Jump to content

Classic Army CA36C


Recommended Posts

I believe it's the finished product because other parts of the world already got the finished product (there's no reason for CA to send the US some more prototypes). Check your local airsoft store, or places like airsoftgi.com They are priced at $295 apiece.

 

K thx for clearing that up

Link to post
Share on other sites
I got to handle CA's G36 yeseterday, and I must say, I was impressed with the quality. Can't say anything about the internals, but externally (minus trademarks), it was impressive.

*screen-grabs post of Antagon praising a CA product and an AEG as well! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess what I'm looking for is proof.  Any company can market their parts as "reinforced".

 

What makes the piston, piston head, and gear set better?  Without life testing in direct comparison to the TM parts, I am unsure how a definitive statement such as that can be made.  Especially when my experience with a "reinforced" CA steel gear set stripped in less than 1000 rounds in a brand new gun, whereas I have numerous TM stock gears in guns that lasted thousands upon thousands of rounds, with equivalent springs to the aforementioned CA AEG.

 

What makes the TM parts "not as good"?  Visual inspection? 

 

The only advantage I'm seeing thus far is 7mm metal bushings.

 

Any comparison of internals is a purely personal opinion.. as is the entire review. I prefer the CA reinforced parts to the TM standard units. The only way to truly compare the two sets for reliability would be to set the gears head to head in long term tests, however this would again be a false test in my opinion.

 

..the only REAL way to compare and accurately weigh up the advantages and quality of the CA "reinforced" gearset to the standard TM unit in a real world scenario would be to set up a number of gearboxes and basically fire them until failure. This is because gearbox failure is not just down to the physical strength of the components, but down to wear, tollerance, construction and assembly procedures. That is sadly beyond the realms of a review for this site.

 

TM gearboxes are built to withstand at least 100,000 cycles (at least that was their benchmark a few years back) before failure, however their internals are not built to be servicable or upgradable.

 

In my opinion the gearset and piston provided by CA is an improvement upon the TM equivalent, and will outlast a standard TM set when submitted to the same overall strains. The same gearset and mechbox internals were used in the CA HK33 which has had glowing reports regarding reliability so far.

 

If you can think of a scientific test that is plausable and possible to compare the two sets (preferably one that doesn't involve complete destruction of two or more AEGs) please do let me know and I'll do them.

 

I could setup a stock TM gearbox and a CA gearbox along side each other, and run both of them until they fail if that's what's asked of me.

 

At the end of the day, if you're worried that the internals are not better than the TM equivalent the choices are:

a) buy the TM G36C AEG.

B) by a CA 36C from a local supplier that provides a reliable warranty and service so that you can take it back for repair should the unthinkable happen.

c) wait for feedback to come in from multiple users regarding the CA36c's performance and reliability in the field.

 

Current US prices (looking at Airsoft GI) set the CA model as about 10USD more than the TM equivalent. The CA is in my opinion better built and looking than the TM and coming with a hicap magazine offers better value. .. have to admit though I was expecting the CA version to be the same price or cheaper than the TM.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not yet, but I'm working on it :P (2 years of law school down, 1 more year and the bar exam left to go).

 

And I agree, you would THINK that gun companies would see airsoft in the US as a benefit. Still, concerns about inferior products being associated with your name (like a lot of the Taiwanese ######) and the fact that US airsoft is largely marketed to juveniles (bad PR for gun companies in the US), I can see how they might be a bit troubled. Also, I know Glock is VERY serious about trademark and copyright protections - I still remember the huge copyright infringement suit they brought against S&W when S&W released the Sigma series.

 

Just checked with a couple of sources, to the best of my knowledge there's no authorised Glock Airsoft replica in existance.

 

This leads us to the interesting question, that if we take it that they aren't authorised, and that we know that Glock is very persistent when it comes to protecting their name and products, how come the manufacturers making the pistols are allowed to continue?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Any comparison of internals is a purely personal opinion.. as is the entire review. I prefer the CA reinforced parts to the TM standard units. The only way to truly compare the two sets for reliability would be to set the gears head to head in long term tests, however this would again be a false test in my opinion.

 

..the only REAL way to compare and accurately weigh up the advantages and quality of the CA "reinforced" gearset to the standard TM unit in a real world scenario would be to set up a number of gearboxes and basically fire them until failure. This is because gearbox failure is not just down to the physical strength of the components, but down to wear, tollerance, construction and assembly procedures. That is sadly beyond the realms of a review for this site.

