Star M249 Para Examined...

[WarMonger]

OH OH pics pics! 

 

To anyone who has added a rail for a red dot. Do you have to re-zero each time you open and close the back cover? Or does the cover fall into the exact same place each time it is closed. I can see even a slight variance throwing off the alignment of the scope.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

When the feed cover is latched on my gun its very solid an doesnt move at all. no need to re-zero

[Gundrosen]

Will this fit on the STAR M249:

http://www.redwolfairsoft.com/redwolf/prod...sp?prodID=11127

 

[Jason-Alaska]

When the feed cover is latched on my gun its very solid an doesnt move at all. no need to re-zero

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks for the followup WarMonger!

[staticzero]

Update

 

In the normal position, the stock itself is a supplemental support (I would say its the main support, from my looking at it) to the back of the spring guide itself, and thusly the receiver body takes some of the cycling load, and this load in addition is axially central to the cylinder/piston/spring guide.

 

The CA design is the same way and I personally view that catch as a retention mechanism for holding the spring in place while the stock is opened/folded down, and nothing more. I don't look at it as a load bearing member.

 

Just my two cents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was able to spend some time studying a CA249 today. Based on my observations of a CA249 fitted with a Mk I stock, the above is false. The CA is no different from the Star in this regard. The stock does not contact the back of the gearbox in any way. It does not support the spring guide/spring retainer. It's all on the latch, just like the Star gearbox.

 

I needn't examine a CA Para to know that it's stock will not touch the gearbox either, in pictures this is obvious based on the stock's design. It's attachment points are designed the same as my Star Para stock and the MkI stock for that matter.

 

Hillslam, If you could please look at your gun again and make certain the stock actually touches the back of the box. I only needed to pop the feed cover open to seen in behind the gearbox on the gun I examined. It was obvious the MkI stock does not touch the back of the gearbox in any way. Perhaps it's different with the MkII stock. Based on this picture it appears that the stock may contact the back of the box at the right point. However at this time it is my belief that this is incidental and not intentionally designed to support the spring retention mechanism. It seems more likely that the MkII stock was designed this way so the stock retaining pin would have a sufficient amount of material to go thorough to reliably support the weight of the full stock plus a battery. After all it's plastic - unlike the metal Para and MkI stocks (which only have small metal tabs for the pin to go through). If CA designed the MKII with the intention of the stock acting as a reenforcement for the retainer (more to the point, if it was necessary to design it this way), why would they design the MkI and Para without this characteristic?

 

At this point I'm going to have see multiple well documented cases of failure here (involving either gun) for me to believe there's a problem with this 'unsupported' design and more specifically the use of the L2 position in the Star.

 

I also examined the CA spring guide and retainer. The CA parts are metal and the retainer is much longer than the Star's. The guide looks like a v2 spring guide and there's a screw securing it to the retainer. The CA retainer does not allow for two positions the way the Star does but the one position it does allow for results in a similar amount of pre-compression compared to any other gearbox - or the Star in the L2 position for that matter.

 

I compared feed covers, they are not compatible for a number of reasons. However, nothing is impossible if you know what you're doing.

 

It looks like the CA hop up unit could be made to work with the Star but a fair amount of work would be required.

 

I've tried a few more hop up buckings, both types of Guarders and a Prometheus hard type. None fit as well as the stock one, all were a bit loose. The Black Guarder seems to fit the best. I wrapped a bit of teflon tape around the rubber once fitted to the barrel, to make up the difference. With this in place the air seal was good and there was no discernible loss of FPS compared to the stock rubber.

 

I also picked up a rail to install on the feed cover, look for my report on that soon. It should be easy, though the rail will need to be modified and I'll have to drill holes in the feed cover.

 

One last thing, I discovered that you can fit the para and the box mag in the case after all. However, I wouldn't do anything more severe than carrying it around to games and such this way (no shipping it for example). There's not enough room around the gun (the sights are close to the edge) to adequately protect it with the mag in there. I'll try and post a pic later.

Edited December 30, 2005 by staticzero

[spartan490]

It's attachment points are designed the same as my Star Para stock and the MkI stock for that matter.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

do you mean the stocks on the CA and STAR are compatible? I wanted a para stock for my MKII but wasn't sure the CA one would fit. also what were the differences between the two feed tray covers?

