User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/9/2007 7:57:35 AM EDT
[#1]
Why dont the people who say this is bullshit duplicate thier test and post the results? If AAC is right then they should get an apology. If not then they deserve every bit of a shitstorm. This same thing happend with the flash test that they just did. And then the test was duplicated with the same results in Oregon with three other suppressors of the same model. If your in a competive industry and make product claims then yes you better be able to stand behind those claims. And making false claims can hurt other manufactures who don't hype up thier products.
If you made suppressors would'nt you verify the claims of the competition? I know the carmakers do it all the time. I'm not on anyones side for this one, but I saw the results and knowing AAC's past test I have no reason not to beleave it untill someone else duplicates the test with different results. I do know however after looking at the construction of the can that thier were engineering shortcuts taken that did not help. 1. Iconel insert instead of full blast baffle 2. Roll pin holding in Iconel insert 3. Laser welding with minimal penetration 4. Lack of welding in core. If I'm wrong on any of those then please tell me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2007 8:21:28 AM EDT
[#2]
wow. Tag.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2007 12:21:49 PM EDT
[#3]
No, I have no affiliation with OPS, or any other company that produces cans, gun parts etc. Hell, I don't even assemble my own ARs. I do, however, have very close connections/affiliations to men/freinds that use said items everyday. All I'll say is that they are not part of the the "big green machine" & I'll leave it at that. I trust what they tell me & I prod them for their opinions on all sorts of matters everytime I get to talk to them. It just so happens that OPS cans are the unquestioned favorite. Does that make OPS cans better than others? No, because in my humble opinion, a good can is a good can reguardless of who makes it. I find it ironic that all the stress tests & fire to failure test always seem to stray away from any realistic operational perameter one might ever see in the field let alone a civiy at the local range. Plinking at paper...a top makers can will last a lifetime. In the Mil....if your're really in deep shit, it will be CAS that saves your life, not a can that can take full-auto for "x" amount of rounds. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2007 12:52:23 PM EDT
[#4]
I own a G5 and I'm not too concerned that it eventually failed, because I would never abuse it that way. However, I am interested in hearing how Gemtech addresses the specific concerns over the design of the G5. I am particularly curious about the apparent use of roll pins to hold critical pieces of the unit together.
Has anyone asked Gemtech if they care to comment? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2007 1:24:23 PM EDT
[#5]
I'm not sure what the point of this test was (other than to test for the purpose of failure analysis) ?
By applying a harsh, full auto regiment to a "limited" full auto use suppressor, they've succeeded in proving the G5 was designed for "limited" full auto use. If you buy a "limited" performance suppressor, you need to stay within its' "limited" performance envelope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2007 2:29:25 PM EDT
[#6]
Their website says this on the G5
"The suppressor is rated for fully automatic fire." It says nothing about being "limited" See for yourself  Gemtech G5 Page |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2007 2:59:05 PM EDT
[#7]
Here are some quotes from ColdBlue talking about the SOPMOD II suppressor trials.
Maybe suppressor manufacturers should use SOCOMs standards for testing their products as I'm sure no one uses them harder than they do. Or maybe some independent source can test them to those standards to provide the customer with unbiased data. Either way, there needs to be a standard set or this type of stuff will continue. One thing I did notice is the requirement to meet a 15K round service life seems low. Most manufacturers say that their suppressor life is 30K + rounds, including the M4QD NT-4. 15K rounds may be a accurate requirement for SOCOM though, as continuous full-auto fire + 10.5" barrels will shorten service life. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2007 3:06:10 PM EDT
[#8]
This is true. It does not say anything about limited full auto use. Thats what the cheaper cans (around $400) say. Rightfully so they are cheap. This is NOT a cheap can. The instructions that come with it say that after 100 continous rounds in full auto you may experience a baffle strike due to the heat in the barrel partially melting the lead inside the round and destablizing it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2007 4:40:00 PM EDT
[#9]
Dater has said this many times and I've been trying to do the heat transfer calcs to prove it (too long out of school). BUT, this can did not fail from a baffle strike so the above is not an issue. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2007 5:42:48 PM EDT
[#10]
I think you got me wrong. I am saying that is all they warn against. They say nothing about the heat and pressure of full auto fire being a problem for the can. They ONLY say it may cause a baffle strike. I am with you. This should not have happened. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2007 6:03:00 PM EDT
[#11]
I am just guessing here but it seems like any can that uses a stainless pin to hold itself together on a 5.56 FA weapon is going to have problems when it gets really hot... That just doesn't seem like a strong way to do it.
