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
wolf
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:32 am

Post by wolf »

Scott S. wrote:What's depressing me more than the failure is the fact that Gemtech has
not been truthful on the welding facts. I had assumed there was welding inside the can, be it baffles, cores, caps, whatever, does'nt fucking matter now because there is zero welds inside a G5 and I bought one from a Gemtech dealer in Columbus, Ohio back in May, still pending, based on Gemtechs statement that there is welds internal to a G5.

All this stuff started when AAC bought the CNC welder and potential buyers started calling suppressor makers (Gemtech) and asking questions. Gemtech has replied yes to internal welds, well so much for that.

Why fucking lie about it?
If they really did say (and you can prove it )that there is welds on the internals,,you can demand you money back ,and that they have to pay for you loss (taxstamp)
Did you pay with credit card ?
If yes,, leave it up to the bank to make you claim
Just tell you didnt get what they promised that is credit card fraud
cyclone72
Silencertalk Goon Squad
Posts: 7564
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:16 am
Location: Florida

Post by cyclone72 »

wow,I just lurked over at Barfcom and someone compared GaLeo as a Cyclone72 Jr.Im flattered that they even know of me. :wink: It was in the mirror thread of this one.
User avatar
Kevin/AAC
Elite Industry Professional
Posts: 3248
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:47 pm
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Post by Kevin/AAC »

rsilvers wrote:mfingar posted:
G5's are out there, all over the world. In the hands of the warfighter. This thread is the first instance of a G5 problem I've heard of.

I saw a video of a ruptured AAC can (M42000), but can't seem to find it now. Am I to assume all M42000's blow up from that one incident? The answer is no....(wonder what happened to that video )
This is completely untrue. Mark Fingar is known to be a liar. He has in the past lied about our company. He later sent a letter of apology to avoid legal remedies.
User avatar
Kevin/AAC
Elite Industry Professional
Posts: 3248
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:47 pm
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Post by Kevin/AAC »

mk23 wrote:A very emotional subject. :D

I only have one thing to say.

I know Robert has been a long time proponent of testing silencers on the same day, under the same conditions. I only wish his philosophy had entended to this test as well.

Two blind tested cans, one from Gemtech and one from AAC.

Same batch of Ammo, same Rifle, same Day.

Same day testing makes no difference for endurance testing, only sound testing.
Scott S.
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 252
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 12:25 pm

Post by Scott S. »

wolf wrote:
Scott S. wrote:What's depressing me more than the failure is the fact that Gemtech has
not been truthful on the welding facts. I had assumed there was welding inside the can, be it baffles, cores, caps, whatever, does'nt fucking matter now because there is zero welds inside a G5 and I bought one from a Gemtech dealer in Columbus, Ohio back in May, still pending, based on Gemtechs statement that there is welds internal to a G5.

All this stuff started when AAC bought the CNC welder and potential buyers started calling suppressor makers (Gemtech) and asking questions. Gemtech has replied yes to internal welds, well so much for that.

Why fucking lie about it?
If they really did say (and you can prove it )that there is welds on the internals,,you can demand you money back ,and that they have to pay for you loss (taxstamp)
Did you pay with credit card ?
If yes,, leave it up to the bank to make you claim
Just tell you didnt get what they promised that is credit card fraud
All I can back up is what Gemtech has stated in various posts on what I've read at arfcom, and the gentleman I spoke with on the phone in regards to a G5 that has been in a dealers inventory as of February 2007 would be the latest and greatest G5 in current production, as I don't want a model that is obsolete while waiting on a Form 4 approval.

Paid with CC, all done and over with.

The one thing that bothers me, in a good way maybe, that when I shined my Surefire M2 into the back of it look at the blast baffle, it absolutely blinded me. I wear reading glasses and had them on, but I tried to light up the inside and the reflection off the blast baffle was the same as looking into a mirror and turning on the Surefire! If there was an inconel insert pinned to a stainless baffle, I would think I would have seen the differential unless both was polished to a mirror finish. I ended up holding the light at arms length and looking into it, but it was still probably too bright to actually tell anything. I'll find out when I pick it up. I'll get some pics and post them, but my macro won't be anything close to RS's work :roll:
User avatar
Kevin/AAC
Elite Industry Professional
Posts: 3248
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:47 pm
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Post by Kevin/AAC »

Scott S. wrote:What's depressing me more than the failure is the fact that Gemtech has
not been truthful on the welding facts. I had assumed there was welding inside the can, be it baffles, cores, caps, whatever, does'nt fucking matter now because there is zero welds inside a G5 and I bought one from a Gemtech dealer in Columbus, Ohio back in May, still pending, based on Gemtechs statement that there is welds internal to a G5.

All this stuff started when AAC bought the CNC welder and potential buyers started calling suppressor makers (Gemtech) and asking questions. Gemtech has replied yes to internal welds, well so much for that.

Why fucking lie about it?

