Jump to content

GHK M4 GBBR - available after Chinese New Year

hitmanNo2

By hitmanNo2,
in Airsoft News

Recommended Posts

blobface

blobface

Posted
Posted

LIke said above, the fuss is because they actually created G5 as a proof of concept, they said on their facebook page ages ago that they didn't feel like they were ready to release an M4, they wanted something extremely reliable, so they created the G5, which blew everyone away in terms of performance, and then the newer iterations of the AKs are all very good against cool down, so when they finally said they're ready for the M4, everyone who's been waiting are expecting magic, including myself, and as much as I want to believe, I have a feeling that it won't be anywhere as good as the G5 due to the limitation of the bolt travel distance an M4 needs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 413
  • Created
  • Last Reply
hwagan

hwagan

Posted
Posted

With a steel bolt carrier?

 

 

I was assuming the same weight (or at least hwagan was - he's the one who said it's pretty much a WA spec'd BC). So yes, a WA on a steel bolt carrier, since the efficiency ones are usually aluminum. According to the demo this gun's is steel.

 

A good bolt, yes - Not a junk steel ACM one obviously. And going on the design of the bolt, the length of the gas key, the cuts in the BCG for the nozzle to retract into as well as the nozzle itself, I'd say it's not unreasonable to suggest it's a WA design based BCG. Might have a modified or gone altogether nozzle guide or other minor tweaks, but design and function wise it looks exceptionally similar to a WA GBBR bolt. I might be wrong, but I'm pretty confident it's a WA system GBBR, built by GHK, out of decent materials, probably with a hop system designed to adjust and install in the same way a WA's does, but with AEG compatible barrels and buckings.

 

Hmm not really, you can (or certainly could) buy WOCs with all-steel internals. Which are very good.

 

The fuss is because it's GHK, and their G5 and AKs are excellent so people are expecting similar things from this. Don't get me wrong, it will very probably be great and Just Work out of the box, being GHK it'll be one of the best all round GBB M4s as it will have GHK's excellent new STANAGs, high quality parts, decent hop-up etc. all in one package.

 

I can't, however, see it being lightyears ahead of the other GBB M4s.

 

That's pretty much the gist of what I've been saying; It'll no doubt be very reliable, properly built, and maybe with a slightly redesigned bolt catch/hop/valve knocker assembly. I just worry people will buy one, it won't be that much more efficient (gas and temperature wise) than a normal steel BCG'd WA, and people will get all upset at GHK for being unable to break physics and the like. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
blobface

blobface

Posted
Posted

people will get all upset at GHK for being unable to break physics and the like. 

 

But saying that to achieve very very good performance is somehow breaking physics is making the assumption that the current existing M4 GBB systems have maxed out the efficiency of propane as a propellant to push a 0.2-0.3g object in one direction and a 250-300g object in the other, I mean, not that many brains have gone into trying to figure this out (I know many brands have given it a go, but I'm saying not many as in compares to people trying to increase the efficiency of a car engine), so I don't think it's unrealistic to expect a dramatic improvement from a company who's repeatedly emphasized in how much they want to improve the platform, and have proven themselves with the G5, if you handed me a G5 back when the first WAs were around, I wouldn't have believed that's possible. There might be still a huge amount of improvements to be discovered, I don't think we've reached a stage where we can shrug and conclude the limits have been reached in "physics". 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Inq Eisenhorn

Inq Eisenhorn

Posted
Posted

But saying that to achieve very very good performance is somehow breaking physics is making the assumption that the current existing M4 GBB systems have maxed out the efficiency of propane as a propellant to push a 0.2-0.3g object in one direction and a 250-300g object in the other, I mean, not that many brains have gone into trying to figure this out (I know many brands have given it a go, but I'm saying not many as in compares to people trying to increase the efficiency of a car engine), so I don't think it's unrealistic to expect a dramatic improvement from a company who's repeatedly emphasized in how much they want to improve the platform, and have proven themselves with the G5, if you handed me a G5 back when the first WAs were around, I wouldn't have believed that's possible. There might be still a huge amount of improvements to be discovered, I don't think we've reached a stage where we can shrug and conclude the limits have been reached in "physics".

