View Full Version : CA M-4 Tactical Carbine
11-25-2003, 04:19 PM
What do ya'll think of this gun? I have heard alot of stuff about the Classic Army M-4's some good some bad. What is your recomendation a TM sr-16, or a CA M-4 Tactical Carbine?
11-25-2003, 04:45 PM
Several people I know have the TM SR-16 (and I believe all of them love it). The classic army m4 I know some people have, but I don't know if they like it or not. TM mostly-all plastic, and the classing army is mostly metal (that I know). Ask around, and talk to some people that have the guns, and look at reviews of them too. You can check here: http://www.floridaairsoft.com/ they have some reviews of the items you seek!
11-25-2003, 05:33 PM
Do you really want MY recommendation? You may not like it. Your question is VERY common; it is covered on this board, on airsoftretreat.com, and airsoftplayers.com quite often. I would recommend you read through the many posts out there.
Here are a few for your reference:
I'll let you read through all that. Then, I'll offer my opinion if it is desired.
11-25-2003, 08:59 PM
Thanks Wolv, I think I made my decision anyways, DOn;t want to run the risk of having another gun break on me, Internally that is so I will go with the more expensive SR-16.
11-25-2003, 11:41 PM
The SR-16 has a fixed stock so that means it can hold large batteries. A bigger battery allows for much longer play time and when you get upgrades, get a big battery because the gun's motor needs a more powerful battery. Another improvement on the SR-16 is the elimination of the frustrating "barrel wobble" in m16s and m4s. Also, it has a R.I.S. or Rail Interface System, allowing for 5 attachments on the barrel such as scopes, flashlights, lasers, etc. It can have a silencer, and has a flip up sight with no carring handle!! The vertical foregrip is supposed to be very manueverable and comfortable while moving! GL! ;)
11-26-2003, 12:18 AM
The CA M15A4 is a good deal if you already plan to swap the internals out, as the rest of the gun has a nice finish to it. I mean, it comes stock with a pretty nice looking metal body, and a one piece barrel. I'm happy with mine, though I replaced every last bit of the mechbox, but that's just the way I am :)
11-26-2003, 12:39 AM
I have personally seen and worked on three CA AEG's that were not working right out of the box. I like the fit and finish of them but the quality is very poor.
11-26-2003, 01:02 AM
I have owned a CA M15A4 tactical for about 7 months now. The first thing I did was throw in a systema M120 spring to get it shooting at around 400FPS.
I have not had a SIGNLE problem with my CA gun and it has seen games in extreme conditions, even a really rainy op we had once.
I don't see why you shouldn't get this over the more expensive SR16.
11-26-2003, 01:47 AM
Alright the only Problem I see with the CA tactical Carbine is this, I will be spending about 380 on it. It has seen limited play and has been owned for 3 years. This places it with CA's older models which worries me. I have heard that CA lacks the quality control and that this gun will be hit or miss wether or not it works. I plan to completly re-vamp whatever gun I get into an airsoft verison of the venerable AR-10. So basicly I am looking for a M-16 platform to create a semi-automatic sniper system. I am worried about getting vorked on this deal, and getting a lemon of a gun. Also I have heard bad things associated with the CA hop-up system...
11-26-2003, 09:09 AM
Why would you pay more for a used gun than a new one? What does it have in it? Why does the seller think it is worth that much?
11-26-2003, 09:13 AM
Starfox, count yourself as one of the lucky ones.
It has seen limited play and has been owned for 3 years.
Your comment here confuses me as the CA M16/M4 line has only been out for about a year, perhaps a little more, but certainly not 3 years.
As Obsidian said, that price seems awfully high, unless there are a whole lot of accessories and upgrades included.
The CA metal bodies are decent, not as clean as Systema or Hurricane bodies for example, but if you can get the gun at a very low price, the CA metal body might be worth it considering you're going to switch out a lot of the parts anyway if I understand you correctly.
11-26-2003, 10:24 AM
That guy must have put alot of work into the CA if he wants a steep 380$ for it, and he probably had to from what I've heard about the crap CA calls a gearbox. Other than their gearboxs CA's sound pretty nice- not great though.
11-26-2003, 10:58 AM
1. Don't buy used AEG's(ESPECIALLY OFF EBAY!)
2. Don't buy CA AEG's(IMO)
I've told Mack this stuff several times, guess he wants to run it through the mill.
11-26-2003, 02:51 PM
coot-Just exploring my options.
The only thing which I desire on this weapon is a Bushmaster fore-end. He has done nothing to this gun except this fore-end and a systema tight-bore barrel. This is the reason I am considering purchasing this gun is because he hasn't touched the internals. I plan on ripping them all out anyways, and replacing them with a Fasttech/systema full Gearbox upgrade.
He claims to have had this gun three years if I remeber it correctly.
I am torn on this subject, I have been weighing these options for about 2 days, and this is what I can come up with.
The total cost of the SR-16 will be: 729 dollars.
The total cost of the Tac. Carbine: 720 dollars.
Pros: So for Nine dollars more I am getting a gun I know will not break. And that has a larger motor.
Pros: For the lesser price I gain a stronger body. If the gearbox is in good condition I can use it to house my new internals saving me 61 bucks that could be spent elsewhere.
Cons: The plastic body will break if I fall on it. I will have to buy somthing to let me run my 20inch barrel through.
Cons: The gun more than likley has a bad hop-up, bad gearbox, bad motor. And I run a better than 50/50 chance of it completely shuttign down on me.
11-26-2003, 03:06 PM
Don't think that having a metal body makes an airsoft gun more resilient; it just makes it more rigid. Plastic bodies will give and bend a little when subjected to stress, perhaps avoiding breakage that way. A metal body won't flex, but will instead break if enough force is applied. Remember that we're not talking about steel or even aluminum here.
11-26-2003, 04:09 PM
Yes, this whole fiasco is due to the lovely Pig Metal found all over my other gun. I have decided what I am going to do. Basicly although the V-match kit on a sr-16 would rock, I don't need it. Since I am gonna completley gut the gun when I get it, the gearbox doesn't matter to me. So I am gonna buy the more economical M-16a2 or M-16a3 this already can house my 20 inch barrel and then all I have to do is slap in my guts and I am ready to rock. Thanks for all your help and information, I feel that I can now make the best decsion for me. And I think a "sleeper" AEG would be kinda cool. I always have had an affinity for scoped m-16's "stock." Well I let ya'll know how this all turns out.
Thanks so much.
BTW: How do you keep a gun from firing full auto? Can the guys at DenTrinity rig my Gearbox to do this? Or should I just jam the selector switch?
11-26-2003, 05:12 PM
1. Spellcheck. Free. No charge.
2. One option is to glue a washer or something similar to the side of the gearbox to block the selector plate from moving all the way back into the full auto position.
11-26-2003, 05:45 PM
-I am trying to improve my "freehand" spelling. Notice, there are only three spelling errors in my above post! :D
So, just glue a piece of metal on the outside of the gun? Will that be acceptable for the sniper weapon regulations ‘round here?
11-26-2003, 05:47 PM
"So, just glue a piece of metal on the outside of the gun?" Sorry, and or on the slector plate...
11-26-2003, 07:35 PM
What better way to improve your spelling than by using the spellcheck to identify your errors and avoid them in the future? ;)
I suppose you could find a way to physically block the selector itself on the outside of the receiver, but I was actually suggesting glueing something to the gearbox itself to prevent the rearward motion of the selector plate.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.