I don't think that they should lie about it either...but, robot welders are very expensive.
User avatar
3101
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 5379
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:55 pm
Location: Northeast Georgia...near UGA

Post by 3101 »

Well now, while I was away this got pretty interesting...
Let's see....
I have fired 200 round belts out of AAC silencers on a M249 in front of witnesses....no sign of can failure...
I have had multiple mag dumps out of a Surefire 556K, and had no problems at all in both 6.8 and 5.56, Surefire makes a great can...

Not true with the G5, no matter who wants to spin it.

Comparing me to cyclone....you gotta be kidding me....
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
3101
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 5379
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:55 pm
Location: Northeast Georgia...near UGA

Post by 3101 »

Scott S....
there were NO INTERNAL WELDS on the can I helped test...period

Heat treated inconel is NOT mirror bright...if you shined a light inside your can and saw a mirror bright finish, whatever you were looking at was not heat treated inconel. Heat treated inconel is a different color than mirror bright steel...google it for yourself and find out. I know what color it is, but since my word is in doubt I will let someone find out for themselves....took me about 4 minutes to find a good description of 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.
cyclone72
Silencertalk Goon Squad
Posts: 7564
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:16 am
Location: Florida

Post by cyclone72 »

hey now whats wrong with that,Im very handsome and am built like a truck,ok more like a concrete truck,with balding tires and a faulty gas exhaust ,JK, :lol:
Last edited by cyclone72 on Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ArevaloSOCOM
Silencertalk Goon Squad
Posts: 17511
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 1:22 am
Location: London, England
Contact:

Post by ArevaloSOCOM »

cyclone72 wrote:hey now whats wrong with that,Im very handsome and am built like a truck,ok more like a concrete truck,with balding tires and a faulty gas exhaust ,JK, :lol:

Seriously,GaLeo aint nothing like me when it comes to bias towards AAC cans. :evil: It's almost an insult to compare him too me when it comes to this subject when I know he is ubiased and calls things like he sees them.
There is more than just a "thread" of integrity in his posts,theres actually alot of integrity in his posts.
+1

Both Cyclone and Galeo are good guys and I have little reason to doubt them.
NFAtalk.org
User avatar
mk23
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1743
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 11:33 am
Location: Port Angeles, WA

Post by mk23 »

Kevin/AAC wrote:
mk23 wrote:A very emotional subject. :D

I only have one thing to say.

I know Robert has been a long time proponent of testing silencers on the same day, under the same conditions. I only wish his philosophy had entended to this test as well.

Two blind tested cans, one from Gemtech and one from AAC.

Same batch of Ammo, same Rifle, same Day.

Same day testing makes no difference for endurance testing, only sound testing.

How about same Rifle and same Ammo then? Would seem a little more scientific, no?
User avatar
mk23
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1743
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 11:33 am
Location: Port Angeles, WA

Post by mk23 »

Scott S. wrote:What's depressing me more than the failure is the fact that Gemtech has
not been truthful on the welding facts. I had assumed there was welding inside the can, be it baffles, cores, caps, whatever, does'nt fucking matter now because there is zero welds inside a G5 and I bought one from a Gemtech dealer in Columbus, Ohio back in May, still pending, based on Gemtechs statement that there is welds internal to a G5.

All this stuff started when AAC bought the CNC welder and potential buyers started calling suppressor makers (Gemtech) and asking questions. Gemtech has replied yes to internal welds, well so much for that.

Why fucking lie about it?
Yeah, I have to agree with you too... That bums me out....
amishbill
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:51 pm

Post by amishbill »

If your form-4 is pending, You might want to contact the ATF tomorrow AM to cancel the application. If it's a Form-3 to an instate dealer, let the dealer know to request cancellation.
Scott S.
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 252
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 12:25 pm

Post by Scott S. »

GaLEO wrote:Scott S....
there were NO INTERNAL WELDS on the can I helped test...period

Heat treated inconel is NOT mirror bright...if you shined a light inside your can and saw a mirror bright finish, whatever you were looking at was not heat treated inconel. Heat treated inconel is a different color than mirror bright steel...google it for yourself and find out. I know what color it is, but since my word is in doubt I will let someone find out for themselves....took me about 4 minutes to find a good description of it.
That's exactly what I did when I got home from buying it, I kept wondering about the shine. I had it in mind it would be a dark looking heat treatment type of look to it, so searched it briefly and pretty much came upon this type of explanation on inconel:

Inconel® refers to a family of trademarked high strength austenitic nickel-chromium-iron alloys that have exceptional anti-corrosion and heat-resistance properties. These alloys contain high levels of nickel and can be thought of as super-stainless steels.

So with that I just thought they polished it up a little. There comes a point where the consumer has to trust the seller. If the G5 snaps on and off as advertised, sounds as good as AAC and Surefire's top cans, does'nt rattle off the Bi-lock, alignment and POI shift is minimal, I'll take it. I'll never heat it up like that endurance test. Not even close. But if Gemtech does'nt come alive this week and do some damage control here or at arfcom, they will surely feel the results of that test.
User avatar
Kevin/AAC
Elite Industry Professional
Posts: 3248
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:47 pm
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Post by Kevin/AAC »

mk23 wrote:
Kevin/AAC wrote:
mk23 wrote:A very emotional subject. :D

I only have one thing to say.