 

I agree, however, there are limitations set by the fact that this gas rifle is trying to imitate an M4, which although there are similarities the two systems are massively different. It's a bit like trying to design an aeroplane but it has to look like a Porsche....given time, you might get very close to having a flying Porsche, but it will never be as efficient as a plane designed to be a, well, plane.

 

I think this is one of, if not THE, biggest drawbacks of airsoft....we care less about making the most efficient bb launcher, and more about making accurate replicas....the trade off will ALWAYS be the efficiency and performance of the system.

 

I think the G5 was " so" successful because it didn't have to conform to any pre set design or expectations.....and that's not to take anything away from GHK!

Link to post
Share on other sites
blobface

blobface

Posted
Posted

Pardon my ignorance, but why not a shorter bolt in an m4?

 

Vipertech = shorter bolt travel, looks a little awkward when it locks back, some people mind, some people don't, but it's safe to say if someone (GHK or not) could make a full length travel M4 without compromising anything, everyone would prefer it over shorter travel. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2qspmfC_iY

 

Okay that option for short stroke while locking back is new to me.... maybe if the GHK turns out to be a bit of an overhype, this variable stroke Vipertech + GHK v2 green +/ CO2 might be the option!?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stuey

Stuey

Posted
Posted

I think the G5 was " so" successful because it didn't have to conform to any pre set design or expectations.....and that's not to take anything away from GHK!

 

You say that, but the G5 is basically an M4. It takes AR15 grips and mags, all the controls (bar the charging handle) are the same, they've changed the external receiver design a bit but no more than any of the companies making aftermarket AR15 receivers.

 

What they did was what people keep saying they should do with their M4 - shorten (and thus lighten) the bolt, and shorten it's travel slightly (and make good mags). It also means the whole recoil assembly is contained in the upper reciever (no buffer tube needed). If they were really keen on making a super awesome M4 they should have done the same with it - most of an M4 bolt carrier is hidden by the upper receiver; you can only see that bit of it through the ejection port.

 

They should have replicated the visible part, and eliminated the rest entirely. You'd only know when you stripped the gun, at which point I'd say most people don't care (certainly people looking for a reliable GBB M4 anyway). Why they felt the need to make it internally realistic like standard WA-spec GBBs I'm not sure, it's somewhat at odds with their (stated) goal of the most efficient, reliable GBB M4.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Inq Eisenhorn

Inq Eisenhorn

Posted
Posted

You say that, but the G5 is basically an M4. It takes AR15 grips and mags, all the controls (bar the charging handle) are the same, they've changed the external receiver design a bit but no more than any of the companies making aftermarket AR15 receivers.

 

What they did was what people keep saying they should do with their M4 - shorten (and thus lighten) the bolt, and shorten it's travel slightly (and make good mags). It also means the whole recoil assembly is contained in the upper reciever (no buffer tube needed). If they were really keen on making a super awesome M4 they should have done the same with it - most of an M4 bolt carrier is hidden by the upper receiver; you can only see that bit of it through the ejection port.

 

They should have replicated the visible part, and eliminated the rest entirely. You'd only know when you stripped the gun, at which point I'd say most people don't care (certainly people looking for a reliable GBB M4 anyway). Why they felt the need to make it internally realistic like standard WA-spec GBBs I'm not sure, it's somewhat at odds with their (stated) goal of the most efficient, reliable GBB M4.

Well, that's kinda my whole point?!? The closer you move towards "accurate" replication of the M4 the more you compromise on performance / efficiency. It's the reason why Vipertech do the short stroke, it's the reason why WE do the trigger boxes, it's the reason why KJW do the hop wheel in the ejection port area.....

