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, renegade, bakerjw

Post Reply
User avatar
kalikraven
Elite Member
Posts: 2944
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:48 pm
Location: Florida

Post by kalikraven » Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:13 pm

Well I wonder why they arnt doing this to KAC cans? I think its because they don't have too.

User avatar
silencertalk
Site Admin
Posts: 33986
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:31 am
Location: USA

Post by silencertalk » Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:15 pm

KAC cans will certainly pass this test. You are right, I don't need to because it has been done many times.

User avatar
GlockandRoll
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 5134
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:32 am
Location: Austin, TX.
Contact:

Post by GlockandRoll » Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:49 pm

Oh s--t - I almost purchased one of these.
I'm pretty much sold at this time on the M4-1000.

Look at all the new people on this thread -- he he.
I love this site.

User avatar
delta9mda
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2304
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 4:32 pm
Location: miami, florida

Post by delta9mda » Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:08 am

im no expert nor do i play one on tv, but the fact of the matter is

roll pins holding things together (wtf?)
inconel "donut" at blast baffle help in by- wait for it- roll pins

baffle stack not wleded together

end cap(s) welded around 25% or the circumfrance and not structurally welded

hole in side of can for what reason?

yeah its great that gemtech has great customer service but really, id rather have an all welded can and never have to use customer service.

over at ar.com they are raggin on r.s. that he did full auto straight thru and r.s. gave us a description of how he shot this, and it was not full auto all the way.

Golovko
Senior Silent Operator
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 6:10 am

Post by Golovko » Sun Jun 10, 2007 6:07 am

TaylorWSO wrote: I agree that the pins are a stupid idea, but my point, which you and others have missed, is that while this ONE can failed, it could or could not represent the quality of the rest of the cans. I think people are jumping on board bashing Gemtech when they don't know anything about stats or probabilities. This could very well represent all the cans gemtech puts out, but we would need to know a lot more info to judge the entire production lot. I'm pretty sure gemtech is not going to release the number of cans produced. Since its is a newer design there can't be many and we haven't seen (yet) another can get destroyed.

If someone destroyed a AAC can because of a faulty weld that got out, would you call ALL their cans s--t? I certainly wouldn't. If I heard 2 or more that did the same thing, I would start to wonder.
As mongo mentioned earlier:
How can a spacer make the roll pins fail, the "welds" in the baffle stack disappear, bulge the can and crack and destroy the Inconel blast "baffle" with out having one baffle strike or end cap strike?
That's a lot more than a simple missing weld or weld failure. If the GemTech can suffered from any one (and ONLY one) of those problems, it would be much easier to give them the benefit of the doubt. But that's a lot of problems with that one can. If AAC sold a can that was tested and failed because of weld failure, poor metallurgy, and bad design decisions, a lot of people would be justified in complaining about the company based on the multiple modes of failure in a single specimen. But it's not an AAC product that failed this way. Indeed, six units survived a somewhat more rigorous version of the test.

User avatar
Kevin/AAC
Elite Industry Professional
Posts: 3248
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:47 pm
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Post by Kevin/AAC » Sun Jun 10, 2007 8:43 am

CAR-15 wrote:
Kevin/AAC wrote:
CAR-15 wrote:I am only skeptical due to the fact that there were no pictures of the mount there assmunch. Furthermore I said that I didn't know if it would make any difference.

It's always a pissing contest on this fucking board. I just want to see the mount setup.

A third party test would be awesome. If you are willing to buy the silencer, video the test, and post it...I will give you the ammo.

Let me know.
How about you provide me a M4-1000 and I will try the same test you did on the G-5 and post the results. I offered this to Robert a while back and he didn't go for it.
I will pay the tax stamp and provide the ammo. I get to keep the can no matter what.
Well, I think that I have a better idea...You come to Atlanta and I will pay for your hotel room. We can do your testing of the M4-1000 against the G5. I will provide both silencers. Robert will take the pictures and video. You can load the mags and do all of the shooting. You only have to write a complete, accurate synopsis of everything that happens.

Let me know.

User avatar
Devil_Dawg
Silent Operator
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:18 pm
Location: State of Indiana, United States of America
Contact:

Post by Devil_Dawg » Sun Jun 10, 2007 8:47 am

Sounds more than fair to me!
Semper Fi

User avatar
Kevin/AAC
Elite Industry Professional
Posts: 3248
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:47 pm
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Post by Kevin/AAC » Sun Jun 10, 2007 8:53 am

TaylorWSO wrote:Did gemtech ever say they weld the "core"? The last I heard they said they weld the cans but not exactly where they place the welds. "Just where its needed"

Why is everyone getting hung up on ONE can. I have AAC products and gemtech products. I enjoy/use them both, it seems robert/kevin have been waiting for this to happen for a long time and they are making the most of it. I do not like the design, hence I got a HALO, but still it's ONE can.

