www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10473

So what do you guys make of this?

I don't have a password.
Can you quote something?

First post copied:

"We got a brand new Gemtech G5 about a week ago and decided to duplicate the test that a military group did to six of our cans.

The test was as follows:

Take an HK-416 and fire eight magazines. First mag semi auto, second mag full auto, third mag semi auto, etc -- for 8 mags. Then let it cool. In the real military test, they did not let the can completely cool. In this test, we did.

Repeat this three more times, for a total of 960 rounds. The idea is that eight magazines is a battle load, so this would simulate four firefights. It is a tough but reasonable test for a serious user. All six of our silencers survived this test.

First problem -- the G5 flash suppressor is not HK-416 compatible. We were able to get it to work with spacers (not recommended, but we checked it after a few shots and there was no bullet contact).

I videoed the entire test. I am away from home, and may not be able to post the video until next week, so I will give a report for now:

During the first eight mags, it was clear the can was not going to survive. It seemed to be puking it guts after five mags and big fireballs were coming out of it. Around this time, the mount came unscrewed on its own (not the flash suppressor, but rather the part in the middle of the can). I could call this a failure, but since we could tighten it, we decided to proceed.

We let the can air cool for about 10 minutes and then helped the can to cool completely with some water. Then started with the second 240 rounds. Then we let it cool completely again, and proceeded with the third batch of magazines. Then we let it cool completely once more, and started the final batch of mags.

Two magazines into this, I noticed the can seemed to be bulging in the middle. I shook the rifle and could see the can flopping around limp. I halted the test and noticed that the roll pin which holds the mount to the silencer main body failed, and the can unscrewed. I stopped the test six magazines early as this was a catastrophic failure and not field-repairable. This is an area that I would recommend be welded.

We let the can cool, and could hear parts shaking inside. I was surprised because Gemtech has told me that for the last few years, their silencers were welded inside. The mount halfway unscrewed on its own, and had I not noticed it, I am sure it would have blown down range.

I looked into the back cavity and I could see the baffles were not secured. We tapped the can and the baffles all fell out. As you can see from the photos, there is no evidence of any welding at all. Also the roll pin which holds the Inconel insert into the stainless blast baffle (apparently a cost-saving measure from using a real Inconel blast baffle) cracked through the side of the baffle. I also noticed that the Titanium around the flash suppressor area had fractured in several places. Again, no surprise as Ti is not a high-temp metal. See this: http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4780

The spring in the BiLock mount, by the way, has lost its strength from the heat. That makes sense, as springs are generally only good to 600 degrees, so one would expect them to fail if you put one inside the blast chamber of a silencer.

Quote:
The claims of one vocal critic who has not looked closely at the G5 mount notwithstanding, the spring is not subject to the heat and flame of the entrance chamber. It is not only isolated from the entrance chamber, but our thermal measurements ahow that it remains minimally cooler than did the spring in the older M4-96D (where we had no spring failures either).

Philip H. Dater




The G5 mount never got stuck for me during this test, as has happened with the M4-96D mount.


Click for larger images.


Assembly


Not welded. PhD of Gemtech told me they have been welding cores for a few years but that does not appear to be accurate.


Components.


Stainless blast baffle with Inconel insert in center. Pinned in place.


Cracks, chips, and fractures in Titanium.


Cracks on back of blast baffle.


Hole around roll pin has failed."

It looks like the g5 just plain failed...  The pics tell the story without anyone saying what happened.  I never really trusted that spring and the insert with pins does seem like a weak way to do it once it heats up.  Springs and pins don't seem like a good mix when it gets that hot.  

The cracks were a suprise though.  

It looks like that is where the pins go in...the same pins that seem to have failed when it got hot.  

Just got done reading that post... looks like the g5 is indeed somewhat shaky for heavy use... I guess I won't change my mind about getting an m4-1000 or m4-2000 when I suppress my xcr...

Sweet... just put a G5 on order yesterday...

<------ going to check the warranty policy....

I don't put stock in a competing manufacture testing another product.

There is just a hair of bias there if you know what I mean.

Quoted: Sweet... just put a G5 on order yesterday... <------ going to check the warranty policy....

They have a great warranty so I would not worry about that but the construction is questionable.

