• Our Gemtech G5 failed at 750 rounds.

Posted: **Fri Dec 21, 2007 8:04 pm**

M19,sensitive arent we,you're doing exceptionally well for your very first post in this forum

Suggestion for your first post,introduce yourself,your interests who you are before you start layin in to the owner of this site.Just a suggestion.

Posted: **Fri Dec 21, 2007 8:26 pm**

M19 wrote:Yak Yak Yak, I am reading this and the new mod 7 does look nice but the bashing on Gemtech makes your product and your integrity weak. Let's see the test with the AAC mod 7 and let's see your previous models opened up but whatever you do quit s--t talking like a high school girl and walk the walk.

Ian? Mr. LaPue? Is that you?

If you were to READ a little bit, you will see that the M4-2007 has already done that test, and passed successfully, just as the Surefire and others have.

Just take it like a man, admit it, and the truth shall set you free. The G5 sucks for any kind of hard use.

Posted: **Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:00 am**

Brilliant.

At least Robert had class enough to end the retard can war . . . now someone brings it back to life.

Complete losers.

Posted: **Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:41 pm**

And I thought this thread was dead.

Posted: **Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:32 pm**

kalikraven wrote:And I thought this thread was dead.

New people join everyday and this is good info.

Posted: **Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:32 am**

WERD. IBTL

Posted: **Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:03 am**

TAG????

Posted: **Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:45 am**

Holy s--t, I just read this whole thing after working a midnight shift and I feel like shooting myself in the foot...Oh... but im in the house and I don't have a can yet, and I don't want to wake the kids. I guess I'll wait till I get one.

But it won't be a Gemtech...

Good info for a FNG though.

Posted: **Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:01 am**

Oh Yeah, whatever can you decide to get..... If you break it, you pay the gemtax....

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:31 am**

Posted: **Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:18 pm**

god I hate beating a dead horse

but

Didnt this AAC can fail the same test?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjiDtrA3P8A

Now I know I am probably poking a hornests nest so excuse me while I get flame retardant suit, but isnt this the same exact test with an AAC m4-1000? I'm no gemtech lover (my first can on a form 4 is an m41k that is pending as I type this) but isnt it hypocritical to bash the gemtech and praise the AAC for both failing the same test?

Posted: **Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:25 pm**

Oh, the "Buddy Test" video.

No, the flash suppressor mount unscrewed from the barrel during the test, resulting in a baffle strike. When that happens, one needs to start over.

Also, that is an old M4-2000 with plug welds. They have full circumferential welds now. So even if a new one had a baffle strike, I still don't think that would tear a weld as happened in this test.

Posted: **Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:28 pm**

gotcha...

Still, this is a test I would like to see done on a newer m41k/2k (not mine tho)

Posted: **Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:53 pm**

123,000 views...

Posted: **Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:33 pm**

it just goes to show that you can blow up anything if you abuse it enough.

Posted: **Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:39 pm**

rsilvers wrote:Oh, the "Buddy Test" video.

Posted: **Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:32 pm**

noiseless wrote:
I find it curious that the only one NOT heard from on this issue, in over a MONTH, with discussion on (at least) THREE different NFA related forums, with direct inquires by email . . . is Gemtech

Just my two cents for having read 116 pages on the matter.

Carry on

Yeah, no statement that their rep misspoke, no answering their critics, no nothing. I can't think of any other company that thinks hiding under the covers is the best solution to a critic. They might think that is a clever tactic, but because of it I will never buy a new Gemtech can.

Posted: **Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:37 pm**

Mongo wrote:
prdubi wrote:regardless of the fact.

The only person up to now that mimics being non objective and non biased is noted writer, AL PAULSON.

snipped...
Al might be unbiased but he is a writer and earns his money writing. If he ever has a can failure (from a current manufacturer) you will never see it or hear about it. That is a fact of life that people need to accept about writers. Writers can not piss off the manufacturers of the items they review or the manufacturers will quickly stop sending samples for review. (obviously leading to no more writing/pay days) Writers typically do not make enough money to buy boat loads of new suppressors for independent testing, they just don't get paid enough. Since there is no "Consumer Reports" in the suppressor business, then you are stuck with people like Robert, 1928a2 and the military testing suppressors. Military will not publish the results so only the manufacturers involved will be a source of info on those test. So now you are down to "biased" bad reviews that people are screaming about but it is the only way you would have ever learned about the G5.

I don't even care if a review is "biased", unless by that word you mean that the reviewer is deliberately fudging the information, in which case "suspect" or "propaganda" would be better words to use. I rely on my critical thinking and observation skills to form a decision and I've been let down only rarely...

Posted: **Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:42 pm**

hemi wrote:
rsilvers wrote:Oh, the "Buddy Test" video.

Classic.............

I thought it was the Glory hole.

Posted: **Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:50 pm**

I hadn't seen the "Buddy Test" before, and it didn't make me think less of the AAC can given the cause. It did, however, make me consider having my QD Flash Hider perm-attached (to meet 16" length) an asset instead of just an inconvenience.

Posted: **Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:13 pm**

Use enough torque and it won't unscrew.

Our Gemtech G5 failed at 750 rounds.

Re: HighSchool

Re: hmm