I don't think I've done this yet, I haven't gone off on a seemingly vicious tirade regarding some paintball related topic on the blog yet so I'm actually going to try and be nice when I do right now so as not piss any readers off. Oh I'm back on the Milsim path again, FYI, I know I was branching off there for awhile but we're definitely back on topic talking about all things that are meant to look black, brown, and green. I digress... I call this the “Not Real Enough Part One” Rant because I know there will be more realism posts in the future. There is a certain something I bump into on forums in particular that grinds my gears more and more every time I see it and it's so silly... it's aesthetics. Not what owners do to their guns but the way the markers come from the manufacturer.
 |
| TPN Bravo One |
 |
| BT Omega |
 |
| Milsig Commando |
 |
| RAP4 T68 |
 |
| Real Life Colt M4 |
There's too many complaints to tackle at once, or perhaps ever so I'll mention the most common one I encounter, especially with Milsigs and other assault rifle Milsim markers: gaps between magazine wells and triggers. There are a lot of stocks and front ends that look and feel delightful, and barrel wise most tactical marker manufacturers do a really good job of making a barrel that looks and performs well given the .68 calibre parameters they have to work with. Receiver-wise though things aren't always so great and some people just can't be reasoned with. I can't address every issue that every receiver has which makes nay-sayers say nay, but every Milsim marker receiver has one of three problems which haven't effectively been worked around yet. One and two are closely related: if you manage to rig the marker so that mag well and trigger are smack together like on the real thing, you end up with (1) a whole length of extra marker receiver hanging off the front or (2) hanging off the back. In the case of the BT Omega it's particularly pronounced at the front, less so on the TPN Bravo One, and it can be seen at the back of the RAP4 T68 (Images below for your reference). With Milsigs and souped up Tippmann A5's and 98 Customs, there is a gap between the trigger and mag well and no extra receiver hanging off the back or front. What you gain is return is another spot for air supply in that spot, though not on the C98. Look to the left and you can see all the markers I'm talking about as well as the actual Colt M4and can decide for yourself what looks most real. Keeping in mind of course that ll of these markers can be mag fed with the new Tacamo receiver modification kits. I have to say that I'm really partial to the Milsig design, and I'm not saying that just because I own one. You can run an air through stock or air in stock system, and if that's not your cup of tea you can connect your air directly to the bottom of the power tube between the mag and trigger or run a steel braided bottom line to connect your air on the back of the pistol grip. Not even the Tippmann A5 offers that many options for air connections.
What's really mind boggling about aesthetic and realism complaints is when they come from someone using a hopper fed Milsim-like scenario marker or when a speedballer has something to say regarding realism! I've been on the receiving end of this treatment before: “Nah, that gun doesn't look real enough, I'll do it right or not do it at all. 'Scuse me while a fling some ropes of balls, bro.” Wow, just wow. I have nothing against hopper-ballers, having a hopper on your gun means nothing to me at all and I'd hate for anyone to think I'm being an elitist and saying if you don't run magazines you're not Milsim. Tac-cap, 200 round, Rotor or Prophecy, it's all great as long as you're playing and having a good time but I have to grimace and roll my eyes when someone lectures me on how real my M-Series Paradigm ISN'T while they walk onto the field with a TM-15 which has no gap between the trigger and *fake* magazine, and more paint than I shoot in a day.
Muffin, I'm sorry it's not real enough for you, but until you become a wiz kid with pneumatics and deliver your proof of concept Milsim marker, could you maybe keep the arrogant aesthetics critiques to yourself? I'm not calling anyone on the Milsig forums out here, 99% of the guys who have made the comment there I have a lot of respect for and they haven't let this hinder them in buying a Milsig. The only reason this bothers me is because I really have encountered hyper anal milsimmers, speedballers, and airsofters who make aesthetics the most important factor in a purchase and disregard performance. It's so phenomenally unimportant.... missing that gap between the mag-well and trigger guard still makes you less intimidating than a clever new player with a rental gun.
Well said.
ReplyDeleteI've walked onto my field and you could have a guy with a TM-15 or what not and not gauge too much interest but I walk past a couple people with either my Milsig M-Series or my Pump with Rosewood grips and it gets attention and people would be like "I want him on my team!".
Cosmetics only work to an extent and sometimes, I thought the whole point of cosmetics (If we're on that topic) is to show to others!.
If you're only ego-boosting oneself, they're setting a trap to shoot themselves in the own foot.
Same thing about the tactics and such.
I've held off people on a king of the hill game with nothing but 6 renting kids. (agasint a group of 10 maybe?).
Just simply tactics and knowing the angles (granted you'd have to play a while at the field to understand that but thats where a leader comes from).
Take a look at some of the electronic internals and how tiny they are.
ReplyDeleteNow take a look back at all of the above paintball guns. There is no excuse for making a receiver that is not practically 1:1 to whatever it is mimicking. The hanging receivers are because the internals are large, old, and outdated. If you applied some of that awesome tech in speed ball guns, and fit it inside say, an airsoft shell, there is your 1:1 gun.
It seems like a lack of effort on the developers part in not making 1:1 receivers and stuff. The only thing I can excuse is the magazine (and thus, mag well) size, but only because that really is a difficult thing to do.
But not really, if we started using shell-casings and maybe improved upon the .68 round that's been used forever, we could have much more accurate paintballs (think, first strike) that look like bullets, and with the hard shell casings can be manipulated like bullets and, thus, we can apply real-world loader technology to up the ammo capacity while decreasing the size of the mag, to make it more realistic. The only reason it's hard to make a decent magazine, is because paintballs are soft, squishy, and round, and thus cannot be channeled by force the way real bullets can.