 

I often wonder what a gun would look like if it were 100% optimised for bb's....probably a lot like a paintball gun, with a hop up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PureSilver

PureSilver

Posted
Posted

They should have replicated the visible part, and eliminated the rest entirely. You'd only know when you stripped the gun, at which point I'd say most people don't care (certainly people looking for a reliable GBB M4 anyway). Why they felt the need to make it internally realistic like standard WA-spec GBBs I'm not sure, it's somewhat at odds with their (stated) goal of the most efficient, reliable GBB M4.

 

Unusually, I agree with that less-realism-is-more sentiment. If I want an internally realistic AR-15 GBBR, I can choose between any of the multitude of WA-pattern makers out there; G&P, Inokatsu, Prime, WA and others. But if I want a gun that prioritises efficiency, insofar as I can tell it's Vipertech (and even then, they aren't exactly efficient) or nothing. Vipertech make great guns, but they are extremely expensive (as you'd expect from Inokatsu's old OEM), and the market could definitely support another short-stroked/ultralight bolt gun at a lower price point, especially if it was markedly more efficient. We already have a lot of choice when it comes to guns that look like an AR-15 internally; it would be nice to have some options for guns that shoot better than the inherent compromise of the existing designs.

 

I often wonder what a gun would look like if it were 100% optimised for bb's....probably a lot like a paintball gun, with a hop up.

 

I reckon quite a lot like a MagPul PDR - very short and pointable, largely plastic for lighter weight, that sort of thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stuey

Stuey

Posted
Posted

Well, that's kinda my whole point?!? The closer you move towards "accurate" replication of the M4 the more you compromise on performance / efficiency. It's the reason why Vipertech do the short stroke, it's the reason why WE do the trigger boxes, it's the reason why KJW do the hop wheel in the ejection port area.....

 

I often wonder what a gun would look like if it were 100% optimised for bb's....probably a lot like a paintball gun, with a hop up.

 

What advantage does the WE trigger box convey?

 

Or an LR300. Same stroke length but shorter bolt carrier. Less mass = better efficiency but also less recoil.

 

That's certainly true, but are there any airsoft GBB LR300s? That mimick the different gas system of the real one?

 

 

For this new GHK M4:

 

1. Buy gun

2. Chop off bolt just behind cylinder

3. Install spring/lightweight plastic spacer

4. ???

5. Profit?

Link to post
Share on other sites
johnyew

johnyew

Posted
Posted

Shot a full mag yesterday that was filled with Puff Dino GG. I would guess the room temp was about 20C and 0.2g BBs were used.

 

Point of comparison with G5 ONLY,

1. Felt recoil about the same as G5

2. FPS was between 384(1st) to 374(last)

3. Compatible with G5 mags

4. FA Cool down effects felt similar to G5

5. USMC globe and anchor trades on the lower

6. Was not allowed to disassemble upper and lower to look at bolt/nozzle

7. Hop up rubber/inlet looked similar to G5

8. Nozzle tip looked similar to G5

 

i might go again today. Anything in particular, externally, that you want me to look for?

Link to post
Share on other sites
blobface

blobface

Posted
Posted

i might go again today. Anything in particular, externally, that you want me to look for?

 

Any chance you could try out how many rounds of FA (FA / load bb / FA repeat) you can go through with a single charge of gas? and how bad / good the cool down is if you do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Inq Eisenhorn

Inq Eisenhorn

Posted
Posted

So, unrealistic trades then.... sigh :(

 

Honestly, why bother? Obviously the G5 should prove to GHK, that if a platform is good people will buy "airsoft specific" designs, why bother making so obvious a replica that falls short on something so simple. If I'm honest, I'd rather have no trades than wrong or bad trades....in that sense, at least for me, WE got it right.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Finbarqs

Finbarqs

Posted
Posted

I think they were thinking of shipping internationally. When WE had the trades back in the day, they weren't licensed by cybergun but I guess nobody cared at that point. Now, it's a pain in the *albatross* to get trade marked receivers without proper licensing... Unless you're feeling brave like SA and/or VFC... (though they do have umarex license for their german guns...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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

  I accept