Jump to content

SA58: Quality Power vs Classic Army


Recommended Posts

Welcome once again laides and gentlemen boys and girls to Mysteries from Beyond the Other Dominion, with your host, Dr. Franklin Ruehl.

 

images.jpg

 

Today we'll be discussing three things: dark matter, dark energy, annnnd...

 

Quality Power vs Classic Army SA58 Comparison

 

Part 1: Externals

 

sa58_02.jpg

 

At a glance, the QP looks identical to the original CA, apart from trademarks. Quality-wise, you'd be hard pressed to spot any difference at all from this distance. When handled, they feel almost exactly the same.

 

sa58_01.jpg

 

There are some slight differences, though. Let's take a closer look.

 

First the front sight area, first pic is QP, second is CA:

 

frontsight_qp.jpg

frontsight_ca.jpg

 

The grey finish is slightly more shiny on the QP.

 

Now let's look at the charging handle area. QP 1st, CA 2nd:

 

charginghandle_qp.jpg

charginghandle_ca.jpg

 

Well, the most obvious difference is the QP's longer scope rail. The CA SA58s have two different top rails: a short one for normal handguard versions, and a long rail that matches up with a RIS front. It seems that QP only cloned the long rail and used that on all their SA58 versions, RIS or not.

 

Next up, magwell inspection. QP first, CA second:

 

magwell_qp.jpg

magwell_ca.jpg

 

Slight differences on the bolt release. The QP part actually looks better than the CA.

 

Let's have a look at the trigger area. QP, then CA:

 

trigger_qp.jpg

trigger_ca.jpg

 

Some funny, tiny differences in details here and there. Overall, the QP's casting quality looks cleaner.

 

Next, rear sight area. QP top, CA bottom:

 

rearsight_qp.jpg

rearsight_ca.jpg

 

No big differences... except that angled ridge right below the rear sight. It lines up much better between receiver and stock on the QP, the alignment on the CA is off. Good job, QP... except the real steel DS Arms SA58 fixed stock seems to be identical to the CA:

http://www.dsarms.com/SA58-FAL-Carbine-Rifle-308-Cal----SA58C16/productinfo/SA58C16/

 

I guess the QP designers took one look at the poor alignment on the CA and thought it was a mistake. Fooled.

 

Also, the selectors feel much different between the two brands. The original CA is stiff and tight, but still nicely tactile. The QP selector feels a little looser but also more metallic and tactile when clicking back and forth. We'll see why when we delve into the internals in part 2.

 

Let's have a look at the right side of the guns:

 

rightside_compare.jpg

 

What can I say, the QP casting looks better. The CA has some pretty horrific casting flaws under the paint just behind the large coin screw, and other minor flaws here and there.

 

And again, notice the CP's longer top rail, designed to match up with a RIS front.

 

 

 

Looks like that's it for the externals, but until next time, where we'll explore the internals, may the power of the cosmos be with YOU YES! YES! YES! ....!

 

images1.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

......BOO!!!

images2.jpg

 

Welcome once again laides and gentlemen boys and girls to Mysteries from Beyond the Other Dominion, with your host, Dr. Franklin Ruehl.

 

Teleportation. What can you tell us? While you think about that, let's talk about...

 

Quality Power vs Classic Army SA58 Comparison

 

Part 2: your Internals...!

 

Let's start with the hop units. Top is QP, bottom is CA:

 

hopunits.jpg

 

We can see that QP put a spring and washer in front of the unit, top keep the whole thing pressed back against the mechbox. Well done.

The QP unit seems of decent quality, but for a change the CA displays better casting quality here.

 

Now for the mechboxes. The QP is the black one, the CA is grey:

 

mechboxes_left.jpg

mechboxes_right.jpg

 

First of all, the CA is an EBB mechbox, so don't worry too much about the differences in the upper areas. A better thing to do is point and laugh at the pitiful CA motor. Bahaha!

The blowback on the CA has been deactivated. Some people like electric blowback. Me? I like sugar, and ketchup.

 

Notice the metal selector plate on the QP. This explains the very tactile, metallic feel of the selector.

 

The CA has of course had its wires replaced, but check out the QP wiring. They actually cloned the CA's stock dental floss wiring. That was a bad call, QP, a baaaad call. That's all it was.

 

Here we'll abandon the CA, because it's had most of the mechbox replaced, so a further comparison would be pointless. So let's just have a look at the QP parts:

 

spring_guide.jpg

 

Steel spring guide. Looks like a direct copy of the stock CA brass spring guide, except it's steel. One could have wished for bearings, but what can you do.

 

As for the spring:

 

spring.jpg

 

Your typical stock ACM spring, here next to an SHS M130.

 

Next up, piston:

 

piston_front.jpg

piston_rear.jpg

 

Piston looks decent enough, with all steel half teeth, though the stock gears allow for full teeth.

Piston has bearings, gotta get rid of those to save weight.

 

Let's take a look at the cylinder h-

 

cylinder_head.jpg

 

Ohhhh that's some terrible quality right there. Will need to fix that cylinder head nozzle.

 

Surely the nozzle can't be equally ba-

 

nozzle_side.jpg

nozzle_rear.jpg

 

Oh. No good. You're no good to me, nozzle, no good. Start the dance!

 

 

 

The piston/cylinder compression is pretty much perfect, but with the nozzle added, it gets rather leaky. But there's one thing I need to check:

 

nozzles_compare.jpg

 

Ooh. Left is QP, middle and right are stock CA. The QP nozzle, unlike the CA, has the correct length!

