User Panel
Posted: 12/30/2008 4:51:12 PM EDT
Click here to see ––-> "AAC sued for false advertising"
Ironically and technically, that's the same as lying. Now, off to the legal section ... |
|
Surefire has quite a bit of capital behind their legal team, I would suspect.
|
|
Quoted:
Surefire has quite a bit of capital behind their legal team, I would suspect. I suspect they have capital behind everything they do. |
|
Quoted:
Surefire has quite a bit of capital behind their legal team, I would suspect. For that meeting, the Jean Girard Brothers will have to shave their noggins, wash their feet, and sport their Sunday-best flipflops. |
|
Quoted:
Gentlemen, In it's short life, the Supressors Forum has become very popular but increasingly rancorous. It stops now. The behavior of some individuals, with the trolling and personal attacks, has gone all the way up to Goatboy. I don't like gettting reports of this nature. This is a technical forum, discussion is limited to technical info and the rules of behavior are strict. If you want to act like schoolboys, take it private and stop spoiling it for everyone else. Most of you guys are great folks, but a few need to watch their behavior. Those that can't be civil will start seeing there accounts suspended. Thank you. How how the FUCK is this a technical discussion?!?! END THE CHILDISH DRAMA, this belongs in legal and legal only. Absolutely amazing how larue shits where he pleases in a technical forum. |
|
That's too bad it had to come to that. It would be interesting to know which silencer was more durable, but I would have guessed the two were comparable even though the AAC one is more pleasing to the eye in it's rainbow colored as welded and new condition.
Ironically I think the ad may have even been as effective without even including the Surefire product. |
|
I think if I were Surefire, I would counter with a better suppressor that would blow AAC's top cans out of the water.
I guess this is easier |
|
Quoted:
I think if I were Surefire, I would counter with a better suppressor that would blow AAC's top cans out of the water. I guess this is easier You just made the point for false advertising ... |
|
Quoted:
I think if I were Surefire, I would counter with a better suppressor that would blow AAC's top cans out of the water. I guess this is easier I'm new to can's, but have heard little good about surefire compared to some others. Would surefire be capable of that? |
|
I've ordered Sir Fingar to make us a 3'x4' poster of this lawsuit for our Shotshow booth, it's the least I can do for Surefire, all good folks actually doing no-bs good things for our guys in the sand.
|
|
Quoted:
Uh, chromeluv, this is technical, because end-users come to this forum for reference on companies, their habits, to include customer service, etc. All suppressor info is obviously traded in this forum, and that lawsuit is filled with technical info. Get off the phone with KB just long enough to actually read it. Mark, you can keep blowing that bullshit smoke screen all you want. Inter-company drama that has already been posted and talked about extensively in previous thread(s) is not technical, this is you basking in the glory that something negative is happening to AAC. once again you show your true colors with the inability to take the fucking high road and leave things be, and let someone, OUTSIDE THE REAL OF THE INDUSTRY discover information like this and post it.. But when it comes from you and you first, especially the long immature worn out history you have with AAC, it just feeds the pipeline of bullshit and immaturity. I cannot stand what you and AAC have created |
|
|
Quoted:
How how the FUCK is this a technical discussion?!?! Let's make it one then. From the link, I extracted the following points: The complaint alleges that although the pictured product is identified as a “Competitor Brand Silencer,” it is immediately and distinctively identifiable as a SureFire suppressor. How is that? The Surefire cans do not come apart, so how would anyone know whose it was? Well we do know NOW since they admitted it is theirs. Further, “the SureFire suppressor shown in the comparative advertisement has been subjected to extremely heavy use and has been modified to enhance the impression that its components have broken and/or separated.” Define extremely heavy use? How do they know it was modified and not the result of "extremely heavy use"? Whereas “the [AAC] suppressor shown in the comparative advertisement has not been used.” And how do they know this? Do they have it in