Lastly are the AAC "caps" threaded then welded or just welded?
Yes, they have stated that all of their rifle cans are welded, including the G5. Obviously, the G5 is not welded anywhere...including "...Just where its needed."

You are correct, the HALO is a superior mount than the Bi-Lock. The HALO mount was designed by LEI in England.

Most of our silencers are "just" welded, but several are both threaded and welded.

User avatar
Kevin/AAC
Elite Industry Professional
Posts: 3248
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:47 pm
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Post by Kevin/AAC » Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:01 am

TaylorWSO wrote:
I agree that the pins are a stupid idea, but my point, which you and others have missed, is that while this ONE can failed, it could or could not represent the quality of the rest of the cans. I think people are jumping on board bashing Gemtech when they don't know anything about stats or probabilities. This could very well represent all the cans gemtech puts out, but we would need to know a lot more info to judge the entire production lot. I'm pretty sure gemtech is not going to release the number of cans produced. Since its is a newer design there can't be many and we haven't seen (yet) another can get destroyed.

If someone destroyed a AAC can because of a faulty weld that got out, would you call ALL their cans s--t? I certainly wouldn't. If I heard 2 or more that did the same thing, I would start to wonder.
This does not represent FAULTY weld quality or product quality, it simply demonstrates NO welding- which I think translates into bad quality for a rifle silencer, but you can decide for yourself. This is simply a test that we performed to verify the G5's durability after Kel and Phil from Gemtech stated that the silencer is welded for durability. We can certainly duplicate this test, if anyone wants to provide the G5...I am willing to give someone a M4-2000 Mod 07, if they do.

User avatar
JohnnyC
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2892
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 4:31 am
Location: AZ
Contact:

Post by JohnnyC » Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:24 am

Kevin/AAC wrote: Well, I think that I have a better idea...You come to Atlanta and I will pay for your hotel room. We can do your testing of the M4-1000 against the G5. I will provide both silencers. Robert will take the pictures and video. You can load the mags and do all of the shooting. You only have to write a complete, accurate synopsis of everything that happens.

Let me know.
So is this invitation open to anybody? Hell, I'll scream up and down that AAC are heathen devils if it gets me the chance to go to Georgia and do this!

User avatar
silencertalk
Site Admin
Posts: 33986
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:31 am
Location: USA

Post by silencertalk » Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:28 am

I won't take photos and videos. I know for certain how the G5 is and I feel another test is a waste of time. The G5 is not even close to being up to the task. It would be like re-entering my Subaru in the Indy 500 for a second time.

CAR-15
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:20 am
Location: Midwest

Post by CAR-15 » Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:34 am

Unfortunately, I won't be able to make it down to GA anytime soon. Anyone else who is interested could stand in my place. I'm sure there won't be any shortage of volunteers!! :D

Too bad about you not wanting to do photos or video, as a direct, head-to-head comparison would be great.

Let me also state that I don't think it would change anything, and as I said in my original post on ARFCOM, I would just like to see how it was mounted up. That is all.

User avatar
GlockandRoll
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 5134
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:32 am
Location: Austin, TX.
Contact:

Post by GlockandRoll » Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:37 am

I really do hope this thread gets allot of attention and shows BARFCOM for what they are. I was banned w/out even a warning and did not get my member dues refunded -- even though the membership terms of agreement state that you do not get a refund after repeated warnings.

User avatar
silencertalk
Site Admin
Posts: 33986
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:31 am
Location: USA

Post by silencertalk » Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:39 am

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 )
It is the first I have heard of also. However, it is the same basic construction as the M4-96D, and I have heard of this kind of problem with that. I would think a military organization would not even test the G5 because it has not been upgraded in engineering enough from the ones which have been tested in the past.

I don't know of any M4-2000 ruptured video. M4-2000s have been tested to destruction, but this current test is not a destructive test. It is just an endurance test one which all six AAC cans tested had survived.

This would be like a long road race of which only a few cars managed to survive, and they were all one or two brands. The race would not be designed to destroy the cars -- it would just be a tough race scenario that only the best cars could handle.

