Our Gemtech G5 failed at 750 rounds.

General silencer discussion. If you want to talk about a specific silenced rifle or pistol, it is best to do that in the rifle or pistol section for that brand.

All NFA laws apply.

Moderators: mpallett, mr fixit, bakerjw, renegade

Post Reply
User avatar
silencertalk
Site Admin
Posts: 33978
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
Location: USA

Post by silencertalk »

Dunno. The Tac is not welded and it might just unscrew. You could pay AAC to weld your Tac-16 and then it should.
Scott S.
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 252
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 12:25 pm

Post by Scott S. »

Just called the ATF, my G5 was approved on May 28, about three and a half weeks from F4 Express mailed to Atlanta, not bad BATF, thanks!
Lady on the phone was very polite, of course so am I. :lol:

RS, that pic of your G5 looks identical to the one I bought, will verify further when I pick it up next week.

They're saying on arfcom this morning that Gemtech will NOT respond to any of this. I have a hard time believing that, but wtf do I know.

I would be very interested in what Dr. Dater has to say on the matter.

BigBore had an email from Dater stating exactly how the G5s were manufactured but he inadvertantly deleted it. But there was a reference to a possible bullet strike and a soldier would just toss it in the trash can
(Navy SEAL tosses KAC or sealed can over board) whereas a F4 buyer could easily send the G5 back to Gemtech for repair (due to lack of welds possibly???)
User avatar
silencertalk
Site Admin
Posts: 33978
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
Location: USA

Post by silencertalk »

The only public info is earlier in this thread -- with Kel saying that 'just because there are not gobs of weld on it does not mean we don't weld it where it needs to be welded.'

I have private emails from Phil Dater of Gemtech saying the core is welded. I had discussions about it with him both on the phone and in email. I know someone else who spoke with them on the phone about it. I don't plan to post any emails. I think if they respond they will just say they never said the G5 was welded inside and only said it was welded (and were referring to the 1/4 bead on the front cap).
Scott S.
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 252
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 12:25 pm

Post by Scott S. »

rsilvers wrote: I think if they respond they will just say they never said the G5 was welded inside and only said it was welded (and were referring to the 1/4 bead on the front cap).
It's looking more and more that this is their only line of defense.

We'll see.................................maybe :shock:
User avatar
PCArms
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 358
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:13 pm
Location: NW Oregon
Contact:

Post by PCArms »

GlockandRoll wrote:I wonder how my TAC-16 would do, be a damned shame if it survived better than the G5!!!
:twisted:
Well, I wasn't going to get involved with this thread, but . . . .

A couple years ago, we did a TAC-16 group-buy for the Oregon Folk on AR15.com.
I purchased a single TAC-16 for a sample, and took it out and let people DEMO it.

After not too many beta-dumps through my 10 1/2" m16, the thing turned Cherry-RED (along with dis-coloring my front site)
People kept abusing it all day long, and the next day when I took it a part, Both of the "Blast Baffles" had LASER cuts from the heat. But is did NOT FAIL.
Craig said he had never seen that before, and of course replaced the worn baffles without question.
I noticed that the LAST batch I just received, he had beefed up the stack to include more "THICK" baffles.

Tactical Innovations suppressor may not be the quietest, but for the money and the customer service, it is a great entry level can.

(Only 16 pages and not even 10k views, WTF????)
Pat
www.ORL-LLC.com
OregonResearchLabs, LLC
nitram
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by nitram »

rsilvers wrote:Dunno. The Tac is not welded and it might just unscrew. You could pay AAC to weld your Tac-16 and then it should.
Worst advice I've ever read you giving. Surely you jest....

My money is on the Tac16 passing the abuse test. And for the price the Tac16 is one of the best values going.

Thanks for the info on the G5. Now I'm off to arfcom to see what they're chirping about...
User avatar
silencertalk
Site Admin
Posts: 33978
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
Location: USA

Post by silencertalk »

It is bad advice that a Tac-16 would be better welded? That is obvious so I am not sure why I would jest.
User avatar
3101
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 5379
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:55 pm
Location: Northeast Georgia...near UGA

Post by 3101 »

I have read the ARFcom thread(s)
Seems to me that there are some serious mistakes of fact.

ALL Gemtech cans were not tested, one can, the G5 was the subject of the test.

You can read Gemtech's info and ad for the G5 online yourself. Reach your own conclusions.

The flame coming out the roll pin hole was observed during the entire test, not just on the first shot. Obviously when I was shooting the rifle I could not see it, it was oriented toward the floor of the range. I saw it at other times during the test as well...in fact, I was the first one to notice it, RS didn't see it until he saw it on his camera. I was closer than he was.

