Jump to content


CQR Mod1 vs Mod2


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Iram

Iram

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, TX
  • Country:

Posted 17 June 2014 - 02:31 AM

I'm hoping to purchase one of these guns later today.

Other than cosmetics, is there any significant differences between the CQR Mod1 and CQR Mod2? Does the 4" of extra barrel length cause the Mod1 to shoot at a slightly higher fps (or lower if it's starved for air)?

Any differences internally?

#2 Chuck S

Chuck S

    Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,360 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cleveland, Ohio
  • Country:

Posted 17 June 2014 - 02:57 AM

Data and testing (OK, mostly ads and Youtube videos :) ) I've found shows this pair in the "under 350fps" muzzle velocity range with either length barrel making them CQB or indoor guns.  Surprised me as most 14.5" KM4s run nearly 400fps.

-- Chuck

#3 choochoo

choochoo

    Enthusiast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Country:

Posted 17 June 2014 - 08:28 AM

Both the same gearbox, the MOD1 has a longer inner barrel and outer barrel.  That's where the differences end.  Even though the inner barrel length of the CQR MOD1 is approx 400mm vs. the MOD2 at 287mm, they both use the same ported cylinder.
Posted Image

So, there's less air volume pushing the bb.  hence the lower fps for both the MOD1 and MOD2.  But, then there are some variances.  I've had a MOD1 that shot approx 310fps with 0.20gm bbs and right now I have a MOD2 that shoots 320fps with 0.25gm  bbs, which is like approx 345fps with 0.20gm bbs.  This may be due to a new gun and new spring.  But, I think the cylinder is undervolumed for the MOD1 inner barrel.  I personally would go for the MOD2, since it's more compact, which is good for CQB and has no negative effects for the field.

#4 StealthTaskForce

StealthTaskForce

    Enthusiast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 262 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tampa
  • Interests:Airsoft, Paintball, Sports, My girlfriend, Knives and Real Steel
  • Country:

Posted 17 June 2014 - 08:33 AM

View Postchoochoo, on 17 June 2014 - 08:28 AM, said:

Both the same gearbox, the MOD1 has a longer inner barrel and outer barrel.  That's where the differences end.  Even though the inner barrel length of the CQR MOD1 is approx 400mm vs. the MOD2 at 287mm, they both use the same ported cylinder.
Posted Image

So, there's less air volume pushing the bb.  hence the lower fps for both the MOD1 and MOD2.  But, then there are some variances.  I've had a MOD1 that shot approx 310fps with 0.20gm bbs and right now I have a MOD2 that shoots 320fps with 0.25gm  bbs, which is like approx 345fps with 0.20gm bbs.  This may be due to a new gun and new spring.  But, I think the cylinder is undervolumed for the MOD1 inner barrel.  I personally would go for the MOD2, since it's more compact, which is good for CQB and has no negative effects for the field.

There actually is a couple negative effects on the field. At distances just over 50 feet, I've gotten a lot of fliers in multiple directions, mainly caused by the shorter barrel. In CQB distances are rarely past that 50 or so feet, but in the field it can be a real pain. Yes the Mod 2 is more compact and better for Indoor arenas, but if you plan to play more field games, then I suggest the Mod 1 as it has a longer barrel and a little bit more accuracy.

#5 choochoo

choochoo

    Enthusiast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Country:

Posted 17 June 2014 - 08:54 AM

I have no test data, but based on my game experience with both guns, I found no noticable difference in their accuracy at range (100+ ft).  Use heavier , high quality bbs, at least 0.25gm.  Make sure you clean your barrel and the hop up is adjusted properly.  I usually clean it first with the unjamming rod and a small piece of shop paper towel.  Then I attach the unjamming rod with paper towel to my drill and run it through at low rpms until I get a nice almost mirror like finish.  But with that said, I think the Max effective range for the CQR is about 150ft.  beyond that, you're really having to lob bbs at your target.

#6 StealthTaskForce

StealthTaskForce

    Enthusiast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 262 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tampa
  • Interests:Airsoft, Paintball, Sports, My girlfriend, Knives and Real Steel
  • Country:

Posted 17 June 2014 - 09:17 AM

View Postchoochoo, on 17 June 2014 - 08:54 AM, said:

I have no test data, but based on my game experience with both guns, I found no noticable difference in their accuracy at range (100+ ft).  Use heavier , high quality bbs, at least 0.25gm.  Make sure you clean your barrel and the hop up is adjusted properly.  I usually clean it first with the unjamming rod and a small piece of shop paper towel.  Then I attach the unjamming rod with paper towel to my drill and run it through at low rpms until I get a nice almost mirror like finish.  But with that said, I think the Max effective range for the CQR is about 150ft.  beyond that, you're really having to lob bbs at your target.

