SilencerTalk

Sound Suppressor Discussion
It is currently Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:14 am

All times are UTC-04:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 114 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:36 am 
Offline
Silent But Deadly

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:01 pm
Posts: 826
Location: VA
Kevin/AAC wrote:
They have a lot of smart guys in their light dept.
but not in their silencer dept

_________________
Blaubart wrote:
I'd love to screw with a boss like yours Steve.


Top
   
BulletFlight for Android
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:38 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:01 am
Posts: 20
seems all you can makers are lawsuit happy, cough, cough


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:54 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:09 am
Posts: 3455
Location: N.E. Ohio
Kevin/AAC wrote:
They have a lot of smart guys in their light dept.

Too bad the suppressor guys aren't very bright.

_________________
I reject your truths and substitute my own realities


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 12:41 am 
Offline
Silencertalk Goon Squad
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 6:16 am
Posts: 6635
Location: KY
Not to go off topic, but didn't Surefire have a sub-forum here but never post? :roll:


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:30 pm 
Offline
Elite Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 10:24 pm
Posts: 4808
Location: RTP, NC
Shame, I liked when Surefire came to the AAC shoots. They let me play with their cans and even supplied some of the ammo I shot. I doubt they will ever attend again.

This does call into question the way that AAC invites every manufacturer to the Shoot. Obviously if you are ripping up their cans on the internet and in print, they will be disinclined to attend.


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 9:10 pm 
Offline
Silencertalk Goon Squad
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:22 am
Posts: 17511
Location: London, England
Conqueror wrote:
Shame, I liked when Surefire came to the AAC shoots. They let me play with their cans and even supplied some of the ammo I shot. I doubt they will ever attend again.

This does call into question the way that AAC invites every manufacturer to the Shoot. Obviously if you are ripping up their cans on the internet and in print, they will be disinclined to attend.


It makes no difference.

Even befoer the shoot silencer companies really couldn't get along.

That's why they won't all get together and do DB ratings.

Others have to do it for them.......

_________________
NFAtalk.org


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:22 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:42 pm
Posts: 1089
:?

_________________
Your Mom.


Last edited by MisterWilson on Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:24 pm 
Offline
Elite Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 10:24 pm
Posts: 4808
Location: RTP, NC
The AAC haters are easy to spot:

When AAC sued someone to uphold their reputation, AAC were made out to be the bad guys.

When Surefire sued AAC to uphold their reputation, somehow AAC are still the bad guys.


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:17 am 
Offline
Silencertalk Goon Squad
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 6:16 am
Posts: 6635
Location: KY
One would hope all Surefire would need to do would be produce a better product than AAC to beat them in sales despite AAC's ads. At the very least, they could try to counter with ads of their own. Going straight to court seems uncool to me.


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:50 am 
Offline
Silent But Deadly
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:33 pm
Posts: 3461
Location: SE FL
Conqueror wrote:
The AAC haters are easy to spot:

When AAC sued someone to uphold their reputation, AAC were made out to be the bad guys.

When Surefire sued AAC to uphold their reputation, somehow AAC are still the bad guys.


I don't know that that is true. I have no real opinion on the Surefire lawsuit (although it doesn't surprise me a bit and I thought it was kind of inevitable), but I think suing someone over forum posts is pretty silly.

I still like AAC products and recommend them all the time, and would be buying an M42K today if I was starting my SBR/suppressor host gun from scratch.

_________________
WWW.TACTICALYELLOWVISOR.NET


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:53 am 
Offline
Silent But Deadly
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:22 am
Posts: 2307
Location: Georgia
"If the truth is on your side, argue facts, if not, argue procedure"

_________________
Sharp Knives and Quiet Guns

Inside Sales - Advanced Armament Corp.
770-925-9988 (phone)
770-925-9989 (fax)
[email protected]
www.aacblog.com
www.advanced-armament.com


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 7:48 am 
Offline
Elite Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:13 am
Posts: 3611
Location: NE Tenn.
I've seen the pic and could tell immediately that the silencer on the right had not been fired and the silencer on the right had not been fired. Not being an expert on who makes what, I could never tell you that one was AAC and the other was not. I am all about Form 1 homemade silencers.

I think that AAC should have used a picture of both sets of internals without one being fired to the point of failure. For me it would have been a slam dunk as the AAC welds appear to be far superior to the spot welded process.

_________________
July 5th, 2016. The day that we moved from a soft tyranny to a hard tyranny.


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 7:47 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:30 pm
Posts: 205
Location: U.S.A
SF = GREAT lights.

AAC = GREAT Silencers.


Guess where I stand in this?

_________________
If I won't say it to your face, I promise I won't type it to you on this forum.
Why a silencer? So I don't wake up the kids when I shoot an intruder.