their possession? Looked down the bore? The complaint asserts that the comparative advertisement creates the false impression that welds used on suppressors manufactured by ACC will not fatigue or crack, are stronger and more durable, and SureFire’s suppressors are unreliable and likely to fail during ordinary use. I did not get that impression. In fact, the failures of some AAC silencers is well-documented on this web site. Are not circular welds stronger than spot welds? Moreover, the complaint takes exception to the test data which provide “independent verification” of the decibel reduction figures provided on the “independent website” silencertests.com. SureFire alleges that the website is owned by an individual that currently designs suppressors for defendant and is not truly independent. They are free to publish their own test data. I would love to see Surefire reproduce this in front of the court: Special Steel? Talk about false claims and not knowing much about the M16 platform in general. I am sure the Army would love to know how to fire an M4 that fast for more than 600 rounds before failure, since they were not able to do it. Never mind with a silencer on it. Fire To Destruction Test of 5.56mm M4A1 Carbine and M16A2 Rifle Barrels |
|
Quoted:
One M.O. is to jump in every AAC detractor thread in order to get them locked. So very transparent. ETA - Look at that ad and talk smack to me about "The High Road". You are still dumb enough to think I could care less for either of the companies involved.. I like many out there I believe, have to buy gear from all three of you drama queens because your shit works..... Even though it makes my fucking eyes bleed knowing im giving money to all you children. Everytime I buy a mount, or a can, or a light I have to scrape the fucking guilt off of my soul with a cheese grater because it goes against my better judgement, it is what it is. And when I see threads like these, it is just as enraging that you are allowed to create, and troll your own threads on AAC or anyone else that might have farted in your direction. ETA - Look at that ad and talk smack to me about "The High Road".
I openly disagreed and criticized AAC on their OWN forum for this..no new news here.. |
|
Sorry I'm about to do this in a tech forum,
But Mark. Seriously, I love your products. I have ordered a lotta shit from you, and probably will continue to do so after I post this. But you're not doing your business any good at all here. You can say it's about principle or whatever, but you're crossing the line man. AAC makes good shit nowdays. Surefire makes expensive shit nowdays. You don't have to be around cans for to long to know that. This is seriously pretty immature man. Your "logic" about this being a technical discussion is an impossible link. My next can purchase is an AAC and it'll go on an M4 with a few things on it that you made, like an ACOG mount. I know that probably gives you hives, but I like quality shit. Now please, stop portraying the part of a horse's ass, and go work on some of your very high quality shit for me to buy. eta, and one of my M4s has a scout light and your m68 cant mount. Instead of the yhm phantom I have, that's going on my armalite. I'm putting an AAC can on it to. I hope you go into DTs |
|
Quoted: You are still dumb enough to think I could care less for either of the companies involved.. I like many out there I believe, have to buy gear from all three of you drama queens because your shit works..... Even though it makes my fucking eyes bleed knowing im giving money to all you children. Everytime I buy a mount, or a can, or a light I have to scrape the fucking guilt off of my soul with a cheese grater because it goes against my better judgement, it is what it is. And when I see threads like these, it is just as enraging that you are allowed to create, and troll your own threads on AAC or anyone else that might have farted in your direction. I share your pain brother, as do alot of my friends. And they depend on the good shit, it saves their lives. |
|
Yeah, call me crazy, but I wouldn't know that it's a surefire can. Sounds to me like they're just pissed that AAC makes a clearly superior product. |
|
Whats so false about this add....Like it or not...AAC is a Supperior can
How supperior?...Thats a different story. |
|
While AAC tried to keep it "even" in that picture, to anyone who spends enough time reading/looking at silencers (no offense to anyone who didn't know) the spot welds at the end of the end cap are VERY similar to Surefire cans..