 

TM gearboxes are built to withstand at least 100,000 cycles (at least that was their benchmark a few years back) before failure, however their internals are not built to be servicable or upgradable.

 

In my opinion the gearset and piston provided by CA is an improvement upon the TM equivalent, and will outlast a standard TM set when submitted to the same overall strains. The same gearset and mechbox internals were used in the CA HK33 which has had glowing reports regarding reliability so far.

 

If you can think of a scientific test that is plausable and possible to compare the two sets (preferably one that doesn't involve complete destruction of two or more AEGs) please do let me know and I'll do them.

 

I could setup a stock TM gearbox and a CA gearbox along side each other, and run both of them until they fail if that's what's asked of me.

 

At the end of the day, if you're worried that the internals are not better than the TM equivalent the choices are:

a) buy the TM G36C AEG.

B) by a CA 36C from a local supplier that provides a reliable warranty and service so that you can take it back for repair should the unthinkable happen.

c) wait for feedback to come in from multiple users regarding the CA36c's performance and reliability in the field.

 

Current US prices (looking at Airsoft GI) set the CA model as about 10USD more than the TM equivalent. The CA is in my opinion better built and looking than the TM and coming with a hicap magazine offers better value. .. have to admit though I was expecting the CA version to be the same price or cheaper than the TM.

 

Some of this testing is already underway with this guy: http://www.airsoftmechanics.com/

 

However, it will take some time for all the parts to be finished, as this guy is doing it out of his own pocket.

 

I work on all my own guns, so taking it to a repair shop isn't needed. The CA parts I've seen, while not as numerous as "official" shops, were ######. Given their recent history, it would be possible for the quality to have improved, but I'm not putting any stock in that, seeing numerous accounts on various forums that cite CA guns coming in the most often for repair.

 

I'm not saying that the CA36C is a bad option; not at all. What I'm getting at is that I have my doubts that the internals are any better than the TM internals. They have already proven with their MP5 and M16-series bodies (and other external cosmetics) that they have passed TM for out-of-box glitz and flash. The same can't be said for their internals, regardless of personal visual inspection, again based on field performance.

 

And THAT is the problem I am pointing out in your review, in that you definitively say that the internals are better without any solid proof, but rather cite personal opinion. In my opinion, that is irresponsible since people will take that as gospel.

 

If you want proof regarding internal parts, or at least some semblance of testing, I would recommend giving some love to that site linked earlier and also possibly trying to help that guy out. (Note that I am not tied to that guy's site in any way, but he's an engineer, as am I, and his undertaking is something that I see as a positive).

 

Your review, your way of writing it, so rock on. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've arranged this evening to get a TM MK3 box down here to test alongside the CA box complete with a functional test rig.

 

Assuming the heat created inside the gearbox and motor housing through constant use is dealt with properly, I'd expect both boxes to fail after about 3-4hours of constant operation (about 100,000 cycles). Be interesting to see the results too.

 

No worries on the criticism, it's always good to get feedback, as with it I can put things more clearly and provide more useful articles.

 

I think the best clarification of my statements would be: "the CA internals are made to a better spec than the TM equivalent, and if assembled correctly in an AEG should last longer under similar strain.".

 

Thanks for the link, not seen that site before myself, just having a read through their articles. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a side note, I also keep a spreadsheet tracking all the parts in my AEGs by number of rounds.

 

Again Arnie, what info are you basing the comments, "the CA internals are made to a better spec than than the TM equivalent,........" on? Do you have access to their engineering drawings? Without actual material info, finish, and tolerance info, I'm not understanding how they are made to better specs.

 

Kudos on setting up the test possibility. What conditions are you planning? I would think simulating field use might be advisable, in that people typically don't fire 1000 rounds straight through. Perhaps run 75-100 round bursts with short breaks in between? Obivously more time-consuming, but a bit more representative of the usage model.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah like you said gear sets won't be run constantly, they'll be pulsed on and off to reasonably represent normal use, with downtime in between - they'll just overheat and fry otherwise. Peak current draw spikes in the region of 13amps last I plugged a gearbox into metering gear, so constantly left on I'm fairly sure the wiring loom would fry anyway.

