAR is not going to be issued anytime soon. Shoot, the LRIP (low rate initial production) that was supposed to give the end users some weapons to test in the field has been pushed back until late 2008. I guess they are having some major problems with bolts breaking. Some are saying that they wouldn't be surprised if the SCAR went the way of the XM8. Gone. A little birdie told me that the SCAR will not be replacing their M4's and Mk18's anyway.... it'll be just another tool in the tool box. So, it's a little early to say that AAC has won any "contract." |
So, the fact that we've been paid for, and shipped, hundreds of SCAR-SD's for this contract means that we have not in fact been awarded any contract? And that is just one single contract over which there is an argument? There are TONS of contracts and other agreements that AAC, as well as other silencer manufacturers, has with MANY various government agencies, be they military, law enforcement, or foreign. Many of those agencies will have their own testing guidelines that differ from group to group, or even within the group when testing different silencers for different purposes. |
You mention all of these "other Military and LE Agencies", but I was only talking about the SCAR program. Ok, I guess I should have made my point in a different way. Unless the SCAR program takes off, and it very well may, AAC won't be providing a substantial (as in THOUSANDS, as KAC has) amount of suppressors. |
|
Show me the NSN numbers. www.gem-tech.com/trl.html I believe the man says suppressor within a suppressor one with a fully welded core, one partially welded. Ooops somone forgot to explain to the salesman what fully welded means. www.youtube.com/watch?v=48DajwkIFOw |
And not everyone who uses 416s feels the need to hose down incredible amounts of ammo either.. |
I see what you're saying. |
I'm giving Gemtech the benefit of the doubt. The G5 has been out for 18 months, and there are many happy G5 owners. I've seen welds fail in many things before. I broke a leg off my patio furniture last week at the weld. Maybe this can was welded like shit, on a Friday afternoon, by someone who drank their lunch? I dont know, and neither do you. Gemtech has put out good products and service for over 30 years, I'm not ready to give up on them because of ONE defective product. If everyone is so confident that Gemtech is a bunch of liars, lets take up a collection. If everyone can chip in and get me $800 I'll put a G5 in a lathe and take it apart. If I press the internal stack out of the tube, and isn't welded together - I'll send everyone their money back. Fair enough? |
Uh, they were caught in a bold-faced lie. Now, why is it on us to purchase one to disprove them? They have the burden of proof, not us. If you feel strongly enough that this was a fluke, take one of your own G5's and take it apart. Put your money where your mouth is, because obviously Gemtech doesn't know how to respond to being caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Like I said, they have the burden of proof to disprove Roberts findings, not us. Sorry Bigbore, your beloved Gemtech has screwed up, and it's on them to make things right. I suggest you quit drinking the Kool-Aid for a second and take a step back. 30+ years of experience doesn't mean much once you start lying to your customers and falsifying your claims. It sucks because I like both of the Gemtech products that I own, but there's no way I'm going to consider Gemtech for anything else. |
And Bigbore, I'd also like to remind you that taking a G5 to a lathe will be completely unnecessary. Just knock out the rollpin and unscrew it.......after all it isn't welded. |
Does the roll pin gets you into the full baffle stack, I assumed this got you into the QD mount area only, otherwise there would be no need for the end cap weld. In the shot show video I copied it did not show the person's lips moving, it is possible some person with an adenda dubbed a different sound track onto a shot show video. At least as possible as the drunk Friday welder theory on staff at Gemtech. |
|
I might also add that gemtech has a history of improving and upgrading existing products. I had an Outback .22 can with the threads (which were in the aluminum rear cap) getting worn out of spec. from numerous mountings and dismountings. When the outback 2 came available, I sent mine in, the baffle stack was upgraded and a titanium thread insert was added to repair the threads and ensure they wouldn't wear down again. My G5 just came in last week. I hope I would never have the opportunity or need to expose it to the treatment that the G5 in this test did. How many civilians buy a Hummer and drive it into a ditch just because it is supposed to be able to take that kind of abuse? If a number of users develop common types failures in G5's over time, I would bet that Gemtech will upgrade their design and retrofit existing units just like the Outback to Outback II. Meanwhile, I'm going to enjoy my G5 and not worry about it. |