Has anyone OTHER THAN AAC had a Gemtech G5 fail?  If these cans are that bad why don't we hear stories from anyone else of them failing

Quoted: Has anyone OTHER THAN AAC had a Gemtech G5 fail?  If these cans are that bad why don't we hear stories from anyone else of them failing

I don't put complete stock in AAC doing things like this to another companies product for kicks, but there was a person there GaLEO-who I do trust and saw what happened.
As for why you don't hear about things like this more often- Who abuses there can like that? I can see the militaries reasoning behind the method, but most civvy users would never do something like that to their own can so who are they to say how it'd hold up under the circumstances.

Quoted: I don't put stock in a competing manufacture testing another product. There is just a hair of bias there if you know what I mean.

Yes you must blindly accept the claims of the original manufacturer as there is never any bias a company would put towards thier own product.

I would say this test was of the destructive testing nature of testing. Not intended to simulate normal customer usage.
WARRANTY STATEMENT

Our "warranty" has been practiced since our personnel started in the suppressor business in 1976, in a time before legalese and when a handshake and this simple statement sufficed: "If a Gemtech product breaks and it's your fault, we'll fix it for a fair price in a timely manner. If it's our fault, we'll fix it quickly at no charge." This policy born of pride in craftsmanship and honor has served us and our clients well for over two decades and will continue in Gemtech's future.


The small print follows:


The Magnuson-Moss Act (Public Law 93-637) does not require any seller or manufacturer of a consumer product to give a written warranty. It does provide that if a written warranty is given, it must be designated at “full” or as “limited” and sets minimum standards for a “full” warranty and that it must comply with the laws of each individual state.



As do all major firearms manufacturers, Gemtech has elected not to provide any written warranty, either “limited” or “full,” rather than to attempt to comply with the provisions of the Magnuson-Moss Act and the regulations issued thereunder.


There are certain implied warranties under state law with respect to sales of consumer goods. As the extent and interpretation of these implied warranties varies from state to state, you should refer to your state statutes.


Gemtech certifies that all sound suppressors manufactured by them are free of defects in materials or workmanship, and that they meet manufacturing specifications at the time of manufacture. It is our intent that the customer be completely satisfied with the product.



Certain Gemtech products may be classified as ordnance and/or implements of war and are sold by us with the specific understanding that Gemtech has taken every reasonable precaution in providing our customers with inherently safe merchandise, and that we assume no liability whatsoever for unsafe handling by the purchaser or his agents. Gemtech assumes no responsibility whatsoever and we will honor no claims for damages, regardless of nature, for physical injury or property damage resulting from careless and/or irresponsible handling, adjustments to equipment, neglect or abuse.



Gemtech reserves the right to make changes at any time and without notice, in prices, to change specification or design, to add or remove accessory materials, and to add or delete items without incurring any obligation.

Well, I know of one or two XXX warriors that have been abused pretty bad.  Heated up until they glowed.

Used to light cigars and cook fajita meet.

They still worked great.

They are full auto m-16 rated, and I think you would lose your gas tube long before these cans gave out.

But they are screw on and pretty heavy little bastards.

TXL

I'll agree that it comes off as questionable that Robert was involved in the test, and that he posted the results on the net. However, if GA-LEO had posted it, and through the discussion it came out that he was involved in the test, HE would be questioned about his integrity.

The bottom line is the can failed. It's clear from the initial pictures that there are issues with the design. Under normal use, it won't be an issue, but for those that receive incoming fire, it could.

Will the AAC cans hold up to the same? Robert says yes, and that they already have.

If he posted the results of a test with pictures and the can was intact and useable, the nay-sayers would still say it was rigged. Let Gemtech test the AAC can and see if they get a failure.

What I can say is last year at the silencer shoot, AAC had an M249 with a M4-2000 on it. It was abused. It was glowing in bright sunlight. The finish was gone (not Scarmor). It was intact and useable last time I saw it. Late in the day Freddy dumped if not all, then most of a 200 round belt through it in rapid bursts.

As to Robert posting the results, I think he's over expecting to win freiends with his posts. That's why he's not here. He's proud of his association with AAC, and it's clear through his posts. I don't blame him. They're making top shelf products with which few can compete.

Well, I'm interested to see how Gemtech responds to this.  This is a very public thrashing of their can, in more ways than one.  I wonder if this will cause them to implement changes or, at least, have an independent source verify results.  

Quoted: Well, I'm interested to see how Gemtech responds to this.  This is a very public thrashing of their can, in more ways than one.  I wonder if this will cause them to implement changes or, at least, have an independent source verify results.

