Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:13 pm
Well I wonder why they arnt doing this to KAC cans? I think its because they don't have too.
Sound Suppressor Discussion
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/
As mongo mentioned earlier: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.
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.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?
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.CAR-15 wrote: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.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.
I will pay the tax stamp and provide the ammo. I get to keep the can no matter what.
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."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?
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.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.
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!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.
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.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 )
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 .rsilvers wrote:mfingar posted:
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.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 )
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.
No, I get that.Davo5o wrote:Dude, it's a standard mil test, get over it!
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.mk23 wrote:No, I get that.Davo5o wrote:Dude, it's a standard mil test, get over it!
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.