|
|
I like the pretty colored one on the right ! That must be the AAC
I guess during the torture test it just turns colors but doesn't fall apart |
|
Quoted:
While AAC tried to keep it "even" in that picture, to anyone who spends enough time reading/looking at silencers (no offense to anyone who didn't know) the spot welds at the end of the end cap are VERY similar to Surefire cans.. I understand how most people that are REALLY into it may notice. But I'd think those people already know that surefire uses substandard construction techniques. |
|
I like AAC products, I own a few, but someone needs to nail them on the false advertising of SCARMOR. They touted this as the greatest finish ever, other inferior manufacturers just use a spray and bake finish. They were advertising their M4-2000's being SCARMOR'ed for a while now some '07 and all '08 cans. I ordered 7 AAC cans based on this knowledge only to find out a week or so ago that they decided to no longer offer SCARMOR and simply spray and bake the finish. They deleted the thread on their forum because it was overrun with the discontented customers, and they only changed the website description of the finish to read something like "flat black" a week or so ago. Part of the price premium of the M4-2000 over the M4-1000 was the superior finish. They are not offering to finish the cans with the advertised finish so is more of a bait and switch. I tend to give AAC the benefit of the doubt much of the time and I understand it was a decision to shorten waiting times and get product to dealers quicker, but to not rectify it with the customer in some way by offering to refinish it or with some other compensation, no matter how you cut it, is pure red ass.
|
|
Quoted:
While AAC tried to keep it "even" in that picture, to anyone who spends enough time reading/looking at silencers (no offense to anyone who didn't know) the spot welds at the end of the end cap are VERY similar to Surefire cans.. Other way around. Anyone who spends enough time reading/looking at silencers has seen those types of cap welds on more than one MFG's cans. |
|
I wouldn't agree that AAC makes a superior can. There are others out there that make just as good and better cans than AAC does.
By the way, what happened to the SCARmor AAC? You had customers order and pay for cans with that feature and then just discontinued it because it was a hassle? Sounds like false advertising to me. It is nice to see that what goes around comes around. It is here to bite AAC in the ass, and hopefully it bites them hard. They are constantly ripping on almost every other suppressor manufacturer out there. First it was Gemtech, then HP LLC, then Surefire, then HTG. They continually use ads like this to try and discredit the entire industry and it is about time that it has come full circle. RS thinks he is a god. He needs to be a little more humble and remember that no matter how good you are at something that there is always someone, somewhere that is better than you. |
|
I think it's fairly obvious that one of those cans has been used (what's the definition of abuse?) and the other is brand new.
One is definitely more attractive than the other, but only an imbecile would buy a can based on looks. Hell, I think the Knight's is the ugliest 223 can out there, but that is probably what I'm going to buy. That or a M4-2000. |
|
Did a strung out monkey go after that can on the left with a tig welder?!?! I'm diggin me some quick-detach high speed low drag DRAMA |
|
Quoted:
I wouldn't agree that AAC makes a superior can. There are others out there that make just as good and better cans than AAC does. Please Explane'....Tell us more about these other cans. |
|
Quoted:
I did not get that impression. In fact, the failures of some AAC silencers is well-documented on this web site. Are not circular welds stronger than spot welds? Welds? Link |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I wouldn't agree that AAC makes a superior can. There are others out there that make just as good and better cans than AAC does. Please Explane'....Tell us more about these other cans. How about OPS and KAC just for starters, or did the armchair commandos say that those aren't worth a shit? Real world operators use both for their intended purpose on a daily basis and have zero issues with them. Maybe that doesn't count when you stake your life on your equipment? Is it different when the paper can't shoot back? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did not get that impression. In fact, the failures of some AAC silencers is well-documented on this web site. Are not circular welds stronger than spot welds? Welds? http://i39.tinypic.com/eg464j.jpg http://i40.tinypic.com/xkq93q.jpg Link Read the link. John said that can used plug welds, and now they use circular welds. |
|