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:39 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:31 am
Posts: 33981
Location: USA
April 13, 2009

SureFire LLC denied Preliminary Injunction against AAC.


SureFire LLC had filed a lawsuit claiming false advertising, by way of the Lanham Act.

A United States District Judge denied their motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Here are some quotes:

Whether The Statements Were Deceptive – Per the above reasoning, the Court finds that SureFire has not shown a likelihood that it will succeed on this element of the claim. Because SureFire has not successfully demonstrated a likelihood that AAC's advertisement was deceptive, it is unnecessary to consider this element of the Lanham Act.

The Court again reiterates that SureFire has not made a strong showing that the advertisement contains false statements, the advertising misleads consumers, or that it will suffer injury as a result of the advertisement.

The Court finds that SureFire has not shown a robust likelihood of success...

Here is the full document:

http://www.silencertalk.com/docs/SF.PDF


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:40 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:49 pm
Posts: 4670
Location: Artesia, NM
:D

_________________
CGS Group LLC
Silencers, firing devices/initiators/detonators, and custom precision rifles.

www.cgsgroup.com
[email protected]


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:41 pm 
Offline
Elite Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:48 pm
Posts: 2944
Location: Florida
Cool. :D

_________________
Going a little more discrete here due to some of my opinions...


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:13 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 647
Location: FL
Ha HA !!! Sweet !

_________________
Don't look at me with that tone of voice !


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:35 pm 
Offline
Silencertalk Goon Squad
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:22 am
Posts: 17511
Location: London, England
Does this mean you'll start runnning the ad again?

_________________
NFAtalk.org


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:37 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:31 am
Posts: 33981
Location: USA
I think we should move on to feature other things like pistol suppressors.


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:44 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly

Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 1:36 pm
Posts: 674
Location: BRLA & NOLA
Sweet, now recoup you're lawyers fees from Surefire, and put it into the black box, so we can all get one of those bad mofo's..

_________________
LSU Football National Champs
1908, 1958, 2003, 2007


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:05 pm 
Offline
Elite Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 10:24 pm
Posts: 4808
Location: RTP, NC
Just finished the ruling document. It seems that the ruling depends heavily on whether Surefire could prove that the pictured silencer was identifiable as its own. The judge says "no" but I don't think it's nearly so clear-cut. I and numerous others here and on other websites were immediately able to identify it as a Surefire silencer, and other photos Robert has posted of the defunct core make it clear that the photo was not hybridized and is, in fact, both a Surefire tube and a Surefire core.

_________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:16 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly

Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 1:36 pm
Posts: 674
Location: BRLA & NOLA
Conqueror wrote:
Just finished the ruling document. It seems that the ruling depends heavily on whether Surefire could prove that the pictured silencer was identifiable as its own. The judge says "no" but I don't think it's nearly so clear-cut. I and numerous others here and on other websites were immediately able to identify it as a Surefire silencer, and other photos Robert has posted of the defunct core make it clear that the photo was not hybridized and is, in fact, both a Surefire tube and a Surefire core.


to me it sounds more like its known that its a surefire can, but that AAC is trying to bend facts in their favor for marketing..

_________________
LSU Football National Champs

1908, 1958, 2003, 2007


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:16 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:22 am
Posts: 2307
Location: Georgia
Good

_________________
Sharp Knives and Quiet Guns



Inside Sales - Advanced Armament Corp.

770-925-9988 (phone)

770-925-9989 (fax)

[email protected]

www.aacblog.com

www.advanced-armament.com


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:18 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:31 am
Posts: 33981
Location: USA
No. Page 6, line 16.

"The Court Finds that AAC's alleged statements were not literally false on their face [with or without knowing if it was SureFire] or by necessary implication [if it was known as SureFire]."

Page 7, line 15.

"However, SureFire fails to provide evidence that the advertisement's implicit messages are false."

This is independent of who the "competitive" suppressor is.

Image


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:02 am 
Offline
Silencertalk Goon Squad
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:22 am
Posts: 17511
Location: London, England
Conqueror wrote:
Just finished the ruling document. It seems that the ruling depends heavily on whether Surefire could prove that the pictured silencer was identifiable as its own. The judge says "no" but I don't think it's nearly so clear-cut. I and numerous others here and on other websites were immediately able to identify it as a Surefire silencer, and other photos Robert has posted of the defunct core make it clear that the photo was not hybridized and is, in fact, both a Surefire tube and a Surefire core.



"However, SureFire fails to provide evidence that the advertisement's implicit messages are false."

_________________
NFAtalk.org


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 114 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next

All times are UTC-04:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cannon500, poikilotrm and 39 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off | Load: 1.1 ]