[staticzero]

do you mean the stocks on the CA and STAR are compatible? I wanted a para stock for my MKII but wasn't sure the CA one would fit.

I didn't go so far as to try and swap them, so I can't say for sure. What I meant is just as I said, the attachment points are designed the same way. That's all I can say at the moment.

 

also what were the differences between the two feed tray covers?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd need a picture to illustrate this, and unfortunately I was without camera. Perhaps I can address this in more detail in the future.

 

Top rail is installed. I'm feeling lazy ATM so here's instructions: short version.

 

1. Take feed cover off gun.

2. Measure a lot. Twice.

3. Drill holes.

4. Shorten the M733 bottom rail you bought by a bit and dremel it some in just the right spot.

5. Mount rail using included screws.

6. Be annoyed it's still not quite centered after all that and resolve to fix it later (you were going to have to go back and square it up properly anyway so meh).

 

Pictures:

 

 

Edited December 30, 2005 by staticzero

[Jason-Alaska]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What did you use as a washer to elevate the back of the rail to make it level with the front portion of the feed cover that has the riser on it?

 

Did you use an M733 kit similar to this one at War Gamer Club?

http://www.wgcshop.com/pcart/shopper.php?i...MB-TRS08A_srch_ M733

 

Looking good man! Were you able to get the sight zeroed in even out of alignment? That is my biggest concern for mounting the red dot.

Edited December 30, 2005 by Jason-Alaska

[staticzero]

The rail I used is composite and has integrated stand-offs, no washers needed. I had to shorten it a bit and dremel it to clear the raised part on the feed cover. I haven't been able to find an example of the rail I used online so far, if I do I'll post a link. I bought it from AEX, it was $20 IIRC. It's not on their site though.

 

At 15' the windage was fine. This isn't that useful though. I've not tried it at proper range yet so I can't really say if I can zero it properly as it is. I wouldn't be surprised if I have to tweak it a bit. I'll have to center it a little better even if it is straight enough anyway, I think it's 1-2mm off right now. It looks good though!

[Hillslam]

That aimpoint looks good on there, static.

 

Hillslam, If you could please look at your gun again and make certain the stock actually touches the back of the box.

Here you go (see attached).

 

 

 

As you can see, on the MkII stock it touches (at least on mine). The piece in question itself on the MkII is metal though, not plastic, and I believe is a common part between the MkII stock and the para, so I would surmise the para is the same. The MkII stock has a plastic hollow sleeve attached to that metal mount capped by a metal buttplate/shoulder support. Anyway - the pin bridge support meets the spring guide almost dead center, with material just below the centerpoint and all the way to the top of the spring guide's radius, and the load then would get transferred to the receiver thru the buttstock's mount pin (a thick steel pin).

 

I cannot speak to the MkI type stock. I believe that is an aftermarket part, since CA made no MkI version as a single purchasable gun unit. And I'm betting CA's offered MkI stock part that they sell is a copy of someone else's and so would explain the lack of support material there (accessory parts perhaps not created by the gun design teams).

 

However, it may indeed be a case of good engineering by accident on CA's part.

 

I may be being overly cautious, but were it my gun on the Star, I would put something there, say even some foam or something: glue or stick it to the front of the stock's plate and then keep rotating it up into place and trimming it until you have a nice snug fit. It wouldn't get in your way either, as being adhere'd to the stock plate it'd rotate out of the way every time you opened it up (say for a quick spring change).

 

I'm not saying you'd suffer a catastrophic failure, because obviously the spring guide cannot rotate out of axis and cause the spring to bind laterally and rip up the internals, since the spring guide is located by the cylinder bore itself. But I am saying that over time, as that pin takes one thousand two hundred percussions per minute there's going to be wear on the pin axle or support, which would create slop. Leading possibly to lower power over time or increased piston tooth/gear tooth wear as the play increased. This is all conjecture and could be overly cautious.

 

Call it Cheap insurance?

Edited December 31, 2005 by Hillslam

[staticzero]

The piece in question itself on the MkII is metal though, not plastic, and I believe is a common part between the MkII stock and the para, so I would surmise the para is the same.

