The proof is in several parts.

1. Gemtech never publicly denied asking the ATF for a ruling.  They got a LOT of bad press and flack when this happened.  If they didn't ask for the ruling, I can't understand a motive why they wouldn't state they weren't responsible.  

2. I was privileged enough to witness confidential conversations with a very credible source involved in this mess.  Did you know a certain attorney who "deals with" ATF issues has done work for Gemtech as well as other manufacturers.    I also saw certain documents detailing what was going on behind the scenes.  Again, this was all very credible information.

3. I know a couple people in certain government agencies.  Information from them matched information I got from other sources.  That is all I can say on this.  

4. In one of the ATF statements on the matter they did mention that their response was in response to a request for clarification on the matter.  So, someone asked them.  If not Gemtech, who?  Lots of companies/people at the time probably didn't like AAC too much but the way AAC was making fun of Gemtech at the time puts GT high on the motive list.  You have to admit that.

I am convinced Gemtech solicited the ATF for a ruling.  If that isn't the case, Gemtech has an opportunity now to officially deny their involvement and set the record straight.

You do bring up a good point though which is - making a public spectacle of the whole rebuild process showed (IMHO) poor judgment.  AAC very publicly flaunted what they were doing.  Even if no one asked the ATF for a ruling doing something like that was sure to pop up on someone's radar you would think.

To be clear, I am not bashing any person(s) or companies here.  What is done is done.  We can debate the "whys" and "whos" but it doesn't really matter at this point.  We all make mistakes and regret some things we've done.  None of us are perfect.  Again like I stated previously, there is very bad blood and very harsh feelings between the owners of those two companies.  Sometimes people do things out of pure anger/hatred that they may later regret.

To further be clear on another point, I don't for a minute think Gemtech liked the ruling the ATF handed down.  It hurt everyone in the industry.

Ya know, I've often thought about writing a book about all the behind the scenes crap that permeates this little silencer community.  Al Paulson and I once discussed some of the stories that could easily fill Volume I of a multi-volume series.  Al thought it was a great idea and offered to help get the work published.  Ah, if only I had the spare time.      

Mark  

No, that is WRONG and speculative of kc3.  I had my hands on that original Gemtech tube and was in the AAC shop several times over the time frame they were rebuilding the suppressor.  The same Gemtech tube was used FOR CERTAIN.  AAC never replaced the serial numbered tube.  So, really what AAC did technically wasn't even a violation!  They got called out for something they didn't even do wrong!!!!!!   They took apart a Gemtech product, replaced the Gemtech internals with AAC internals and sealed the sucker back up.  They then put some AAC engravings on teh suppressor but left the original GT engravings (at least the last time I saw that suppressor it still had the GT markings).

Mark

That matches up from what I remember of the pictures of the can in question.  I don't have them anymore, but I do remember a tube with original GT marks and AAC new marks.  This whole AAC destroying the tube and marking a new one with a GT serial is something I didn't recall happening, and am surprised it's accepted as fact by some.

What's interesting is that manufacturers are still offering rebuilds of cans with original tubes (Liberty Suppressors being the one that comes to mind most prominently).  I suppose the only thing that makes that different from what happened between AAC and Gemtech is that AAC specifically held a contest to rebuild loud suppressors, and a Gemtech suppressor just so happened to be the suppressor that the individual who won owned.

Not saying I'm old school but I will say this.  Anybody who is somewhat new to this game will never understand the significance this "clarification" (the Gemtech letter asked for) had on our community.  I agree with multiple statements made so far like 2 wrongs don't = right, both Gem & AAC played it badly, past is the past.  But to those who weren't playing before this happened, to those who never had to have a can warrantied, and to those who are just talking in any other form of ignorance, I hope you someday have the mental capacity to realize you don't know what you don't know.  

The community suffered greatly due to this "request for clarification" sent by Gemtech.
(I currently own cans from both companies and will continue to grow the collection with time)

 
 

Doesn't look like the same tube to me.  Looks like an AAC can with Gemtech's info put on it.  Kinda shitty thing to do if you ask me.  