+1

I really want to hear Gemtech's response.

As to Robert posting the results, I think he's over expecting to win freiends with his posts. That's why he's not here.

He's not posting here because he's banned.

I would take this with a grain of salt, but there was an independent observer involved.

There isn't an independent body testing manufacturers claims for sliencers, this is the next best thing.

Tag and such!

Quoted: As to Robert posting the results, I think he's over expecting to win freiends with his posts. That's why he's not here. He's not posting here because he's banned. I would take this with a grain of salt, but there was an independent observer involved. There isn't an independent body testing manufacturers claims for sliencers, this is the next best thing.

He was banned because he wasn't making any friends because of the nature of some of the stuff he posted. He called out other MFG'ers on their products and claims. Just like he did with this test.

That was my point.

GaLEO is hardly an independent source from what I've seen on ST.  He's like cyclone72 Jr., IMO.

Quoted: Quoted: As to Robert posting the results, I think he's over expecting to win freiends with his posts. That's why he's not here. He's not posting here because he's banned. I would take this with a grain of salt, but there was an independent observer involved. There isn't an independent body testing manufacturers claims for sliencers, this is the next best thing. He was banned because he wasn't making any friends because of the nature of some of the stuff he posted. He called out other MFG'ers on their products and claims. Just like he did with this test. That was my point.

Well yes and no.  Remember that he was banned as an independent than AAC came on board and he started posting again as a rep of that company.

Not a surprise...by the way, the real guys use OPS Inc cans, so what is ACC trying to prove anyway?

height=8

Quoted: GaLEO is hardly an independent source from what I've seen on ST.  He's like cyclone72 Jr., IMO.

GaLEO is a stand-up guy. He's a very straight shooter and I wouldn't question his integrity at all. Just looking at a G5 even prior to this test would raise doubts in my mind. I believe the test was an accurate representation of a torture test, and I highly disagree with the idea that the G5 was altered in any way. It's obvious that the suppressor was not intended to withstand the sort of abuse in Robert Silvers' test, but I doubt that anyone would have a problem with it if they were using it for recreational shooting. FWIW I own 2 Gemtech products, and OutbackII and a Blackside. Both function as designed and have given me no problems. I don't own any AAC cans.

Why don't they do a side by side torture test at the silencer shoot this weekend. A G5 vs a M4-1000 or M4-2000. Then the results can be posted with many witnesses. I don't doubt AAC, they were accused of rigging a test recently and independent testers in Oregon verified the results. Plus if they are proven to have rigged a test then ALL credibility of them is lost.

Quoted: I don't doubt AAC, they were accused of rigging a test recently and independent testers in Oregon verified the results. Plus if they are proven to have rigged a test then ALL credibility of them is lost.

Which test are you referring to?

Quoted: Quoted: I don't doubt AAC, they were accused of rigging a test recently and independent testers in Oregon verified the results. Plus if they are proven to have rigged a test then ALL credibility of them is lost. Which test are you referring to?

Muzzle flash from a Typhoon Can

height=8

Quoted: height=8 Quoted: I don't doubt AAC, they were accused of rigging a test recently and independent testers in Oregon verified the results. Plus if they are proven to have rigged a test then ALL credibility of them is lost. Which test are you referring to?

The flash hider test where Doug from SRT claimed his ATLAS QD mount had no flash, just a little blue cone of flame. Robert tested it along with several other flash hiders and cans and proved that Doug's claims were incorrect. The guys in Oregon replicated Roberts test and replicated his results.

Just passed the 1,000 round mark on my G5 this morning.  No issues to date using Wolf 55 grain in semi-auto.

Quoted: Quoted: As to Robert posting the results, I think he's over expecting to win freiends with his posts. That's why he's not here. He's not posting here because he's banned. I would take this with a grain of salt, but there was an independent observer involved. There isn't an independent body testing manufacturers claims for sliencers, this is the next best thing. He was banned because he wasn't making any friends because of the nature of some of the stuff he posted. He called out other MFG'ers on their products and claims. Just like he did with this test. That was my point.

He wasn't banned first as an independent.  He was in cahoots with AAC for a loooong time while running silenterrests.com.  He *allegedly* lied about it for a long time and was banned because of his mouth.  He came back only because AAC was paying to be an Industry Partner and was given a new account under that IP.  He then helped to get them banned again.

