Jump to content

5 years later...which is the best GBBR?


gunnermaniac

Recommended Posts

It's not the trades, you can get traded lowers at samoon (more to come), it's the mould marks and imperfections, also the fit between uppers and lowers are a bit hit and miss. I think I'm going for a AAC 300 build, I'm getting a couple of front end sets and just going to use the stock recevier, but I'm going to get it cerakoted, I might use your buddy, if no traded AAC lowers are available soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Was thinking about the viper, heard p mags work best for them?

Was thinking about the viper, heard p mags work best for them? It's a real pity nobody makes nice CNCed receviers for the GHK, I'm sure someone will, the nicest kit available is the novosek gen 3 for the WE, why the hell didn't they make one for the GHK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was thinking about the viper, heard p mags work best for them? It's a real pity nobody makes nice CNCed receviers for the GHK, I'm sure someone will, the nicest kit available is the novosek gen 3 for the WE, why the hell didn't they make one for the GHK

 

cause all companies putting the work for the MWS lol.

 

Yeah, minor filing on the G5 PMAGS will fit the viper tech perfectly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was getting a viper tech I would just use g&p p mags as I have loads, but I really want co2 so GHK is the way forward I think. They don't have any carbine length left at Samoon and I'm trying to sorce a couple of AAC 300 blackout rail and outer barrel sets to use with the standard (with engravings) ghk receiver as the RA tech one for whatever reason uses a WE charging handle which I find weird.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did but they are fan boys, I wanted bad feed back as well as good, they say it great but I don't like the fact that the charging handle and forward assist are for the WE, makes me think this recevier is built with WE spec and changed last minute to fit GHK. Just going to wait till a nice recevier comes out as the stock GHK ones are ugly!! And esthetics is very important to me, that's why I usaly go for WA system.

To be fair the WE and GHK charging handles are practically identical. As for the forward assist the GHK ones are non functional. If you don't like the screw in the middle of the button or the zinc pawl you can probably just use a real steel one. You can't really make a GHK receiver out of a WE receiver. Barrel mating and FCG are completely different. You would have to ADD material to a WE lower to make it into GHK spec as the receiver walls are thicker on the GHK. I think most likely they start out with the same forging blanks but CNC'ed them from the ground up to use with GHK system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the hammer spring on the viper tensions the hammer all the way forward and thus keeps the valve open until the bolt carrier travels a certain distance until it has pushed the hammer far enough back to retract the firing pin all the way. In a way this kind of acts like a valve lock. The WOC hammer on the other hand freewheels after a certain point and never keeps the firing pin extended. It hits the firing pin through only inertia to knock open the valve. After this action the hammer immediately springs back and the firing pin is retracted. The valve is kept open by a valve lock integrated on the magazine that unlocks and closes the valve after the bolt carrier has traveled a certain distance.

 

The WOC firing pin only has longitudinal movement so the firing pin must be retracted even with the hammer uncocked to clear the valve stem as you're inserting a magazine. Which is why the hammer sits at a 45 degree angle at rest. Firing pins in newer systems have also have pivoting vertical movement so when inserting a magazine with the hammer uncocked and the firing pin extended the valve stem will simply push the firing pin up and out of the way thus a freewheeling hammer is unnecessary and obsolete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the hammer spring on the viper tensions the hammer all the way forward and thus keeps the valve open until the bolt carrier travels a certain distance until it has pushed the hammer far enough back to retract the firing pin all the way. In a way this kind of acts like a valve lock. The WOC hammer on the other hand freewheels after a certain point and never keeps the firing pin extended. It hits the firing pin through only inertia to knock open the valve. After this action the hammer immediately springs back and the firing pin is retracted. The valve is kept open by a valve lock integrated on the magazine that unlocks and closes the valve after the bolt carrier has traveled a certain distance.

 

The WOC firing pin only has longitudinal movement so the firing pin must be retracted even with the hammer uncocked to clear the valve stem as you're inserting a magazine. Which is why the hammer sits at a 45 degree angle at rest. Firing pins in newer systems have also have pivoting vertical movement so when inserting a magazine with the hammer uncocked and the firing pin extended the valve stem will simply push the firing pin up and out of the way thus a freewheeling hammer is unnecessary and obsolete.

 

Nice response, mine was gonna be "Cause WOCS are dated :)"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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