I agree if you are referring to the pictures posted by RenegadeX.  That looks to me like an AAC suppressor with GT markings on it.  That would violate ATF's "ruling".  Not sure when that little project was done; first I've seen of it.

To clarify, the suppressor about which I was discussing earlier was the HVT 7.62 suppressor that AAC very publicly rebuilt.  I know that one had the original tube when I saw it in the last stages of being rebuilt.

Mark

It was before the new "ruling".



 

Yeah, this is the one I was referring to.  

That's also the one I was referring to.  Clearly not just a rebuild of the internals- more closely resembles an attempt to get rid of a Gemtech can and replace it with an AAC product.

Check, I was.  

I was oblivious to all this controversy when it happened (was overseas with other things on my mind) but it seems to me that taking one of your cans and putting another company's markings on it is a far cry from repair work (almost a counterfeiting issue), and if there is a pattern of something like that happening (as RenegadeX's pics seem to illustrate), then Gemtech had every reason to be pissed off about it.  I'm also not sure how Gemtech could have otherwise remedied the situation except to do what they did, as my impression of how the guys at AAC operate, a nice letter asking them to cease and desist would have likely been laughed at.

Be that as it may, the situation now does suck though- warranty work is curtailed, and repairs for older silencers made by now defunct businesses (like one company, AAC maybe, used to do for the old Sionics MAC silencers) is pretty much a no go.  We all suffer.

The one pictured was the one I referred to.  Though previous to this day, I hadn't seen a picture.  Have only heard about it up till now.  

Here is another they redid:

Looks almost just like my 06 M4-2000.  

Ba-ba-ba-bullshit.  Demanding that the government create new laws is the fault of the person that does it, not the guy across the street that makes better silencers than you.

GEMTAX = THE TAX REQUIRED TO PAY ON REPLACING A DAMAGED SILENCER TUBE.  THIS TAX DID NOT EXIST UNTIL GEMTA....GEMTECH HIT UP ATF.

This new promotion is them trying to give a good name to the phrase "gemtax", which has been the reason that hundreds of silencer owners (at least!) have avoided gemta....gemtech products.

Funny, learning all this story makes me want to avoid AAC in the future.  

Or alternatively, the tax didn't exist until AAC crushed cans and made new DIFFERENT spec cans, then engraved the same information from the old can to the new can.

You can see in this letter defective silencers could be replaced by the same MFG after leaving MFG area, now not anymore. Different MFG could not do it.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
             Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

                           19 APR 1999

                                                 901040:GS
                                                 5320/99-7473


Dear Mr. Bardwell:

This is to clarify the advice contained in our response of January
27, 1999, to your letter of December 26, 1998, regarding the
replacement of a broken or defective silencer that had been
returned for repair.

You asked if a licensed manufacturer of firearms may lawfully
replace a broken or defective silencer, returned to him for repair,
with a new silencer with the same serial number as the broken or
defective one.  You added that the original silencer would be
destroyed in the process of replacement.

A complete firearm silencer or muffler is a "firearm" subject to
the provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA).  In addition,
certain silencer parts and components also qualify as a "firearm"
and are subject to NFA controls.  Repair or replacement of silencer
components can result in the creation of a new firearm which would
be subject to additional registration and transfer tax
requirements.

A person who possesses a registered silencer may transfer the
silencer for repair on ATF Form 5, tax exempt, to any licensed
manufacturer of firearms who has currently paid special
(occupational) tax (SOT) as a manufacturer of NFA firearms.

Any such manufacturer may repair or replace unmarked silencer
components such as baffles, wipes, end caps, or specially made
packing material.  If such components are replaced on an exchange
basis and the original components are destroyed, there is no
registration of a new firearm required and the silencer may be
returned on Form 5, tax exempt.

