2009 SHOT Show Threads

[SHIVAN]

We have no video of an AAC can being tested that way. The first large-scale tests we were not allowed to video it. The tests after that we were just not set up to.

That's unfortunate. I would like to point out that it appears self-serving that many of of your main competitors' suppressors can get tested and filmed, by AAC staff or AAC interested parties, but never the AAC suppressors.

It's good propaganda, especially in the internet age, but it's very transparent.

[rsilvers]

I see no specific pattern. There is also no video of us testing the SureFire can. And I would like to have and post a video of us testing the AAC can. The main determining factor is who did the test and if they are a photographer or not. The only time I was involved in that test of AAC cans was when photography was not allowed due to base restrictions.

[SHIVAN]

Fair enough, you should make it a priority though as it looks like AAC is staying away from testing their cans, and yet I know I've seen them take similar or worse during a LAV class teamwork drill with several (10+) Masada mag-dumps...

Would be worthwhile to point back to X video when the question comes up.

[ToddG]

April 13, 2009

SureFire LLC denied Preliminary Injunction against AAC.

A few points:

• A preliminary injunction of the nature requested by Surefire, as pointed out by the court, is not issued lightly. A call for injunctive relief prior to the full airing of facts and arguments is much like punishing someone before finding him guilty. While such injunctions are common enough that we've all heard of them, the burden to get one is higher than the burden of winning the underlying case.
• Much of the court's reasoning rested on the argument that the suppressor pictured in the advertisement couldn't be readily identified as a Surefire product.
• Another major sticking point with the court was Surefire's inability to demonstrate that consumers had been convinced there was actually anything wrong with Surefire suppressors.
• Now that Surefire knows where the weaknesses in its case are, it will be better able to prepare for the actual trial. That is, btw, one reason why plaintiffs try to get preliminary injunctive relief in the first place: so they know which issues the court expects them to address with more specificity and/or weightier evidence.

Some of what you quoted from the decision was taken way out of context, btw. You might want to check with your lawyer before you make further statements which are demonstrably misleading.

Of particular note, AAC is not arguing that its product is in any way better than Surefire's.

Here's a question for AAC: Are you still running the same ad? Because if you're not, then Surefire got the result the same result as if they'd won the injunction.

[Hawk777th]

No they are running a much better ad now! Surefire needs to back off a lil competition in the markets a great thing to have it makes a better product! No need sueing each other. I think it was lame of surefire to sue if thier product is so much better prove it to us the consumer dont just make thier dumb videos with tacticool operator shooting 5 rounds through thier cans with lasers and more crap bolted on to guns than a gun porn mag. AAC has torture testing videos of thier cans on youboob.

Add can be found here!
http://andysapp.com/blog/wp-content/..._potato_ad.jpg

Keep it up AAC you guys make a product above the rest!

[Iraqgunz]

Well I am fairly certain that if SureFire was your company and you felt like they were being wronged you would do the same. Would you not? I know that I would.

No they are running a much better ad now! Surefire needs to back off a lil competition in the markets a great thing to have it makes a better product! No need sueing each other. I think it was lame of surefire to sue if thier product is so much better prove it to us the consumer dont just make thier dumb videos with tacticool operator shooting 5 rounds through thier cans with lasers and more crap bolted on to guns than a gun porn mag. AAC has torture testing videos of thier cans on youboob.

Add can be found here!
http://andysapp.com/blog/wp-content/..._potato_ad.jpg

Keep it up AAC you guys make a product above the rest!

[Littlelebowski]

A few points:

• A preliminary injunction of the nature requested by Surefire, as pointed out by the court, is not issued lightly. A call for injunctive relief prior to the full airing of facts and arguments is much like punishing someone before finding him guilty. While such injunctions are common enough that we've all heard of them, the burden to get one is higher than the burden of winning the underlying case.
• Much of the court's reasoning rested on the argument that the suppressor pictured in the advertisement couldn't be readily identified as a Surefire product.
• Another major sticking point with the court was Surefire's inability to demonstrate that consumers had been convinced there was actually anything wrong with Surefire suppressors.
• Now that Surefire knows where the weaknesses in its case are, it will be better able to prepare for the actual trial. That is, btw, one reason why plaintiffs try to get preliminary injunctive relief in the first place: so they know which issues the court expects them to address with more specificity and/or weightier evidence.

Some of what you quoted from the decision was taken way out of context, btw. You might want to check with your lawyer before you make further statements which are demonstrably misleading.

Of particular note, AAC is not arguing that its product is in any way better than Surefire's.

Here's a question for AAC: Are you still running the same ad? Because if you're not, then Surefire got the result the same result as if they'd won the injunction.

And someone with legal training speaks. Interesting analysis Todd, thanks.

[czydj]

Fair enough, you should make it a priority though as it looks like AAC is staying away from testing their cans, and yet I know I've seen them take similar or worse during a LAV class teamwork drill with several (10+) Masada mag-dumps....

I'm not quite clear on what you're saying, could you please clarify? I not sure if you've seen a SF FA556 take the abuse or melt under the abuse...

[SHIVAN]

I've seen an old AAC 416SD can take abuse on par with the "test" that seems to be killing other suppressors. Now to be truthful, a 556k can also ran the same LAV drill as above, but was done on semi-only.

All I'm saying is that the appearance from a reasonable person is that AAC is finding time to video and test other suppressors doing a VERY hard test of durability, yet they are unable to test and video their own suppressors doing it. Which appears self-serving, in the extreme.

[czydj]

I've seen an old AAC 416SD can take abuse on par with the "test" that seems to be killing other suppressors. Now to be truthful, a 556k can also ran the same LAV drill as above, but was done on semi-only.

All I'm saying is that the appearance from a reasonable person is that AAC is finding time to video and test other suppressors doing a VERY hard test of durability, yet they are unable to test and video their own suppressors doing it. Which appears self-serving, in the extreme.

cool, thanks for the clarification...