Is this a common practice with other makers cans in this price range? Does Ops Inc use pins that go through like this one did and hold inserts in place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2007 6:08:45 PM EDT
[#12]
I'm thinking the 15,000 rounds is a number used with quite a bit of FA fire and the 30k most advertise is theoretically correct considering semi fire.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2007 6:22:24 PM EDT
[#13]
No |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2007 8:26:56 PM EDT
[#14]
Just out of curiosity, why would you double your order of a product when it's clearly been shown that it will not hold up to what it is advertised to do? I'm all about Gemtech making some good products. I love my Outback II and my Blackside, but I buy suppressors based on which one I feel fills my needs the most. Because of that, I will be purchasing an AAC M4-2000 over the Gemtech G5. I dislike how AAC handles things on that board, but to be honest, that has very little to do with my decision to purchase their silencer over the Gemtech. Purchasing double the Gemtech just to spite AAC is like cutting off your hand to spite a splinter, it really doesn't make sense, especially froma business standpoint. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2007 9:02:05 PM EDT
[#15]
I think what bigbore, and I certainly don't speak for him, is saying is that the G5 will serve his customers well, despite these revelations. As people have already posted, they have many rounds through their Gemtech 556 cans and are very satisfied. I guess if you had someone who was going to burn over five hundred rounds in twenty minutes, perhaps he would steer them toward a the Surefire or Ops Inc. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2007 10:18:02 PM EDT
[#16]
It might not be saying much. If I tripled my sales of Lorcin pistols that would take the grand total sale to exactly zero. We have no idea of the volume of doubling an order.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2007 10:43:56 PM EDT
[#17]
It seems to me that Gemtech needs to take this one back to the Engineering staff. A suppressor that will come apart after the test shown should never have reached the market place. It is too bad -- Gemtech used to lead in the suppressor field. While they still make some good products, I have been disappointed in a couple of the recent designs including the G5 and the Trinity (for different reasons). A hole in the side of a 5.56 suppressor -- come on -- that will not work out well, neither will the roll pin idea. Too much cost cutting for the price they are asking. As others have said, Tac16 > G5. Dave Brown |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2007 5:33:39 AM EDT
[#18]
You consider a sample of ONE suppressor, which was destroyed by a competitor a clear example of all of them?! Does anyone know how many G5s have been sold since their introduction? In the world of the internet, if these things were blowing up, people would be posting. I don’t even recall seeing a thread posted by someones, girlfriends, uncles, sister in laws, baby’s daddy who is a Ranger, who had his G5 fall apart... There are many variables regarding this ONE suppressor that NO ONE here knows to consider that a realistic example. Maybe there was a defect in the suppressor to begin with, that had nothing to do with the design? I’ve sold several G5s to customers who put as much full auto through as anyone will in any practical application, and they held up just fine. If there was a problem with a suppressor, I know Gemtech would make things right for the customer. . |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2007 5:44:31 AM EDT
[#19]
I've never looked at your website. I am a part-time employee. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2007 6:23:32 AM EDT
[#20]
+1 G5's are out there, all over the world. In the hands of the warfighter. This thread is the first instance of a G5 problem I've heard of. I saw a video of a ruptured AAC can (M42000),  )If I was in the business of selling suppressors, and keeping customers happy...the Gemtech product-line would be on the shelves, along with maybe two other companies. ETA Video Link: Not sure what model this is, but here's the AAC Video I mentioned. (thanks for sending me that link) Blown AAC Suppressor |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2007 6:52:36 AM EDT
[#21]
Wasn't trying to say anything other than why double your order when someone brings a problem to light. If I owned a shop and sold Gemtech, I'd want to find a clear answer before I went ahead and gave them any more of my money. I think BigBore has decided that the test was rigged and wants to spite AAC just because they put something out there that he disagrees with. Guess I just don't jump the gun when it comes to things like that. I'd want to Gemtech to come out and address this. If proven that there was something going on here, or that this wasn't an accurate representation of things, then sure, I'd double my order, in fact, I'd go so far as to recommend this over a competitor simply because of how the manufacturer handled it. I just think it's a little early to start throwing Kool-Aid loyalty into the mix. Speaking of a manufacturer addressing concerns, where is Gemtech with a response? Also, what happens if Gemtech comes out ans says, "yep, we lied, we really don't weld anything on those, just the end caps, and yes, this is indicative of the performance of this suppressor." What happens then? Will someon double the order based on the honesty of the manufacturer, or will the cancel because they lied about the capabilities, not to mention having a product with some pretty severe flaws. I'm just saying let's let the parties involved lay it all on the table before going all gung-ho either way on the issue. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2007 6:55:50 AM EDT
