Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 12/31/2008 6:22:32 AM EDT
Saw a thread on surefire suing AAC.

It went 3 pages before being locked. Original - Locked - Thread

Surefire v. AAC:  Industry Blurb article  


December 11, 2008  
Surefire, LLC v. Advanced Armament Corp.  CA Central  Carter  Trademark  Trademark Infringement  
Plaintiff: Surefire, LLC Defendant: Advanced Armament Corp.
 

April 28, 2008  
SureFire, LLC v. Pentagon Scientific Corp  TX Eastern  Schell  Patent  Federal Question  
Plaintiff: SureFire, LLC; Defendant: Pentagon Scientific Corp
 

September 7, 2007  
McPherson v. Surefire Enterprises, LLC  TX Western  Sparks  Copyrights  Copyright Infringement  
Plaintiff: Casey McPherson; Defendant: Surefire Enterprises, LLC
 

February 26, 2004  
Insight Technology Incorporated v. Surefire, LLC  NH  DiClerico  Patent  Patent Infringement  

February 3, 2004  
Surefire, LLC v. Sun Brite Industries, Inc. et al  CA Central   Trademark  

         
Link Posted: 12/31/2008 6:23:40 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/31/2008 6:27:26 AM EDT
I guess when the price of a G2 goes up to $100 we'll know what we're paying for.





(I hope Surefire doesn't sue me for saying that...)
Link Posted: 12/31/2008 6:29:37 AM EDT
Surefire seems to be turning to litigation to do what it can't do in the marketplace.
Link Posted: 12/31/2008 9:52:17 AM EDT
Quoted:
Surefire seems to be turning to litigation to do what it can't do in the marketplace.


if what they allege is true i'd sue also-   comparing a used and abused surefire vs. a babied aac on nationwide magazines.


http://www.iptrademarkattorney.com/2008/12/advertisement-false-advertising-surefire-advanced-armament-silencer-suppressor.html
Link Posted: 12/31/2008 9:55:40 AM EDT


Quoted:


Surefire seems to be turning to litigation to do what it can't do in the marketplace.




I guess if I was a legal expert I could see where they have a case.  You'd have to be an idiot to see that ad for anything other than what it is.



 
Link Posted: 12/31/2008 9:55:45 AM EDT
Surefire makes a great flashlight.  However, their competition has gone beyond what they're capable of doing... and for less.  
Link Posted: 12/31/2008 10:00:48 AM EDT
Anyone want to host the .pdf file of the complaint?
Link Posted: 12/31/2008 10:02:23 AM EDT
Interesting how the sane people are posting in the Legal section while the nutcases posted in the locked thread.  If you really want to talk about false advertising how about Surefire's posted claims of 1500 round dumps in full auto when the military test shows failure after under 600 rounds on an unsuppressed rifle.

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o189/hs338lapua/surefire.jpg

Source on M4 and M16A2 failure here

Apple has gotten away with far worse by openly stating the name of their competition.  In the ad in question only a person with knowledge of what a surefire can looks like would know who the manufacturer was.

Here is the ad in question:
http://www.aacblog.com/wp-content/uploads/fullyweldedcoreadfinaljo4-600x815.jpg

Now how about something Surefire did with a bit of photoshopping:
http://www.aacblog.com/wp-content/uploads/adphotoshoppedxl2.jpg

I was planning on getting some surefire flashlights, but looks like I'll be sticking to Streamlight and Pentagon for my illumination needs
Link Posted: 12/31/2008 10:13:52 AM EDT
Quoted:

Now how about something Surefire did with a bit of photoshopping:
http://www.aacblog.com/wp-content/uploads/adphotoshoppedxl2.jpg

I was planning on getting some surefire flashlights, but looks like I'll be sticking to Streamlight and Pentagon for my illumination needs


I don't see at all what your point is on the last photo-   I don't know what the rest of the story is, so it is meaningless to me.


Link Posted: 12/31/2008 10:20:07 AM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
Surefire seems to be turning to litigation to do what it can't do in the marketplace.


if what they allege is true i'd sue also-   comparing a used and abused surefire vs. a babied aac on nationwide magazines.



