Armory Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Gemtech Blackside report (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 6/3/2006 11:03:16 AM EDT
|
Its quiet dry, but nothign special. Add a tiny bit of water, and it is definitely the quietest .45 can I have ever heard - its basically Hollywood quiet. 5.2 ounces, no booster needed on my 1911 or Glock 21.  Videos dont do silencers justice, but they are still cool. suppressed 1911 close up |
That’s right Robert cut up the quote. Here is the full quote... "Sorry Kevin, but your posts alone will keep me from ever purchasing any AAC product. I feel you bash other suppressor MFG's, which to me is unprofessional, and have bad customer service. I will admit I don’t have first hand knowledge of your customer service as I do not own any AAC products, its just what my local dealer has told me as well as postings here and other forums from people that own AAC products..." Care to respond on Kevin bashing others? As far as this ONE guy, let’s see, AAC has been getting bad posts for a long time. This guy posts here that he has a problem with an AAC product and it’s taken care of immediately with a new piston, $10 and a shirt. AAC has done this customer right, as it should have with an AAC mistake or any companies mistake, and ALL companies make mistakes. I make mistakes, but I also don’t think denial is just a river in Egypt. Here is a mistake I make with a suppressor. I bought a CCF Impuls IIa in 45, it was my first suppressor and I shouldn’t have bought it, I should have done more research first and bought the SWR HEMS. Anyhow, AAC did this person right, but I feel that his post here and all the posts that said good luck with AAC customer service is why he got such good customer service from AAC. Now it might be that AAC is turning the corner and is putting more toward customer service but only time will tell. As far as "its just what my local dealer has told me..." He has AAC stuff and will not buy another AAC product just from his experience with AAC. Here is some advice for ALL companies: You can have the best product on the planet but if you customer service sucks people will go to the other guy for the next best thing. Customer Service will kill any company, simple as that, and it’s very hard to come back from a bad customer service reputation. This is what AAC is dealing with now. The best thing for Kevin and you, Robert, is to apologize for it and your posts against other MFG's and move on. That would do more good for AAC and your reputation, than fighting in posts here. I'm not going to continue this discussion here, as this was not the topic of this thread and it will just continue to spiral in to the ground... |
|
sorry guys. I was thinking (after I got into bed last night) that I should do some serious editing to my reply. But, I also kinda thought it might get someone in here who will finally try and clean up these messes that *coincidentally* keep on happening in Steve's threads on supressors. I have nothing against AAC- just their $200 price jump on the can I used to want 
|
Same here. I shoot mine wet all the time...Shoot one or two dry (BTW, have no problem shooting dry at all...comfy to the ears) just to demonstrate the difference to people who would like to hear the effect of wet suppressed. |
Sorry, I should have said. The numbers I quoted were tested according to MIL-STD. I'm going to open a can of worms here buy asking this question (I don't know the answer) - When people say that 140 dB is considered "safe", where is it safe? Tested MIL-STD? At the ear? 140 MIL-SPC will be less at the ear, maybe 137 - 138? I agree with the Wet 45 cans. I shoot all of mine wet, all the time. |
We are talking about at the ear now. The Omega-30 was measured 1 meter left of the muzzle. Not the same mic position, so you can't compare them. The Omega-30 is hearing safe. |
how much difference is there between a measurement at the ear and one according to MIL STD procedure? (with pistol cans) |
|
It is different each time. Usually 3-4 dB. Maybe had I measureed at the ear on that day it would have been 138. It also depends if you meter on the right ear or left ear. If a suppressor-testor wanted to claim their can measured under 140 at the ear, but they got 141 at the right ear, they could just try the left ear. I won't call a can hearing safe unless I get below 140 at the right ear. |
OK, mpallett claimed the .45 cans are dropping in the neighborhood of 141.x-143.x dB. He's in the business I assumed he wouldn't use non-standard numbers for comparison. I apologize. So if we can't extrapolate anything from the information doing two different tests with two different protocols I'm not sure mpallett's info does us any good to cement his, and your, point about them not being "hearing safe". I've heard one .45 can, wet, and I thought it was pretty amazing. I thought most folks shot their .45's wet anyway. I guess dry is better for testing, but "wet" is how you shoot for best effect. |
It is common when the context is hearing-safeness. Lots of companies test at the ear. Surefire only tests at the ear. If they tell you any numbers, they are at the ear. |