Well go get em' Surefire.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention Mr. Larue. -X |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Uh, chromeluv, this is technical, because end-users come to this forum for reference on companies, their habits, to include customer service, etc. All suppressor info is obviously traded in this forum, and that lawsuit is filled with technical info. Get off the phone with KB just long enough to actually read it. Mark, you can keep blowing that bullshit smoke screen all you want. Inter-company drama that has already been posted and talked about extensively in previous thread(s) is not technical, this is you basking in the glory that something negative is happening to AAC. once again you show your true colors with the inability to take the fucking high road and leave things be, and let someone, OUTSIDE THE REAL OF THE INDUSTRY discover information like this and post it.. But when it comes from you and you first, especially the long immature worn out history you have with AAC, it just feeds the pipeline of bullshit and immaturity. I cannot stand what you and AAC have created I was recently at the interservice Sniper competition- the inaugural year of the National Guard MTU's attempt to create a training event similar to the international sniper competition, designed to allow sniper teams from the Army, Navy, Airforce, and Marine Corps to gather to compete and see how the various teams confront various challenges so as to gather training and training ideas unavailable inside their unit. The event was closed to non DOD spectators and closed to the media, so obviously there was no real advertising value to outside vendor support of the event, and unlike the International comp, prize donations came from less companies. McMillan, Elberstock, Strider, Eagle and LaRue Tactical were the source of all the prize donations at the event. McMillan brought a guest speaker and a rifle to be donated to the MTU as a comemerative for the winning team, Elberstock donated two gunslinger packs, Strider donated $3000 worth of knives, and LaRue donated ~$3500 worth of prizes and was the only company to donate "swag" to all the teams regardless of standings. ~30% of the targets at the Comp were LaRue sniper targets (I wouldn't doubt some donated). Seeing Larue and the other companies involved donating items at a closed to public event was all I needed to see for "true colors". ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––- As far as the quality of Surefire cans, the match organizer with the MTU talked with me about cans and told me the Surefire cans were his favorite because they give him the sound and flash suppression needed for combat without POI shift and with minimal weight. This would suggest that Surefire silencers have a lot to offer. I did hear a silencer on a 308 at the event and it was loud, but I'll just take his word for it, as he's a previous winner of the international comp- also a second place winner and several year sniper instructor. If someone knows what a good silencer for snipers is it's him. The silencers found on sniper rifles are predominantly Ops and Surefire. The KAC silencer on the 110SASS is a good silencer as well and makes up the lions share of the rest of silencers on sniper rifles you'll find, but either the KAC rifle or the can tend to throw an occasional round and that is not something Ops and Surefire users observe. That errant flier is annoying as shit in a competition and would be worse in the real world. |
|
Well . . . . it looks as if Surefire is stepping onto the same train that Mr. Larue criticised AAC for riding.
Its too bad. Both companies make great cans and gear. Surefire is somewhat latigious and is not unfamiliar with the court system. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did not get that impression. In fact, the failures of some AAC silencers is well-documented on this web site. Are not circular welds stronger than spot welds? Welds? http://i39.tinypic.com/eg464j.jpg http://i40.tinypic.com/xkq93q.jpg Link Read the link. John said that can used plug welds, and now they use circular welds. This is the post by John Titsworth Jr. from the link I posted. I can't find any weld marks on the blast baffle. I cannot find any on an identical M41000 Mod 07 either. I did take the blast baffle and drop it into the tube and it appears that it was placed into the tube so as to touch the outside wall and it seemingly is held in place by the INNER tube. The outer tube is .060 and the inner tube is .035. If this is the case, then one can easily see how the excessive pressures folded the smaller inner tube over the blast baffle, leading to the demise of the silencer in the first 240 rounds. This was my original contention and the evidence supports it.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think if I were Surefire, I would counter with a better suppressor that would blow AAC's top cans out of the water. I guess this is easier I'm new to can's, but have heard little good about surefire compared to some others. Would surefire be capable of that? Surefires budget is probably more than any other company in the business. And their engineering is good. If you haven't heard anything about it, it's not because good information is unavailable. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
