Armory Sponsor
Posted: 1/25/2008 8:39:58 AM EDT
| Is it OK/acceptable for a manufacturer to test a competitors silencer on camera and post the video of it on the internet? |
|
I voted a hesitant "yes", but as others have stated the "results" should be scrutinized bearing in mind the circumstances of the test. While I do consider it ok/acceptable for a manufacturer of just about anything to test/evaluate their competitor's product and post the results to the public, I would prefer an independent test. There is just no gaurantee that the test will be unbiased. In fact it'd be stupid to expect anything other than complete bias. The same goes for a manufacturer testing their own product. Again I won't completely believe the results until it's proven independently. |
+1 |
| I don't see problem with it. The more information availible to the public the better. If Company A doesn't like Company B's test they are free to do their own (with their product or the competators). Market economics at play more competition equals higher quality and lower prices for the consumers. Plus I hate the gun divas (silencer or otherwise) who cry about any negitave reviews of their products. |
|
It brings up the question of credibility. How do we as the consumers know that the "tests" were above the board and completely unbiased? It is a good idea for a manufacturer to test their competitor's products to see how they stack up. But if it were me, that would be used for internal information only as part of the R&D process. As I said, posting unfavorable reviews about one's competitor brings into question potential bias. Posting positive reviews is, in essence, advertising for your competitor and against yourself. Posting either makes poor business sense to me. Now I have been contacted privately by a manufacturer about a can I own. I had stated online that my silencer cut the noise down to safe-hearing levels on a 16" AR-15. This manufacturer sent me a note that their testing showed my can to be a couple decibels above safe-hearing levels. He did not want to appear to be publicly bashing on a competitor's can, but at the same time he wanted to warn me about the potential danger that I was exposing myself to. This is why he contacted me privately. In my mind, this shows a lot of integrity, and it's something I keep in mind when purchasing another can. |
|
I was going to vote no in response to the AAC G5 test video... but then I'm going to compare a new can I make to the sound performance of the 7.62 SD's I have, so I guess I won't vote. I think the testing is OK as comparison testing, but to take a competitors product and trash the shit out of it next to yours seems a little mean. I don't know if the G5 was built to be abused like the AAC product... [and obviously the M41000 just failed a similar test now...]and that leads to a situation where negative public opinion could be formed on bad information, but I do feel it's safe to simply compare two sound suppressors overall "sound performance" to one another. I mean after all... they were both built to reduce sound. |
That is just publically bashing a competitor's product, one person at a time. Do you think you were the only person who got a "personal note" about the "dangers" inherent in the competitor's can? Did you know not one of the current 556 suppressors passed the US military sound test requirements? Want to know why? Cause not one of them tested hearing safe ...... at the shooter's ear. Now this is an issue that is more gun related than suppressor related. But do you think our hero knew that and was using BS info to scare you away from the competition while neglecting to tell you the truth? Things are not simple black and white with respect to sound suppressors on semi-auto rifles. Information from one manufacturer, bashing another can be twisted in ways you never thought of. It is NOT a good idea for competitiors to be publically testing each other's products to show up defects. There are too many ways the data can be twisted to show the desired results. If one company has a product that is truly superior, that product will rise to the top all on its own. There is no need to knock down competitor's to make your products look better. Any company that does engage in such behaviour should be suspect as having inferior product that can't survive on its own without bashing the competition. |
|
I voted yes. There are some issues with it though. 1- follow all manufactures instruction and warnings. 2-don't "bash" another company 3- BE A BUSINESS, not a 12 year old pointing the finger at another kid I also feel that the product should be purchased, not obtained for free. BIGFOOT |
I voted no, and agree with Ian. Test all you want. But do not post pictures/videos of it. Leave that for 3rd party testing, it is why it exists. |
|
I voted yes--but more for the reason of "it's a free country..." than non-biased, accurate testing. It's my understanding that some companies use to test their products and quibble over a dB or 2 which may not mean anything to your ear. Caveat emptor? From what I've learned, most companies are making comparable products, for the most part. Most comparable cans are withing a few dB of each other--I think their noise signature differs--but I haven't heard many rifle cans to compare. When you buy a can, your also buying into the companies warranty process, so if a can gets damamged--is the company going to stand by it's product--or bail? This has factored into my choices in purchase. Suppressors, like alot of things in life, seem to be part religion to some folks with one company being rabidly chosen over another. I would prefer to see independent testing published. I also like to hear from folks about their experience when something goes wrong with their can--and what the compnay does, or doesn't do, to correct it. |
|
No. How can we trust a competitor to honestly and fairly test another product? What happened or was done before the video? Were different ammo used? We need a consumer reports of the silencer world to actually test these types of products. One that does not have ANY ties to manufactures. |
I agree also. I don't think there should be any "prohibition" from any company doing so, but I would then view that company as crass and unethical. I would NOT buy from them afterward, as my confidence in their integrity and ethics would be shot. BTW, I am posting this with no clue what company may have done this (if any company has actually done this). I frankly can't imagine the owner of any company being so stupid.  ETA: I would rather see each company do this with their OWN product and let the public judge the results. Of course, other companies would have the potential to not conduct an identical test, and thus skew the results in their favor, but this subject will always be "buyer beware" regardless of what anyone tries to do, the same as with any other product. Sticking with a well-respected company, who has a good warranty, and a reputation for honoring their warranty, is always smart. |
It's not cool, IMO. I tend NOT to trust their results, either testing their own products or products of their competitor....A "fudge" factor comes to mind. Several non-biased, 3rd party independent testing parties are the best. |
|
