Hauk Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Classic Army M15VN It's at UNCompany..and looks lovely. Here's the specs: Classic Army M15A1 Vitenam Built Material: Metal & ABS Plastic Magazine Capacity: 190rds (6mm) Barrel Length: 510mm (6.08mm Diameter) System: Electronic Initial bullet speed: 85-105 m/s Battery: 8.4V Large Type (Not Included) Package Includes: AEG, Manual, Magazine Features: -High Performance Motor -Affixed Metal Handle -Metal Hop-Up Chamber -Hi-Cap Magazine (190 Rds) -Easy Disassembly Metal Body -7mm Oily Steel Bushing Gear Box -Real Gun Logo With Serial Number Hauk Link to post Share on other sites
DazJW Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Apparently there's alot of inaccuracy in this and the XM. To be honest, I don't know what they are and I'm not going to work it out (I've got the G&P bits on the way to me), but i'd imagine they're enough to put 'Nam enthusiasts off. Nasty white trades aswell. Still, it's about bloody time. Link to post Share on other sites
Ronin00033 Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Yay, about time! I've been after a metal XM177 for ages (and certainly not wanting to pay $600+ for UN's custom one). Not quite sure about those white trades though... Link to post Share on other sites
Skarclaw Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 I could understand if they were cheaper, but the price difference between them and the wgc custom is small. Link to post Share on other sites
Tommygunn Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 See here and note my post, 6th down: http://www.arniesairsoft.co.uk/forums/inde...=barrel+section Link to post Share on other sites
otherrandomhero Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Already out, look on the page of threads before posting. Link to post Share on other sites
Hauk Posted February 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Ah okay, didn't see that. Hauk Link to post Share on other sites
evilliboba Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 -Real Gun Logo With Serial Number Fugly Armashitte laser logos... WGC M16VN for me still. (When I get the money.) Link to post Share on other sites
Boba_Fett Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Apparently there's alot of inaccuracy in this and the XM. To be honest, I don't know what they are and I'm not going to work it out (I've got the G&P bits on the way to me), but i'd imagine they're enough to put 'Nam enthusiasts off. Nasty white trades aswell. Still, it's about bloody time. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That´s it...after spending 1000 to 1500 $ for vietnam gear and uniform you will hardly save 50 bucks and by this ######....oh wait...and CA suckz After I´ve seen AGM and A&K AEGs I can´t understand what´s so difficult in building good (excellent) copies. Link to post Share on other sites
DazJW Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 WGC M16VN for me still. (When I get the money.) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ditto, ish. I'm off to pick up my G&P body and frontend from Parcelforce this morning. Link to post Share on other sites
samuel Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Old news. Like the idea, its about time someone else started making these but the trades are just yuk! Sam Link to post Share on other sites
Revenge Seeker Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 Apparently there's alot of inaccuracy in this and the XM. To be honest, I don't know what they are and I'm not going to work it out (I've got the G&P bits on the way to me), but i'd imagine they're enough to put 'Nam enthusiasts off. Nasty white trades aswell. Still, it's about bloody time. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> For some reason, every thinks this and the TM M16VN are inaccurate but in truth they are exactly the same as the guns Marines used in Vietnam from 1968-69. Its an early M16A1 with forward-assist and three-prong flash-hider. Nothing's wrong with this gun. Believe me, I know alot about Vietnam ear guns. Just wanted to point this out. No offense. mates. ;D Link to post Share on other sites
olbertus Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 I will second what you said ARVN, sometimes the nitpicking goes a little too for and I am totally unconvinced that many of the people on these forums know enough about real steel weapons (especially ones like this, which is basically a rare antique) to be an authority. The trades may be innacurate but who the hell cares as these are after all, at the end of the day, just toys. I mean the bottom lines is it IS pretty accurate, from the way people gripe you would think that CA were turning out some crude approximation of the real weapon and that is simply not the case Also, it is not that out of place to have Armalite's name on this weapon as the designation AR originally stood for Armalite Rifle and this is the company Eugene Stoner worked with in the M16's original development, so if any companies logo should be on the weapon from this era, it should be Armalite's. Link to post Share on other sites
