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

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

Post by amishbill » Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:50 pm

I was at the testing of some flash hiders for AAC recently. You should have seen the spark show we got from a FH that was not completely cleaned after being removed from the lathe / milling machine.

A mag of ammo burnt out all that crap and it performed exactly as intended from there on out.

I'll call it debris from manufacturing.

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

Post by Crosshair » Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:27 pm

Tyris wrote:....I suppose that can would be great on a bolt-rifle if it cost $300. I've seen Tac16s that have taken beta-mag dumps and still fare better than this G5 did....
I agree. I own a TAC-16 and while I readily admit that it is not the best suppressor out there, Tactical Innovations at least is honest about their product.

They advertise it as a semi and limited full auto can. (100 rounds through a 20" M-16) Their primary market is civilians and LEO's on a budget who don't want/need anything fancy, just something simple that will work. Most people, like myself, will never have them on a select-fire weapon and a 100 round mag dump to us would be considered "extreme use." TacInc doesn't insinuate in any way that their cans are Mil-Spec.

The TAC-16 is hearing safe and that is what people want when they buy a suppressor. It's not the lightest, most compact or quietest suppressor, but they don't advertise it as being any of those. TacInc advertises the TAC-16 as the Model T of suppressors.

TacInc advertises the TAC-16 as a Model T at a Model T price and the customer gets something built like a model T. (Big and clunky, but durable and functional.) Everyone knows what they are getting and everyone is happy.

Gemtech, on the other hand, appears to be selling a Model T as a Formula 1 race car at Formula 1 prices. As long as you don't try to drive it like a Formula 1, nobody is the wiser. However, if you drive that Model T like a Formula 1, you get results like this.

User avatar
Mongo
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 4167
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 1:27 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by Mongo » Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:34 pm

You gotta love this logic.

http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f ... e=2#bottom
CAR-15 wrote: 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.
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?

A peal washer is a kind of spacer, if they had used 3 peal washers instead of a machined spacer would it have been better?
Firearms Engineer for hire on piece work basis.
No job is too expensive :)
http://weaponblueprints.com/

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

Post by Crosshair » Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:36 pm

I just had a crazy idea. Get a TAC-16 and see how well it performs in such a test :lol: I have no idea if it would survive the test or not. (At the very least you could easily replace the damaged/destroyed baffles.) It is 100% steel so it would not have the expansion issues and the Titanium strength issues. I just thought it would be amusing to try it.

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

Post by CAR-15 » Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:39 pm

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.

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

Post by silencertalk » Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:30 pm

You will see it when I post the video.

User avatar
Mongo
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 4167
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 1:27 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by Mongo » Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:49 pm

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.
No pissing match about it. I was pointing out that your skepticism had no basis in logic. If you think about what I posted you will agree (assuming your logical).

Just look at the way you post. Did you ask "do you think that the space could have cause this failure?" nope you went right over to ARF where many of us can not post and stated that your skeptical and your reason. I copied your post over here and answered you and gave you logical reasons why your skepticism was unfounded/illogical. This made you mad, as it does many others on ARF that don't know what they are doing but are happy to post anyway and get offended when told they don't know what they are talking about.
Firearms Engineer for hire on piece work basis.
No job is too expensive :)
http://weaponblueprints.com/

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

Post by Kevin/AAC » Sat Jun 09, 2007 12:46 am

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.

zach h
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:20 am
Location: tenn

Post by zach h » Sat Jun 09, 2007 1:45 am

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'm halfway willing to do it. but I don't see any problems in your test, that and I don't have the spare cash for a G5. I do have a test Gladius that needs some rough abuse , Hint ,hint ,(ammo for a video) . or point me to a place that has ammo for a decent price in stock. I'm wanting to do this test more and more on a gladius but it might have to wait till I get a dillon 550.

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

Post by silencertalk » Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:03 am

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=20&t=222163

Lawman734 posted:
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.
Just to let people know, this is not a hobby for us -- this is R&D. It is not just for fun.


squibround posted:
...so what is ACC trying to prove anyway?
We cannot compete with false claims. Dr. Dater told several people that they welded the core of this silencer. My hypothesis was that it was not durable, and now I know it is not.