I have said before and I will say it again, the actual test was slower than the pace we intended to keep. This was due to FTE's on the HK416 and building the "blast cabinet" (we actually had to build it more than once, we just pieced it together out of wood scraps, ammo boxes, a chair or two and eventually a 5 gallon bucket full of brass)

To me, Gemtech ignoring this issue is bad PR.....but I do believe had I not been there (and the folks from the range) that they would have responded by now.
Mr. Burns: This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you.
Smithers: You are noble and poetic in defeat, sir.
cyclone72
Silencertalk Goon Squad
Posts: 7564
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:16 am
Location: Florida

Post by cyclone72 »

I have read info from Gemtech when the whole "welding " issue began and I clearly remember someone from Gemtech that there core IS welded.
nitram
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by nitram »

nitram wrote:
rsilvers wrote:Dunno. The Tac is not welded and it might just unscrew. You could pay AAC to weld your Tac-16 and then it should.
Worst advice I've ever read you giving. Surely you jest....

My money is on the Tac16 passing the abuse test. And for the price the Tac16 is one of the best values going.

Thanks for the info on the G5. Now I'm off to arfcom to see what they're chirping about...
rsilvers wrote:It is bad advice that a Tac-16 would be better welded? That is obvious so I am not sure why I would jest.
No, advising the poster to send a Tac16 - designed by the manufacturer to be opened - to another manufacturer, AAC and have it welded closed.

THAT'S what you've suggested and THAT'S bad advice.
User avatar
silencertalk
Site Admin
Posts: 33978
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
Location: USA

Post by silencertalk »

No, it is one way to make the Tac-16 into a semi-decent can. It will still never be a Ranger-II.
Archangel
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 277
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 10:29 am

Post by Archangel »

Scott S. wrote: But there was a reference to a possible bullet strike and a soldier would just toss it in the trash can
(Navy SEAL tosses KAC or sealed can over board) whereas a F4 buyer could easily send the G5 back to Gemtech for repair (due to lack of welds possibly???)
I'm sorry, but I don't care who you are, the unit commander still has to sign for the equipment. The individual SEAL will have to sign for his issued equipment. Defective, or FUBAR equipment ESPECIALLY Sensitive Items (such as a suppressor) has to be return to the S4 and still has to be accounted for. Throwing a can over board is just plain BS, unless their hand receipt for the can comes floating out of the ocean in a sealed Coke bottle.
amishbill
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:51 pm

Post by amishbill »

I do believe he's talking about combat loss, not an administrative "It's broke" situation.
Scott S.
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 252
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 12:25 pm

Post by Scott S. »

Archangel wrote:
Scott S. wrote: But there was a reference to a possible bullet strike and a soldier would just toss it in the trash can
(Navy SEAL tosses KAC or sealed can over board) whereas a F4 buyer could easily send the G5 back to Gemtech for repair (due to lack of welds possibly???)
I'm sorry, but I don't care who you are, the unit commander still has to sign for the equipment. The individual SEAL will have to sign for his issued equipment. Defective, or FUBAR equipment ESPECIALLY Sensitive Items (such as a suppressor) has to be return to the S4 and still has to be accounted for. Throwing a can over board is just plain BS, unless their hand receipt for the can comes floating out of the ocean in a sealed Coke bottle.
I have no idea how the military would actually work. Here is the exact quote from Bigbore over on the arfcom G5 failure thread:

He had an example something to the extent of:

"Mr. Navy SEAL, gets a baffle strike and throws his fully welded can in the ocean and gets a new one from supply."

"Mr. Just paid $200 for a tax stamp, gets a baffle strike he can send the suppressor back for repair and have the insides replaced without having to pay another $200 for a new tube."

This is what I was going on and it makes a little sense, the military is not going to charge a soldier for a bullet strike are they? So the SEAL gets a new KAC. Mister F4 buyer is certainly ahead here, UNLESS, a fully welded can HAS A FULL WARRANTY FROM A BULLET STRIKE.
User avatar
PCArms
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 358
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:13 pm
Location: NW Oregon
Contact:

Post by PCArms »

nitram wrote:
nitram wrote:
rsilvers wrote:Dunno. The Tac is not welded and it might just unscrew. You could pay AAC to weld your Tac-16 and then it should.
Worst advice I've ever read you giving. Surely you jest....

My money is on the Tac16 passing the abuse test. And for the price the Tac16 is one of the best values going.

Thanks for the info on the G5. Now I'm off to arfcom to see what they're chirping about...
rsilvers wrote:It is bad advice that a Tac-16 would be better welded? That is obvious so I am not sure why I would jest.
No, advising the poster to send a Tac16 - designed by the manufacturer to be opened - to another manufacturer, AAC and have it welded closed.