Did you mean to say you will refund money to anyone who bought a G5 from you? That is fair as a dealer and then maybe Gemtech can back you up and also refund the tax. |
I am pretty sure he is talking about the donations to buy the can. |
He's a stocking dealer that just doubled his order from Gemtech and needs donations to buy one? If he's confident in the product, why not reach behind the desk and take one off the shelf? No need to use a lathe to open it up, just drive out the pin and unscrew the cap. The stack will come out. If you see it's not welded, then you can offer all those 'happy G5 owners' their money back. Then advise Gemtech to keep the worker-bee's sober on Friday while assembling suppressors. |
Absolutly right. People need to get it through their heads that full-auto has a very limited use in combat. Now on the local civiy range, it seems to be the cool "in" thing, you know, blazing away shit-crazy amounts of ammo unitl someone melts part of thier gun. But, in combat you only carry so much and unwise use only makes you run out faster, leaving you high and dry, begging a mag off a buddy. It seems that the very core of these topics is that the form 4 buyers want that "tougher than shit can" that takes a ton of abuse. People naturally want to emulate what the so-called "tier one" operators use. Well, if you really want to emulate them, SF is about using you brian 100% of the time and beer muscles 0% of the time. It's not about what takes abuse longer, it is about what works best under what condition. Just because a G5 failed a very rough test of any gun component, doesn't mean G5 owners need to throw thier stuff away or that nobody should buy a Gemtech product. It comes down to knowing your limits and applying what you have and what you know in the right manner. As I said before, if your're really in deep shit, it will be CAS that saves your life, not some can that takes a ton of abuse until "x" number of rounds. Just as a side note, I am a OPS fan, that is what I used & that is what my buddies used many times over & with get effect. However, does AAC make a good product...damn right they do, they just tend to unfairly point fingers when they shouldn't. Just enjoy the fact that the civy market has so many brands to choose from. 
|
|
He was being sarcastic there monkeyD!l@#% Keep your AAC Trolling and crap out of this thread. We know WHY Steve was asking about the mil tests but we don't need a second page on your favorite Gemtec versus AAC crap. Footrat- you work for AAC? Shouldn't you have industry partner or something under your name? |
|
Munkalido- Steve was talking to the people who think Gemtech is a bunch of liars- he offered to let YOU chip in to buy one that he'll cut apart so you can find out what YOU think is the truth. He'll also refund your money if that's the case so you get double what you want. He knows what the truth is and isn't cutting one apart for his own fun. |
I've been doing a lot of homework over the last couple days and I changed my mind on the offer to take one apart. I dont think its necessary. 1. welding titanium to SS is very difficult and expensive. I dont believe Gemtech welds the baffle stack. And if they are, their process doesn't work. 2. I believe the guy video taped at SHOT made an honest mistake when he said the G5 is completely welded. Gemtech makes NO mention of the G5 being welded in ANY of their official literature. I am not able to find any Gemtech document mentioning welding in the G5. The HALO, M402, M496D are said to be welded, but not the G5. Searching threads here, I can find no mention of anyone from Gemtech saying the stack in the G5 is welded. There is mention of "welding where needed" but nothing specific, and never any mention "fully welded". I always ASSUmed it was a welded myself, but I never bothered to ask that specific question. I've learned much about the G5 and how its built the last couple days. I think its a really good concept, just has a couple potential issues. I think the G5 is a good concept. The ease of repair should put many tax paying customers at ease. Those paying an additional $200 for a suppressor, probably wont intentionally abuse it to destruction, but its nice to know it can quickly be repaired. After all the abuse, the housing never failed, the baffles never failed, what failed was the pin securing the titanium mount to the housing, and this was after 750 rounds. For these components to survive the abuse shows that the basic concept of the G5 is sound. Had it had the stack from a M496D, it may be a different story. Regarding the "pin" maybe it was just a bad one - or if you are going to abuse your can like this, the roll pin can be replaced with a solid pin, and "blind pinned" (like on a flash hider)? |
Armory Sponsor