The Poo is hitting the fan!!!

8425 Views 48 Replies 16 Participants Last post by cleric-dragoon, May 31, 2009

aziator

Discussion Starter · Dec 31, 2008

Just a heads up, but before I go on, you may want to grab your favorite cold beverage and sit back for a while. This may take a bit to get through.

Surefire is suing AAC. Appernetly this isn't new to Surefire, they sued Pentagon Light this year also (I don't know the status of that case). Anyways, I really don't have a dog in this fight but I am planning on purchasing a few AAC cans in the near future.

Here are the links to sit back and read.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=20&t=264240&page=1

http://silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33075&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=6&t=808585

I am sure that it is only going to get better.

This is the reason of the lawsuit.

Evidently, Mark Larue is not on speaking terms with the AAC guys. I am not sure of the source of this but it may have to do with AAC suing a ARFCOM member for false statements made on the internet that possibly could have affected contracts. I don't know anything about that. I think Larue makes some of the best stuff in the biz and the AAC stuff I shot was amazing. Guess I will just do like I do at home, pretend there isn't a Ford and Chevy both sitting in my driveway.

See less See more

1 - 20 of 49 Posts

davek

· #2 · Dec 31, 2008

The result of the suit against Pentagon Lights is that Pentagon Lights doesn't exist anymore.

aziator

Discussion Starter · #3 · Dec 31, 2008

I was wondering about that but I can't find anything about the PL suit online. I went to their website and it is still up and running, business as usual. To bad, I have one of their weapons lights and the new K2 Porcupine. Both really good lights.

variablebinary

· #4 · Dec 31, 2008

First it was Tango Down vs Magpul, now its AAC vs Surefire, with Larue throwing stupid ass comments in for kicks...

Seems like the industry and ARFCOM gods are ganging up on anyone who won a piece of the SCAR package. I prefer Gemtech myself

aziator

Discussion Starter · #5 · Dec 31, 2008

I wonder if Larue is upset about Daniel Defense getting the SOPMOD contract?

On Edit: I should say if he WAS upset since it is old news. Mark is a super nice guy that makes a great product and stands behind it. I do however think that competition is healthy for the market and eventually, the end user, even if some kool-aid gets spilled in the process.

variablebinary

· #6 · Dec 31, 2008

aziator said:
I wonder if Larue is upset about Daniel Defense getting the SOPMOD contract?

Any company that is considered cool on ARFCOM, specifically Larue and Magpul, will get real petty quick fast if you dont drink their brand of kool-aid and love it.

However I was very amused by this...

See less See more

ny32182

· #7 · Dec 31, 2008

Holy shit. What a bunch of babies.

wristlock

· #8 · Dec 31, 2008

I don't have a dog in this fight. But I see Surefire's point.
A used 'can' next to a new AAC 'can' that looks like they made it out of glass.

davek

· #9 · Dec 31, 2008

aziator said:
I was wondering about that but I can't find anything about the PL suit online. I went to their website and it is still up and running, business as usual. To bad, I have one of their weapons lights and the new K2 Porcupine. Both really good lights.

I had read about their demise on another forum (m4carbine.net). Reports of their death may be greatly exaggerated, as is so much written on Internet gun forums.

1redgmc

· #10 · Jan 1, 2009

I see no identifying marks or any references to Surefire in the AAC ad, so what's the big deal?

Unless AAC has somehow misrepresented their own product, what is wrong with a little truth in advertising?

The plain facts are that I doubt any of us (well MOST of us working folks anyway - ;D) have the cash to buy one of each and cut 'em up like that, and Consumer Reports doesn't do suppressor evaluations.

MickeyC

· #11 · Jan 1, 2009

Nothing in the AAC ad was inaccurate.

1redgmc

· #12 · Jan 1, 2009

Ah, a classic case of "The Truth Hurts"... :

aziator

Discussion Starter · #13 · Jan 1, 2009

The funny thing is half the guys over at ARF were saying that they knew the moment they saw the ad that it was a surefire can. Me, I had no clue. I guess I am not special enough to know what the inside of all the different cans looks like.

I don't see this any different than the Mac vs. PC commercials on TV. I think they could have used a shot AAC can and conveyed the same message but then it wouldn't have popped off the page at you (welcome to advertising).

Surefire makes great lights, I will give them that. They just want another piece of the .mil pie with their cans. There are so many blown up truths in that magazine of theirs, Surefire just said "Kettle, this is Pot, your black". :duh:

DSM

· #14 · Jan 1, 2009

Yep, Surefire makes good lights, I own a few myself. They're not the only game in town and want to keep their price point high, just like any other business. They're business practices to distributors is a little shady as well, from what I understand, which is why so many folks went to Pentagon. Pentagon may still be around but there may also be some sort of gratuity for every product sold. Don't know though.

Me, I'm under the impression the SF suppressor came about as a result of some sort of machining scraps from other production and someone said, "Hey, I bet this would make a good baffle." Their can was obviously shot to hell with unknown ammunition. I'm sure they are great cans but I chose AAC because a very impartial dealer said he felt they were better. (For the record, it wouldn't be correct to post the exact amount, but his profit was, you might say, very minimal.)

They can save the drama for their mama. Make a better product and for cheaper, whatever happened to that as the American way? Now it's all lawyers, settlements and judgments.

See less See more

comatzd

· #15 · Jan 1, 2009

I had heard that Larue had done some improper dealings with a big-named company in the past. Sure does make good mounts though.

MickeyC

· #16 · Jan 1, 2009

Given what it actually costs to make a suppressor, the current prices are ridiculously high. Perhaps this case may expose some of this.

aziator

Discussion Starter · #17 · Jan 1, 2009

I don't know, Inconel is an expensive material to work with and get right. My last "go fast" car had turbo manifolds made out of Inconel and they were basically cost at $1600 a set. That was in 2004. I am sure with the rise in materials it isn't getting any cheaper. Now, I still think you are paying some for the name and it seems like some of the manufacturers that have mil contracts are still passing R&D to the consumer instead of the gov.

Bottom line, people will pay it so they charge it.

DSM

· #18 · Jan 1, 2009

Inconel itself may not be the expensive part, it is the machining. It work hardens very quickly so the price may be tied to production.

Name association is a big thing and the fact that we're still talking rather small production numbers even with .mil contracts.

ny32182

· #19 · Jan 1, 2009

Does AAC rev their model number every year? The M42k has been on my radar for a while now (one of these days), but it seems like they always have a new "mod", 06, 07, 08, etc.

DSM

· #20 · Jan 2, 2009

They make little changes throughout any of their production too. A lot of folks are fired up that their M42K won't have their "scarmor" finish but some other type I guess.

1 - 20 of 49 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.