Gemtech G5 fails endurance test after only 750 rounds.

[Crosshair]

This is from SilencerTalk.com.

We got a brand new Gemtech G5 about a week ago and decided to duplicate the test that a military group did to six of our cans.

The test was as follows:

Take an HK-416 and fire eight magazines. First mag semi auto, second mag full auto, third mag semi auto, etc -- for 8 mags. Then let it cool. In the real military test, they did not let the can completely cool. In this test, we did.

Repeat this three more times, for a total of 960 rounds. The idea is that eight magazines is a battle load, so this would simulate four firefights. It is a tough but reasonable test for a serious user. All six of our silencers survived this test.

First problem -- the G5 flash suppressor is not HK-416 compatible. We were able to get it to work with spacers (not recommended, but we checked it after a few shots and there was no bullet contact).

I videoed the entire test. I am away from home, and may not be able to post the video until next week, so I will give a report for now:

During the first eight mags, it was clear the can was not going to survive. It seemed to be puking it guts after five mags and big fireballs were coming out of it. Around this time, the mount came unscrewed on its own (not the flash suppressor, but rather the part in the middle of the can). I could call this a failure, but since we could tighten it, we decided to proceed.

We let the can air cool for about 10 minutes and then helped the can to cool completely with some water. Then started with the second 240 rounds. Then we let it cool completely again, and proceeded with the third batch of magazines. Then we let it cool completely once more, and started the final batch of mags.

Two magazines into this, I noticed the can seemed to be bulging in the middle. I shook the rifle and could see the can flopping around limp. I halted the test and noticed that the roll pin which holds the mount to the silencer main body failed, and the can unscrewed. I stopped the test six magazines early as this was a catastrophic failure and not field-repairable. This is an area that I would recommend be welded.

We let the can cool, and could hear parts shaking inside. I was surprised because Gemtech has told me that for the last few years, their silencers were welded inside. The mount halfway unscrewed on its own, and had I not noticed it, I am sure it would have blown down range.

I looked into the back cavity and I could see the baffles were not secured. We tapped the can and the baffles all fell out. As you can see from the photos, there is no evidence of any welding at all. Also the roll pin which holds the Inconel insert into the stainless blast baffle (apparently a cost-saving measure from using a real Inconel blast baffle) cracked through the side of the baffle. I also noticed that the Titanium around the flash suppressor area had fractured in several places. Again, no surprise as Ti is not a high-temp metal. See this: http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4780

The spring in the BiLock mount, by the way, has lost its strength from the heat. That makes sense, as springs are generally only good to 600 degrees, so one would expect them to fail if you put one inside the blast chamber of a silencer.

Quote:
The claims of one vocal critic who has not looked closely at the G5 mount notwithstanding, the spring is not subject to the heat and flame of the entrance chamber. It is not only isolated from the entrance chamber, but our thermal measurements ahow that it remains minimally cooler than did the spring in the older M4-96D (where we had no spring failures either).

Philip H. Dater



The G5 mount never got stuck for me during this test, as has happened with the M4-96D mount.


Click for larger images.


Assembly


Not welded. PhD of Gemtech told me they have been welding cores for a few years but that does not appear to be accurate.


Components.


Stainless blast baffle with Inconel insert in center. Pinned in place.


Cracks, chips, and fractures in Titanium.


Cracks on back of blast baffle.


Hole around roll pin has failed.

Important points:

From the Gemtech website:

If you want “high speed low drag” this is it. Every component of this suppressor
has been critically assessed, shot hard, improved upon, thought through, and tested tough to become the new standard in 5.56mm quick mounting suppressors. Lighter, stronger, quieter, more durable and maintenance-free, the G5 is made for those that demand the apex of performance.

Titanium, stainless steels, and inconel are mated throughout the G5 to ensure the right material for each task..

This suppressor failed a Mil-spec type test that many other suppressors have passed without catastrophic damage. Not exactly the "apex of performance".

Once the can was opened, it is seen in the photos that there are NO STRUCTURAL WELDS despite Gemtech's past claims of welding the core.

The can is held together with ROLL PINS. Not a good idea for something that is supposedly rated for full auto fire. These roll pins failed during the test.

Titanium is used in high temp components. Titanium is not a high temperature metal and chipped from the high heat.

The only Inconel in the can is an insert to the blast baffle. This insert is held in by a roll pin. Gemtech does not tell the grade of Inconel that they use in the G5.

Not trying to bad mouth a company, but my TAC-16 has better construction methods than the G5. At least TacInc doesn't claim that the TAC-16 is Mil-spec. Gemtech claims that the G5 is the "best there is". One the can is opened, we can see that it is not.

I need to ask permission to repost the photos so I will post them here later.

What are your thoughts?

[CleverNickname]

What are your thoughts?

Not saying his claims are true or false, but realize that Robert Silvers works for/contracts with AAC, so he's not exactly an impartial party.

[Crosshair]

True, but the test was video taped and there was in impartial observer present. Plus, the photos of the dismantled can show very questionable construction methods were used as well as the fact that the core is NOT welded, contrary to claims made by Gemtech.

It will be interesting to view the video once it gets posted.

[elliott]

Tagged, I would like to see this video. I have been thinking about picking up a G5 or a Halo. It sounds like the Halo would be a better choice.

[VUPDblue]

First off, the test was conducted by AAC. I don't put any stock in any test against any companies' product when the test is administered by a rival company. Also, the G5 is not a full auto rated can. It is listed as being able to tolerate "limited full auto use". The test in question was not a "limited full auto" test. They set-out to destroy that can, and that is what they accomplished. 8 mags at a time, 4 of them being full auto, that is not "limited". Gemtech does, and always has, stood behind their products. If you destroy them because of abuse, then the weight is on your shoulders. If you buy one of their "limited full auto" cans and do mag dump after mag dump and then complain when the can fails, then you are the bad guy, not Gemtech.

[Crosshair]

VUPDblue, they did not set out to destroy the can. The test they did is the same test that the military uses to asses suppressor performance. Many suppressors from different brands have passed this test without catastrophic damage.

Gemtechs website states "the G5 is made for those that demand the apex of performance." and "The suppressor is rated for fully automatic fire."

That is fully automatic fire, not "limited" or "a little bit" of full automatic fire. THE G5 IS RATED BY GEMTECH AS A FULL AUTO CAN

It's not like my TAC-16 that is rated for a 100 round burst from a 20" M-16. That is limited full auto fire. The G5 is sold as a top of the line military suppressor and it failed a test that the military would have put it through.

Not only did they video tape it, they also had an independent observer there as well.

Once the can was opened, it was clear that there were no structural welds, despite claims by Gentech in the past that their cores are welded. Serious construction issues are noted as well.

[VUPDblue]

Hats off to you crosshair, their site does list the can as full auto rated. A couple dealer friends of mine have discussed with me that the G5 is rated for limited full auto fire. I have been on the verge of purchasing a 5.56 can and I inquired about the G5 a little. That's when I was told that for FA use I would be better off with a different can. I guess that is a black eye for Gemtech. I have been watching a similar thread on AR15.com. PHD almost always chimes in when there is a discussion of Gemtech products but he hasn't showed up in that thread yet. After years of having a stellar reputation in the industry, Gemtech needs to man-up and either admit that they made a SNAFU or come up with a better explanation of what happened.