Jump to content


Kwa m4 tactical


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 hammer

hammer

    Enthusiast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 85 posts
  • Location:Pi

Posted 26 June 2008 - 02:51 PM

Good Day! I recently purchased an m4 tactical, I think this is the newer version I got because of the markings present unlike the 1st release that has KWA markings instead of the "semper fidelis", can anyone verify if I got the newer version? :)

Another question, what is the inner barrel length 4 the tactical and what is the stock diameter of the barrel (is it 6.05mm)? Im planning to use a 6.02 or 6.03mm barrel

thanks

#2 hammer

hammer

    Enthusiast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 85 posts
  • Location:Pi

Posted 26 June 2008 - 08:21 PM

anybody?

#3 karMeister

karMeister

    Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:a small hole under a rock =P
  • Interests:EAR=((1+APR/n)^n)-1
  • Country:

Posted 26 June 2008 - 09:31 PM

View Posthammer, on Jun 26 2008, 08:21 PM, said:

anybody?


Yes, I have the same version. The newer version is said to be better than the last one with the KWA as the markings.
Im not impressed on the new markings. CA type markings would be nice instead of the printed markings. I think thats the only downside of the KWA. It makes it look like a Dboys Lowend AEG.


yes the diameter is 6.05 stock.

#4 hammer

hammer

    Enthusiast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 85 posts
  • Location:Pi

Posted 26 June 2008 - 09:37 PM

Honestly im not really into markings, Id even like it if it has the KWA markings. Im so happy with the performance of this gun, I can hit a coke in can 80ft away with the help of my 4x acog..now im wondering what more I could get if I upgraded to a 6.03mm tightbore :)

#5 hammer

hammer

    Enthusiast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 85 posts
  • Location:Pi

Posted 27 June 2008 - 08:54 AM

any other replies from KWA mods?

#6 rdlu62

rdlu62

    Enthusiast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Location:Northridge, California

Posted 27 June 2008 - 12:05 PM

View PostkarMeister, on Jun 26 2008, 10:31 PM, said:

Yes, I have the same version. The newer version is said to be better than the last one with the KWA as the markings.
Im not impressed on the new markings. CA type markings would be nice instead of the printed markings. I think thats the only downside of the KWA. It makes it look like a Dboys Lowend AEG.


yes the diameter is 6.05 stock.

My M4 Tactical and M4A1 has the KWA markings.

Do you have any info what they made better on the new ones? Did they make it better or did they corrected flaws in the older ones?

#7 hammer

hammer

    Enthusiast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 85 posts
  • Location:Pi

Posted 27 June 2008 - 01:41 PM

View Postrdlu62, on Jun 27 2008, 12:05 PM, said:

My M4 Tactical and M4A1 has the KWA markings.

Do you have any info what they made better on the new ones? Did they make it better or did they corrected flaws in the older ones?

I dont have news yet, mods please update us the changes (aside from the markings) if theres any. Full updated gun specs appreciated.

#8 Beer.N.Gin

Beer.N.Gin

    Enthusiast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 35 posts
  • Location:In the shadows...

Posted 02 July 2008 - 10:08 PM

Inner barrel length for the tactical is 394mm.

#9 karMeister

karMeister

    Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:a small hole under a rock =P
  • Interests:EAR=((1+APR/n)^n)-1
  • Country:

Posted 03 July 2008 - 09:21 AM

View Posthammer, on Jun 27 2008, 01:41 PM, said:

I dont have news yet, mods please update us the changes (aside from the markings) if theres any. Full updated gun specs appreciated.


The one with KWA markings is said to have more problems..broken gear boxes etch. The one with the marines logo is said to be an improved version.  



http://www.filairsof...ead.php?t=28100

#10 Guest_Radix_*

Guest_Radix_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 July 2008 - 09:56 AM

Markings Demystified:

Blank receiver with removable KWA decal = LE training rifles
"KWA Corporation" = Earlier release
"KWA" = Later release
"Marine" = ROW (rest of the world) models (All releases)

All versions with exception to the LE training rifles are identical, there is absolutely no truth in saying one is better or one is more prone to breakage.

#11 karMeister

karMeister

    Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:a small hole under a rock =P
  • Interests:EAR=((1+APR/n)^n)-1
  • Country:

Posted 03 July 2008 - 12:13 PM

Thanks Radix!

Im puzzled cause a part of this thread said something  about some improvement on the KWA m4 with the Marines logo compared to the one in the "bites the dust" review (which had tha KWA logo)

http://www.filairsof...ead.php?t=27073



Spetsnaz;236738 said:

Yeah, incredible is an overstatement.

I agree, the KWA gearbox won't beat the tougher ICS upper gearbox.  (My ICS upper has been chugging since 2004)

Great after sales support though.  Uncle Jim also said that if the KWA gearbox prematurely breaks, he's gonna replace it.  


Notice that the sector gear on his photo is different from mine?
Posted Image
Posted Image

I think the KWAs we have here are the newer version.  The upper receiver rails accepts all optics, carry handles and rear sights I can get my hands on in my shop, unlike in the SoCAl review.  

I still believe the KWA pistons are good.  Piston pictured in the review looks like the gun had a jammed bb.

Anyone tried an M100 spring, lipoly, STU, Angel polycarb piston setup?  I have.  Three rounds and the piston is gone.  High RoF is a real piston killer.  Even Deepfire pistons with titanium coating on teeth won't last long with a high RoF setup.

Btw,  I used to be an ICS purist but I decided to carry KWA M933s in my shop.  PM me if you want one. Hehehe. :D

Edited by karMeister, 03 July 2008 - 12:17 PM.


#12 Guest_Radix_*

Guest_Radix_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 July 2008 - 01:21 PM

It's true, the M4 in the review is probably the latest "built" but I wouldn't consider them as a new "version".   Up to date, there were no revisions to our prints except for the slight dimension change to the top rail on the detachable carry handle mentioned in the review.  We did, however, implemented additional QA procedures to filter out inferior parts.

#13 hammer

hammer

    Enthusiast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 85 posts
  • Location:Pi

Posted 08 July 2008 - 05:55 PM

View PostRadix, on Jul 3 2008, 01:21 PM, said:

We did, however, implemented additional QA procedures to filter out inferior parts.

Great! I have the gun with the better QA hehehe




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users