MP5K - sorta complete, but not that sweet
Entry posted by Guest ·
362 views
As mentioned in prior posts (forums & blog entries), I bought myself an MP5K along with some upgrade bits and a recently released gen2 CA metal body. The upgrade parts were for the most part excellent, though I would probably steer clear of the Guarder metal bushings in the future. They are well made but are not particularly tight fitting (At least in this TM V3 gearbox).
Anyway, onto the main point of this entry - feedback on the CA metal body for those interested. Overview - not at all impressed. I know it isn't top grade, as the price tag of $70 makes obvious, but CA still have some duty to make it actually worthy of that cash.
Or not..
This was written last night, prior to having now removed the body, so no photos of the issues I'm afraid (I'd had enough of it and didn't really feel much like spending more time on it! )
Problem 1 - The mag catch hole / area is not accurately formed, and so means the mag catch does not fit in straight, and also operates apparently only with excessive force. Some minor filing to the mag catch made it useable, but it was quite stiff still. A bit pants but not the end of the world.
Problem 2 - The end cap didn't fit. A bit more of an issue really, being it holds the battery in and has the sling point on it. Seems either the end of the receiver is out of spec to the original, or the lower of the two endcap pin holes is out. Either way the net result is a lower reciever misaligned to the hole, which means no way of putting the lower pin through.
Problem 3 - Ah yes, you were waiting for this one - the infamous gaps. Along the top of the receiver as per the last version, it is a less than perfect fit. I guess it is what you get for a cast reciever that looks like it was made in a jelly mold !. Warped or wonky, either way gaps are there to stay. Sadly this is made even worse when fitting the rear sight on. Fitting it on isn't so much of an issue, though it doesn't sit completely flush. Instead, when putting in the side screw, it simply pushes the two halves apart, meaning the gaps just get bigger. This is fortunately mainly around the rear sight and rear 1/4 of the receiver, so it isn't that bad.
The positive spin on it is that it does add a bit of weight and solidarity to the gun, though it isn't all that different in appearance to the plastic body, with trades completely absent.
So yeah, as I said elsewhere, unless you are really flushed with cash and can't live without a metal bodied K or PDW, or love nothing more than taking power tools to things for hours to fit them, save your money. While some things are nice to have metal bodies on, in my view it seems to be a bit pointless when it offers literally nothing beneficial over the plastic body.
It would seem that as the only producer of the K metal body, CA can get away with producing subpar ######. Until you actually have it or read reviews, it is a gamble - I'm sure I won't be the only one to find it less than satisfactory. Hopefully though my experience might save you money or give you more to consider (i.e. it won't be a quick drop in part) if you are contemplating one yourself !
If any UK member is still interested, and fancies this one off me, I am sure we can come to a reasonable deal - drop me a PM or whatever. Associated gallery here is to a few photos of the filing I did for battery fitting prior to finding the body didn't fit correctly. There is no external filing in these areas so it would not be visible when the gun is assembled. The only other parts filed are around the rear where the lower receiver slides on, done in an attempt to make it sit flush. Again it would not be seen once the gun is fully assembled.
2 Comments
Recommended Comments