Commonly accepted advertising practice.

Link Posted: 12/31/2008 10:24:47 AM EDT
Quoted:

I don't see at all what your point is on the last photo-   I don't know what the rest of the story is, so it is meaningless to me.




Did the same thing to AAC they are accusing AAC of. Quoting their own words:

it is immediately and distinctively identifiable (as AAC can  and BO Flash Hider)

&

has been modified to enhance the impression that its components have broken and/or separated. (broken teeth on FH).


The difference is AAC actually shot the can, while Surefire Doctered the photo.
Link Posted: 12/31/2008 10:38:30 AM EDT
Here is the original complaint.

Here is another example of a photoshop in Surefire's favor:
http://www.aacblog.com/wp-content/uploads/special-weapons-2.jpg
Link Posted: 12/31/2008 10:46:16 AM EDT
Interesting......I sell both brands and due to pricepoint vs performance you can image which I sell the most of.
Link Posted: 12/31/2008 10:48:54 AM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:

I don't see at all what your point is on the last photo-   I don't know what the rest of the story is, so it is meaningless to me.




Did the same thing to AAC they are accusing AAC of. Quoting their own words:

it is immediately and distinctively identifiable (as AAC can  and BO Flash Hider)

&

has been modified to enhance the impression that its components have broken and/or separated. (broken teeth on FH).


The difference is AAC actually shot the can, while Surefire Doctered the photo.


removing the teeth with photoshop just removes or confuses its identity, it isn't a claim the teeth break.    what does the article say?

Link Posted: 12/31/2008 10:50:33 AM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Surefire seems to be turning to litigation to do what it can't do in the marketplace.


if what they allege is true i'd sue also-   comparing a used and abused surefire vs. a babied aac on nationwide magazines.



Commonly accepted advertising practice.


maybe you can show me some beaten up fords compared to new dodges in "car and driver" or some other example, because otherwise i don't believe it.


Link Posted: 12/31/2008 10:54:16 AM EDT
Please remember that when AAC used spot welding, "the M4-2000 was the best can available"...

The ad is bullshit, and we'll see who wins the case.  To the people who are buying suppressors, the ad "talks to them" as they probably already know what they are looking at, to the layman –– also someone not really targeted by the ad –– they'd have no idea.

I've never really liked when Manufacturer A has to revert to selling the "negatives" of Manufacturer B as the selling points for their own product.

The M4-2000 is a great can.  It was great back when it used spot welds.  The Surefire can is great too.
Link Posted: 12/31/2008 10:55:24 AM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Surefire seems to be turning to litigation to do what it can't do in the marketplace.


if what they allege is true i'd sue also-   comparing a used and abused surefire vs. a babied aac on nationwide magazines.



Commonly accepted advertising practice.


maybe you can show me some beaten up fords compared to new dodges in "car and driver" or some other example, because otherwise i don't believe it.




How about this?
Link Posted: 12/31/2008 11:03:38 AM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Surefire seems to be turning to litigation to do what it can't do in the marketplace.


if what they allege is true i'd sue also-   comparing a used and abused surefire vs. a babied aac on nationwide magazines.



Commonly accepted advertising practice.


maybe you can show me some beaten up fords compared to new dodges in "car and driver" or some other example, because otherwise i don't believe it.




How about this?


?   people supposed to represent the product is not the same as the product itself, abused in one case and brand new in the other case.

i don't see it in that example.

Link Posted: 12/31/2008 11:06:41 AM EDT
I still don;t see how this was "obviously" a surefire can.

How many people have opened their cans up?

How many people would recognize a surefire bafflestack v. an Ops Inc. stack or a AAC stack?
Link Posted: 12/31/2008 11:14:12 AM EDT


Quoted:



Quoted:


Quoted:


Quoted:


Quoted:


Quoted:

Surefire seems to be turning to litigation to do what it can't do in the marketplace.




if what they allege is true i'd sue also-   comparing a used and abused surefire vs. a babied aac on nationwide magazines.







Commonly accepted advertising practice.





maybe you can show me some beaten up fords compared to new dodges in "car and driver" or some other example, because otherwise i don't believe it.









How about this?