[#22]
I too would love to hear Gemtech's response to this. I think that it would be in their best interest to adress this ASAP.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2007 7:23:13 AM EDT
[#23]
I see no point to them taking part in this thread. They weren't part of the "test", and have nothing to prove because of one can destroyed by another manufacturer. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2007 7:34:00 AM EDT
[#24]
That is a 9mm Striker II subgun silencer. It is not a 5.56 rifle caliber silencer. The damage to the three-lug mount shows the can was blown off the host weapon. I've seen this type of damage on other three-lug cans as well. It is sometimes caused by mounting on an out of spec mount or the can could have been out of spec. We really don't know just from looking at that video what happened. But to compare it to the G5 damage is comparing apples to oranges. I'm very interested in hearing something from Dr. Dater on this G5 issue. We do sell some Gemtech products; in fact we just sold a G5 to a customer a week or two ago. Better understanding performance expectations helps us to recommend the best silencer for the customer's intended application. Mark |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2007 7:41:25 AM EDT
[#25]
Well,considering Robert documented exactly how he was able to destroy this suppressor, I think they have some vested interested in seeing this through to their conclusion. Having them bury their head in the sand would be more a confirmation that they know that they we passing off a completely inferior design as a top-tier suppressor. The fact that it was a competitor that tested it shouldn't make any difference. I'm sure that Gemtech buys other companies products to test as well, AAC just happens to be vocal about their tests. I'd say they have to prove AAC wrong, otherwise it's essentially a confirmation of guilt. I like Gemtech products, the only two suppressors I own are made by Gemtech, but if they don't address this issue it looks like those will be the only two Gemtech products I ever own. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2007 10:29:42 AM EDT
[#26]
1st .... Thanks everyone for not turning this into the sh*t sorm I expected it to become.
 I did not get a chance to look at the suppressor at the shoot yesterday so I can't comment on the pictured. I would like to add that I trust the person that was behind the trigger on that firearm for that test 100%. He is a no nonsense tell it like it is individual. I'm glad to say I finally met him in person yesterday. I'm not defending anyone or pointing fingers at anyone. I think the way to sum it all up is to say "it is what it is". I personally don't feel that the spacers that were used would have or could have caused any of the issues. Kevin et al. know enough to make it concentric etc. I think the failures would have been a little different if there were strikes. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. (I'll be on a plane for a few hours so I most likely won't be back online until tomorrow). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2007 1:56:53 PM EDT
[#27]
This is a known issue concerning barrel lug dimensions. I had the aluminum locking shoulders "round off" on my Striker II because the barrel I was using had lugs with too short a radius. It shouldn't be too much of a riddle to figure out who's barrel I was using (and still use). AAC replaced my aluminum mount with a steel version (which can better cope with a wider variance of lug dimensions), even though the problem lie with out of spec barrel lugs and not the suppressor. As for the G5.... What does the user manual state ? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2007 2:38:49 PM EDT
[#28]
After how many years producing quality products, you're willing to give up on them because of 1 failure? I'm sorry to hear that. This thread really says a lot about the power of the internet in terms of unsubstantiated overall product perception.  I dont expect Gemtech to address this publically, how could they? If those involved in this had and interest in Gemtechs response, they would have contacted them first instead of this public crucifixion. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2007 2:49:03 PM EDT
[#29]
I can't wait to see Gemtech's response to this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2007 3:40:22 PM EDT
[#30]
I don't think Gemtech would have anything to gain by commenting on this topic. The test Robert did was extreme. Gemtech submitting more units to the same test would most likely show the same failure. So untill Gemtech gets enough customer feedback saying they want the silencer built sturdier this is where it will stand designwise. It took years of customers wanting no aluminum mounting theads on the Outback silencer before Gemtech gave in, they still do not feel it is needed but they gave the customer what they wanted. This silencer held up to more than any normal person would do to it. All this proves is Robert is not normal, but we already know that.