Checkout the Para stock on CA's site: http://www.classicarmy.com/product-popup.jsp?productid=413

 

It doesn't appear that it's a shared part based on those pictures. I'll have to take a close look at a Para next time they're back in stock at AEX.

 

However, it may indeed be a case of good engineering by accident on CA's part.

That's my thinking. One thing I do wonder, how is the TOP MkII stock designed? Is the CA a direct copy? Since the TOP gearbox is very different, it would lend credence to the 'accident' theory. Based on this picture at least, it looks the same: http://www.wgcshop.com/pcart/shopper.php?i...KIISS_srch_M249

 

I may be being overly cautious, but were it my gun on the Star, I would put something there, say even some foam or something: glue or stick it to the front of the stock's plate and then keep rotating it up into place and trimming it until you have a nice snug fit. Cheap insurance?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nothing wrong with being cautious, I just like to avoid starting any unnecessary fire drills. At least in the case of the L2 position in the Star it would be fairly simple to get a length of ABS or even wood rod in the correct diameter to fit in the gearbox behind the retainer, cut it to length, and drill a hole for the pin to go through to keep it in position.

 

I'm going to leave it unsupported in mine, for the sake of seeing how it stands the test of time and use. I'm using a pretty srong spring and a very powerful battery - I think it'll be a good test of it's durability.

Edited December 31, 2005 by staticzero

[birddog]

The TOP MKII stock attachment point is similar in design to the CA.

 

btw......I own both.

[BigMatt]

Hey, just wondering if you could tell me if that Tapco grip fit on your Star M249 Para OK. I saw something about it before I was getting ready to order mine but didn't se anybody saying whether it worked or not. Thanks for all the work and the info on the Star 249!

 

http://www.tapco.com/product_information.a...dept=40&last=40

 

Oh, and if it did work can you tell me what makes it better than the stock one?

[Gundrosen]

I need some help!

 

How do you remove the handguard from the M249?

 

*Edit, I checker the manual and figured it out

 

But does anyone know if the ones that fit on TOP fits on STAR?

I found a store that has them in stock

Edited January 4, 2006 by Gundrosen

[staticzero]

Hey, just wondering if you could tell me if that Tapco grip fit on your Star M249 Para OK.  I saw something about it before I was getting ready to order mine but didn't se anybody saying whether it worked or not.  Thanks for all the work and the info on the Star 249!

 

http://www.tapco.com/product_information.a...dept=40&last=40

 

Oh, and if it did work can you tell me what makes it better than the stock one?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There was a post in this thread where it was reported that it fit no problem. I ordered one but it hasn't arrived yet. I'll confirm that it works after I have mine.

 

It's better because:

1. Better material (better feel, more durable)

2. It has a tool compartment (somewhere to keep an allen key for hop adjustment for example)

 

I need some help!

 

How do you remove the handguard from the M249?

 

*Edit, I checker the manual and figured it out

 

But does anyone know if the ones that fit on TOP fits on STAR?

I found a store that has them in stock

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Based on my observations I think they may fit with a little modification (screw holes are in a slightly different spot). There's no way to know for sure without trying it though.

 

On the topic, I checked out a G&G lower RAS at AEX last week. I was hoping to find a way to make it work with the Star M249. It looks like it may be possible to use it but significant, irreversible modification would be required (a significant hunk of the body would need to be removed). I'd like to checkout a G&P RAS as well. I elected not to go forward with the project at this time, based on my observations.

Edited January 4, 2006 by staticzero

[WarMonger]

I have recently ordered a g+p RAS for my star saw.

 

a large section on the bottom of the reciever is going to need to be removed, and reshaped to make the reciever flat along the bottom. i'm not worried about doing irreversible modifications, i dont plan on using the stock handgrip and bipod ever again after i get the RAS on.

 

i'm also working on some kind of custom heatshield. that upper RAS thing looks disgusting in my opinion, especially together with a lower RAS. i want it to look like the m249 "SPW" in this picture. Just need star to release that 100 round cloth mag already.

 

i'll be sure to take lots of pictures and keep you all filled in on the process.

Edited January 5, 2006 by WarMonger

[Gundrosen]

Are the frontgrip parts plastic or metal in RS?