?   people supposed to represent the product is not the same as the product itself, abused in one case and brand new in the other case.



i don't see it in that example.





If the AAC can had been used would this ad be ok by your standard?





 
Link Posted: 12/31/2008 11:19:00 AM EDT
Quoted:How many people would recognize a surefire bafflestack v. an Ops Inc. stack or a AAC stack?


It really isn't the baffle stack that gives it away.  The endcap and weld did it for me.

I understand the Ops and Surefire baffles are "close" in their design.
Link Posted: 12/31/2008 11:20:33 AM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Surefire seems to be turning to litigation to do what it can't do in the marketplace.


if what they allege is true i'd sue also-   comparing a used and abused surefire vs. a babied aac on nationwide magazines.



Commonly accepted advertising practice.


maybe you can show me some beaten up fords compared to new dodges in "car and driver" or some other example, because otherwise i don't believe it.




Maybe you can pay me and I will be glad to research it for you. Cause I really do not care what you believe or do not believe. No offense intended.

Link Posted: 12/31/2008 11:32:02 AM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Surefire seems to be turning to litigation to do what it can't do in the marketplace.


if what they allege is true i'd sue also-   comparing a used and abused surefire vs. a babied aac on nationwide magazines.



Commonly accepted advertising practice.


maybe you can show me some beaten up fords compared to new dodges in "car and driver" or some other example, because otherwise i don't believe it.




How about this?


?   people supposed to represent the product is not the same as the product itself, abused in one case and brand new in the other case.

i don't see it in that example.


If the AAC can had been used would this ad be ok by your standard?

 


if they were used equally (by a nonbiased third party) then yes.    then it would be a matter of comparing the results of an equal test, which seems to be hard for some suppressor testers to do.

Link Posted: 12/31/2008 11:32:49 AM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Surefire seems to be turning to litigation to do what it can't do in the marketplace.


if what they allege is true i'd sue also-   comparing a used and abused surefire vs. a babied aac on nationwide magazines.



Commonly accepted advertising practice.


maybe you can show me some beaten up fords compared to new dodges in "car and driver" or some other example, because otherwise i don't believe it.




Maybe you can pay me and I will be glad to research it for you. Cause I really do not care what you believe or do not believe. No offense intended.



you made the claim, i asked for proof, you didn't deliver.    ok.   no offense there.

Link Posted: 12/31/2008 11:34:33 AM EDT


Quoted:



Quoted:


Quoted:


Quoted:


Quoted:


Quoted:


Quoted:


Quoted:

Surefire seems to be turning to litigation to do what it can't do in the marketplace.




if what they allege is true i'd sue also-   comparing a used and abused surefire vs. a babied aac on nationwide magazines.







Commonly accepted advertising practice.





maybe you can show me some beaten up fords compared to new dodges in "car and driver" or some other example, because otherwise i don't believe it.









How about this?




?   people supposed to represent the product is not the same as the product itself, abused in one case and brand new in the other case.



i don't see it in that example.





If the AAC can had been used would this ad be ok by your standard?



 




if they were used equally (by a nonbiased third party) then yes.    then it would be a matter of comparing the results of an equal test, which seems to be hard for some suppressor testers to do.







Are you losing sight of the fact that this is an advertisement and not an independent review?



Ads aren't "fair."  



 
Link Posted: 12/31/2008 11:58:38 AM EDT
Quoted:
you made the claim, i asked for proof, you didn't deliver.    ok.   no offense there.



Someone else did the research for me, so I will pass it on no-charge:



Makes the Apple look like an old pile of junk, compared to the brand new Commodore.
Link Posted: 12/31/2008 12:04:24 PM EDT
You mean that AAC silencer was not used?  I would have thought it was fired for 1500 rounds continuous full auto... I mean obviously the Surefire was fired AT LEAST that much since their cans can do that with no appreciable wear at all according to them... I mean how are we supposed to know if that AAC can is new or not... yeah the lack of finish and pristine condition are called a CLUE but I have an IQ under 75.

This is the dumbest lawsuit ever...
Link Posted: 12/31/2008 12:19:47 PM EDT
Quoted:

This is the dumbest lawsuit ever...