So close, QP, and yet so far. Had you only made the nozzle better quality...

 

Oh well, moving on:

 

gears.jpg

 

Steel gears, seem decent enough. APPROVED.

 

Lazy shimming: each gear just has an identical shim on each side. The result is a slightly too loose bevel gear, while the other two gears are too tight. REJECTED.

 

mechbox_shell.jpg

 

Mechbox shell seems fine. 7mm sealed bearings that spin fine. No complaints!

 

As for the motor:

 

piniongear.jpg

 

Well it's one of those high-torque ACM units with neodymium magnets. A keeper!

 

 

*slurps water from dinosaur mug*

 

 

Looks like that's it, folks. I'll make sure to make a performance report when I've replaced what needs replacin' and done some... experiments.

 

Until that day, may the power of the cosmos BE with YOU! YEEEES!

 

dr_frink.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback guys. This review came from the heart... and... other organs...

 

As for correct nozzle length. Both my digital calipers and micrometer are both out of batteries, but according to a ruler the stock CA nozzle is about 21,8mm, while the QP is about 22,8mm. :)

 

It can be checked by installing only cylinder+head, nozzle, and tappet plate with spring in the mechbox and closing it, so the nozzle is fully extended. Then insert the nozzle into the hop unit, which you press against the mechbox. If you can feel the nozzle interfacing with the tip of the hop rubber, you're golden.

 

Then, to check if the nozzle is perhaps too long, install the sector gear too and turn it manually until it has pulled the nozzle fully back. Put the nozzle in the hop unit again and drop a BB into the hop unit's BB feed tube. Does the BB go all the way in? You're golden.

If the BB gets blocked by the nozzle, the nozzle is too long. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I only wish. AUG nozzle + dremel. :D

 

Though it appears the Sig nozzle is pretty close (~22,3mm?), but I fear it's just a little too short. Better than the stock nozzle, mind.

Edited by Utty
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're welcome. :)

 

I haven't tried, but I don't see it happening, the KA FAL and CA SA58 mags look completely different on top; the KA has an angled cut at the back and protruding BB feed thing:

http://www.wgcshop.com/wgc2008/main/product_detail1.php?search_From=category&item=KA-MAG-06HC&search=special&rs=King%20Arms%20AEG%20Magazines&catid=17&cat=347

 

While the CA mag is completely flat, and no protrusions:

http://www.uncompany.com/pageproductdetails.asp?prodid=25315

the pic doesn't show the top, but that's how flat it is anyway. Plus the BB feed is much further to the rear compared to KA.

 

But as the UNCo link shows, you can get midcap CA mags anyway. Only place I've seen them, though. I just bought five of them, they seem to feed perfectly out of the box.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@thartwig: it weighs almost exactly the same as the CA original. CA metal AEGs are typically on the light side. I'm not sure what kind of metal is used, it may be a cheese-alloy.

As for charging handle: what DarkLite said.

 

@sr2268: don't hold your breath pal. I'll get around to it, but I'm in no hurry. :D I did order a mosfet for it, so it's not like it's completely on hold or anything, I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having aquired fresh batteries for my digital calipers, and an Ultimate Upgrade brand Sig nozzle, I can report that the Sig nozzle is indeed 22.3mm, while the stock Quality Power SA58 nozzle is 22.6mm. Close enough; I'll say you'll be fine with a Sig nozzle. Hallelujah for easy solutions!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I did it for teh lulz, bro. ^___^

 

New problem: the Sig nozzle's fat part is too fat for the QP hop unit. The stock nozzle's fat part is 7,73mm. The Ultimate Upgrade Sig nozzle is 8,03mm at the fat part, which will not go into the hop unit.

I dremeled out a considerable amount of material from the hop unit, enough so that the Sig nozzle will penetrate real good. o__o

 

With these replacement parts:

- steel bearing spring guide

- SHS M130 spring

- UU Sig air seal nozzle

- Madbull 6,01x455mm barrel

- Marui hop rubber

 

I'm getting ~135m/s. I plan on getting a replacement CA hop unit, as it is much better quality than the QP unit. Time to hit my reliable, well-stocked CA supplier, UNCo (AM CLOSING!!!!!!). ;)

Edited by Utty
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a CA DSA 58: AKA "the gun that wouldn't skirmish"...

Out of the box the cocking handle broke. Took a well known retailer a little north of the M25 two months to get the parts and fix it.

Had hop problems from day one. Eventualy oppened it up and found a casting flaw inside the unit that needed dremeling out. Put in a madbull blue rubber and performance became adequate. After a few skirmishes (and out of warranty) the back of this piston sheared off - it has been sugested since that this may be due to silicone contamination of the madbull ruber? Anyway, replaced the piston. Two skimishes later there is a horrible screeching noise, so I oppened the gearbox:

The reinforced piston had striped its teeth - looked like the gearbox was full of orange peel. The spur gear had also lost a tooth :(

Considering the gun jinxed I stuck it on the back of the cupboard and went on to my ever reliable JG G36C.

I finaly decide to bite he bullet and fix the beast.

Replaced the hop with a marui rubber and a H nub.

Puy in an SCS full metal tooth piston - came with first tooth removed.

Put in a Guarder polycarbonate bearing piston head.

Finaly put in a modify smooth gear set ( high torque).

So far so good.

 

Also had to replace and araldite the inner screw on he cocking handle. For good measure I trimed back the spring so I can push the fake bolt back with my finger to alter the hop.

 

Still if it won't shoot it looks pretty :) just wish I could replace the nasty M16 flash hider with a proper FAL one.

 

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.