I was reading through a CA M249 Review that they were plastic, and I thought CA was pretty colse to RS

[wasted__youf]

There already is one. It's called the CA249 by Classic Army. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Very helpful.

[staticzero]

I have recently ordered a g+p RAS for my star saw.

 

a large section on the bottom of the reciever is going to need to be removed, and reshaped to make the reciever flat along the bottom. i'm not worried about doing irreversible modifications, i dont plan on using the stock handgrip and bipod ever again after i get the RAS on.

Any reason you chose the G&P? Also, where did you get it? It's out of stock at all the HK shops I've checked so far.

 

One thing I'd look out for is that once you dremel off the bottom block mess, the remaining hole may be just slightly too long for the RAS's 'clamps' to reach both ends (assuming the G&P attaches the same way as the G&G). You may need to come up with a solution to that problem.

 

I don't care about being able to use the original grip plates again either but the bipod I will likely use. This is partly why I was leaning towards the G&G RAS, it comes with the bipod catch attachement.

 

I mostly decided against it for now because it was looking like a lot of work to do it properly with a large risk of ruining the body if I screwed up. Hence, back to the drawing board. I'm hoping the G&P RAS has more favorable measurements or a more flexible mounting system. I think I've come up with a few ideas that could work either way though.

i'm also working on some kind of custom heatshield. that upper RAS thing looks disgusting in my opinion, especially together with a lower RAS. i want it to look like the m249 "SPW" in this picture. Just need star to release that 100 round cloth mag already.

That's what I'd like to emulate as well. It would be nice if that part was available or there was otherwise a solution to this. Of course, the body lacks the slots that it attaches to, you'd have to add them somehow).

i'll be sure to take lots of pictures and keep you all filled in on the process.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please do. And if you could provide pictures and measurements of the G&P RAS I'd appreciate it.

Are the frontgrip parts plastic or metal in RS?

I was reading through a CA M249 Review that they were plastic, and I thought CA was pretty colse to RS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Plastic. They need to be able to insulate your hand from heat. It would be silly for them to be metal.

Edited January 5, 2006 by staticzero

[WarMonger]

after lots of searching i found the ras at airsofttroops.com a hong kong retailer.

 

I chose the G+P ras because it comes with two rail covers and a foregrip, and its still cheaper than the G+G for some reason, although it looks nearly identical to me.

 

as for the big hole in the bottom of the reciever, i'm going to take the flat panel from the bottom block mess and "weld" it into that hole, leaving it open would leave the reciever very flimsy, i might add some kind of structure to the inside as well to make it more solid depending on how it feels.

 

the stock bipod has never really came in handy for me, actually it gets in my way sometimes. but i did want a bipod so i ordered one of those "grip-pods" the foregrip with the spring loaded bipod that pops out of the bottom.

 

for that heatshield, i was think about using a peice of exhaust tubing split down the middle, and drill the holes in it. or ever start with a flat sheet, drill the holes in it, then roll it into a half cylinder. (i have access to alot of tools). Then i could spot weld those clips on, or make it clamp on the barrel somehow like the stock heatshield. I'm also going to cut those slots in the reciever on a milling machine. i'm just going to have to be very careful not to mangle the whole reciever.

 

the parts should be here in a week or less, we will see..

[staticzero]

There are differences in the design. For example, the G&P has a mysterious slot on the bottom. It's also black where as the G&G is grey. Also, there are more mounting screws (three as opposed to two based on photos) for whatever reason. I suspect the mounting system may be different. Plus, the G&P has KAC markings which is nice. But since I have spare rail covers and grips and the G&G comes with the bipod clip thing, I wanted to go with the G&G. However at this point based on what I know I think I'll get the G&P. I'll see how I like using the bipod with the zip tie slider retention method, otherwise I'll remove it and just share the bipod that's on my SR25 right now.

Edited January 5, 2006 by staticzero

[Hetzer]

I don't know if somebody has already mentioned it - if yes, I'm sorry for the unecessary post, but I couldn't get myself to read through all the pages in this thread for this.