If an AAC can did fail a reasonable endurance test, such as this, we would look into why and make changes to the product.

User avatar
Crosshair
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3195
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:51 am
Location: Grand Forks, ND

Post by Crosshair » Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:20 am

A questions for you rsilvers. What does it take to destroy or otherwise irreparably damage a M4-2000? I tried the search function, but came up empty? If you have any other links to tests the military has done, that would be great.

Thanks.

User avatar
JohnnyC
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2892
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 4:31 am
Location: AZ
Contact:

Post by JohnnyC » Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:32 am

Kevin, if Robert won't take photos because he feels like it's a waste of time, I'll volunteer to take his place. Got quite a bit of experience (the degree doesn't really mean s--t) and I'd love to fill in anytime he can't make it. And if the G5 wasn't so G-D expensive I'd take you up on the offer to swap for an M4-2000. But being it's cheaper just to buy one straight up, I'd be surprised if you had any takers.

User avatar
mk23
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1744
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 12:33 pm
Location: Port Angeles, WA

Post by mk23 » Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:11 pm

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.

User avatar
Davo5o
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 4077
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:44 pm
Location: MONTANA

Post by Davo5o » Sun Jun 10, 2007 3:38 pm

Dude, it's a standard mil test, get over it!

Sid Post
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:51 am
Location: Arizona, USA

Post by Sid Post » Sun Jun 10, 2007 3:50 pm

The test was a reasonable military test. The GemTech can in question failed. PERIOD

There are several things about this suppressor that are not up to the standards expected for a can advertised and sold the way the GemTech G5 is.

There is no reason for me to think repeating the test has any merit. Does anyone really expect a second test to come out differently? Claims were made, claims were tested, and the claims didn't hold up.

This line of discussion isn't a whole lot different from the SRT saga. Tiny blue flame or not, salesmanship and marketing didn't match reality. I respect PhD and GemTech as much as anyone but, the reality is this can failed due to manufacturing choices that were WRONG for stated use of this suppressor.

Scott S.
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 252
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 1:25 pm

Post by Scott S. » Sun Jun 10, 2007 4:37 pm

This post is huge news over on AR15.com, Gemtech has not replied yet, weekend and all I guess. Maybe Monday. LOL, I have a brand new G5 pending. Oh well........................

amishbill
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:51 pm

Post by amishbill » Sun Jun 10, 2007 4:54 pm

There is only one valid quesion to be asked and answered at this point.

Was this specific can a manufacturing QC flaw or is it exactly as Gemtech decided to build them in general?

Without that answer the only valid discussion points are general design items like the mount and use of roll pins, exotic metals, inserts, etc.

cyclone72
Silencertalk Goon Squad
Posts: 7566
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:16 pm
Location: Florida

Post by cyclone72 » Sun Jun 10, 2007 4:55 pm

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 )
It is the first I have heard of also. However, it is the same basic construction as the M4-96D, and I have heard of this kind of problem with that. I would think a military organization would not even test the G5 because it has not been upgraded in engineering enough from the ones which have been tested in the past.

I don't know of any M4-2000 ruptured video. M4-2000s have been tested to destruction, but this current test is not a destructive test. It is just an endurance test one which all six AAC cans tested had survived.

This would be like a long road race of which only a few cars managed to survive, and they were all one or two brands. The race would not be designed to destroy the cars -- it would just be a tough race scenario that only the best cars could handle.

If an AAC can did fail a reasonable endurance test, such as this, we would look into why and make changes to the product.
I call BS on the video such video does not exist but anyone can destroy an M42000 can .An M42000 can blow up/rupture whatever as you can design a test too rupture any can but I guarantee you the M42000 will withstand the test RSilvers did too the G5 . :wink:

User avatar
mk23
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1744
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 12:33 pm
Location: Port Angeles, WA

Post by mk23 » Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:07 pm

Davo5o wrote:Dude, it's a standard mil test, get over it!
No, I get that.

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.

Scott S.
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 252
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 1:25 pm

Post by Scott S. » Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:18 pm

mk23 wrote:
Davo5o wrote:Dude, it's a standard mil test, get over it!
No, I get that.

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.
I kind of agree with you. But one fact is AAC is welding all their cans via that awesome CNC robot no coffee break whiz bang welder.
If any silencer will hold up to that test, AAC would. But what would more interesting is: would Gemtech knowingly throw a G5 into that test :?:

Scott S.
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 252
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 1:25 pm

Post by Scott S. » Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:30 pm

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?

Post Reply