Nah, AAC's lawsuit against Ian is much dumber.
Link Posted: 12/31/2008 4:07:08 PM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Surefire seems to be turning to litigation to do what it can't do in the marketplace.


if what they allege is true i'd sue also-   comparing a used and abused surefire vs. a babied aac on nationwide magazines.



Commonly accepted advertising practice.


maybe you can show me some beaten up fords compared to new dodges in "car and driver" or some other example, because otherwise i don't believe it.




How about this?


?   people supposed to represent the product is not the same as the product itself, abused in one case and brand new in the other case.

i don't see it in that example.


If the AAC can had been used would this ad be ok by your standard?

 


if they were used equally (by a nonbiased third party) then yes.    then it would be a matter of comparing the results of an equal test, which seems to be hard for some suppressor testers to do.



Are you losing sight of the fact that this is an advertisement and not an independent review?

Ads aren't "fair."  
 


if you have a truly better product, they can be.    if you don't, you cheat.

Link Posted: 12/31/2008 5:56:07 PM EDT
Quoted:
You mean that AAC silencer was not used?  I would have thought it was fired for 1500 rounds continuous full auto... I mean obviously the Surefire was fired AT LEAST that much since their cans can do that with no appreciable wear at all according to them... I mean how are we supposed to know if that AAC can is new or not... yeah the lack of finish and pristine condition are called a CLUE but I have an IQ under 75.

This is the dumbest lawsuit ever...


The surefire can in that ad only saw about 500 rounds in full auto from what I understand as an M4 and an M16A2 will both fail under less than 600 rounds in full auto when reloaded as fast as humanly possible.

Also, an IQ of 70 or below is legally considered to be mentally disabled, so I doubt someone with an IQ of 75 or lower often reads gun magazines and considers their choices wisely between two suppressor companies...no offense, just speaking in plain terms.
Link Posted: 12/31/2008 8:40:33 PM EDT
SC-Texas - the link you posted wouldn't alow me to access additional info without PACER so, what is Surefire's batting average in the court room? Also any idea what the looser of such a case is looking at just in terms of fees (not damages or other).


TIA
Link Posted: 12/31/2008 10:49:36 PM EDT
I only know the pentagon result and Pentagon is no longer producing lights.

Link Posted: 1/1/2009 3:53:23 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/1/2009 4:01:34 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/1/2009 7:29:55 AM EDT
The Pentagon Lights lawsuit had a false advertising claim relating to whether Pentagon lights were as American Made as Surefire lights were and a patent infrinegment claim over the clicky tailcap.


In the surefire-AAC lawsuit, aren't the issues:

1.  whether anyone looked at the two cans and ID'd the surefire can.

So how many people knew what a surefire bafflestack looked like?

2.  whether the AAC can is really quieter than the surefire can

We all know that it is.  Surefire cans are notorioulsy loud compared to other cans.  Maybe relatively loud is a better description.

3.   whether spot welds are stronger than circumferential welds.  

I think we all know that a spot weld is not as strong.
Link Posted: 1/1/2009 9:19:36 AM EDT
Quoted:

3.   whether spot welds are stronger than circumferential welds.  

I think we all know that a spot weld is not as strong.



The power of advertising.

I know a bit about welding, yeah a full weld is stronger. However all I have ever seen is either a fan boy or an AAC rep jumping up and down and saying "fully welded is better". Is it? Within the design and function parameters of the device is it necessary? And if it isn't necessary, what makes it better? What does it add? Failure is failure. If 1,000 cans of each type were tested to failure (and not just mag dump after mag dump but all manner of real world shooting) what is the margin in lifespan if any? My understanding is this hasn't been done. So it is abstract mental masterbation on the part of one group. That's how one can land in court. Running your yap about something without rock solid incontrovertible PROOF - sounds kinda like AAC and Ian - doesn't it? For some steep fees, and the real chance at a loss - everybody gets to have their side of the story told.

I bring this up to show the power of media and advertising. There is a tremendous amount of hype from AAC (now that they offer) related to fully welded cores. However, IMHO there is very little meat and potatoes to go along with it.

Just saying....

