Shot Show Suppressed Pistols
1 - 20 of 80 Posts
Joined
·
1,839 Posts
I asked the rep specifically about that at the AAC booth as I use the Tirant .45M, he deferred the question to HK. Not that it really matters at this point especially since so many use HK as a host and they work. How many silencers are breaking frames?? Not many I'm sure, it is overplayed IMO.
Joined
·
1,561 Posts
Tony,
You said the same thing to me when I pointed this out a few days ago. In the liability world of Texas that display in the HK Booth at Shot Show wins your court case easy if HK does not stand behind those handguns displayed using those particular suppressors. Yes, it means HK will stand behind the use of these handguns using those suppressors or they have some very dumb people making them very liable. I'm not a lawyer, but I spend enough money with lawyers every month to understand company liability.
I did not spend the night in a Holiday Inn last night
Unless there is a disclaimer somewhere on that display that specifically states that the display is not an endorsement of the use of those suppressors and that their use voids warranty, I would tend to agree that it puts HK in a very difficult position to defend.Tony,
You said the same thing to me when I pointed this out a few days ago. In the liability world of Texas that display in the HK Booth at Shot Show wins your court case easy if HK does not stand behind those handguns displayed using those particular suppressors. Yes, it means HK will stand behind the use of these handguns using those suppressors or they have some very dumb people making them very liable. I'm not a lawyer, but I spend enough money with lawyers every month to understand company liability.
I did not spend the night in a Holiday Inn last night
Joined
·
1,183 Posts
Question that may render the point irrelevant, has anyone been denied warranty coverage on the basis of a suppressor being used? My conversation with the armorers when I called was that unofficially HK's warranty is effectively 'no questions asked' so long as it's not completely obvious abuse. Which I don't think using a suppressor would be counted as.
Joined
·
1,183 Posts
Also, what the hell with not having a Knight's can on the Mark 23.
I forget who it was, but a couple of years ago There was a member of HKPro whose slide seized to the frame of his USP Tactical. He was using a non KAC suppressor......a lot. He sent it in to HK and they determined he was not using the recommended can so they charged him for a new frame. IMO they were champs about it because the charge was minimal. He was still sour about the whole deal even though he had been warned, he ignored the warning, the suppressor was what damaged the gun (note he did not try to get recompense from the suppressor manufacturer) and HK was cool to him. He does not post much anymore. I think his use name was fireman something.
Joined
·
5,625 Posts
They probably couldn't get one lol.
Joined
·
249 Posts
I believe he posts on YouTube as the NFA Review Channel, and there's a video about the whole ordeal there if anyone wants to watch it...
Also, for the people with better suppressor knowledge than me, what suppressors are shown there? Some of them are obvious, like the Osprey, but everything else is kinda hard for me to pick out... Might be shopping for a 9mm suppressor for my USPT this year.
Joined
·
1,663 Posts
I found the video. Sounds like HK did him right. Gun had 5-6K rounds through it with most suppressed. Estimated 1K unsuppressed. Cost him something like $160 to replace the frame & recoil rod and ship it back Overnight. Sounded fair to me. Recommendation was to change recoil rod after 2-3K of suppressed fire. That is my synopsis of what I saw. Definite wear from over-function...
Joined
·
8,746 Posts
It's one thing to provide a suppressor ready pistol and only have one brand and model of suppressor that you warranty, it's another thing to make a pistol for use with a suppressor and take the position that using ANY suppressors will void the warranty. As I've said before, it's like making a Chevy Suburban with a trailer attachment, but then say ANY trailer attached to it will void the vehicle's warranty. HK should do as the automotive industry does, place parameters for the suppressors that may be used, and not just name one specific brand/model of suppressor, or worse, none at all.
HK did that. The only manufacturers willing to endure the extensive and expensive R&D process were KAC, B&T & CCF (was that the name?). Those manufacturers modified their suppressors to fit the standard so they were/are approved. If any of the other manufacturers wish to do so at any time, they would be approved. The problem is not with HK. It is with the manufacturers. To your example: If Chevy makes a Suburban and the Ace Widget company makes a suspension mod that after a few thousand miles creates death wobble, it is not Chevy's fault.
Joined
·
7,533 Posts
Some developments from SHOT in light of events that occurred during the Media Event--be on the lookout for HK logo'd B&T Impulse-II suppressors later this year.
Joined
·
1,663 Posts
Sounds like a industry conspiracy to keep me buying suppressors. Next thing you know they will take about bringing out the Rotex cans. Where will it all stop? HPA can't come soon enough...
Joined
·
8,746 Posts
I believe the opposite is true. It was HK who spent the money to test suppressors (in anticipation of being awarded a contract for the pistol/suppressor combo, such as the SOCOM pistol). I'm not saying Knight didn't spend anything, but it was largely HK who funded the testing. In the Chevy case, Chevy isn't asking each trailer/boat/motorcycle manufacturer to submit samples and pay for testing. If ACE Widget company makes a trailer/boat combo that falls within Chevy's spec, it's Chevy's problem.
1 - 20 of 80 Posts
