Gemtech UMP Suppressor

[Jack_Bauer]

Well I don't know how many of you guys have had issues with the Gemtech UMP suppressor on factory HK UMP 45 barrels but as I have one pending and was a bit concerened I sent Gemtch an emai itl about and this is what I got back. This is just me but I don't buy it for a bit, I have lost a lot of respect for Gemtech after this and don't know if I'll keep the supressor.

Yes, the can be problematic. That is the reason we are pretty much the
last manufacturer in the US still offering a UMP suppressor. All the
other manufacturers have discontinued their UMP cans because the HK
barrels are not held to any specific specification at the barrel tip.
There are also a lot of people using the US made aftermarket barrels.

Some factory HK UMP barrels do require hand fitting of the suppressor to
get them to fit correctly. The .45 and .40 seem to have a small amount
of variation between the barrels of the two calibers.

Frankly, the UMP barrels are a pain to deal with but we have a large
enough LE/MIL market of UMP users to continue making the suppressors,
even with the problems. We've tried to work with HK for years to get
barrel prints to see if there is a better way to build to mount to
account for the tolerance variations in their barrels but they have been
less than helpful.


Regards,

Gemtech Techstaff

[jcook119]

Based on what I have seen, I buy it at least part way. I have multiple factory barrels, and the one I have access to fits differently on all three. ONE CAN fits differently on all three. How can that solely be a problem with the can? I have seen others say the same thing. I could buy that it is completely a can issue if a single can doesn't fit any of the barrels, but if I have multiple barrels and it fits some but not others...

[Tanasoo]

I also believe I recall reading somewhere on this site that the 3-lug adapters can vary quite a bit.

[usp_tactical_45]

i can believe hk not being vary helpful how ever i have the AAC defender and am more then thrilled with the locking device how ever its no tirant and i wish it could be a little more quieter.

i couldnt imagine hk not holding a tolerance even with B&T making their suppressors their should have been a tolerance call out

[este]

Go back to hkpro if you can't believe HK fucked up. Don't blame gemtech, they're absolutely correct. I've seen some thoughtless posts (from you Jack actually) at hkpro, but this one is just plain dumb.

HK used an inferior mount style compared to three lug. It's a known issue that the German barrels are hit or miss. If it makes you feel any better, I think the american made barrels are probably more consistent (although perhaps not to what HK considers spec).

[usp_tactical_45]

Go back to hkpro if you can't believe HK fucked up. Don't blame gemtech, they're absolutely correct. I've seen some thoughtless posts (from you Jack actually) at hkpro, but this one is just plain dumb.

HK used an inferior mount style compared to three lug. It's a known issue that the German barrels are hit or miss. If it makes you feel any better, I think the american made barrels are probably more consistent (although perhaps not to what HK considers spec).

Iam with you on this how ever to make thousands of the same thing and not holding a dimension is just plain silly from any machining stand point

[m3s90]

I have one, used with aftermarket 8" barrel from HDPS, not sure who makes his barrels, but the can works fine on my gun.

[este]

Go back to hkpro if you can't believe HK fucked up. Don't blame gemtech, they're absolutely correct. I've seen some thoughtless posts (from you Jack actually) at hkpro, but this one is just plain dumb.

HK used an inferior mount style compared to three lug. It's a known issue that the German barrels are hit or miss. If it makes you feel any better, I think the american made barrels are probably more consistent (although perhaps not to what HK considers spec).

Iam with you on this how ever to make thousands of the same thing and not holding a dimension is just plain silly from any machining stand point

I think so too. However, remember that the PD/LEO/Mil cost for the UMP was supposed to be like $600. People forget that the UMP was designed as a "disposable" class gun. I don't blame them, that message/intention gets lost when the civ price is 3k or so. But, it's design was supposed to be cheap. Much cheaper than the MP5 it was "supposed" to replace.

Maybe they just don't give a s--t on barrel flange tolerance.... They probably figure that the number of guns that gets suppressed is less than X percent and their complains will be less than Y and they put that in a "we hate you" formula and away they go.

I have no idea, and don't pretend to. They do what they do with or without my speculation. But... To blame Gemtech for giving an honest answer that the guy just didn't want to hear... That's not cool at all.

[usp_tactical_45]

Go back to hkpro if you can't believe HK fucked up. Don't blame gemtech, they're absolutely correct. I've seen some thoughtless posts (from you Jack actually) at hkpro, but this one is just plain dumb.

HK used an inferior mount style compared to three lug. It's a known issue that the German barrels are hit or miss. If it makes you feel any better, I think the american made barrels are probably more consistent (although perhaps not to what HK considers spec).

Iam with you on this how ever to make thousands of the same thing and not holding a dimension is just plain silly from any machining stand point

I think so too. However, remember that the PD/LEO/Mil cost for the UMP was supposed to be like $600. People forget that the UMP was designed as a "disposable" class gun. I don't blame them, that message/intention gets lost when the civ price is 3k or so. But, it's design was supposed to be cheap. Much cheaper than the MP5 it was "supposed" to replace.

Maybe they just don't give a s--t on barrel flange tolerance.... They probably figure that the number of guns that gets suppressed is less than X percent and their complains will be less than Y and they put that in a "we hate you" formula and away they go.

I have no idea, and don't pretend to. They do what they do with or without my speculation. But... To blame Gemtech for giving an honest answer that the guy just didn't want to hear... That's not cool at all.

well what do you mean by throw away or disposable ? Ill be honest with you i blew a usc's receiver apart once and it seemed to take the explosion pretty well i was impressed for a poly received gun how ever i wish they would have went with aluminum receiver and stock that would make me have total faith in my rifle, a few times i though about tossing it for an ar or something of that nature but just couldnt for one i have alot of money and time into it and it does run with out any problems what so ever.

but your right dont blame gemtech be hk cannot hold a tolerance on their barrels

[brazos609]

I think so too. However, remember that the PD/LEO/Mil cost for the UMP was supposed to be like $600. People forget that the UMP was designed as a "disposable" class gun.

Think what you want but last time I checked the FET out cost was $1200 for a UMP and that was several years ago.

[este]

I think so too. However, remember that the PD/LEO/Mil cost for the UMP was supposed to be like $600. People forget that the UMP was designed as a "disposable" class gun.

Think what you want but last time I checked the FET out cost was $1200 for a UMP and that was several years ago.

Just because they didn't meet their goal doesn't mean it's a better product. The ump was designed to be a dirt cheap gun that instead of fixing would just be replaced. The complete opposite of the mp5.

That doesn't mean it's a pos hipoint, or that it can't handle a failure. It just means it had a design goal from day1 to be disposable. People don't understand this because the civ version is so crazily priced.

It's a fine gun if you like blowback. But, its light, it recoils like a son of a bitch, and it's ultra simple. Like I said, the complete opposite of an mp5.