As I haven't tested the Mod 1, I won't argue with that, but I CAN attest to the 150 ft range max. I was shooting on my roof to a green electrical box 207 feet away, and aiming at the top of the 3 foot tall box, the BBs were dropping and hitting the bottom. So it's safe to say that at ground level you could shoot straight and hit a man sized target in the chest at ~125 feet.

#7 Chuck S

Chuck S

    Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,360 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cleveland, Ohio
  • Country:

Posted 17 June 2014 - 02:45 PM

What's your mission?  Buy the best equipment you can afford that meets your mission criteria.  A few guys have experienced lower receiver breakage with the plastic versions.

The all metal-receiver -- but more expensive -- 14.5" barrel KM4 pushes 400fps with 0.20g BBs and may be a better choice.

Heavy BBs at the same muzzle velocity travel farther but air resistance still drags velocity down very quickly.  All things the same a BB that starts at 400fps is gonna go farther the one that starts at 300.

-- Chuck

#8 gcw360

gcw360

    Supreme Guru

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,736 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Airsoft (Especially repair and customizing), Fly Fishing, Fossils (Especially Dino), Snakes, Photography
  • Country:

Posted 18 June 2014 - 06:25 PM

View Postchoochoo, on 17 June 2014 - 08:28 AM, said:

Both the same gearbox, the MOD1 has a longer inner barrel and outer barrel.  That's where the differences end.  Even though the inner barrel length of the CQR MOD1 is approx 400mm vs. the MOD2 at 287mm, they both use the same ported cylinder.
Posted Image

So, there's less air volume pushing the bb.  hence the lower fps for both the MOD1 and MOD2.  But, then there are some variances.  I've had a MOD1 that shot approx 310fps with 0.20gm bbs and right now I have a MOD2 that shoots 320fps with 0.25gm  bbs, which is like approx 345fps with 0.20gm bbs.  This may be due to a new gun and new spring.  But, I think the cylinder is undervolumed for the MOD1 inner barrel.  I personally would go for the MOD2, since it's more compact, which is good for CQB and has no negative effects for the field.
The cylinder shown in the picture is the older CQR MODs 1&2.  In this case the gun has an m120 spring.  The latest MOD series has a type one cylinder and an m100 spring.  The FPS is more stable with this cylinder/spring combination.

#9 StealthTaskForce

StealthTaskForce

    Enthusiast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 262 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tampa
  • Interests:Airsoft, Paintball, Sports, My girlfriend, Knives and Real Steel
  • Country:

Posted 18 June 2014 - 07:13 PM

What year did that change gcw?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#10 gcw360

gcw360

    Supreme Guru

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,736 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Airsoft (Especially repair and customizing), Fly Fishing, Fossils (Especially Dino), Snakes, Photography
  • Country:

Posted 19 June 2014 - 06:48 PM

View PostStealthTaskForce, on 18 June 2014 - 07:13 PM, said:

What year did that change gcw?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I believe earlier this year but don't hold me to that.

#11 Iram

Iram

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, TX
  • Country:

Posted 20 June 2014 - 04:01 AM

View PostChuck S, on 17 June 2014 - 02:45 PM, said:

What's your mission?  Buy the best equipment you can afford that meets your mission criteria.  A few guys have experienced lower receiver breakage with the plastic versions.

The all metal-receiver -- but more expensive -- 14.5" barrel KM4 pushes 400fps with 0.20g BBs and may be a better choice.

Heavy BBs at the same muzzle velocity travel farther but air resistance still drags velocity down very quickly.  All things the same a BB that starts at 400fps is gonna go farther the one that starts at 300.

-- Chuck
My "mission" is to have fun, relax, and not have to think about work until the game is over. ;)

My local field is a mix of about 50% village and 50% field. 20ft minimum engagement distance for AEG's shooting 351 to 400, so going with a KM4 would, I think, put me up close to that 400fps number and I'd have to switch to a pistol every time I went inside.

I'm also to replace most of the furnature (ACE entry-lenght stock, MOE handguard, MIAD grip) and sights (Primary Arms Microdot and MBUS) so that my airsoft gun matches the ergonomics of my AR-15 for consistent muscle memory. I already have most of the add-on parts ordered, just trying to decide on what base gun to install them on.

I'm shooting semi only, so I want to stick to NiMH batteries to reduce internal wear and avoid some of the thermal issues I'm hearing about with LiPo batteries.

I can easily come up with the money for a KM4, but I'm concerned about the muzzle velocity and I thought they were rear wired (stock/battery comatibility issues).