 

I'm thinking of something like 5 seconds on, 20 seconds off, but I'll have to program the power packs and test rig for all of that and find the best comprimise. Should be fun to try out anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The production CA36C arrived this morning. I'll be updating things to note all the differences and with a few more shots.

 

Of major note is that it now comes with the two handguard side rails fitted as standard.

 

I've also added the manual to the review which details the fitting of the higher capacity batteries that are available for the CA36C.

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

Thanks for the reference AustinWolv.

 

Yes indeed the testing is underway. I've just yesterday posted some updated results on full metal pistons and testing is continuing on the plastic pistons. It is pretty clear to me that Classic Army's "reinforced" yellow piston is no more reinforced than a standard Marui piston, and my actually be less so, atleast according to my testing. Measurement with a Barber-Colman Impressor also shows the CA piston to be made of the softest plastic material among the test candidates. This is not to say that the CA piston is not fully capable of handling the stresses of a stock CA gun without failure, but compared to the other pistons in my roundup, it is certainly the least capable of handling the conditions of my testing environment.

 

-Jay

www.AirsoftMechanics.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ASCUK forums have a thread warning about the CA G36c: http://www.airsoftcommunity.co.uk/forums/i...showtopic=29496 So is this just a few problem guns in a large production run, or serious concerns which Arnie might not have picked up?

 

Also i do wonder if the equipment supplied for review is "adjusted" to be as good as possible, for as favouable as possible commendation. Or is that my paranoia filtering through from too many drugs in the 70s...

 

Looking forwards to the gearbox tests, and also are we expecting accuracy comparisons between the TM and CA G36c's?

Edited by Zed
Link to post
Share on other sites

The production sample I was sent has a very firm foregrip on it, there's no play on it at all.

 

One way to check if it's a prototype or production version is to check the tabs inside the foregrip (as shown in the review). If there's no stabilization tabs just behind the flashhider it's not the latest build.

 

Given how well the foregrip here fits, and given the tollerances on moulding systems (normally 0.1mm) it seems unlikely that there's a huge variation in build that allows severely loose and severely well fitting grips.

 

It sounds quite possible to me that somehow the chap on ASC has one of the older grips fitted to it.

 

Slayer (on the forums here) has seen the CA36C himself too, so can confirm the strength and build quality of the models here. I've literally swung the entire AEG by the buttplate with the stock folded out, and tried to snap the AEG over my knee, with no breakage.

 

Yup, the people sending the CA36C to me knew where it was going, so it's possible that they sent me the best one possible, however I don't think that's the case personally.

 

I don't happen to personally have access to a TM G36C right now to perform a direct performance comparison test in terms of accuracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 year later...

Can you please tell me:

1- What king of gearbox does the CA36C uses?

2- Is it reinforced enough to handle a M120 spring without any other upgrade, or i must upgrade the whole set (piston, spring guide, piston head, etc.) to fire at 350 FPS with 0.2 BBs? Please be specifc on this, cos i am new to this.

3- I also plan to add a 6.03mm tight bore inner barrel on it to increase its accuracy....is there a proble to do so while it shoots at 350 FPS?

 

Thank you very much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This question would have been more suited to the technical section, this thread predates god, and hasn't had a post for a millennium.

 

1 - It uses a V3 gearbox, however it's not any kind of Royal.

2 - Yes it can handle an M120 and nothing else, however this will give you 400+fps, rather than the 350 you want.

3 - Yes a Prometheus tightbore will give you more accuracy, even at low FPS.

 

To get to the fps you want get an M100, not a 120.

 

 

Ice

Edited by ***Ice***
Link to post
Share on other sites
This question would have been more suited to the technical section, this thread predates god, and hasn't had a post for a millennium.

 

1 - It uses a V3 gearbox, however it's not any kind of Royal.

2 - Yes it can handle an M120 and nothing else, however this will give you 400+fps, rather than the 350 you want.

3 - Yes a Prometheus tightbore will give you more accuracy, even at low FPS.

 

To get to the fps you want get an M100, not a 120.

Ice

 

I thought a M100 spring would get you upto 328 fps? I think you need a M110 spring.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, because Systema and subsequently all other spring manufactures calculate their springs using .25bbs, not .2s. So with a .25s you should get 328fps from a 100, however with a .2, which is the most common round you end up getting about 350, in most cases more.

 

If you only get 328ish from a 100 it means you're losing air pressure.

 

 

Ice

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.