I like to gather data wherever I can. Sooner or later any deception in the results becomes apparent. The quality of the data is a reflection of the company releasing the results. Likewise, companies that only release information with the intent to degrade their competitors are helping me determine the type of people they are. There are too many good people with good products to have to deal with a weasel. There is a guy doing a good job independently testing suppressors. I sent him $10. Maybe if others helped support the testing we would get a lot more good data. |
That doesn't make any sense. Why "scare me away from" a can that I already own. And one that is currently out of production. So what does the other manufacturer have to gain in privately disclosing this information? It's not like I was shopping for a can and way trying to compare Brand A vs. Brand B. I made a comment that I was using my can without hearing protection. Someone else told me that his testing showed that can not be be hearing-safe on that particular gun. I appreciate the warning. |
|
I say a big HELL NO. I think that suppressors are the only industry that this data would be accepted by the public. If it was say Chevy running commercials about Ford, where the ford was shown to break down after 50,000 miles everyone would know without a doubt that the test was rigged. It would never be accepted as useful information. I can't figure out why its O.K. for suppressor manufacturers to do things that just wouldn't wash anywhere else. If anything, testing by someone like 1928a1 is about as close to independent data as we can get. And no offense to 1928a1 here intended at all... But I seem to remember silencertalk claimed to be "independent" for quite awhile. So much so that lots of people still think they are getting accurate information. |
| a big YES, THANK YOU JOHN for the tests, a bad can doesn't exist, every can is made for a purpose, John tests are to bring it out, how to use better the can you bought, on a rifle or pistol? this will make companies to think twice ,and this is a good thing for the customers |
|
I voted yes Some might say ,,how can we trust the company doing the test ?? Well we can not ,,,,just as little that we can trust the company that made the can that is tested All company's are saying they are the best  So if we trust them in that ,,why should we not trust them about a test they make  I say test away ,,if one company is pointing out the weaknesses in others cans ,,at least we are seeing it I mean dont expect a company to say ,,see we have made this wonderful can ,it is almost perfect except these flaws "blah blah blah " No they wont them self point out the flaws If company x say this can is perfect and better than company's y`s ,,it is totally legit for company y to show if its not Next time it might be the other way round In the end the company's will NOT throw out infos that is not true ,,if they know they might have to back up there claims In the end it is god for the customers After all, if the company that disagree in the outcome of the test Want it repeated ,,they can have it repeated Until now only one company has been taking up the challenge to test ,,and let have tested ,to me that means a lot more than "just " a claim ( believe us ,,but please dont test us ) Look at it this way ,,some body brags about he can take more push ups than you Making you look bad  you know you can take more push ups ,,so you challenge him Now you cant force him to show how many he can do But with a can you CAN force the results to be shown by doing the test yourself Shut up or put up ,,isnt that what many is saying So if you talk (advertising) you should be willing to put up |
Amen. All competitors test each other's products. Publicizing these results is unethical and done solely for the purposes of negative advertising. I believe that Silencer Research is the closest thing to Consumer Reports that the suppressor industry has available. I also believe that anyone who approves of one manufacturer publicizing his negative results of a competitor's product is not interested in truth and integrity, but rather is interested primarily in stirring shit. |
If it's just shit stirring, then reputable companies shouldn't have any problem rebuffing it with a little truth of their own. So what parts of it are welded? |
|
Do you think "shit-stirring" has cost you any business? By taking the higher road, you've hurt your credibility because your customers were hoping for a response that never came. When the M4-1k failed, AAC made a public apology/offer for a new product within 1 day. |
I know quite a few Gemtech product owners who didn't know AAC detroyed a G5 on Youtube. Even stranger still is that when they call Gemtech on the phone they get the same help they always have which has always been quite good. Somehow I doubt Gemtech's customers, outside of a few on Arfcom and Silencertalk, really care about a response to an event they never knew took place. There is more to the firearms and suppressor industry than the internet...skocking, I know. |
When Gemtech did send larue one of there cans ,he ( a can manufacture ) did test the look of the center of the can HE did publish the results ,,and did compare it to a Gemtech can And it is clear to everyone why he did it So you say that that was a bad thing i have not heard you complaining about that test  One could almost come to the thought that he did it on behalf of some one that is known for talking behind the curtens I say ,when a manufacture in a advertising say that this can is what others should be compared against ,then this manufacture should be aware that some might do exactely that ,,namely test the can mentioned just to be able to do this comparing When somebody ask for something ,,he should not be surprised if he gets it ,nor is he in the right to be upset about it Just out of curiosity ,,why did Gemtech send Larue this particular can  |
+1 with the above. It seems that when this testing occurs, it usually ends up as just being a means to do competition-bashing without any benefit to the consumer. I'm just bored with the drama. |
so it is acceptable to loose a % of business because some people will do their research and find out they had a product fail and they never addressed the issue. Why not just say, "we're aware of an issue with a product. We want to investigate what happened with the G5 and make changes where necessary." I think it is great that people (and companies) are testing suppressors. the competition will bring newer, better products to the market |
You must remember that the M41000 wasn’t tested by a competitor, it was tested by me. When the G5 test was done, it was done and published by a competitor. While AAC did offer to replace my silencer, and that was a very nice gesture, they later accused me of not installing the flash suppressor correctly, over and over, and I did install it correctly. Its the same as saying, "OK...we will fix it, but its your fault the can didn't pass the test, not ours." That is called talking out of both sides of your mouth. I will repeat the test and I will check the flash suppressor and mount incessantly during the test, giving THEM the benefit of the doubt AT MY EXPENSE. I hope the suppressor passes with flying colors. We shall see. |
Armory Sponsor