Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/30/2008 3:51:12 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 3:56:26 PM EST
[#1]
[German accent]Very Interesting.  [/German accent]
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 4:03:26 PM EST
[#2]
Surefire has quite a bit of capital behind their legal team, I would suspect.
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 4:11:01 PM EST
[#3]
Quoted:
Surefire has quite a bit of capital behind their legal team, I would suspect.


I suspect they have capital behind everything they do.
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 4:11:51 PM EST
[#4]
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 4:15:01 PM EST
[#5]
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.


Link Posted: 12/30/2008 4:18:07 PM EST
[#6]
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 4:21:28 PM EST
[#7]
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 4:23:17 PM EST
[#8]
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 4:26:18 PM EST
[#9]
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 4:26:18 PM EST
[#10]
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?
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 4:27:57 PM EST
[#11]
Old school tageroo
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 4:34:46 PM EST
[#12]
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 4:35:34 PM EST
[#13]
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
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 4:39:23 PM EST
[#14]
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 4:42:17 PM EST
[#15]
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
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 4:44:53 PM EST
[#16]
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..
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 4:48:47 PM EST
[#17]
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
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 4:49:00 PM EST
[#18]
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 4:50:16 PM EST
[#19]
Tactical Drama !!!


Link Posted: 12/30/2008 4:53:16 PM EST
[#20]
Where is this add I would like to see it for my self..
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 5:03:47 PM EST
[#21]
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 5:13:27 PM EST
[#22]


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.
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 5:17:29 PM EST
[#23]
Whats so false about this add....Like it or not...AAC is a Supperior can

How  supperior?...Thats a different story.
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 5:18:20 PM EST
[#24]
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..
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 5:24:00 PM EST
[#25]
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
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 5:31:59 PM EST
[#26]
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.
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 5:37:39 PM EST
[#27]
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.
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 5:41:52 PM EST
[#28]
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.
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 5:57:23 PM EST
[#29]
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.
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 6:02:33 PM EST
[#30]
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.
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 6:06:08 PM EST
[#31]


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  
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 6:24:33 PM EST
[#32]
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.  
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 6:46:35 PM EST
[#33]
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

Link Posted: 12/30/2008 6:51:38 PM EST
[#34]
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?
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 7:00:00 PM EST
[#35]
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.
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 7:18:41 PM EST
[#36]
Well go get em' Surefire.    

Thanks for bringing this to our attention Mr. Larue.  

-X
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 7:46:32 PM EST
[#37]
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 7:55:56 PM EST
[#38]
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.
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 7:58:50 PM EST
[#39]
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.
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 8:06:25 PM EST
[#40]
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.
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 8:08:40 PM EST
[#41]
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.
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 8:10:52 PM EST
[#42]
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.
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 8:12:34 PM EST
[#43]
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.
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 8:14:44 PM EST
[#44]
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 8:15:32 PM EST
[#45]



Quoted:



Well . . . . it looks as if Surefire is stepping onto the same train that Mr. Larue criticised AAC for riding.

Surefire is suing some kid for running his mouth on the internet?



Link please?





Link Posted: 12/30/2008 8:23:18 PM EST
[#46]
Advance Armament Corporation - Suppression Via Litigation

I hope Surefire eats their ass alive.
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 8:40:19 PM EST
[#47]
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...
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 8:47:57 PM EST
[#48]
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
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 8:52:27 PM EST
[#49]
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.
Link Posted: 12/30/2008 8:55:03 PM EST
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:

Well . . . . it looks as if Surefire is stepping onto the same train that Mr. Larue criticised AAC for riding.
Surefire is suing some kid for running his mouth on the internet?

Link please?




All Aboard . . . . the suppression by litigation train is boarding on platform 1 for immediate departure to lawyerland!

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
An error occurred on the server when processing the URL. Please contact the system administrator.

If you are the system administrator please click here to find out more about this error.