I know Robert has been a long time proponent of testing silencers on the same day, under the same conditions. I only wish his philosophy had entended to this test as well.

Two blind tested cans, one from Gemtech and one from AAC.

Same batch of Ammo, same Rifle, same Day.

Same day testing makes no difference for endurance testing, only sound testing.

How about same Rifle and same Ammo then? Would seem a little more scientific, no?
Same gun and ammo were used.
User avatar
silencertalk
Site Admin
Posts: 33978
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
Location: USA

Post by silencertalk »

Gemtech has never claimed to use heat-treated Inconel 718 like AAC does. They only claim 'Inconel' and do not specify the quality, grade, or heat-treatment. Heat-treated 718 is HUGLY stronger than some other Inconels.

So while Gemtech does not appear to heat-treat their Inconel, I have no doubt it is some form of Inconel and might even be non-heat-treated 718. The lower forms of Inconel are designed for corrosion resistance rather than for ultimate strength at high-temps. Inconel 600 is not much stronger than 316 stainless.
User avatar
silencertalk
Site Admin
Posts: 33978
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
Location: USA

Post by silencertalk »

Scott S. wrote:
The one thing that bothers me, in a good way maybe, that when I shined my Surefire M2 into the back of it look at the blast baffle, it absolutely blinded me.
This is what ours looked like before the test. It was shiny like a mirror also and had no evidence of being heat-treated (greenish/gold color).

Image
User avatar
Krink545
Silent Operator
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:29 pm
Location: Deep South Texas

Post by Krink545 »

Where's the Video?
User avatar
silencertalk
Site Admin
Posts: 33978
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
Location: USA

Post by silencertalk »

In my camcorder.
User avatar
Hootiewho
Super Dunce
Posts: 479
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:02 pm

Post by Hootiewho »

rsilvers wrote:Gemtech has never claimed to use heat-treated Inconel 718 like AAC does. They only claim 'Inconel' and do not specify the quality, grade, or heat-treatment. Heat-treated 718 is HUGLY stronger than some other Inconels.

So while Gemtech does not appear to heat-treat their Inconel, I have no doubt it is some form of Inconel and might even be non-heat-treated 718. The lower forms of Inconel are designed for corrosion resistance rather than for ultimate strength at high-temps. Inconel 600 is not much stronger than 316 stainless.
Just curious, does Inconel have any magnetic properties?
User avatar
silencertalk
Site Admin
Posts: 33978
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
Location: USA

Post by silencertalk »

On AR15, Bigbore posted:
I dont believe for a minute that anyone at Gemtech has ever provided false information.
Excuse me, but THE CAN IS NOT WELDED. GEMTECH said it was. PERIOD. That is false information.
elksniper
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: Ft. Richardson, AK

Post by elksniper »

I sure am glad you posted this. There is no way in hell I'm going to spend the little money I made over here on false advertisement and a substandard can. I really was thinking about buying a Gemtech, but I think when I get home I will be trying to find a KAC, or ACC for my HK Tac. .45

When are you going to post the video of the test?


"bigbore" if Gemtech said they welded the cans, yet there are no welds............that sure sounds like a lie to me. This isn't rocket science. Either its there or not, and from the pictures I would say its not.
Golovko
Senior Silent Operator
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:10 am

Post by Golovko »

mk23 wrote: ...But when AAC submited their 6 cans or whatever to the military, they (AAC) new ahead of time those cans were in for some heavy abuse. They picked/delivered those cans with that knowledge.

Here, a G5 can was basically bought from a dealer.

Somehow, it just doesn't QUITE seem the same...

That is why, I was saying it would have been nice to seem them tested Side BY Side.
For AAC to have submitted the best quality samples for the testing, there would have to have been enough inconsistency in manufacturing for some to be better than others, and there would have to have been some way for AAC to determine in a non-destructive fashion which ones were strongest. Considering their manufacturing methods, about the only way to beef up one of their cans would be to add more material, which would make it heavier, and that would backfire if the military specified a target weight among the criteria.

Take a look at just about any mass-produced product. How does one go about determining the quality of one particular product versus an identical one sitting right next to it? Out of every product I've ever owned that could be inspected or at least viewed before purchase, I've never once been in a situation where even prior use of a product gave me any information that would reveal any sort of quality difference between two identical units of a new, mass-produced product.
User avatar
silencertalk
Site Admin
Posts: 33978
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
Location: USA

Post by silencertalk »

The samples AAC submitted were in no way improved or different from what has been shipped from the same production run to anyone else. You can take an off-the-shelf $550 retail M4-1000 or $475 retail Ranger-II and do that test, and I would expect it to pass.
User avatar
GlockandRoll
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 5134
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:32 am
Location: Austin, TX.
Contact:

Post by GlockandRoll »

I wonder how my TAC-16 would do, be a damned shame if it survived better than the G5!!!
:twisted:
Post Reply