Link Posted: 1/1/2009 9:32:31 AM EDT
Quoted:

I know a bit about welding, yeah a full weld is stronger.



Then you admit that the text of the ad is, in fact, correct.
"Traditional spot wleds can fatigue, crack and Break . . . ."



However all I have ever seen is either a fan boy or an AAC rep jumping up and down and saying "fully welded is better". Is it?


But you just admitted that a circumferential weld is better than spot welds

Within the design and function parameters of the device is it necessary?


Now that is a whole other subject and its why I recoomend a wide ange of cans to my customers based on their intended use and budget.

And if it isn't necessary, what makes it better?


Stronger is better.  Its more durable.  Even I can see that

What does it add?

Why a chevy over a ford?


Why a Ford over a Dodge?


Link Posted: 1/1/2009 10:02:27 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/1/2009 10:35:54 AM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:

3.   whether spot welds are stronger than circumferential welds.  

I think we all know that a spot weld is not as strong.



The power of advertising.

I know a bit about welding, yeah a full weld is stronger. However all I have ever seen is either a fan boy or an AAC rep jumping up and down and saying "fully welded is better". Is it? Within the design and function parameters of the device is it necessary? And if it isn't necessary, what makes it better? What does it add? Failure is failure. If 1,000 cans of each type were tested to failure (and not just mag dump after mag dump but all manner of real world shooting) what is the margin in lifespan if any? My understanding is this hasn't been done. So it is abstract mental masterbation on the part of one group. That's how one can land in court. Running your yap about something without rock solid incontrovertible PROOF - sounds kinda like AAC and Ian - doesn't it? For some steep fees, and the real chance at a loss - everybody gets to have their side of the story told.

I bring this up to show the power of media and advertising. There is a tremendous amount of hype from AAC (now that they offer) related to fully welded cores. However, IMHO there is very little meat and potatoes to go along with it.

Just saying....



I think you forget Surefires ad telling it could survive 1500 round blah blah
If all AAC did to the Surefire can  was to repeat what Sure fire does till this day claim IT WILL HANDLE ,
And the result was that they didnt get pass the 500 round mark
And it was a spot weld that did fail

Then who is it that is making FALSE advertising ??

I DO agree wit you about enough welding is enough  
But if the spot weld did fail doing what Sure fire claims it will handle with no ill effect
Then the welding wasn't enough wouldn't you say ??

Now if the the Sure fire can handle what most people will cal normal use
then the welds are god enough for normal shooting

But then why the f,,, was Surefire SOOHH stupid to make a claim in writing that it can handle 1500 on full auto as fast as you can reload
It is easy to proof that is a lie ,, it wont cost you 1500 rounds

Take you Surefire can ,,do as they tell it can handle video tape it send the wrecked can back to Surefire along with a copy of the  tape, have them fix it for free

Ask them why they didnt use the special steel in your can

Ps i am not bashing Surefire cans as such
But the to say it honest the very stupid (false )advertising about the 1500 round story
Link Posted: 1/1/2009 10:47:42 AM EDT


Yes you are bringing up something that i have wanting to say

Now English isnt my first language so i migh be of

What  Ian made a link to is spot welding (induction)
What i see at the can in the photo(Surefire??)is what i would call tack welding (arc )
what AAC did use earlier was plug welding  (arc) The dimples

Its different animals
Link Posted: 1/1/2009 10:59:46 AM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:

I know a bit about welding, yeah a full weld is stronger.



Then you admit that the text of the ad is, in fact, correct.
"Traditional spot wleds can fatigue, crack and Break . . . ."

http://www.aacblog.com/wp-content/uploads/fullyweldedcoreadfinaljo4-600x815.jpg

However all I have ever seen is either a fan boy or an AAC rep jumping up and down and saying "fully welded is better". Is it?


But you just admitted that a circumferential weld is better than spot welds

Within the design and function parameters of the device is it necessary?


Now that is a whole other subject and its why I recoomend a wide ange of cans to my customers based on their intended use and budget.

And if it isn't necessary, what makes it better?


Stronger is better.  Its more durable.  Even I can see that

What does it add?

Why a chevy over a ford?