ETA:  You have to have a name and password to look at his pages now?  Wow.  I guess he only wants his loyal fans to know he has an AR15.com mirror forum.  Or is that gone or is it back up again?

I am a bit skeptical of the way that it was mounted.  They said that the had to use spacers to get it to fit on a 416.  I would like to see the same test on a 14.5" barrel gun that has the mount mounted according to Gemtech, not with "spacers"

I have no idea if this would change the outcome or not, but I would like to see it done this way for my own edification.

IBTSS


(In before the Shit Sorm).....I think I am already too late!!

There was also a good post on silencertalk about the G5 mount, with a short video showing how much play the silencer had when mounted.  I think it was about 0.050" lateral movement.

Not that an ACC can has ever been known to have some play in it while mounted...
I hate the "this can is better than that can" BS that ACC so proudly flies around.

Quoted: Not that an ACC can has ever been known to have some play in it while mounted... I hate the "this can is better than that can" BS that ACC so proudly flies around.

+1.  Because of the aforementioned behavior, I find it very hard to buy one of their products.  I was going to purchase an Evo 9, but now that the Trident has topped it, I might look at SWR.  I've been on internet gun sites since 98, and I can't remember a manufacturer, I don't care if they feel they are justified or not, belittle and so attack a competitor.  
   

Quoted: I am a bit skeptical of the way that it was mounted.  They said that the had to use spacers to get it to fit on a 416.  I would like to see the same test on a 14.5" barrel gun that has the mount mounted according to Gemtech, not with "spacers" I have no idea if this would change the outcome or not, but I would like to see it done this way for my own edification.

+1.  That right there would be enough to make me want to see it redone.  The sorts of crap he posted before he got banned doesn't fill me with confidence, either.  I'm not saying that I think they faked anything, it's just that with something like this, you want to be sure.

Quoted: Has anyone OTHER THAN AAC had a Gemtech G5 fail?  If these cans are that bad why don't we hear stories from anyone else of them failing

Like all AAC claims...


You can make test results appear any way you want. My M496D handles full-auto mag-dumps with no problem...I've heard the G5 is even better.

Quoted: They thrive on misery. What's up Mark?  We need to shoot soon!

Soon. I may need some Apple Gum.

Call me this week.

This is just like the Apple vs. PC Guy commercials. People are going to stay with their tribes no matter what.

Ford vs. Chevy, Pepsi vs. Coke, it's all the same.

This test is an easy one to reproduce. Gemtech should have an independent third party verify the results. Gemtech does say the G5 is full auto rated afterall.

Quoted: This made me double my order of Gemtech G5s. A great product, from a great company. I'm amazed those folks haven’t figured out yet, that they are their own worst enemies.  Nobody does a better job of making those guys look like pricks, than they do themselves.

Steve, don't you sell AAC silencers?  For all the hooping and hollering about AAC employees starting stuff on this board, it's a dealer who favors Gemtech, Ops Inc, and all others over AAC, but STILL SELLS AAC products who is starting stuff directed toward AAC, and resorting to namecalling while doing so.  Grow up.

Don't care who you are, but a roll pin has no business being in a silencer the way the pics show.

And the flame out of the side of the can is impressive.

Quoted: I'm amazed those folks haven’t figured out yet, that they are their own worst enemies.  Nobody does a better job of making those guys look like pricks, than they do themselves.

That is why I will NEVER buy anything from AAC. Plus, I don't care for their phantom mounts. People that think that silencertests forum isn't biased are fucking blind. If someone mentions something other than AAC they come back with the usual "will AAC products are better", and nothing to back it up with. I don't doubt that they make good products, but their online bullshit gets old.

I believe that Gemtech makes a great product and will stand behind it as they say. I didn't buy a Gemtech because of their mount, same for the OPS (didn't want a brake on a 10.5") and Surefire (mount for the "K" is longer than the phantom). All are great cans but they didn't offer what I wanted.

I bought a KAC M4QD NT4 and have received GREAT service, contrary to what people say on this board about them. You don't see them posting on forums bashing other products either. They don't need to.

Quoted: ...by the way, the real guys use OPS Inc cans

Who are the "real guys"? The last time I checked, SOCOM still issues the M4QD for the M4/CQBR and will do so for some time. The OPS is used for some weapon platforms (Mk12), but not all.

BTW... Are you affiliated with OPS? Because in every post of yours, you're tooting their horn.

I would like to see the test duplicated.  While it seems like alot of variables were controlled..