Jump to content

Classic army SAR Taktik II mini mini review...


Recommended Posts

.....i got this gun late last year from firesupport to replace my somewhat *fruitcage*ed TM G3 and to base my LMG project on, "metal body and improved casting, great!" i thought, well i was very wrong.

 

I'll start off with the good points, i stripped the gun as soon as i got it so i could sell the gearbox as parts due to not wanting this. The gearbox mostly seemed quite good, everything was nicely shimmed, parts were good quality and the only 2 things it had wrong with it was a loose seal on the piston head and an off-centre hole in the air-nozzle, easily fixed eh :)

 

The grip and bi-pod are also miles better than the TM, the grip doesn't have a big seam line along the bottom, it doesn't creak, doesn't flex and appears to be made from a better plastic. The bi-pod hasn't come loose either yet, something that can't be said of the TM.

 

Now onto the bad points....

 

The first thing i wanted to change when i got it was the flash hider, i already had all the adaptors i needed from my old G3 so straight away i went to remove the grub screw from the front sight, and thats when i hit the first problem.

The grub screw itself was fine, turned without any problem but wasn't coming out, upon closer inspection the thread behind the grubscrew was non existant so the grub screw was stuck in there, great <_<

 

Then i came across another problem, this time being the CA G3 quick take down feature, which the TM also has. Now on the TM you just pop the pins out and it all slides apart nicely, CA are meant to be better than TM aren't they? Well no.

The quick take down is a joke on this gun, removing the lower reciever is the biggest pain in the backside ever, so much so that i sliced 2 nice gashes into my thumb the other day and took a chunk from the palm of my hand just trying to remove it :angry:

 

The main problem there is that the body is so tight internally on the lower that it requires the rear of the upper receiver to be undone and split open a bit to make it a bit easier to remove the lower, not very quick i must say. The same has to be done to put the lower back on too, except this time you need either a hammer or something to hit the gun VERY hard on to get it all the way back on.

 

The hop-up unit also seems to be in a similar situation, i have not yet been able to pull it out to install a tighter barrel, maybe it needs a bit more force but i don't feel like cracking a hop-up unit and having to replace it.

 

And now for the 2 latest problems i've found with it during the last week.

 

The metal used in the body is VERY soft metal, certainly looks like pot metal and it is far softer than any aluminium i've ever filed down, but its meant to be a strong body, so who cares eh?

 

Now to my favorite problem i came across this morning while trying to put a TM G3 lower on in the hope that it'd make the QTD easier.

The internal size of the body is too small so it presses the rails at the rear of the lower receivers in and rubs on the gearbox shell and cylinder during installation, Basically what this means is that i can't fit a TM lower on without modifying it or the body <_< Its also the reason its so hard to get the standard CA lower on.

 

The external size of the body is also too big which stopped me from fitting a sliding stock to it because the inside of the rails were too tight on the body :angry:

 

Well i think that covers it all and i think you can guess what i think of the SAR taktik II ;)

 

PS : the trades look wanktastic :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

except for the fact that the TM creaks,flexes,wobbles ,has a standard 6mm nylon bushing box instead of the 7mm bearing box with upgrades and has awful plastic furniture for around the same price ?

 

I'm just wondering why you bought this gun if you were stripping it and removing the gearbox and lower reciever anyway ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
except for the fact that the TM creaks,flexes,wobbles ,has a standard 6mm nylon bushing box instead of the 7mm bearing box with upgrades and has awful plastic furniture for around the same price ?

My old TM G3 barely creaked, barely flexed, barley wobbled, wouldn't say the plastic furniture was that bad either, i've seen much worse...

 

Also the CA G3 did NOT have a 7mm bearing gearbox, it just had standard 6mm bushings, and i wouldn't really call it upgraded either ;)

 

And the CA G3 cost £105 more than my old G3 did, £70 more than TM G3's are at most retailers.

 

I'm just wondering why you bought this gun if you were stripping it and removing the gearbox and lower reciever anyway ?

The original plan wasn't to remove the lower, i only tried that because fitting and removing a plastic lower would in theory be a lot easier and not leave me with chunks of skin missing from my hands. If you can't understand that then you probably need to go back to school...

 

In short i've spent £260 on a gun, that has given me nothing but problems just with the metal body, if ICS had made it it would be perfect (not quite as strong maybe), but no, CA.....