I'm thinking the 14.5" AEG would be a closer match to a 16.5" rifle, but the 10.5" AEG would be easier to transport in a traditional gearbag.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Field pictures:
Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

(pictures pulled from the field's website)

Edited by Iram, 20 June 2014 - 04:05 AM.


#12 choochoo

choochoo

    Enthusiast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Country:

Posted 20 June 2014 - 09:35 AM

You're good with either the Mod1 or Mod2.  Just don't expect to engage anyone over 150ft.  The other thing is that you're fairly limited to small lipo batteries because of the limited space of the MOE handguard.  I've tried putting in a 9.6V 1600mAh nunchuck and it wouldn't fit.  You can run a small 7.4V lipo, which shouldn't work your gearbox or trigger contacts too hard.  It'll still have good trigger response and acceptable rate of fire on the CQR.

#13 StealthTaskForce

StealthTaskForce

    Enthusiast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 262 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tampa
  • Interests:Airsoft, Paintball, Sports, My girlfriend, Knives and Real Steel
  • Country:

Posted 20 June 2014 - 09:46 AM

View Postchoochoo, on 20 June 2014 - 09:35 AM, said:

You're good with either the Mod1 or Mod2.  Just don't expect to engage anyone over 150ft.  The other thing is that you're fairly limited to small lipo batteries because of the limited space of the MOE handguard.  I've tried putting in a 9.6V 1600mAh nunchuck and it wouldn't fit.  You can run a small 7.4V lipo, which shouldn't work your gearbox or trigger contacts too hard.  It'll still have good trigger response and acceptable rate of fire on the CQR.

I did read somewhere, (I think it was here) that a 7.4 lipo was about the same as a 9.6 NiMh? Just because the dump rates for the two are the same. Or about the same. So if you ever decided to go with a lipo, go to 11.1. But either way, a 7.4V lipo won't put anymore wear and tear on your gun more than a 9.6V will, and its smaller because of the one less battery.

#14 Pyro_Buster

Pyro_Buster

    Enthusiast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 151 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California
  • Country:

Posted 20 June 2014 - 11:36 AM

If you wanted the metal receivers, you could get a KM4, change out the spring, and rewire the back to fit a 7.4v Lipo in the buffer tube. I know that sounds like a bit more work, but that's what I'm doing to my SR7 and I love that thing.

Btw that field looks legit!!

Edited by Pyro_Buster, 20 June 2014 - 11:37 AM.


#15 Chuck S

Chuck S

    Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,360 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cleveland, Ohio
  • Country:

Posted 20 June 2014 - 02:15 PM

The BOL 1400mAh 11.1v LiPO will easily fit under the magpul handguards.  The NanoTech 1500 20c is a tight fit.  11.1v just spins the motor faster and trigger response is claimed to be quicker.  Only reported problems are high capacity magazine dumps which heat up the motor and gearbox.  If you're simulating your M4 Carbine you know the maximum sustained rate of fire should be kept under 12-15 rpm.  :)

If you're happy with 350fps or under then the short barrel has the advantage of size but unless your AR15 (I assume it's not a real M4 Carbine) has a 10" barrel you defeat the realism part of gun handling.  The 14.5" aeg is much closer and you can fit this barrel on your AR15 if you're willing to permanently affix the flash suppressor.

All about the same overall length:
16"
16"
14.7"
14.5"
Posted Image

Comparing the AEGS:
RM4 (top) 14.5"
KM4C 10" (bottom)
Posted Image

The 10" barrel cheats you out of some handling training, your 16" AR15 carbine is another 1.5" linger than my M4.
KM4C (top) 10"
M4 Carbine 14.5" bottom
Posted Image

-- Chuck

Edited by Chuck S, 20 June 2014 - 02:15 PM.


#16 Iram

Iram

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, TX
  • Country:

Posted 24 June 2014 - 03:53 AM

Thanks for all the awesome pictures Chuck.

At the moment I'm leaning towards the MOD2 and then getting some kind of QD fake suppressor so I can transport a short AEG, and then attach the "suppressor" when I get to the field to get a realistic length.

#17 Chuck S

Chuck S

    Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,360 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cleveland, Ohio
  • Country:

Posted 25 June 2014 - 01:39 PM

Good solution!

A "can" on the muzzzle will bring the overall length out to your 16" AR15's barrel easily.  And unless you're using a "mid length" gas system (like the RM4 and pair of LWRC carbines in the first photo) the sight radius will be constant as well.

The AEG muzzle threads are "backwards" ("righty loosie") compared to the AR15 so take care in fitting the "can." You'll probably need to melt the LockTite as well as remove the lil' Allen screw the first time.

-- Chuck




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users