To all the claims all the silencer companies make about how many operators use thier products. You want to impress me, then show me the NSN number issued to your product. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2007 5:36:38 PM EDT
[#31]
I'm not talking about their response to the extreme test - I'm talking about the lies about the welds. Pretty hard to deny that - I mean, a fucking roll pin... are you kidding me? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2007 5:38:32 PM EDT
[#32]
Yep. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2007 5:40:43 PM EDT
[#33]
See post above please.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2007 6:00:01 AM EDT
[#34]
Gemtech DOES weld many parts of our suppressors - just because there aren't gobs of weld seams and marks all over your can doesn't mean it doesn't utilize welding where it's needed. That's straight from Kel. So you're telling me that there are absolutely zero structural welds necessary on a G5? The only weld I saw was what equates to a tack weld simply to keep people from disassembling the can at home. And what about the "Inconel blast baffle?" I'll give you that the wording is vague, but I'd hardly call an inconel insert held by a rollpin to be considered a blast baffle. They should come right out and say "stainless steel blast baffle with inconel insert." Pretty sure both of these cases constitute false information, at least from a consumer standpoint if one is buying a suppressor without the benefit of a personal e-mail from Kel himself stating why structural welds in the G5 are unnecessary. I'd just like Gemtech to change the language on their website to accurately reflect the capabilities of this suppressor. It says the can is rated for fully automatic fire, it obviously isn't. Let them add a corollary that states F/A fire on weapons with barrels over 16" or whatever length it will actually allow F/A without failing. Lighter, stronger, quieter, more durable and maintenance-free, the G5 is made for those that demand the apex of performance. and The suppressor is rated for fully automatic fire. Neither of these appear to be accurate statements, especially considering Roberts test wasn't even F/A mag dumps throughout the entirety of the test. Every OTHER mag was F/A. And it obviously isn't "stronger" or "more durable" as they would like you to think. I hardly believe the "apex of performance" is falling apart in 750 rounds. If you feel the test was rigged, or that it wasn't performed accurately, why don't you do your own and post your results, with an independent source verifying your methods, in a similar was as GaLEO did with Roberts test. The performance of their suppressor is neither here nor there, the problem is that they are misrepresenting that capabilities of their products,if not to their dealers, at least to their customers. Feel free to provide any and all evidence to dispute any point that I've made. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2007 6:00:40 AM EDT
[#35]
Damn server error....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2007 7:01:24 AM EDT
[#36]
Wow - that's pretty harsh, considering it's on their website-- please read the following: www.gem-tech.com/G5.html "If you want “high speed low drag” this is it. Every component of this suppressor has been critically assessed, shot hard, improved upon, thought through, and tested tough to become the new standard in 5.56mm quick mounting suppressors. Lighter, stronger, quieter, more durable and maintenance-free, the G5 is made for those that demand the apex of performance." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2007 7:20:12 AM EDT
[#37]
I completely agree with you, that doesn't sound very honest to me. I was here at the shop when they were doing the test and they didn't abuse it at all. In fact after about 5 mags they came out in the store area and hung out for about 15 minutes because GALEO(who is a great guy) was worried that it was going to hurt one of them. They ended up going back in later with some boards for a shield. They were trying to duplicate the test that the military did on the AAC cans and the military never stopped for that long! I had a first hand look at it when it was falling apart and it looked like somebody had put that can together in a garage. I think that anybody that has a hammer and a small welder could do a better job! |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2007 8:11:58 AM EDT
[#38]
You're right, I am harsh. And I don't see anything in the text that can't be backed-up. Personally, I read that copy as general comparative language, illustrating improved differences to the G5 and their other 5.56 models like the M496D...guess others interpret it as "Compared to other manufacturers, it is the lightest, strongest, quietest, most durable and most maintenance-free on the market"...but it doesn't say that.  They never allude to positioning with any other manufacturer in that statement. Only that they built a critically-assessed, improved, well-tested. lighter, stronger, quieter, more durable silencer that is maintenance-free. (& will become the new standard in 5.56mm quick mounting suppressors) Read it again. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2007 8:29:20 AM EDT