 

Now i've come to the point where i'm probably going to sell it soon so it doesn't ###### me off anymore <_<

Edited by Rob15
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had one and didn't find a problem with the thread-issue you mentioned. I didn't ever strip mine so I can't comment on the tight-fitting body but I don't find it hard to believe, I swear the things are put together in factories by super-human mutants.

 

I did buy a UMP-style stock and that went on quite smoothly but there was no way in hell that I could get a PDW stock to fit as the metal 'glove' that locks around the back was just way too tight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I had one and didn't find a problem with the thread-issue you mentioned. I didn't ever strip mine so I can't comment on the tight-fitting body but I don't find it hard to believe, I swear the things are put together in factories by super-human mutants.

I reckon i just got unlucky with the grub screw thread, but it ticks me off that i'll have to drill the grub screw out and replace the front sight in order to fit the flash hider i want on it.

 

I did buy a UMP-style stock and that went on quite smoothly but there was no way in hell that I could get a PDW stock to fit as the metal 'glove' that locks around the back was just way too tight.

Sounds about right, the plastic cap for my MC51 stock went on fine, but the rails were so tight against the body due to it being larger than it should be that they wouldn't move :rolleyes:

 

I'll probably put the body up for sale in the next few weeks, then hopefully i can get me a TM UZI!!!!!

Edited by Rob15
Link to post
Share on other sites
. If you can't understand that then you probably need to go back to school...

do you want to drop the personal insults little boy ?

 

I was merely asking and you return with insults !

 

If you paid £260 that is your fault as the general retail price is £220 which is only £30 more than the TM for a metal body and 1 piece metal front end with glass fiber furniture.

 

If you think ICS would have made it perfect you really haven't had much experience with them , they are far from perfect.

 

I'm sorry that you appear to have had problems and it is not right although after spending £260 I would have sent it back instead of taking it apart if it was that bad !

Link to post
Share on other sites

nobody in the airsoft world is perfect. nobody. They're either too expensive, too cheap, too un-inventive or too plasticy.

 

I've personally seen a CA MP5 (With that 'fabulous' 1 peice barrel thingy) break clean in half. was made of nothing better than standard pot metal. For the price, i'd rather a decent strength plastic body and a tightbore as standard for that extra £30 or so.

 

Personally, i've never had a non-TM AEG, and it probably wont ever change. at least that way i know its reliable stock and it can be easily upgraded both internally and externally. I dont particularly care for the ICS split gearbox design, as in my eyes its just one more thing to possibly go wrong in the already complex mech box. And i'm not a fan on CA as they just regurgitate what everyone else makes - example, the 'SLR SU', the SCAR, and now the DSA58 or whatever it is (FN FAL clone). If a manufacturer can't be that bothered to come out with new products (Type 89, AKS-74, FAL, SA80's, etc etc) then i'm not inclined to buy from them. At least with ICS they're tyring to be innovative. same with VFC, Star, Innoksatu, etc etc.

 

So yeah, nobodys perfect, but hey, its airsoft, does it really matter? :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
do you want to drop the personal insults little boy ?

Do you want to drop them?

 

I was merly stating that if you can't understand the extremely simple logic of fitting another part to make life easier then you really do need to consider going back to school ;)

 

If you paid £260 that is your fault as the general retail price is £220 which is only £30 more than the TM for a metal body and 1 piece metal front end with glass fiber furniture.

Cheapest i can find is FS who have reduced them down to £215 now, they were £260 when i got it before, everyone else is £230 +

 

Regardless it'd still be the same situation even if it was that much, money is money and this gun has been a waste of a lot of it ;)

 

If you think ICS would have made it perfect you really haven't had much experience with them , they are far from perfect.

Really? :rolleyes: Lets put it one way, the metal body on my ICS MP5 beats the CA G3 body hands down, the quick takedown is perfect, the casting is perfect, no gaps, no nasty seams and everything fits perfectly.

 

Infact its had 3 full strips and the quick takedown has been used a lot of times, yet it still fits together perfectly :)

 

 

I've personally seen a CA MP5 (With that 'fabulous' 1 peice barrel thingy) break clean in half. was made of nothing better than standard pot metal. For the price, i'd rather a decent strength plastic body and a tightbore as standard for that extra £30 or so.

Ah yes, like the good old cheap pot metal on this G3. I think the best way to explain it is that it is like lead but not as heavy :o

 

The only reason i'm not still using my TM G3 is that it has been fully stripped a few times, and as you would expect doesn't fit together 'quite' right anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the use of session cookies.