Adolf Hamster
Supporters
- Feb 1, 2018
- 7,057
- 2,229
So I’m normally not the biggest fan of “out of the box” style reviews especially on youtube where the focus seems to be spending 80% of the time discussing how ambidextrous an m4 is followed by some shooting on a 10m range and declaring it to be the greatest thing ever.
Indeed I have another new pew I’d love to review but I’m intentionally waiting until I can answer a couple of questions about it that I know I’d like to see in a review. However unlike a lot of youtube reviews I bought this gun with my own money, and I’m not making any profit by taking the time to write out my thoughts on it and I sure as hell aint getting any commission from any of the manufacturers I’m referencing for comparison.
However, I done bought an lct ak, for the longest time I’ve been of the opinion (by reputation) that lct’s ak’s were the equals to e&l in terms of offering solidly built ak’s made of proper blued steel with respectable internals.
Unfortunately this is an opinion that has changed somewhat, now granted I’m talking about a sample size of 1 here, and we all know Friday afternoon guns exist, and some of the features that bug me are maybe not so big a deal for someone else but I’m going to indulge in a little elitism.
So the version I bought was this:
https://gunfire.com/en/products/g03-nv-assault-rifle-replica-1152198592.html
aesthetic choices aside, I liked the looks of the upper handguard and the right hand folder is ideal for me for both transport and because I like using side-mounted optics and the ability to still fold the stock is of value to me.
Full disclosure, this did need a spring downgrade meaning gunfire’s tech department did crack open the box but I have no reason to believe they messed with anything but the spring so I’m not going to put any blame on them for the issues I’ll be discussing.
So fastforward, I gets a gun.
Out of the box and “hmmm, this isn’t as shiny as I thought it would be”
This is going to be a very hard one to photograph, but fortunately I currently happen to have an e&l 105 which can illustrate for comparison, as a note the assembled gun is the e&l and the disassembled gun is the lct (yes I stripped down a brand new gun):
View attachment 61906
so what you’re looking at there is the dust cover from the lct fitted to the e&l. notice how the bluing on the e&l is, well, blue, and the lct is more of a matt black, it’s much more evident in the flesh compared to photographs.
It’s not a bad finish per-se, and maybe it’ll wear in nicely, but I must admit I really prefer the e&l bluing. The lct’s finish almost looks like the paint you’d find on the lower end guns like jg’s or cyma’s.
Next issue on the externals is this:
View attachment 61908
Now I’m not exactly a markings freak, I’m cool with a gun not having markings, but that really irks me having that etched on the bottom of the receiver, especially when they bothered to actually put markings on the trunnion:
View attachment 61909
Moving on around the externals lets talk about stock fixing, the stock is held on by 2 pegs and a bolt into the rear of the receiver, but take a look at this:
View attachment 61911
Yep, that’s 2.5mm of metal if I’m being generous, not exactly the most robust mounting for a gun stock, fortunately the bolt protrudes quite a way so getting a nut and washer in there to secure it properly won’t be too much of an issue.
There’s also other details, this is kind of a spree of comparing lct and e&l and not really a functional problem, but observe that for things like the trigger guard, sight block, gas block etc which on an ak are either pinned or riveted have bolts on the lct. Now granted this means you can more easily remove them, which is a blessing or a curse depending on how look at it, personally I prefer the proper riveting on the e&l
View attachment 61912
Lct trigger guard with bolts
View attachment 61913
E&l with rivets
e&l sight block with, well I’m not entirely sure how they’ve mounted that, I’m guessing a press fit because there are no screws or rivets holding it on:
View attachment 61918
Lct sight block with screws and pins.
View attachment 61923
Rear sight block where we see our choice of battlesight marking, the e&l appears to be more faithful to the markings on proper sights although I’m not enough of an expert to say that N isn’t also valid.
View attachment 61917
Next is the muzzle device, oh what joys…..
Out of the box it was a bit rattly, no biggie that’s a pretty common one, I’ll just do my usual trick of stuffing o-rings in there until it doesn’t rattle any more….
Well this is where we have a problem, for those unfamiliar with the ak platform the way you remove the muzzle device is you push down a pin and screw it off.