Why a Ford over a Dodge?






SC-Texas do you pride yourself on the power of the media over you? You missed the entire point.


Wolfdk - agree on many / most points


Link Posted: 1/1/2009 12:30:52 PM EDT
Quoted:
SC-Texas do you pride yourself on the power of the media over you? You missed the entire point.



While I acknowlege the power of Mass Media, I do not have any pride in that power as it is scary to say the least.  But that is a discussion for another thread.

Now, if you want to discuss whether spot welds are sufficient, then we can debate that all day.

Once again, it isn't whether Circumferential welds are stronger, but whether they are better.

The AAC ad claims that they are better.  How is that false advertising?

I would prefer a stronger weld on my can.

I have some customers who don't care and like the features of the Gemtech, YHM, surefire or Ops Inc.

So, I don't see your point.

Are you saying that spot welds are good enough?

If so, then good enough for who?

Link Posted: 1/1/2009 1:30:05 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/1/2009 1:38:50 PM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Pentagon Lights lawsuit had a false advertising claim relating to whether Pentagon lights were as American Made as Surefire lights were and a patent infrinegment claim over the clicky tailcap.


Yeah, I wasn't clear. I'm suspicious that the patent infringement is what put Pentagon under, not the false advertising claim, but I've never handled a patent case or a false advertising case in federal court so what do I know?
 



I was just trying to clarify.  I also think that the patent infringement was what put them under.
Link Posted: 1/2/2009 7:47:45 AM EDT


Quoted:



Quoted:


Quoted:





if they were used equally (by a nonbiased third party) then yes.    then it would be a matter of comparing the results of an equal test, which seems to be hard for some suppressor testers to do.







Are you losing sight of the fact that this is an advertisement and not an independent review?



Ads aren't "fair."  

 




if you have a truly better product, they can be.    if you don't, you cheat.





Ok...so everytime an advertisement deliberately shows a competing product in a less than favorable light (such as the commodore ad posted above), it's cheating?



Don't get me wrong; this ad makes me chuckle because it's such an obviously biased comparison.  Of course I chuckle at a LOT of advertising for that reason.  I don't see it as cheating, but then I'm usually not harboring a strong bias.



 
Link Posted: 1/3/2009 1:45:07 PM EDT
I wonder why in the Ad. AAC didn't show their entire silencer like they did the SF silencer?









Link Posted: 1/3/2009 4:13:29 PM EDT


Quoted:


I wonder why in the Ad. AAC didn't show their entire silencer like they did the SF silencer?



http://i41.tinypic.com/24n1xya.jpg


If I wasn't looking for a conspiracy theory I would suggest that it's because the ad as it exists is much more visually appealing and effective.




 
Link Posted: 1/3/2009 4:16:57 PM EDT


Quoted:




I bring this up to show the power of media and advertising. There is a tremendous amount of hype from AAC (now that they offer) related to fully welded cores. However, IMHO there is very little meat and potatoes to go along with it.





That's a great point.  I often wonder how much that really matters, even under heavy use.



It's worth noting though that they're not the only ones who do it, and it costs more to do, so it seems like a poor marketing ploy if that's all it is.



 
Link Posted: 1/3/2009 4:34:16 PM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
I wonder why in the Ad. AAC didn't show their entire silencer like they did the SF silencer?

http://i41.tinypic.com/24n1xya.jpg








If I wasn't looking for a conspiracy theory I would suggest that it's because the ad as it exists is much more visually appealing and effective.



http://www.childrenfirst.nhs.uk/teens/images/features/michelle_before-after.jpg
 


Found on Google Patent: Dueck Patent

Link Posted: 1/3/2009 4:44:38 PM EDT
Based on the discussion on Silencer Research in the thread showing the interior photos of the tested / failed AAC M4-1K, AAC revised their construction (the concentric welds) because of their earlier M4-1K and M4-2K suppressors' failures (the thinner inner tubing collapsing around the baffles).

If Surefire doesn't use a  thin inner tube / has a different design then they don't "need" to use concentric welding.

Kudos to AAC for re-vamping their design...  but it doesn't mean other designs need the same thing.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
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.