DamnYank posted:
He was in cahoots with AAC for a loooong time while running silenterrests.com. He *allegedly* lied about it for a long time
AR15 believed that I was working for AAC because they saw me post from an IP address from AAC. However, it was the week of the silencer shoot last year and I was in GA for that, and posted from AAC's office when I visited them.


squibround posted:
I hate the "this can is better than that can" BS that ACC so proudly flies around.
It is not BS. Real people were mislead on how durable this can was and spent real money on it after Gemtech assured them my previous claims were not accurate -- so I decided to prove them with a test and documentation.


boltcatch posted:
+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.
There is nothing I would like more than for other people to try to reproduce this test. And just for the record, the stuff I posted before was also accurate and backed up with evidence and logic.


bigbore posted:
This made me double my order of Gemtech G5s. A great product, from a great company.
I am not sure a 'great company' would sell people unwelded cans and tell them they are welded.


mfinger posted:
Like all AAC claims... I will take it with a grain of salt.
Actually it is you who has a history of false claims. AAC is excellent about providing documentation and backing them up. This test is a perfect example. AAC was willing to test a brand new $875 silencer using $400 in ammo and photo and video the test, while at the same time, allowing an independent observer. Therefore no salt is needed.


S-1 posted:
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.
Um, did you miss the photos and documented test with an independent observer? How is that 'nothing to back it up?
I believe that Gemtech makes a great product and will stand behind it as they say.
In order for them to stand behind what they say, they should take back and weld all of the silencers as they said the core was welded and it was not.

brazos609
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 383
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 11:12 am
Location: TX

mount

Post by brazos609 » Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:04 am

The BiLock/G5 combination requires that the suppressor have a small amount of room behind the base of the flash hider to be able to push it on and rotate to lock, just like the 3-lug mount of an MP5. The spacers would be required becaus base of the flash hider is right up next to the front of the gas block on the 416. These spacers would not be needed with a YHM or AAC QD flash hider/suppressor combo since the supprressors do not come past the base of the flash hider.

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

Post by CAR-15 » Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:30 am

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.

brazos609
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 383
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 11:12 am
Location: TX

Post by brazos609 » Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:39 am

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.
I will pay the tax stamp and provide the ammo. I get to keep the can no matter what.
That is mighty white of you to make such an offer. You are going into this with a percieved bias against their product and offer to impartially test it, if they will let you keep it for free. I think I'll try your offer at the Ford delaership. "I don't think that new Mustang V6 is as fast as you say it is. You transfer the title to me and I will pay the tax on it and try it out, I just get to keep the car without paying for it even if it is as fast as you say it is."

quietshooter
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:44 pm

Impartial observer of all this

Post by quietshooter » Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:55 am

I have a gemtech predator and am very happy with it. While I never put it through this kind of test it still works well. Having said that, If I could trade it for an AAC M4 2000 right now I would do it in a heartbeat. You can say what you want about robert and AAC but you cannot deny the fact that their cans are probably the best on the market at this time.

User avatar
lawless
Silencertalk Goon Squad
Posts: 4545
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:15 am
Location: Aksarben

Post by lawless » Sat Jun 09, 2007 12:02 pm

yeah ill be willing to do a test on an hk 416 to see if its as good as they say it is, and even if it is I get to keep it. That's about the dumbest offer you could make. Why would AAC take a loss on something for you to prove something many already know. Of course they wouldn't. Buy something for the price that they sell it for just like any other paying customer and test it yourself. I work at a gun shop in Maryland and we sell all kinds of suppressors. I personally have an AAC but not a Gemtech. Our shop sells all of them, but I will offer and SWR or AAC product over gemtech anyday. Why? Because first of all they both perform better. Second, AAC doesn't make any false claims. They back up everything they test and many have been skeptical and they have also been shot down. Look at the SRT Typhoon thread. Many were skeptical and accused Robert of doctoring the test. So they had someone else do it and low and behold they got the same results. I am confident that anyone who recreates this test will get the same results Robert/AAC/GaLEO did. Sure AAC makes some pretty tall claims but they are backed up by proof. This kind of suppressor is what I would call "the s--t". A company who makes claims and are proven to be false are dishonest and do not deserve anyone's money. They should be prosecuted for false advertising and fraudulent representation.
Last edited by lawless on Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mongo
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 4167
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 1:27 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by Mongo » Sat Jun 09, 2007 12:08 pm

To me the main issue is not the can failure (I'm sure Gemtech will explain that away as being out side the design parameters for the can) but that there is not a single structural weld in the complete can. In fact the only weld it looked like was the 1/2" to keep you from taking it apart. This is contrary to Gemtech and their dealer's claims and is therefore out right fraud. I noticed not one Gemtech supporter has addressed this issue.
Firearms Engineer for hire on piece work basis.
No job is too expensive :)
http://weaponblueprints.com/

TaylorWSO
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:18 am
Location: id

Post by TaylorWSO » Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:01 pm

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?

User avatar
Tyris
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2337
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:41 am
Location: Oregon

Post by Tyris » Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:14 pm

TaylorWSO wrote: Why is everyone getting hung up on ONE can.
Probably because this ONE can was chosen at random without Gemtech's knowledge that it would be subjected to harsh use. This ONE can was indicative of Gemtech's typical build quality. This ONE can disproved their claims that it is full auto rated.