So the e&l we can see the pin is accessible with a fingernail also note how the cutout is rounded so you can poke something in there to pull the pin back:
View attachment 61918
Now contrast that to the lct, ignore the strand of ptfe tape I used to reduce the wobble:
View attachment 61922
What’s not evident from photos is how much of a pain in the ass it is to remove.
The pin is sunk in due to a lack of chamfer on the rear of the brake, meaning you can’t just get a fingernail on it and pull it back, and the square end of the slot meant I couldn’t even get a needle in the gap to push it back to get unscrewing.
Eventually I had to remove the front sight block completely, punch out the pin that holds the back end of the spring, pull the spring out (really awkwardly as it had to go round a 90 degree bend) then tap the whole assembly until the pin had shifted enough to get a needle in and pull it back.
So what should be a 10 second field accomplished job took 20 minutes and a bunch of tools.
The next (albeit minor) bugbear is the thread assembly, this is one of those features that isn’t so bad but it’s a difference so I’ll mention it. E&l’s threads are the coarse Russian threads which are cast as one-piece into the sight block, this means you’re not putting standard 14mm ccw devices on there without an adaptor. The lct setup is similar to the jg’s/cyma’s I’ve seen where the sight block has a 14mm ccw thread, then an adaptor that bulks it out to the Russian style. This is the cause of the wobble however the installation of an o-ring around the smaller thread takes up a lot of that slack.
I’d take pictures of it but that would involve trying to remove the muzzle device again and screw that…..
Ok, so these are the aesthetic features, stuff that’s not really a functional issue at least if you’re not planning on any major modification to the externals.
However there is a bunch of functional stuff.
Lets start with the hop and magwell.
E&l you get a spacer as so:
View attachment 61914
Makes it nice and easy to get the front feed-lip into it’s slot for a speedier reload, not that I’m a tacticool reloading type but it’s a little quality of life feature you also enjoy on jg’s and cyma’s albeit implemented differently.
I haven’t got a photo of the lct’s magwell but it has no such spacer, meaning you’ve got to take a little extra time indexing the mag properly.
Next up is one of the really big bugbears- the hop mounting
So the standard way for pulling the gearbox on a top-wired ak is as such:
1. Remove pistol grip
2. Remove selector lever
3. Unbolt hop
4. Slide hop forwards
5. Gearbox wiggles out the top of the gun
Pretty damn simple and I must say a much nicer process to deal with than say the extended process to pull the box out of an m4.
However, lets do a little comparison:
View attachment 61915
View attachment 61924
Note the “step” in the barrel extension, on the e&l this is about 1.5” forward of the hop mounting, meaning plenty of room to slide forward and clear the nozzle, jg’s and cyma’s are the same although they have various blocks that need to be removed/slid forward to make clearance (and require the nozzle to be in the rear position)
However on the lct you can’t do this, so as far as I can tell it’s not possible to remove the gearbox without pulling the whole goddamn outer barrel assembly off, maybe owners can chime in on this if there’s a trick I’m missing but for the sake of a few more seconds milling time they could have made it so much easier.
Whilst I’m going to reserve judgement on the hop for when I actually fire it, it’s a plastic unit compared to the aluminium unit on the e&l, now plastic hop units aren’t necessarily bad (hence reserving full judgement) for example jg’s white plastic hop units are really good, but the lct’s doesn’t look or feel even as well made as the jg unit, in fact it feels much like the unit you got with the ASCU2 mosfet with the microswitch for last round cutoff, anyone unfortunate enough to own one of those knows exactly what I’m talking about.
So far these are all intentional design features rather than quality control, now we’re straying into the territory where it could be a bad luck Friday afternoon gun but here goes.
The comparison here is again with the e&l although I’m going to also reference jg’s blowback line to highlight the point.
So, the e&l out of the box, plug in a battery “ooh that’s rough sounding”, adjust the motor height screw “ahh that’s better”, a quick general inspection of the box reveals perfect air seal and no reason to mess with things like shimming, aoe etc.
The lct out of the box, plug in a battery “ooh that’s rough sounding”, adjust the motor height screw, nope she still sounds like she ate a bag of gravel.