Common context ??? I figured if there was a MIL-STD, or some other standard to be followed, it would probably be best to hold discussions in that jargon. I suppose that is the biggest problem with the suppressor field. No one, not even the guys in the business, want to give you dB #'s the same way. Hell, the guy you work with/for/around gives us numbers at the ear and your whole site is measured 1 meter off the gun and back.......  Oh well. As I noted, most folks shoot their .45 cans "wet" making the discussion moot. |
|
Ok. I am fundamentally against unboostered cans. If they are light enough (generally 5-6 ounces or less) they can be mostly reliable. Adding any weight to a Browning action will make a pistol *less* reliable though. The question is: How reliable is reliable enough for you? For the military, I think they need a boostered can. For me, I like things done all the way, so I want a boostered can. For a recreational shooter, an unboostered can is probably fine. It will work most of the time, on most guns. Especially if the gun is clean. If the user finds that it is failing more than they want, they can try a lighter spring. But most users could save the money on a can which has no booster, and get it to work. Now specifics: I have seen three Blacksides. Two looked fine. One had issues. The end caps were not the same color black as the tube, and the end caps on one of them were not concentric with the tube. The engraving was not straight, but it was short, so it was hard to see. It was not a huge deal. The thing is, there are companies that make a bigger effort to have those details worked out. The Evo-45 is the best example. For sound, I did not properly test it. I did fire a few rounds with the meter at the shooter's ears. I did not average 10 shots, but the meter was in the 143 range most of the time. It seemed like a significant improvement over the SOS45 which was louder (and which failed to cycle a Glock). I was taken in a bit by the anticipation of a new can and thought maybe it had some cool new baffles and was going to leapfrog other cans for sound. That is not the case. The aluminum threads are a deal killer for me. The other stuff, such as the end-caps not being concentric, is something that could be worked out by only buying a can I could examine first. Also the Evo-45 and HEMS2 are hardcoated inside and out. The Blackside is not coated on the inside at all, which will promote corrosion if you put water in it (which happens to be the best overall coolant). The Evo-45 is easily a better can as is the HEMS2. But in no way am I saying not to buy a Blackside. It is $300 less. |
WOW!, don't tell that to the eight AL threaded cans I have owned for a decade plus with zero problems! They might change their minds and decide not to work... |
There you go. It is good enough for you. You should get a job at Mercedes or Ferrari and tell them they could save a shitload of money by taking your advice on corner-cutting and making stuff more like other car companies. There is no doubt that the extras that differentiate a basic product from an exceptional one are not worth it to everyone and that basic products work in most cases. You are a perfect candidate for saving the money and getting the lower cost product. |
Actually not, I don't nor will I buy buy cheap junk or even expensive junk. Ten years ago you couldn't find a manufacturer using titanium on a suppressor thread interface that I have ever heard of. My AL threaded cans are working just as fine now as they did then. Just because you say TI is a feature that makes an exceptional product does not make it so. It was a material used for years providing excellent service, and it will continue to do so. As a matter of fact, I would say the quality of the material is better now than it was back then. With the proper selection of AL alloy for the thread interface you can anticipate no more problems than with the TI. Unless you're a ham-handed idiot attempting to jam the thing on. Or you use TI as a marketing tool, or even better yet to sell something as having some "exotic" flavor of alloy. I've bought TI componented cans before just for that reason alone. To say it is better is not true. Like your buddy said "what makes it better"? Comparing cans to cars is ridiculous, but hey that's your forte'. |
| It was an analogy. You can learn about them here. I was not comparing cars to silencers but rather was using a high-end car as an analogy for illustrating the differences between basic products that are designed to work well for most people, with exceptional products that go the extra mile and have qualities which are necessary to those that have more demanding uses. There were bikes with aluminum sprockets for those that wanted the very least amount of weight. That idea is long gone. Steel or Ti now. You don't have to be ham-handed to cross-thread a suppressor. I have seen it time and time again. |
 , Best laugh I have had all day. You have brightened my day, thank you so much...
|
It says GEM TECH on the side, Thats what makes it Better!! Sorry Kevin, but your posts alone will keep me from ever purchasing any AAC product. I feel you bash other suppressor MFG's, which to me is unprofessional, and have bad customer service. I will admit I don’t have first hand knowledge of your customer service as I do not own any AAC products, its just what my local dealer has told me as well as postings here and other forums from people that own AAC products... |
This guy thinks it is ok: ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=14&t=283017 |
I started a poll: ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=14&t=283216 |
Yeah, but that's a quick, easy fix. I'm more concerned about big fixes that require the suppressor to be returned to AAC, like this guy's: www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=14&t=280914 |
The SWR Omega .30, mil-std is listed as 142.6 dB on Robert's site. I've heard it in person and it's pretty damn quiet. Are .45 cans putting out 141dB differently?  ETA: I saw PHD's reply and understand that they consider 140dB "hearing protection required" level. |
Thanks for the info, Doc. Very informative as usual. |
Great info! So Gemtech and SRT both use crappy materials in the suppressors they make and Dr. Dater is a liar. Try as I might to like you, you dig a deeper hole every time you post. Regarless of your "recommendations" people can certainly decide for themselves if they want to shoot their 45 suppressor wet or dry. You're just pissed that Gemtech makes a better 45 can that AAC does and sells it for a reasonable price and on top of that, it doesn't need a booster. Just get over it. |
|
2024 will corrode much faster than other alloys, and the Blackside is not hearing safe dry. If you wish. I can sound meter it on video tape, and post the results. It will be unedited with the camera rolling the entire time. I will even calibrate the meter on camera. Will you apologize is you are wrong? From www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/mepages/aluminfo.php 2024 This is one of the best known of the high strength aluminum alloys. With its high strength and excellent fatigue resistance, it is used to advantage on structures and parts where good strength-to-weight ratio is desired. It is readily machined to a high finish. It is readily formed in the annealed condition and may be subsequently heat treated. Arc or gas welding is generally not recommended, although this alloy may be spot, seam or flash welded. Since corrosion resistance is relatively low, 2024 is commonly used with an anodized finish or in clad form (“Alclad”) with a thin surface layer of high purity aluminum. Applications: aircraft structural components, aircraft fittings, hardware, truck wheels and parts for the transportation industry. 6061 This is the least expensive and most versatile of the heat-treatable aluminum alloys. It has most of the good qualities of aluminum. It offers a range of good mechanical properties and good corrosion resistance. It can be fabricated by most of the commonly used techniques. In the annealed condition it has good workability. In the T4 condition fairly severe forming operations may be accomplished. The full T6 properties may be obtained by artificial aging. It is welded by all methods and can be furnace brazed. It is available in the clad form (“Alclad”) with a thin surface layer of high purity aluminum to improve both appearance and corrosion resistance. Applications: This grade is used for a wide variety of products and applications from truck bodies and frames to screw machine parts and structural components. 6061 is used where appearance and better corrosion resistance with good strength are required. 7075 This is one of the highest strength aluminum alloys available. Its strength-to weight ratio is excellent and it is ideally used for highly stressed parts. It may be formed in the annealed condition and subsequently heat treated. Spot or flash welding can be used, although arc and gas welding are not recommended. It is available in the clad (“Alclad”) form to improve the corrosion resistance with the over-all high strength being only moderately affected. Applications: Used where highest strength is needed. |
What makes it better? |
Well, lets see... Its shorter, its has a smaller O.D. , it weighs almost half, and its $300 less than the Evo-45 is. Your turn. |
Robert you have already said you don't know if the 2024 is what they use. You also said that you measured from the shooters ear and it was 143 could there be some factors that played into that like ammo and environmental conditions? I went to your site and found something interesting you tested an: SWR GS9-K2 and it measured 135.2 one day and 140.2 another day 5dB change AAC EVO-9 ant it measured 126.7 one day and 131.9 another day 5.2dB change Sound Tech M4 WarTech 130.6 one day and 136.9 another day 6.9dB change (I believe there was a different ammo used for this but both were M193 one was Winchester and the other imported) so based on that how can you say that the Blackside IS NOT hearing safe 3 dB isn't as big a spread to hearing safe than some of the spreads on other cans you have tested before. Maybe it just wasn't hearing safe that day due to environmental conditions or your ammo choice. |
I am just dying to answer this. I could name a bunch of things, but I will just pick one: The Blackside has aluminum threads. Why? Cause steel or Ti costs more, and would add more weight, making an unboostered can less reliable. Why is that bad? Cause they cross-thread easily and are not as durable. |
Whats holding you back? I'd like to know. Had I NOT wanted to to hear what others say I would have posted in my IP Forum. |
I think I'd agree with Mr. Silvers on this one. While I shoot my .45 can dry and do it comfortably that doesn't mean it's not loud enough to damage hearing. The amount of damage might be negligible and is likely highly dependent on duration of exposure. |
|
On hearing damage issues, MIL-STD-1474D requires that hearing protection be worn if the sound pressure level of the highest peak is 140 dB or greater at the shooter's ear. Above 140 dB, the mechanism of hearing damage changes from a dose-related inflammatory process to one of acute trauma to the sensory hairs in the cochlea. The vast majority of us in the manufacturing and testing of suppressors measure at one of the locations listed in MIL-STD-1474, that being 1 meter to the left of the muzzle, perpendicular to the bore axis, and 1.6 meters above grass. My experience in is that the sound level when locating the microphone at the shooter's left ear is usually around 2-3 dB less than at the location where we all normally measure. At Gemtech, our sound measurements are for our own internal development and not for marketing purposes. The reasons are manifold including variations in day-to-day atmospheric conditions, ammunition differences, weapons platforms, location in the sound spectrum of the hightes single peak, etc. I can guarantee that measurements in a desert climate will not be the same as those made in a humid climate other factors being held constant. It is totally unrealistic to compare data on two units not tested at the same time and place utilizing the same ammunition and host weapon. Further, subjective perceived sound levels are colored by the degree of hearing loss of the observer. All this said and without being specific, I personally would not hesitate to shoot our Blackside dry without hearing protection. Please also remember that the Blackside was designed to be used with a small amount of an ablative agent as discussed in the manual. Philip H. Dater, MD GEMTECH |
This has been addressed numerous times in the past. Water is a superb ablative in that the phase change (from liquid to gas) absorbs more heat than most other possible agents. The problem is that water combines with the products of combustion of smokeless powders to produce weak nitrogen based acids, including nitric acid. These will, over time, attack the metal used in suppressors, including hard anodized aluminum. While these acids are weak, they will eventually do their damage in spite of coatings or surface treatment. This is a process that does not happen in a day or two, but rather over a period of a number of years. Water as an ablative is not a problem in aluminum suppressors, provided that the user dries the thing out after use. Drying can be accomplished using mild heat, compressed air, or rinsing in acetone or WD-40 to displace or disolve the water. Because most users are unwilling to do this, we reccommend the use of light oils or grease as an ablative instead. Incidentally, NEVER EVER use any ablative (liquid or grease) in a centerfire rifle suppressor. Doing so will generate bizarre pressures, which can lead to hoop strength failures, especially in single-wall thickness suppressors. Philip H. Dater, MD GEMTECH |
I am really surprised. I would not recommend firing any .45 pistol can dry. That includes the Mk23 can, which is the quietest I have metered. I did not formally test a Blackside, but I held my meter to the shooter's ear and it was around 143. |
Exactly.... www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=2&t=408771 I knew Silvers would be in, but I figured Kevin would be in spouting that he couldn't get 40 rounds through one (the Blackside that is) without several malfunctions We need a suppressor thread on AR15 really bad. Most (74% as of last check) agreed. The new name of this forum is "Dedicated to the M-16 Rifle" Whatever. There are so few threads on here that actually discuss the M16 rifle that its pathetic. The worst part of it all is that the original postor "bigbore" is a paid dealer here on AR15.com and is actually trying to promote his products on this board and can't do so without mud being slung into his face by millionaires who refuse to pay a dealer price (like around $750).
|
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Gemtech Blackside report (Page 1 of 3)
Armory Sponsor