[#39]
I read it again, they say that they are the standard by which all other QD mount 5.56 suppressors should be judged; as they are Lighter, stronger, quieter, and more durable. Besides they lied about the fact that it was welded and are vague about the grade and amount of Stainless steel, Inconel, & Titanium in their product, and this inst open for debate. I simply don't have time for this--- going to stop watching this thread. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2007 10:18:25 AM EDT
[#40]
I am happy tests like this are done and the results published. I wish more manufacturers would do this. I just dont understand why people think AAC should NOT pushlish what they learn as we all benefit from more knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2007 10:33:08 AM EDT
[#41]
So it's the best that Gemtech makes but it shouldn't be compared to other suppressors of the same price from competitors? By that same logic, you couldn't compare LaRue optical mounts to ARMS mounts. I own two LaRue mounts because I've seen plenty of evidence that it is better than it's competitors. From my perspective it looks like you are saying Gemtech isn't as good as the rest but we should buy stuff from them anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2007 10:56:50 AM EDT
[#42]
Good grief.  |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2007 10:58:36 AM EDT
[#43]
I was the FIRST person to receive a M4-96D can from Gemtech. Yes thats right I ot the FIRST civilian sold can of that model. I have put 9 Beta mag dumps of pure tracers thru it in full auto. and it still works great today. I have had it for some years now. and have never had a problem. even after I got it so hot it melted a hole thru my rifle case....
Gem-Tech has always made great products... AAC has really sunk to a new low in my book for attacking them like that... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2007 11:01:42 AM EDT
[#44]
Read it again...this time leave out what you are inventing in your head. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2007 11:07:46 AM EDT
[#45]
would the G5 flash hider add enough length to bring a 14.5" barrel up to 16"?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2007 11:08:05 AM EDT
[#46]
AAC is just showing what happened when the Gemtech can was tested like the military tests their cans. It's not attacking them, it's just showing the results of their test. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2007 11:25:31 AM EDT
[#47]
I dunno, Water & Blazing Hot Metal don't seem like the best idea, and wasn't part of the military test. That said, according to what's posted here it was already failing at that point, so who knows. I'd like independant testing, a response from Gemtech, and also what the inside of the can looks like before structural failure, but I'm not buying another 223 can either way, so it's not a big deal to me. :) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2007 11:54:06 AM EDT
[#48]
Are you speaking from first hand knowledge about how the military tests cans? Or are you just repeating what you read on the error net? If this is an official test to be accepted for .mil use, please send me a link to the specs. Also, do you know how all the other manufacturers performed? How many of each model were submitted to this test? Why did it take 18 months before the .mil performed this test on G5s? Also, do you know who won the FoSAS 5.56MM trials? From the "real" military Picatinny test, the concept of the components/assembly of the G5, it seemed to pass just fine. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2007 1:00:55 PM EDT
[#49]
"Too much cost cutting for the price they are asking" is what I take from all of this.       |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2007 1:29:50 PM EDT
[#50]
AAC and another .mil silencer provider have participated in such military testing, and in fact it was a silencer provider that you sell on your website. This is after the initial down select, which was very similar to the Picatinny Arsenal test. After the down select the testing gets much tougher as they are testing for the worst battle case scenarios. Gemtech has stated publicly that their cores are completely welded and their G5 silencer is rated for full auto fire. I’m a retailer who sells Gemtech, Yankee Hill and AAC silencers and in my opinion AAC did me a favor by testing the G5. I can’t sell a customer a G5 for $875 in good faith when I saw first hand how it performed. |
||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