So pull the box and take a look. For starters the air seal isn’t quite as good as the e&l (although certainly passable) however the real problem is the gears….
I mentioned earlier gunfire’s tech department had already opened the box to downgrade the spring but I have no reason to believe they’d mess with the shimming while in there.
However we find 3 shims total of ~0.3mm
After taking the time to do it properly it needed nearly 1mm of shims on just the sector gear alone and it was a massive pain in the ass getting the gears into a position where they wouldn’t rub against each other or the box. However this didn’t fix the issue, she’s still sounds awful, well here’s why:
View attachment 61925View attachment 61926
It’s kinda hard to see on camera but there’s visible pitting and roughness on the engagement surfaces of the gears.
Sure the faces of the gears are all shiny and machined down, but the actual business end that does the needed job is atrocious. It says a lot that a jg or cyma of 1/3 the cost gets this shit right.
the bevel gear admittedly doesn’t have this roughness, instead it’s such a tight fit to the bearings it needs to be punched out and makes splitting the box a massive pain, although granted once assembled a nice tight fit to the bearings is a good thing.
The motor was rather underwhelming, the e&l, AGM and jg motors have stronger magnets (note that’s listed in order with e&l’s being the strongest, somewhat comparable to the asg basic you get in an evo).
The aoe was also bad, real bad, now whilst I can hear negative airsoft screaming in the background this was way too far forward, a criticism I can’t level at the e&l (mostly due to the e&l using a thicker “silent” type piston head)
Now fortunately in this case I’m no stranger to pulling boxes apart and I’d planned before I’d bought it to change the gearing anyway, but most folk probably don’t expect a brand new and nominally high end gun to merit this kind of tlc. Maybe I’ve got a Friday afternooner, or maybe nuprol’s influence has taken the qc down a few notches, but needless to say it’s not what I was expecting based on my impressions of lct’s reputation up until now.
So here we are, I’m awaiting an ak2m4 order to fix the gearbox issues (hmmmm zci advanced gears…..) and while I’m waiting I figured I’d put it out as a review to explain why in future I’m going to be changing to recommending e&l’s offerings over lct, although granted lct do some models that e&l don’t (like the gun I’m reviewing).
Indeed I have another new pew I’d love to review but I’m intentionally waiting until I can answer a couple of questions about it that I know I’d like to see in a review. However unlike a lot of youtube reviews I bought this gun with my own money, and I’m not making any profit by taking the time to write out my thoughts on it and I sure as hell aint getting any commission from any of the manufacturers I’m referencing for comparison.
However, I done bought an lct ak, for the longest time I’ve been of the opinion (by reputation) that lct’s ak’s were the equals to e&l in terms of offering solidly built ak’s made of proper blued steel with respectable internals.
Unfortunately this is an opinion that has changed somewhat, now granted I’m talking about a sample size of 1 here, and we all know Friday afternoon guns exist, and some of the features that bug me are maybe not so big a deal for someone else but I’m going to indulge in a little elitism.
So the version I bought was this:
https://gunfire.com/en/products/g03-nv-assault-rifle-replica-1152198592.html
aesthetic choices aside, I liked the looks of the upper handguard and the right hand folder is ideal for me for both transport and because I like using side-mounted optics and the ability to still fold the stock is of value to me.
Full disclosure, this did need a spring downgrade meaning gunfire’s tech department did crack open the box but I have no reason to believe they messed with anything but the spring so I’m not going to put any blame on them for the issues I’ll be discussing.
So fastforward, I gets a gun.
Out of the box and “hmmm, this isn’t as shiny as I thought it would be”
This is going to be a very hard one to photograph, but fortunately I currently happen to have an e&l 105 which can illustrate for comparison, as a note the assembled gun is the e&l and the disassembled gun is the lct (yes I stripped down a brand new gun):
View attachment 61906
so what you’re looking at there is the dust cover from the lct fitted to the e&l. notice how the bluing on the e&l is, well, blue, and the lct is more of a matt black, it’s much more evident in the flesh compared to photographs.