 

I also think that a gearbox constructed out of PC instead of metal can withstand at least the same shock, but what I find quite funny is that Star, after praising their "plastic-gearbox"'s durability and design, released a steel gearbox for their M249 which is "suitable for high power upgrades". Of course I'm aware that it's just an additional revenue, but isn't it a bit contra-productive (when it comes to creditability), to release two products that are inconsistent with one another in terms of purpose/intention?

 

By the way, in case you haven't seen it yet, you can find the gearbox here for example.

Edited January 5, 2006 by Hetzer

[staticzero]

I don't think it's steel. I've never seen it written anywhere that it is anyway. It's probably potmetal like most other gearboxes and it probably only exists to appease the ignorant people out there who simply think plastic=bad.

 

On the topic of the RAS: I emailed a few places to check on stock already but airsofttroops.com had it listed on their site as in stock so I went ahead and ordered one. I'm looking forward to gettting it and working out the best way to make it work.

[WarMonger]

I don't think it's steel. I've never seen it written anywhere that it is anyway. It's probably potmetal like most other gearboxes and it probably only exists to appease the ignorant people out there who simply think plastic=bad.

 

On the topic of the RAS: I emailed a few places to check on stock already but airsofttroops.com had it listed on their site as in stock so I went ahead and ordered one. I'm looking forward to gettting it and working out the best way to make it work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

whatever you do, make sure you reinforce the reciever somehow when you remove that box section, if you've already had the gun stripped down to the reciever, then you know how flimsy it is, but i think you already know this.

 

airsoft troops took a couple days to e-mail me thier final sales quote so dont worry. the total with shipping came out to $110.

 

i think your right about that metal gearbox. There are alot of naive people out there who won't buy one because the gearbox is made of "plastic". They probably released it in hopes of increasing sales by giving the non-believers an alternative.

 

static did you see the foregrip bipods on airsoft troops home page, what do you think of those?

 

oh, and doesn anyone have any idea when star is going to release that 100rnd box mag, its been on thier coming soon list forever now.

Edited January 5, 2006 by WarMonger

[staticzero]

Here are a couple plans I've come up with so far for the RAS installation process.

 

whatever you do, make sure you reinforce the reciever somehow when you remove that box section, if you've already had the gun stripped down to the reciever, then you know how flimsy it is, but i think you already know this.

Yeah I know what you mean. I don't think it will be that bad, honestly. There are supports in there. I do have some ideas for reenforcing it though. I was thinking I'd cut some ABS rod or tube to lay in there horizontally and then epoxy it in place. I won't know exactly what I'm going to do until I have the RAS in hand.

airsoft troops took a couple days to e-mail me thier final sales quote so dont worry. the total with shipping came out to $110.

Could it have to do with the holiday? They were likely closed 1/1 and 1/2.

 

$110 sounds good, a little much but about what I expected. Still better than getting it locally (if I could).

static did you see the foregrip bipods on airsoft troops home page, what do you think of those?

Eh, I'm not a fan. Clever idea though.

oh, and doesn anyone have any idea when star is going to release that 100rnd box mag, its been on thier coming soon list forever now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No idea. I'm hoping other colors will be available though. I don't really want woodland cammo.

[WarMonger]

i,m going to put a panel in place of that hole one way or another. the gun is going to flex really easy while holding a foregrip i think. besides, we're going to need something to put the RAS attachment screws through.

 

you know those foregrips do look kinda silly with the bipod out, but it'll be inside the foregrip for the most part, then when i need it, i hit the button, and out springs the bipod. solves my bipod problems anyway, i still want to have a bipod, but folding bipods kinda get in my way. i can only recall one time i actually used the stock bipod in the process of shooting someone, i just move around too much.

 

it looks cool popping out, check out the video here.

http://www.grippod.com/

 

I was going to get a plastic welder, but i'm not spending 130 bucks on one. besides, i cant figure out what kind of filler rods to use. star says the gun is made from nylon farbic, yes farbic, whatever the hell that is. they dont make filler rods for it though. I'm going to use some industrial plastic adhesive called E-6000, hardcore stuff.

 

i ordered it after the holiday, so i think they are just slow. maybe just for me, you'll find out. 110 is a little high, but you'll pay around 100 for one at a domestic retailer, if any of them had it in stock.

 

i'm not a big fan of the woodland camo ammo pouch either, i'd prefer black, or OD green or something.