I still cant get over the use of critical components that are pinned in place, and the pin hole venting gas out the side of the can. What genius thought that s--t was a good idea?

TAC16 > Gemtech G5

-T

User avatar
Racer
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:08 pm
Location: Oregon

Post by Racer » Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:22 pm

Tyris wrote:
TAC16 > Gemtech G5

-T
+1

Isn't that a sad commentary. Gemtech used to lead in the suppressor world. The G5 with the weaknesses revealed should never have seen the market place.
Dave

chrisva
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 9:30 am
Location: va

Post by chrisva » Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:41 pm

Probably because this ONE can was chosen at random without Gemtech's knowledge that it would be subjected to harsh use. This ONE can was indicative of Gemtech's typical build quality. This ONE can disproved their claims that it is full auto rated.
If 2 tire companies stated that there tires lasted 50k miles and brand A only lasted 15k people would bitch up storm and tell band A that is was false advertising.
But brand B got 60k out of there 50k tire people would flock to the brand B or at least thats what you'd think. I feel that alot of buyer want to beleive that they made a good choice which base on infomation given they might have.
I don't understand why people take product testing so personal like someone said something about there mothers. We've all bought items that we thought were great, later to find out that is wasn't.
I guess the bitch with nfa items is your married to this thing (just like with people;) and your going to loss money on this deal if you try to get out of it, so we lie to ourselves that were happy!!
I'm sure that dealers have different interests in mind when selling a product maybe the manfacturer gives better margins than another or are easier to deal with.

TaylorWSO
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:18 am
Location: id

Post by TaylorWSO » Sat Jun 09, 2007 6:05 pm

[quote="Tyris"

Probably because this ONE can was chosen at random without Gemtech's knowledge that it would be subjected to harsh use. This ONE can was indicative of Gemtech's typical build quality. This ONE can disproved their claims that it is full auto rated.

I still cant get over the use of critical components that are pinned in place, and the pin hole venting gas out the side of the can. What genius thought that s--t was a good idea?

-T[/quote]

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.

User avatar
wolf
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:32 pm

Post by wolf » Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:26 pm

TaylorWSO wrote:[quote="Tyris"

Probably because this ONE can was chosen at random without Gemtech's knowledge that it would be subjected to harsh use. This ONE can was indicative of Gemtech's typical build quality. This ONE can disproved their claims that it is full auto rated.

I still cant get over the use of critical components that are pinned in place, and the pin hole venting gas out the side of the can. What genius thought that s--t was a good idea?

-T
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.[/quote]


If i bought a can from whoever that made a claim that it was welded in the
places needed ,and it felt apart ,after(under ) a test they knew ,the military use to test if a can is fullauto rated
I would say it did fail ,and when i could not find any other welds than the tiny weld that did prevent the endcap from unscrewing ,and seeing the pin
and the rest of the guts :roll: ,,end of faith with that company
I would say that i like the biloock system (not that i have any,but the idea)
But not on a full auto rated gun

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

Post by silencertalk » Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:37 pm

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"
Yes, Phil Dater of Gemtech has specifically said the G5 has a welds on the core. They have never claimed the core was welded to the tube though.

User avatar
Tyris
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2337
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:41 am
Location: Oregon

Post by Tyris » Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:10 pm

wolf 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.
My metric for quality is not counting how many rounds until destruction, but examination of the components used and the construction. Rob's test gave us a glimpse under the hood of this one, and we're free to decide for ourselves after reviewing the slew of design flaws.

My personal concern is not that a single G5 was destroyed or failed, as that can be staged with any can. As a recreational silencer owner I'll never run my cans to destruction, but this does not mean I would tolerate a severely under-engineered silencer when for the same cost I can have one designed ground-up for belt-fed use. The concern here is that this $900 silencer is put together with less care than some form1 garage-built cans. G5 has no structural welding, bad choice of materials, roll pins(!!), crappy mount, screwed together critical components and a HOLE in the side. A can is the sum of its parts and construction. If you put it together like s--t, chances are it is a shitty can, regardless of the cost, what the website says about durability or how shiny a coating they give it.

If anyone thinks that the G5 is well built after looking at the components and construction in Rob's pictures, I have some ocean front property for sale in Wyoming.

I'm not particularly interested in seeing more of these until significant upgrades to the construction techniques are made. I get the feeling the only reason they welded the end cap was to prevent people from unscrewing it to take a peek at their baffles. That and Gemtech could claim their can is "fully welded" for components that "needed it".

I repeat my claim TAC16 > Gemtech G5.

-T

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

Post by Davo5o » Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:03 pm

I hope R&D keeps "Ripping & Destoying" more cans. It's the only way we get to see the guts, and hopefully companies start building better cans because of it, and stop making false claims while slip-shoting their work.

Post Reply