It’s not a bad finish per-se, and maybe it’ll wear in nicely, but I must admit I really prefer the e&l bluing. The lct’s finish almost looks like the paint you’d find on the lower end guns like jg’s or cyma’s.
Next issue on the externals is this:
View attachment 61908
Now I’m not exactly a markings freak, I’m cool with a gun not having markings, but that really irks me having that etched on the bottom of the receiver, especially when they bothered to actually put markings on the trunnion:
View attachment 61909
Moving on around the externals lets talk about stock fixing, the stock is held on by 2 pegs and a bolt into the rear of the receiver, but take a look at this:
View attachment 61911
Yep, that’s 2.5mm of metal if I’m being generous, not exactly the most robust mounting for a gun stock, fortunately the bolt protrudes quite a way so getting a nut and washer in there to secure it properly won’t be too much of an issue.
There’s also other details, this is kind of a spree of comparing lct and e&l and not really a functional problem, but observe that for things like the trigger guard, sight block, gas block etc which on an ak are either pinned or riveted have bolts on the lct. Now granted this means you can more easily remove them, which is a blessing or a curse depending on how look at it, personally I prefer the proper riveting on the e&l
View attachment 61912
Lct trigger guard with bolts
View attachment 61913
E&l with rivets
e&l sight block with, well I’m not entirely sure how they’ve mounted that, I’m guessing a press fit because there are no screws or rivets holding it on:
View attachment 61918
Lct sight block with screws and pins.
View attachment 61923
Rear sight block where we see our choice of battlesight marking, the e&l appears to be more faithful to the markings on proper sights although I’m not enough of an expert to say that N isn’t also valid.
View attachment 61917
Next is the muzzle device, oh what joys…..
Out of the box it was a bit rattly, no biggie that’s a pretty common one, I’ll just do my usual trick of stuffing o-rings in there until it doesn’t rattle any more….
Well this is where we have a problem, for those unfamiliar with the ak platform the way you remove the muzzle device is you push down a pin and screw it off.
So the e&l we can see the pin is accessible with a fingernail also note how the cutout is rounded so you can poke something in there to pull the pin back:
View attachment 61918
Now contrast that to the lct, ignore the strand of ptfe tape I used to reduce the wobble:
View attachment 61922
What’s not evident from photos is how much of a pain in the ass it is to remove.
The pin is sunk in due to a lack of chamfer on the rear of the brake, meaning you can’t just get a fingernail on it and pull it back, and the square end of the slot meant I couldn’t even get a needle in the gap to push it back to get unscrewing.
Eventually I had to remove the front sight block completely, punch out the pin that holds the back end of the spring, pull the spring out (really awkwardly as it had to go round a 90 degree bend) then tap the whole assembly until the pin had shifted enough to get a needle in and pull it back.
So what should be a 10 second field accomplished job took 20 minutes and a bunch of tools.
The next (albeit minor) bugbear is the thread assembly, this is one of those features that isn’t so bad but it’s a difference so I’ll mention it. E&l’s threads are the coarse Russian threads which are cast as one-piece into the sight block, this means you’re not putting standard 14mm ccw devices on there without an adaptor. The lct setup is similar to the jg’s/cyma’s I’ve seen where the sight block has a 14mm ccw thread, then an adaptor that bulks it out to the Russian style. This is the cause of the wobble however the installation of an o-ring around the smaller thread takes up a lot of that slack.
I’d take pictures of it but that would involve trying to remove the muzzle device again and screw that…..
Ok, so these are the aesthetic features, stuff that’s not really a functional issue at least if you’re not planning on any major modification to the externals.
However there is a bunch of functional stuff.
Lets start with the hop and magwell.
E&l you get a spacer as so:
View attachment 61914
Makes it nice and easy to get the front feed-lip into it’s slot for a speedier reload, not that I’m a tacticool reloading type but it’s a little quality of life feature you also enjoy on jg’s and cyma’s albeit implemented differently.
I haven’t got a photo of the lct’s magwell but it has no such spacer, meaning you’ve got to take a little extra time indexing the mag properly.