How how the FUCK is this a technical discussion?!?! Let's make it one then. From the link, I extracted the following points: The complaint alleges that although the pictured product is identified as a “Competitor Brand Silencer,” it is immediately and distinctively identifiable as a SureFire suppressor. How is that? The Surefire cans do not come apart, so how would anyone know whose it was? Well we do know NOW since they admitted it is theirs. Further, “the SureFire suppressor shown in the comparative advertisement has been subjected to extremely heavy use and has been modified to enhance the impression that its components have broken and/or separated.” Define extremely heavy use? How do they know it was modified and not the result of "extremely heavy use"? Whereas “the [AAC] suppressor shown in the comparative advertisement has not been used.” And how do they know this? Do they have it in their possession? Looked down the bore? The complaint asserts that the comparative advertisement creates the false impression that welds used on suppressors manufactured by ACC will not fatigue or crack, are stronger and more durable, and SureFire’s suppressors are unreliable and likely to fail during ordinary use. I did not get that impression. In fact, the failures of some AAC silencers is well-documented on this web site. Are not circular welds stronger than spot welds? Moreover, the complaint takes exception to the test data which provide “independent verification” of the decibel reduction figures provided on the “independent website” silencertests.com. SureFire alleges that the website is owned by an individual that currently designs suppressors for defendant and is not truly independent. They are free to publish their own test data. I would love to see Surefire reproduce this in front of the court: http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o189/hs338lapua/surefire.jpg Special Steel? Talk about false claims and not knowing much about the M16 platform in general. I am sure the Army would love to know how to fire an M4 that fast for more than 600 rounds before failure, since they were not able to do it. Never mind with a silencer on it. Fire To Destruction Test of 5.56mm M4A1 Carbine and M16A2 Rifle Barrels The AAC can in that picture is clearly new, and meant to look so. And to anyone familiar with the Surefire, the can on the left is obviously a Surefire. Special steel is probably inconel, and passing something written by a gunwriter as a Surefire advertisement is a level of stupid I haven't seen yet this week. |
|
I really don't see how the "competitor's can" is clearly a surefire.
Lets face it, a jury of 12 people who aren't smart enough to get off jury duty aren't gonna buy that. |
|
Quoted:
I really don't see how the "competitor's can" is clearly a surefire. Lets face it, a jury of 12 people who aren't smart enough to get off jury duty aren't gonna buy that. Lets see a picture of a can that has a similar endcap and finish, the distinctive baffle stack, etc. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think if I were Surefire, I would counter with a better suppressor that would blow AAC's top cans out of the water. I guess this is easier I'm new to can's, but have heard little good about surefire compared to some others. Would surefire be capable of that? Surefires budget is probably more than any other company in the business. And their engineering is good. If you haven't heard anything about it, it's not because good information is unavailable. Then why couldn't they make a quiet can to begin with? |
|
Quoted: Surefire is suing some kid for running his mouth on the internet?Well . . . . it looks as if Surefire is stepping onto the same train that Mr. Larue criticised AAC for riding. Link please? |
|
Advance Armament Corporation - Suppression Via Litigation
I hope Surefire eats their ass alive. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I wouldn't agree that AAC makes a superior can. There are others out there that make just as good and better cans than AAC does. Please Explane'....Tell us more about these other cans. How about OPS and KAC just for starters, or did the armchair commandos say that those aren't worth a shit? Real world operators use both for their intended purpose on a daily basis and have zero issues with them. Maybe that doesn't count when you stake your life on your equipment? Is it different when the paper can't shoot back? I own both AAC and Ops Inc. suppresors...& think highly KAC's cans But you forgot to answer the Q'....What makes them supperior over the AAC ? Stop acting like your somebody that you really are not... |
|
Quoted:
But you forgot to answer the Q'....What makes them supperior over the AAC ? Stop acting like your somebody that you really are not... I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that OPS and KAC hold themselves to a higher regard and I haven't seen either pull any crap like AAC. That IMHO makes them superior. BY FAR. -X |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think if I were Surefire, I would counter with a better suppressor that would blow AAC's top cans out of the water. I guess this is easier I'm new to can's, but have heard little good about surefire compared to some others. Would surefire be capable of that? Surefires budget is probably more than any other company in the business. And their engineering is good. If you haven't heard anything about it, it's not because good information is unavailable. Then why couldn't they make a quiet can to begin with? Plenty quiet for me, but I think the KAC NT4 is plenty quiet too. Keep in mind that their intention was always military sales, and the military isn't crazy for quiet. Their main concerns are flash reduction, poi shift, weight, attachment, durability, etc. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Surefire is suing some kid for running his mouth on the internet?
Well . . . . it looks as if Surefire is stepping onto the same train that Mr. Larue criticised AAC for riding. Link please? All Aboard . . . . the suppression by litigation train is boarding on platform 1 for immediate departure to lawyerland! |
|
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.