Wooly_Booly Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 The GHK G36 has been in the works for nearly half a decade, and up until recently there had been no new information regarding it.One day a product listing for the GHK G36 magazine shows up on Evike, shortly followed by a conversion kit for the Umarex G36 series. (S&T and Ares OEM's)(Full set of pictures. http://imgur.com/a/XER4A) To start, the kits were done as a commission job for UFC, done by GHK, possibly done in cooperation with Umarex. The box the kit comes in is unlike GHK's standard packaging, a bit flashier than their normal cardboard boxes. Nothing else too noteworthy. Held together with durable foam and comes with a double sided instruction sheet which only has Japanese writing on it. The base AEG I am using is an S&T model.Let's get into a review of the parts.The metal parts:The carrier is a nice heafty hunk of what I'm assuming is some type of alloy. There's a steel insert where the steel bolt catch makes contact with the carrier. The carrier has a small notch on the backside which trips a lever, allowing the hammer to release.The rest of the critical metal parts in the trigger assembly seem to be made of Zinc. I don't see any replacement parts being available for this, and with these materials the gun will eventually fail.The "mechanism" (I'm using that word lightly) to keep the fire selector in place pops into place, and from the few times I've moved the fire selector I'm already seeing wear.The lever which needs to be tripped to actually allow you to fire it is a liiiiiiiiitle too far forward, so the gun has issues actually firing, and only works about 60% of the time. Based on the comments on the Evike listing, this is an issue with all of the kits. I'll be removing it eventually to see if standard firing is effected without it. The plastic parts:The plastic used was....less than exemplary. The nozzle appears to just be GHK's AR nozzle, so it should be possible to use FG airsoft adjustable nozzles.The charging handle snapped in two places after being pulled 10-15 times. I haven't tested if it is compatible with the AEG charging handle, or even aluminum charging handles for the WE G39.The grip, magwell and magazine shell seem to be made of a similar material their counterparts on the S&T model, so while it doesn't feel bad, it is a bit plasticy feeling.The color is a bit more of a blue gray than the black you'd normally see on a G36.Assembly:Unfortunately, Evike falsely advertised the kit as being compatible with the S&T G36 series, so I needed to modify the parts a bit for them to fit properly. The hop-up chamber required quite a bit of filing to match the "D" shape of the receiver and barrel. Even after filing it to shape I needed to hammer it in for it to sit flush, otherwise the carrier would not seat properly.In order to fit the rear buffer block piece which holds the recoil spring, I needed to split the receiver in two and pry the rear a bit for it to sit properly. A simple solution to this would've been to have the spring and spring guide on a pivot like the WE G39 has.The internal railing which the carrier slides on was slightly too large, though it was worn down from carrier movement. The hop-up chamber was slightly too large for the receiver, so I had to file the receiver ever so slightly so I could fit each half together properly.Function:I've already gone over the issue regarding the lever which prevents the gun from firing consistently. More issues emerged when I tried to insert the magazine. I was completely incapable of releasing the trigger after with the magazine inserted. In order to shoot the gun, I would need to take out the magazine and release the bolt, hoping it will actually charge the gun.Gas efficiency was actually fairly nice, even though I needed to remove the magazine and charge it again to fire. I consistently got 50 shots out of the gun before needing to recharge it with gas. Up until about 45 shots there the function would stay the same, sputtering off with the remaining few shots.Hop-up is AEG based, and even has it's own unique nub. The hop-up bucking is a bit different in that it has three points of contact where the bb is held in place before being propelled. I was unable to get an accuracy or range test due to the lack of anything to apply pressure to the adjustment arm. I tried using one of the grub screws which held the outer barrel in place, though they were every so slightly too small, and with the filing I needed to do it would've been too long anyways.I noticed that if I had the "dry fire mode" switched on while firing, the recoil would switch it back causing the magazine to trip the bolt catch and lock the carrier back.Final verdict:6 out of 10. The good: Gas efficiency was fantastic, and it's a functioning conversion kit.The bad: The materials were lackluster, some of the designs are barely passable for a modern GBB, and it had a lot of fitment issues. (May be a better fit with the Ares models.) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
renegadecow Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 You forgot "the ugly" which is don't dare write a bad review about GHK or they may throw a lawsuit at you. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wooly_Booly Posted March 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 You forgot "the ugly" which is don't dare write a bad review about GHK or they may throw a lawsuit at you. Only this time you've got UHC and Umarex backing them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bankz5152 Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Interesting. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ShinSeiki Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I see my dreams of a skirmishable GBBR SL-8 will have to wait... Too bad, GHK's latest oferings have been great, why go back to this? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hitmanNo2 Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 GBBR conversion kits always suck. Here's hoping the upcoming Tavor will be decent. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wooly_Booly Posted March 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I see my dreams of a skirmishable GBBR SL-8 will have to wait... Too bad, GHK's latest oferings have been great, why go back to this? They were probably given a price point to stick around, or simply didn't care since it technically isn't one of their products. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wooly_Booly Posted March 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 GBBR conversion kits always suck. Here's hoping the upcoming Tavor will be decent. Hephaestus has been very proficient in making working custom builds, so I'd like to believe this and the possible SVU aren't any different. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