Guinness Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 For some reason, every thinks this and the TM M16VN are inaccurate but in truth they are exactly the same as the guns Marines used in Vietnam from 1968-69. Its an early M16A1 with forward-assist and three-prong flash-hider. Nothing's wrong with this gun. Believe me, I know alot about Vietnam ear guns. Just wanted to point this out. No offense. mates. ;D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think that is what the disagreement is about I believe it's focused on the Armalite trademarks, so if someone can produce a photo or record of an M16 sporting those trademarks in use by US forces, I think we could wrap this whole thing up. Here is a great resource page for all things M16- ...I can't wait for the "Forward pistol grips were used in the 'Nam??" comments Believe me, no one would be more ready to grab one of the CA's to use in their 'Nam loadout than me- but since what I and many others do is try to be as 'historically' and visually accurate as possible to attempt to re-live that period, I suppose white, Armalite trademarks are indeed off-putting to us. Slainte! -G Link to post Share on other sites
screamin_weasel Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 over on the ascuk 'nam bit, the trades are the main bone of contention. to me, the rest of the gun looks perfect. i only assume the trades should be plain old 'colt ar-15' ones because thats what it says on my car 15. Link to post Share on other sites
Tommygunn Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 So no one read my post above then? http://www.arniesairsoft.co.uk/forums/inde...=barrel+section Add to the list: Still using Allen bolts to retain the receiver pins Stock swivel XM barrel definitely too fat. Should be thinner than the thinnest part of flash hider. M16 barrel, again, is too fat under the foresight. Should be slimmer but not as slim as the main part of the barrel. Secondary: Shouldn't have the molded guard around the mag button or forward assist if an M16. Very few M16A1's, mostly early, had the three prong flash hider. You could therefore consider CA's attempt as a transitional model. Info: The CA M16A1 flash hider is actually 2nd gen. The first three prong flash hider had prongs which were parallel with an outer diameter approximately the same as the tapered end of the 2nd gen. Birdcage flash hiders came in during 1967 when the M16A1 was finalised . Now you either give a monkeys or you don't about realism, so take the above as educational info. Link to post Share on other sites
Agent Hunk Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 The stocks on both rifles are also incorrect. The A1 and VN stocks were 1 inch shorter. And the XM didnt have a 6 position. Link to post Share on other sites
nightfire6 Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 Yawn, CA can't even make a good effect on just the small changes they have to make. Is it so difficult? They've been making armalites for god knows how long, shouldn't they be right on with this stuff? Link to post Share on other sites
Elias Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 Secondary: Very few M16A1's, mostly early, had the three prong flash hider. You could therefore consider CA's attempt as a transitional model. Many rifles were recycled and put back together with completely different lowers. It was easy to see the tulip flash hider on a much later lower receiver Info: The CA M16A1 flash hider is actually 2nd gen. The first three prong flash hider had prongs which were parallel with an outer diameter approximately the same as the tapered end of the 2nd gen. that'd be the "duckbill" flash hider <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to post Share on other sites
Skarclaw Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 I'm not to fussed by the really small details, but I know that G&P externals are just so much better then the CA, and the wgc custom is just a little more expensive. Link to post Share on other sites
screamin_weasel Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 as above, knowing that the WGC custom with G&P externals is just a fraction more expensive, anybody would be stupid to ignore it over this CA one. on the other hand, a player with the level of 'namness' i have - basic camo and webbing and guns - would probably be extatic to pick up a CAm15vn second hand or on the cheap or soemthing. Link to post Share on other sites
Crazy_Harry Posted February 12, 2007 Report Share Posted February 12, 2007 For UK softers, I'd agree with you S_W, but in the US at least, WGC will botch the trademarks up anyway before shipping it over- plus, again, you have to remember that Spartan Imports currently have Classic army stuff so competitively priced that it makes no sense to buy from HK over a US retailer- its actually CHEAPER to buy in the US than to have a CA shipped over and risk customs charges. Link to post Share on other sites
Jimisin73 Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 OK I'm no expert when it comes to the historical accuracy of this model, however, I did get the opportunity to lay my hands on the actual gun today and frankly I was highly impressed. I didn't get the opportunity to fire it, but the fit and finish was excellent and for the price here in the states, if I was in the market for another M16 varient I'd say it's well worth the cash... Link to post Share on other sites
Jimisin73 Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 OK I'm no expert when it comes to the historical accuracy of this model, however, I did get the opportunity to lay my hands on the actual gun today and frankly I was highly impressed. I didn't get the opportunity to fire it, but the fit and finish was excellent and for the price here in the states, if I was in the market for another M16 varient I'd say it's well worth the cash... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.