THAT'S what you've suggested and THAT'S bad advice.
Agreed.
That thing is built like a TANK, and one of the reasons it is threaded is in case of catastrophic failier do to abuse. If something is going to GRENADE, I would rather have the endcap be the weak link and let things come out the front
Pat
www.ORL-LLC.com
OregonResearchLabs, LLC
User avatar
silencertalk
Site Admin
Posts: 33978
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
Location: USA

Post by silencertalk »

The material AAC uses does not fragment. It's mode of failure is to bulge for a while and then burst in one area. It will never shatter in a brittle sort of way.
User avatar
wolf
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:32 am

Post by wolf »

GlockandRoll wrote:I wonder how my TAC-16 would do, be a damned shame if it survived better than the G5!!!
:twisted:
Why,, i mean why would it be a shame that you have can ,that you paid little
money for ,and its better than a more expensive one ,,god for you :)
User avatar
prdubi
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 370
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:38 pm
Location: Deep in the heart of Rural South SALEM, Oregon
Contact:

COmbat loss

Post by prdubi »

I must chime in about equipment loss but here in the Army there is a FORM 4900 for EVERYTHING no matter what.

Anything that is loss no matter what has to have someone accountable.

I have had instances where someone misplaced a GPS unit or a unit camera.

Miles of paperwork has to be filled out by anyone and everyone.

It's messy.....no matter what.......even for sensitive or non-sensitive equipment.

Filling in....the gemtech failing is kinda hooky....to me...
nitram
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by nitram »

rsilvers wrote:No, it is one way to make the Tac-16 into a semi-decent can. It will still never be a Ranger-II.
The Tac16 is a decent can without welding.

Checking this sites test results shows it to be $220 less expensive than the Ranger AND 2.8 net better suppression. Moreover, it is full auto rated. I understand both these suppressors have had upgrades but testing results haven't been posted.

You may think that welding it would make it better. I like the fact I can take it apart. I've not heard of a Tac16 end cap coming apart so I'm not sure what net gain would realized.

BTW, does AAC’s product reliability insurance cover those welded Tac16’s???
User avatar
3101
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 5379
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:55 pm
Location: Northeast Georgia...near UGA

Re: COmbat loss

Post by 3101 »

prdubi wrote:I must chime in about equipment loss but here in the Army there is a FORM 4900 for EVERYTHING no matter what.

Anything that is loss no matter what has to have someone accountable.

I have had instances where someone misplaced a GPS unit or a unit camera.

Miles of paperwork has to be filled out by anyone and everyone.

It's messy.....no matter what.......even for sensitive or non-sensitive equipment.

Filling in....the gemtech failing is kinda hooky....to me...
I will try to help, what is hooky about it????
Mr. Burns: This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you.
Smithers: You are noble and poetic in defeat, sir.
User avatar
prdubi
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 370
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:38 pm
Location: Deep in the heart of Rural South SALEM, Oregon
Contact:

WHOA

Post by prdubi »

WHOA!!

Show me this data...really a TAC16 did better than a RANGER????

NOOOOO.

I seriously dig mines again....

So how much does Craig charge to upgrade it.

Curious if its possible.
User avatar
prdubi
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 370
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:38 pm
Location: Deep in the heart of Rural South SALEM, Oregon
Contact:

in reply

Post by prdubi »

what I meant what that.....I have never of one failing nor have I seen one fail.

My only experience of a failed can was my AWC Abraxas having some cracks on the threads.

I sent it back and they repaired it after one week.

It's just something new for new to hear that a gemtech failed.
User avatar
3101
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 5379
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:55 pm
Location: Northeast Georgia...near UGA

Post by 3101 »

I understand now.
It happened none the less......
I had never seen a Gemtech can until that morning.
That was the first and only centerfire Gemtech can I have ever held in my hand or fired a round through.
Mr. Burns: This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you.
Smithers: You are noble and poetic in defeat, sir.
nitram
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:40 pm

Re: WHOA

Post by nitram »

prdubi wrote:WHOA!!

Show me this data...really a TAC16 did better than a RANGER????
http://silencertests.com/reviews/list.p ... suppressed

Scroll down to the 5.56 suppressors and see for yourself and draw your own conclusions which is better between the two.
User avatar
silencertalk
Site Admin
Posts: 33978
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
Location: USA

Post by silencertalk »

nitram wrote:
Checking this sites test results shows it to be $220 less expensive than the Ranger AND 2.8 net better suppression. Moreover, it is full auto rated. I understand both these suppressors have had upgrades but testing results haven't been posted.
The Ranger-2 has only been shipping for like two weeks so I am not sure how you found a test of it. It is only $75 more than a Tac-16 but 20 years more advanced. Think Mustang 2.0 compared to a Porsche Cayman but the Mustang is $20,000 and the Porsche is $24,000.
Post Reply