L2E Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 This is a HUGE misunderstanding which was perpetrated by EVIKE (knowingly or unknowingly). GHK has nothing to do with this as per their PR release after many people inquired directly to GHK. The magazine was originally designed by GHK many years ago but development stopped and was sold/handed off to another company for continued work. So what you are seeing in this kit is NOT a GHK product and NOT representative of GHK quality. This was confirmed with GHK, Samoon and Hephaestus. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
renegadecow Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 Sooo... in the event they make a shoddy product they'll either deny making it or accuse you for slander if you say something bad about it. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wooly_Booly Posted March 31, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) This is a HUGE misunderstanding which was perpetrated by EVIKE (knowingly or unknowingly). GHK has nothing to do with this as per their PR release after many people inquired directly to GHK. The magazine was originally designed by GHK many years ago but development stopped and was sold/handed off to another company for continued work. So what you are seeing in this kit is NOT a GHK product and NOT representative of GHK quality. This was confirmed with GHK, Samoon and Hephaestus. I'm still pretty skeptical. If that were true, there would be absolutely no reason for it to have been "collaborated with GHK". That would be akin to G&G slapping GHK's name on every single "GBB" AR they sell. To make matters worse, their name is printed on the bottom of the magazine. If they really had no part in this (aside from a few initial designs)/didn't want their name on this product, I don't see why that would've been left in. Some parts, especially the nozzle and carrier are made from extreeeeeemely similar, if not the exact same material you'd find in their other products. Nozzle seems to be their standard AR nozzle, and the carrier material is similar to the G5. If they really had no part in this, they did a pretty pathetic job at getting that across. Edit: Even if they truly passed off the designs to another company, the it's still pretty poorly designed. Every functioning part is similar to what you'd find on a GHK, (sans the part keeping the selector switch in place) the quality is just a bit all over the place. I highly doubt they just handed some other company the magazines and said "Here, you can figure out the rest." The designs are too similar for that to really be a possibility. Edited March 31, 2015 by Wooly_Booly Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alias1983 Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 Last I heard ghk denied any involvement with this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wooly_Booly Posted March 31, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 Last I heard ghk denied any involvement with this. Sure, they can deny involvement. That doesn't necessarily mean it's true, especially when we can clearly see similarities to their designs/materials. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ShinSeiki Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 I gave GHK a pass on the whole G&G GBBR debacle, but seeing them shun their own product like that is like meeting your hero while he's taking a dump. Disenchanting... 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alias1983 Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Sure, they can deny involvement. That doesn't necessarily mean it's true, especially when we can clearly see similarities to their designs/materials.Still don't mean its there's, if they deny it then I believe its not there's. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wooly_Booly Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) Still don't mean its there's, if they deny it then I believe its not there's. They can also claim that there aren't any issues with their guns. Even if it's true, they will take the most pathetic stance against it, say it isn't and take legal action against you. (As RenegadeCow had mentioned.) How full of yourself do you need to be, not only as an individual but as a company to threaten legal action over customer concern? Edited April 1, 2015 by Wooly_Booly 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PureSilver Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) You forgot "the ugly" which is don't dare write a bad review about GHK or they may throw a lawsuit at you. It's worth noting that they've absolutely no chance whatsoever of making it stick in any non-kangaroo court, though. GHK has nothing to do with this as per their PR release after many people inquired directly to GHK. That's interesting. For this to be a GHK product, we are required to believe that GHK will simultaneously adopt the diametrically opposed positions of "we believe in our product so much we'll sue if you don't agree" and "we believe in our product so little we'll deny making it". Those seem contradictory to me. On the other hand, this entire debate may rest on exactly how you define 'a GHK product'. The relationship between GHK and G&G regarding previous drop-in sh*ts kits is a matter of some speculation, since GHK originally released the design but G&G rereleased it shortly thereafter. Is the design GHK's, or a third party's? Did GHK OEM the kit, and if so, did they do so for G&G too? G&G have sold products clearly OEM'd by other manufacturers under their own brand before (notably optics and almost unbelievably horrible WinGun pistols) so it's not beyond the pale to imagine that either GHK continued to make the kits or even that GHK were themselves rebranding someone else's product. On the strength of the design similarities, I'd say that GHK definitely had something do to with the design and development of this kit, but they've clearly passed on the actual selling of it to somebody else - and might well have passed on the manufacturing, too. The long stay of the kit in development Hell does lend credence to GHK's claim of having dropped the project years back, as does the evident similarity in concept and quality to the original drop-in kits which GHK are known to have dropped years ago. It's hard to lay the blame at GHK's door if they're explicitly disavowing the product, at any rate. Edited April 1, 2015 by PureSilver 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
