A&K M249 initial impressions

[sekiryu]

Doesn't every 249 AEG use a knock-off PGC gearbox?

 

Aluminum foregrip? They're supposed to be plastic...

[ardrummer292]

Doesn't every 249 AEG use a knock-off PGC gearbox?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not the G&P, which uses a V2.

 

Jonny: chill, dude. The gun doesn't seem that bad at all, especially for the price.

[DarkLite]

Not the G&P, which uses a V2.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Which is silly, because the CA/PGC style Gearbox is MUCH better at handling long full auto bursts.

[otherrandomhero]

god knows what it is, probably a PGC gearbox I hear, I mean at least have the decency to put a version 2 or 3.

 

Final remark: BUY A MOTHERFOOKING G&P OR CLASSIC ARMY ONE! OR EVEN A TOP ONE FOR THAT MATTER.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That seems a bit unnecessary. The PGC gearbox is designed for and is excellent at long bursts, i.e. support gunning. The V2 has quite a few problems, especially when compared to the PGC. The V3 would have been okay, but PGC still is best.

 

Did you seriously just suggest a TOP over this? Wow. I don't even need to comment on that.

[supportgunner]

Any complete reviews out yet?

[Night_raven]

It's ######, Theforegrip isn't even an alluminium base meaning it won't be as durable thus this is the probably the most held part on the M249. Secondly for an evedently 'lighter' alternative this gun still puts up the 6.5KG weightage. I can't see how this can be compared with an CA version, Although I admitt it's price is alright I would certainly not trust the design on this and save that more for a trusted make. I mean think about it the only decent chinese copies would be the M4 series by d-boys and the Jing gong Guns.

Also the front rear sights are made of a cheap looking metal which I hear doesn't even have an ajustable feature. It's good that they stretched to make 3 different versions which was brave of them. But As I say I would'nt even like to open that feed tray to look into the internals! god knows what it is, probably a PGC gearbox I hear, I mean at least have the decency to put a version 2 or 3.

 

Final remark: BUY A MOTHERFOOKING G&P OR CLASSIC ARMY ONE! OR EVEN A TOP ONE FOR THAT MATTER.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So, you've not actually used this gun?

 

 

Thats your little rant shot down right there.

[supportgunner]

Any complete reviews out yet?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[joeshred]

ive read alot, but they're in other forums

[supportgunner]

Link?

[RSM]

EDIT: Post removed due to monged quotation

Edited August 28, 2007 by RSM

[Shard]

It's ######, The foregrip isn't even an alluminium base

Umm, indeed, except

the ABS fore grip

is as it should be, last I read. The CA certainly didn't have an alu foregrip?

 

 

Also the front rear sights are made of a cheap looking metal whichI hear doesn't even have an ajustable feature.

Or actually :

The sights we also liked as they are fully adjustable for windage and elevation

 

But As I say I would'nt even like to open that feed tray to look into the internals! god knows what it is, probably a PGC gearbox I hear, I mean at least have the decency to put a version 2 or 3.

I'd take a PGC box over a V2 in a support weapon any day.

 

Final remark: BUY A MOTHERFOOKING G&P OR CLASSIC ARMY ONE! OR EVEN A TOP ONE FOR THAT MATTER.

Not everyone has £400+ to spend, thats the idea behind the STAR and now this in terms of budget support options.

 

 

I would certainly not trust the design on this

It has been established to be a clone of the CA 249 design, even down to friggin manual. You may have reason to doubt the build quality but I don't see doubt in the majority of the actual design, except maybe the box mag and a few internal parts.

 

Try being a bit more informed before spouting hear say type rubbish about a gun which only a handful of people have actually had the opportunity to handle and play with. As for knocking it on the use of cheap materials - reality check - it costs £200 quid for *fruitcages* sake, they have to cut the price down somehow. In this case the materials are the area money was saved. Anyway, this is airsoft, i don't see a great deal of what would be deemed high quality metal in use by anyone unless you drop serious cash anyway.

 

Lets leave all the slating until these things are in widespread use and have been fielded a fair time. Then we can see how they hold up and rip into it's negative aspects appropriately as they appear

[rolling-thunder]

They have to be worth £200 of anyones money even if they need a gear box rebuild,rewire,new hop up,new barrel.If they operate flawlessly then any little cosmetic problems people might have will be worth paying to have sorted.

I'm in the queue as soon as i can be,my flavour is the Para Version!

[Shard]

Exactly what I think, hence I am already there rolling-thunder, I went for the Para too

 

Plus I love tinkering away on my guns, so it'll give me a new project too.

[AirsoftHawaii90]

Already posted!?

 

 

Edit, I dont know if anyone has posted that video but the ROF seams to be a bit slow?

 

Please dont flame me if this has already been posted today.

Edited August 29, 2007 by AirsoftHawaii90

[otherrandomhero]

That ROF is WAYYY too slow for a support weapon. No doubt it's because of the M150 they have installed in it. A slow firing rate can be okay for ammo saving purposes (unimportant w/a box mag), but even if this wasn't a support weapon that 400 or so RPM is way too damn slow.

[AirsoftHawaii90]

That ROF is WAYYY too slow for a support weapon. No doubt it's because of the M150 they have installed in it. A slow firing rate can be okay for ammo saving purposes (unimportant w/a box mag), but even if this wasn't a support weapon that 400 or so RPM is way too damn slow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I agree. It sounded as if the battery may have been dieing? In the end when they are fireing the gun it sounds like its almost died.

[supportgunner]

POS Chinese 8.4v mini pulling and M150? Exactly what did you expect?

[sekiryu]

The M60 had a slower rate of fire and was still a good SAW.

 

Want 249 Mk1 NAO!

[freq88]

you know a lower rate of fire improves groupings, reduces wear and tear, and keeps the game from becoming too much like the dreaded paintball

[DarkLite]

Goddamn it, I'm wanting a Mk1 now.

[supportgunner]

Well, I would think that an ROF 320RPM slower than the RS would be less than desirable..

[Bob the Angry Potato]

With the money you save, tune up and get a better battery of a higher voltage. Easy enough?

[Slash']

I want one, I can afford one...

 

But it doesn't seem at all right....

 

I think to quench my thirst for a support weapon, I'll just do some RoF upgrades on my Ak and buy a 3000rd drum.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQrlcZo6t6M...related&search=

 

Rof seems better in that vid. Firing at about 440fps..

Edited August 29, 2007 by Slash'

[otherrandomhero]

The M60 had a slower rate of fire and was still a good SAW.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a horrendously stupid comparison. The M60 fired an incredibly powerful cardridge, and therefore didn't need to be able to shoot really fast. In airsoft, everything fires the same size bb with a few minor variations in weight. Being able to fire at high RoFs makes an airsoft support weapon effective. Regardless of all this, the 400 or so RPM that video showed is about half of what the real M249 is. Totally unacceptable for airsoft.

[infected]

That's a horrendously stupid comparison. The M60 fired an incredibly powerful cardridge, and therefore didn't need to be able to shoot really fast. In airsoft, everything fires the same size bb with a few minor variations in weight. Being able to fire at high RoFs makes an airsoft support weapon effective. Regardless of all this, the 400 or so RPM that video showed is about half of what the real M249 is. Totally unacceptable for airsoft.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yet easily fixable with a higher voltage battery or a lower fps spring.