If the manufacturer did not originally make the silencer and must
replace components bearing required markings, such as the outer
tube, the new replacement components would then require
registration as a new firearm and would be subject to marking
requirements under 27 CFR section 179.102.  Return of the new
components would incur applicable transfer tax.

If the original defective components were not destroyed and were
returned to the customer in addition to replacement components, the
replacement components would also require registration as a new
firearm and could be subject to transfer tax.

A silencer which is unusable due to a manufacturer's defect, may be
replaced without incurring transfer tax, only if the silencer is
returned to the original manufacturer for repair and the original
manufacturer is licensed as a manufacturer of firearms and has
currently paid SOT as a manufacturer of firearms.  The original
manufacturer may them mark the replacement with the same serial
number used on the defective silencer and then return the
replacement silencer on ATF Form 5 without incurring transfer tax. 
The original defective silencer components must be destroyed.

We apologize for the inconvenience and trust that this clarifies
the matter.  Should any additional information be needed, please
contact Gary Schiable at (202) 927-8330.


                       Sincerely yours,


                            [signed]
                       Kent M. Cousins
             Chief, National Firearms Act Branch

 



 

They couldn't legally ever do it?  Or in 1999 it became illegal for a diff MFG, and then since then illegal for the original MFG too?

To clarify, for a manufacturers defect, not just because you wanted the latest and grreatest upgrade with  your old serial number and without it being a taxable event

I have found that the rules can vary. My bet is company 'A' had permission to replace tubes, other companies did not, wanted to be able to, forced the issue, here we are.



 

From what I've gathered this seems to be the closest to the truth.

Different manufacturers were operating under different interpretations of the law as spelled out to them in NFA branch memorandums.

These differences were large enough to allow a significant business advantage to certain letter holders compared to their competition who didn't have the same letter.

In a desire to even the playing field in regards to federal regulations a clarification was requested. The outcome ended up hurting everyone but did level the playing field between competitors.

I find it hard to fault a company who is being held to a different standard than their competition by a regulatory agency.

Thanks for posting the pictures RenegadeX,

I know thats what I saw & whats what I refered to!

But they'd never do that!  

You are saying the 1999 letter was to AAC allowing them to replace tubes?  AFAIK, AAC wasn't building anything in 1999, they were just a Gemtech dealer...

why cant the old tube be split length ways and slipped over a new peice of tubing then weld the old tube to the new one. then you would do all of the machine work to the "new" silenceer body. ream inside diameter, cut threads, and press a baffle stack in.

seems like it would be a easy way to stay legal since the old silencer tube, manufacturers info, and serial number was not destoyed.

Because you're talking about $200 worth of labor .  I think a lot of manufacturers have actually welcomed the ATF ruling since they now have an excuse to say they won't touch possible warranty issues.  The last thing they want to do is open up and waste labor on one of their old products when they could be making new and more profitable product.  Did anyone else notice how several manufacturers conveniently stopped saying they'd rebuild clogged .22 cans after the ruling?  

yes, I noticed that too, especially a company that created its business  on taking apart other companies cans. I see they no longer will service their own sealed cans.

atlatl,

Ignoring the attrocious slaughter of the English Language for a second, I can't think of any company out there that "built their business on taking apart other companies cans".

Care to enlighten us with your first hand fracken experience with suppressors and the world of suppressor manufacturing?

It is my opinion that you are an unknowledgeable little troll and you should GTFO.

I don't mind people saying bad things about AAC... it sure would be nice if they had some real (i.e. I've been told, but I can't tell you) knowledge to share about it instead of just slamming the company for nothing.

This kind of exchange wouldn't be allowed if it was about SWR or Gemtech... proof or shut up would be the cry.

I think SWR, Gemtech, AAC, etc all make good cans.  I hate the fracken bickering.

And atalsdjlaskdjflaskdfpieceofcrap... you're becoming one of the worst very quickly.

Kent

Kent- please stop the "GTFO" comments.  Do you HAVE to make these in EVERY thread against everyone who says "AAC"????

Non technical