L2E Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 GHK was REALLY quick to say they have had nothing to do with recent development of this product so that makes me think that whatever partnership they had went bad a while back in which GHK knew quality was going to be bad. Just b/c a nozzle/carrier looks like a current GHK part doesn't mean GHK is manufacturing it or even overseeing QC of it... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wooly_Booly Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 That's interesting. For this to be a GHK product, we are required to believe that GHK will simultaneously adopt the diametrically opposed positions of "we believe in our product so much we'll sue if you don't agree" and "we believe in our product so little we'll deny making it". Those seem contradictory to me. On the other hand, this entire debate may rest on exactly how you define 'a GHK product'. The relationship between GHK and G&G regarding previous drop-in sh*ts kits is a matter of some speculation, since GHK originally released the design but G&G rereleased it shortly thereafter. Is the design GHK's, or a third party's? Did GHK OEM the kit, and if so, did they do so for G&G too? G&G have sold products clearly OEM'd by other manufacturers under their own brand before (notably optics and almost unbelievably horrible WinGun pistols) so it's not beyond the pale to imagine that either GHK continued to make the kits or even that GHK were themselves rebranding someone else's product. On the strength of the design similarities, I'd say that GHK definitely had something do to with the design and development of this kit, but they've clearly passed on the actual selling of it to somebody else - and might well have passed on the manufacturing, too. The long stay of the kit in development Hell does lend credence to GHK's claim of having dropped the project years back, as does the evident similarity in concept and quality to the original drop-in kits which GHK are known to have dropped years ago. It's hard to lay the blame at GHK's door if they're explicitly disavowing the product, at any rate. It wasn't so much the product in their eyes as it was how it conveyed the company itself. Their most recent facebook post concerning the matter shows pretty much this. (Warning, rough translation.) "some comments hurt has GHK of commercial reputation GHK willing to believes g June is has no intention of caused of for avoid outside too much speculation If g June agreed GHK may and g June signed legal format file by Hong Kong appointed lawyer and g June reached reconciliation on other slander GHK of persons due to has entered litigation program inconvenience detailing GHK" g June (Gainax) created another post on ArmsCool, in which he apologizes for "having a misunderstanding" and even said " it is wrong to blame the company, because I really love the company's products". Now, I could be looking at this completely wrong, but it doesn't seem like apologizing for the review, as much as it is apologizing for putting the companies name out there in bad light. A large amount of people would freak out a bit if they were told they were being sued for a simple review, and even if they were right, they would probably chose to sign a paper claiming they lied than go through the hassle of fighting it. Sources: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=527116094096843&id=294289027379552, http://www.arms-cool.net/forum/archiver/tid-161762.html GHK was REALLY quick to say they have had nothing to do with recent development of this product so that makes me think that whatever partnership they had went bad a while back in which GHK knew quality was going to be bad. Just b/c a nozzle/carrier looks like a current GHK part doesn't mean GHK is manufacturing it or even overseeing QC of it... If GHK was so quick to threaten legal action against someone for slandering their name, I'm sure they would be extremely up in arms for UFC using their name on a product (both on the magazine and with the message on the box with the "collaborated with GHK" message.) after their business relationship had ended. That is something that could possibly have a strong standing in Chinese court (however backwards it may be), unlike their most recent legal endeavors. It doesn't add up, at all. I'll have to get a hold of another GHK AR nozzle, though I'm almost positive that it isn't just something that looks like their current nozzle. Nozzle materials looks and feels exactly the same, even down to the nozzles assembly being glued together. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alias1983 Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) Nozzles on the ghk m4 can not come apart. Destruction eminent if you try to. Edited April 2, 2015 by Alias1983 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wooly_Booly Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Nozzles on the ghk m4 can not come apart. Destruction eminent if you try to. It's like that for every GHK nozzle. No clue why they are so adamant on preventing you from opening it up. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alias1983 Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Design maybe? Someone is running one in an ak setup. No return spring and seal the back of the bolt. Apparently it works 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
renegadecow Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Until it breaks (which they're known for). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wooly_Booly Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Design maybe? Someone is running one in an ak setup. No return spring and seal the back of the bolt. Apparently it works No clue. The designs are all there, they just chose to prevent you from actually opening up the nozzle. It's in a two-piece design, and even the pin keeping them together is glued in place. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
L2E Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Wooly, you are correct that something doesn't add up but I am looking at it from the opposite side. GHK quality and performance, in my experience, has been extremely good so why would they take a risk like this? And it is SO frustrating that they glue their nozzles together...I don't see any need for that (from a design or engineering perspective), it would give us the opportunity to tweak the nozzle for optimum performance without paying for a 1J or High Velocity nozzle... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.