Next up is one of the really big bugbears- the hop mounting
So the standard way for pulling the gearbox on a top-wired ak is as such:
1. Remove pistol grip
2. Remove selector lever
3. Unbolt hop
4. Slide hop forwards
5. Gearbox wiggles out the top of the gun
Pretty damn simple and I must say a much nicer process to deal with than say the extended process to pull the box out of an m4.
However, lets do a little comparison:
View attachment 61915
View attachment 61924
Note the “step” in the barrel extension, on the e&l this is about 1.5” forward of the hop mounting, meaning plenty of room to slide forward and clear the nozzle, jg’s and cyma’s are the same although they have various blocks that need to be removed/slid forward to make clearance (and require the nozzle to be in the rear position)
However on the lct you can’t do this, so as far as I can tell it’s not possible to remove the gearbox without pulling the whole goddamn outer barrel assembly off, maybe owners can chime in on this if there’s a trick I’m missing but for the sake of a few more seconds milling time they could have made it so much easier.
Whilst I’m going to reserve judgement on the hop for when I actually fire it, it’s a plastic unit compared to the aluminium unit on the e&l, now plastic hop units aren’t necessarily bad (hence reserving full judgement) for example jg’s white plastic hop units are really good, but the lct’s doesn’t look or feel even as well made as the jg unit, in fact it feels much like the unit you got with the ASCU2 mosfet with the microswitch for last round cutoff, anyone unfortunate enough to own one of those knows exactly what I’m talking about.
So far these are all intentional design features rather than quality control, now we’re straying into the territory where it could be a bad luck Friday afternoon gun but here goes.
The comparison here is again with the e&l although I’m going to also reference jg’s blowback line to highlight the point.
So, the e&l out of the box, plug in a battery “ooh that’s rough sounding”, adjust the motor height screw “ahh that’s better”, a quick general inspection of the box reveals perfect air seal and no reason to mess with things like shimming, aoe etc.
The lct out of the box, plug in a battery “ooh that’s rough sounding”, adjust the motor height screw, nope she still sounds like she ate a bag of gravel.
So pull the box and take a look. For starters the air seal isn’t quite as good as the e&l (although certainly passable) however the real problem is the gears….
I mentioned earlier gunfire’s tech department had already opened the box to downgrade the spring but I have no reason to believe they’d mess with the shimming while in there.
However we find 3 shims total of ~0.3mm
After taking the time to do it properly it needed nearly 1mm of shims on just the sector gear alone and it was a massive pain in the ass getting the gears into a position where they wouldn’t rub against each other or the box. However this didn’t fix the issue, she’s still sounds awful, well here’s why:
View attachment 61925View attachment 61926
It’s kinda hard to see on camera but there’s visible pitting and roughness on the engagement surfaces of the gears.
Sure the faces of the gears are all shiny and machined down, but the actual business end that does the needed job is atrocious. It says a lot that a jg or cyma of 1/3 the cost gets this shit right.
the bevel gear admittedly doesn’t have this roughness, instead it’s such a tight fit to the bearings it needs to be punched out and makes splitting the box a massive pain, although granted once assembled a nice tight fit to the bearings is a good thing.
The motor was rather underwhelming, the e&l, AGM and jg motors have stronger magnets (note that’s listed in order with e&l’s being the strongest, somewhat comparable to the asg basic you get in an evo).
The aoe was also bad, real bad, now whilst I can hear negative airsoft screaming in the background this was way too far forward, a criticism I can’t level at the e&l (mostly due to the e&l using a thicker “silent” type piston head)
Now fortunately in this case I’m no stranger to pulling boxes apart and I’d planned before I’d bought it to change the gearing anyway, but most folk probably don’t expect a brand new and nominally high end gun to merit this kind of tlc. Maybe I’ve got a Friday afternooner, or maybe nuprol’s influence has taken the qc down a few notches, but needless to say it’s not what I was expecting based on my impressions of lct’s reputation up until now.
So here we are, I’m awaiting an ak2m4 order to fix the gearbox issues (hmmmm zci advanced gears…..) and while I’m waiting I figured I’d put it out as a review to explain why in future I’m going to be changing to recommending e&l’s offerings over lct, although granted lct do some models that e&l don’t (like the gun I’m reviewing).
Last edited by a moderator: