Jump to content

PureSilver

Members
  • Content Count

    87
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    N/A

About PureSilver

  • Rank
    AF-UK Starter

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    London, U.K.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,272 profile views
  1. I'd be aiming for 75-80% of UK retail. The M9A1 retails for about £140 in the UK, so I'd be looking for £105-115. The E2 retails for about £125, so I'd be looking for £95-100.
  2. This is basically it for me. I can't see the point in having 5-10 guns that are all functionally identical (I don't mean "they all shoot 6mm BBs", I mean "they're all bog-standard AEG assault rifles") and also less well-made then they could be, when I could have 2-4 guns that are really incredible. You can only use a handful of guns (it's a ball-ache even to bring more than a handful to a skirmish) when you play, so why would you have a less good gun in your hands in exchange for two more in the car, or more likely at the back of the cupboard at home? I've sold virtually all my horrifically expensive "collector" pistols and eaten massive losses, and sold all my basic AEGs. What I have now is basically one of each type of gun, each highly upgraded: AEG SMG (EVO3A1), AR (NGRS), LMG and DMR; GBB pistols, SMG and AR; HPA BASR. It's the maximum I can justify - one of each role. I'm also now operating a strict one-in one-out policy to try to avoid the accumulation of yet more very expensive toys. I've just picked up a cheap project too. It's definitely more fun to mess around with a pistol that cost me £70 than one that cost me £700.
  3. I aspire to one day enjoy a job as much as Marui Man enjoys his.
  4. Time Left: 4 days and 2 hours

    • For sale
    • Used

    For sale is a genuine select-fire AUG A1 stock and furniture in olive drab. This includes the stock, sling pin, buttpad and foregrip. These parts were made under license to Steyr by SME Ordnance for the Malaysian military. The rifle was replaced in Malaysian service by M4s, made under license to Colt by SME Ordnance, and the AUG A1s were surplussed. These parts are military surplus and exhibit the usual wear, but remain in full working order. These parts are weapon furniture, and are not controlled items in the UK. I will ship these items internationally, but only upon confirmation that it is legal for you to receive them. Purchase price of these parts exceeds £325. This furniture almost fits the GHK AUG GBBR - the receiver needs to be shaved about 0.5mm, likewise the bolt. The magazine fits the well and locks in correctly. Some work would be required to seat the trigger pack. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch.

    £200.00

    London - GB

  5. They're nobody and they don't make anything - they're French rebranders who add extortionate markups to other people's guns. The Rhino is a CO2 revolver, which means it is almost certainly actually made by WinGun, just like just about every other CO2 revolver on the market. BO's involvement in this is likely limited to being the licensee of Chiappa, and therefore the licensor of WinGun. That is exactly what's happening with the Fabarm STF/12 - Fabarm have granted a license to BO, and BO have in turn granted a license to VFC. BO don't make a single part of the gun. The stuff they've actually "made" has been small-scale and largely cosmetic alterations of existing guns. They used to "make" AKs with Lonex-based gearboxes that were just insanely expensive, and I vaguely recall there being ARs too. This hideous thing is literally a KWC 1911 at triple the price - check out those tally marks on the slide! As Sniper780 says they were also behind the infamous vapourware "MTO Phantom" system, about which they made huge promises and delivered precisely jack shit. Whether or not the Rhino is any good will have absolutely nothing to do with BO and everything to do with the actual OEM. If (as it almost certainly is) it's WinGun, then you can extrapolate from WinGun's existing products which are... variable, to put it politely.
  6. Likewise. Overpowered pyro adds nothing to the game but tinnitus and scorch marks, and also obliges every other player to spend money on and endure the discomfort of over-ear ear protection. We came to play airsoft, not competitive cumulative hearing loss. Years back at a now-closed indoor site some tryhard threw a GR20 (a training/operational stun grenade that doesn't belong in an airsoft game at all) which landed more or less at my feet in a narrow corridor. Since I thought it was a Mk.5 in some kind of replica case, and since it had me dead to rights, I just dropped my gun on its sling and started to put my hands over my ears, but it detonated before they got there. The concussion was so bad it almost knocked me over - I was completely deaf for about 30-60 seconds and couldn't hear properly for hours afterwards. A marshal who was about 15 feet away was visibly disorientated too and in some short words told the player that it was going to stay in a box in the safe zone for the rest of the day and he was lucky not to be joining it. I agree with @hitmanNo2. I'd be happy to do that with a timed grenade with the pin pulled but the spoon held, or an impact with .209 or .380 shells, but not with an impact with a 12-gauge firework in it.
  7. I’ve only recently found out that there’s a second half to Wilde’s comment. It reads in full: "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness."
  8. It’s definitely provable that the statement ‘if I can make a clone for ½ the price, you’re charging too much’ is false, but I have enough of the dumb dumb to take credit for my own stupid TBH. Ultimately my point is I wish airsofters would prioritise rewarding the good rather than just the cheap. Spend the extra £10 to get a legitimate product, especially if it’s a product made especially for airsofters, and very especially if it’s a new and innovative product. Buy from a retailer with good customer service rather than the cheapest possible dropshipper you can find on AliExpress. People don’t have to agree but it would be polite not to tell people whose innovation was just ripped off that they’re to blame for being insufficiently innovative. We are a tiny hobby and rewarding the companies that cater to us is the only way we’ll get good products. Rewarding the companies that rip them off is only going to lead to more shit clones of old guns and quite frankly we’ve got more than enough to choose from. Anyway, enough said.
  9. I'm not seeing the distinction you're drawing here. TM spent $1m of their R&D budget to develop NGRS, and recouped that by amortising the development cost over the NGRS it sold. They might not be saying "exactly $67 per rifle" but I assure you with absolute certainty that their budgeting includes amortising overheads in the cost of their products. Products that were more expensive to develop are sold at a higher price than ones that weren't. The price of every TM product will be part raw materials, part development budget, part operating costs, part worker salaries etc. just like the price of every other product from every other manufacturer. Can you elaborate on what the difference you're seeing is? As far as I know the only system even remotely comparable and contemporaneous to the first NGRS (the SOPMOD) were the earliest Modify Tremors, which were an unmitigated disaster because they didn't have the gearset TM developed, never mind the stop-on-empty, bolt-lock/release etc. The NGRS cost so much to develop because it was a complete system that actually worked, something that competitors are still struggling with 12 years later. The second someone starts making NGRS AKs with steel bodies and barrels, or NGRS ARs with steel gears and factory FCUs, I'll be all over those because I am more than happy to reward innovation. It doesn't matter if a product isn't a radical innovation. I'm not ever going to claim VFC are dirty cheats because their AK construction system is mostly the same as TM's. VFC "just did it in a different way" - it's not a radical innovation but it's still vastly better than the Japanese style and VFC (or LCT, whichever of them originated it when making VFC's earliest AKs) deserve credit for it. The point I'm making is that that rule doesn't work if you can't protect your innovation at all. Odin innovated and died months later. Do you really think the rewards of their innovation went to the right people when it went to the cloners rather than the designers? Or were they (and we, the market) robbed of their next opportunity to innovate? How did cloners who never contribute new ideas winning help increase competition?
  10. It is my opinion but it is also objective fact. Ask literally any manufacturer you like - Richard at Eagle6 or Robert at LPE might already be on this forum. Want a really obvious example of why you can't say 'if I can copy this for less than half the price you were asking for too much in the first place'? Try literally any software product, or digital good. I can produce copies of any blockbuster you like for the cost of a blank Blu-Ray and an internet connection. Are Warner Bros. "asking for too much margin" by not dropping the price of the newest John Wick to $1.00 to "compete" with me? Cloning is not the same as competition. If someone improves on your product - makes it work it harder, better, stronger, faster, whatever - that's competitive. Cloning is anti-competitive, because it kills innovation. There is a reason that this sort of thing doesn't happen in industries where people can afford to protect their IP. "This person picked your pocket and sold me your wallet and house keys? Why don't you compete with him rather than throwing your toys out of the pram?"
  11. This is a profoundly stupid comment. The cost of researching and developing any new product - airsoft or not - needs to be recouped. This is a fact of doing business - any business. You could apply what I am about to say to pharmaceuticals, software, clothes - anything - but let's stick with airsoft and take the NGRS as an example. Cost to Marui to develop: $1m. Cost Marui needs to add on top of production cost of rifles to amortise R&D costs: $1m/expected production run. Let's say Marui bets on selling 15,000 NGRS rifles - that adds $67 to the cost of every NGRS. That's not profit, it's recouping R&D. This is not "margin", it's money TM has already spent to bring a new product to market. Cost to ARMY/BOLT/etc. of reverse-engineering NGRS system: half a Snickers bar. Cost ARMY/BOLT needs to add on top of production of rifles: $0. Net result: ARMY and BOLT almost immediately start making guns that steal technology from the NGRS. ARMY's R4x-series were indeed about half to two-thirds the price of a genuine SOPMOD. It's only the fact that between them ARMY and BOLT couldn't put together a Duplo set, let alone an AEG, that stopped them from stealing all of Marui's sales by undercutting their pricing by a minimum of $67 per rifle. Where is the incentive for TM to spend the money it costs to innovate if they'll never see any return on that? If TM took the defeatist approach you're espousing and churned out guns at the arbitrary cost limit of twice what the absolute cheapest copy could cost, we wouldn't have the NGRS, the AES, the M870 series or half-a-dozen other market-leading products, and airsoft would be much poorer for it. TM is a much bigger company than JG, but JG can make an inferior M870 far cheaper than TM can make a good one by making it in a developing nation with terrible QC, and stealing rather than developing their own TDP. Which is better for airsoft, a $250 good gun, or a $150 shit one that also undercuts one of the few large airsoft innovators? I stress: if the JGs improved on the TMs - being made of better materials, like basically every AEG these days is made of better materials than a non-NGRS TM AEG, or being designed for higher muzzle energies, likewise - I'd be all in favour of that innovation. I'm all in favour of people improving on existing designs. What I don't like is people stealing other people's hard work, and other people pretending they're Jordan Belfort for buying the crap counterfeit instead of supporting the original manufacturer. Someone with "a business head" will understand the importance of IP rights and recouping R&D. Your arbitrary capitulation to IP theft massively disincentivises investment in R&D, and the fact that for two decades barely any airsoft companies were (are?) prepared to make actual investment in radical new products is a concrete demonstration of how harmful this is for airsoft. If everyone with the creativity and drive to actually produce a working product were to do what you're saying and just meekly hand over their baby to the biggest bully on the block, airsoft would be crushed by the likes of Nuprol and Evike in a matter of weeks. I invite you to take this whole concept to the scores of tiny little Taiwanese manufacturers eking out a living making awesome products we'd otherwise literally never get and see what they think of it. It's one thing for you to say "I won't buy your stuff unless", it's on another level of entitlement to say "I will buy illegal copies of your stuff and undercut your business unless you bow and scrape to my laundry list of random demands including things the manufacturer has no control over, like SEO", as if the one minute you spend scanning the first page of Google is in any way comparable to the two years they spent researching, designing, developing, licensing, manufacturing, negotiating, marketing and shipping the product. If you want something but don't want to pay for it and are prepared to steal it or pay for an unlicensed copy of it (not functionally any different from the manufacturer's perspective), there is basically nothing stopping you from doing that. Just don't pretend you're some ruthless corporate Darwinist that manufacturers must genuflect to in the name of competition, rather than just cheap.
  12. And all you had to do to save the cash was undercut the actual inventor and stifle innovation. Bargain! Those clones are the reason that we never got factory-supported magazine adaptors and it took 5 years and counting for new models to come to market. If they'll continue to prioritise the cheapest possible product at the expense of innovation and quality, airsofters really have no-one but themselves to blame when they get sold shitty, obsolete products that don't work properly out of the box or break shortly thereafter. It's not a coincidence that in 1995 a mobile phone looked like this and in 2020 looks like this, but a 2020 M4 AEG gearbox looks exactly the same as a 1995 one. It's not a coincidence that local airsoft retailers are going out of business (especially in the States) because people would rather save a paltry amount of money than support any actual customer service. It's not a coincidence that Magpul withdrew from their partnership with PTS in disgust and as a result we can't get PDR-Cs or FPGs any more. There is a direct link between people forcing manufacturers into a race to the bargain basement and manufacturers not having any incentive to make innovative products. The "I would never pay £x for x, so they haven’t lost a sale by me purchasing a rip-off" argument sucked when it applied to pirating music, films and videogames and it sucks here. People buying it is the reason it’s produced. The entitlement of "I want it, but I don’t want to pay for it" is frustrating. It apparently cost TM $1m in 2008 dollars to develop the NGRS system; how are they supposed to recoup the first significant investment in AEG design since they invented the AEG if consumers set an arbitrary limit of "no more than twice the cost of a bargain basement clone of your old gun"? It’s especially irritating with straight clones like the M12 because the clone literally doesn’t do even one single thing better than the original, except be cheap and poorly made. Even CYMA have improved over TM in important ways like having metal receivers. I fully support and will buy things that obviously borrow heavily from an existing design if it’s improved - I’ll happily buy an VFC, because even though it’s mostly a TM clone they’ve massively improved it by making it steel and wood rather than plastic and plastic. This is all far from unique to the Sidewinder, it’s just especially annoying because it’s not the property of some huge faceless corporation. It’s literally one guy who designed an amazing product, put in a truly astonishing amount of his own money and time developing it, getting it manufactured, dealing it to distributors etc., and all so it could get ripped off and sold for profit by massive companies inside six months. At this stage it’s hard to tell if we deserve innovation. Anyway, apologies for dragging the thread off topic.
  13. Shame. Odin is a one-man band developing awesome, innovative products. He quit airsoft product development for about five years after people took his brilliant design and immediately cloned it so cheapskates could save themselves £20. I have absolutely no doubt that this sort of thing contributes to the generally stagnant nature of airsoft technology. Really? I wouldn't have thought iWholesales would sell fakes, but I've been wrong before. They're certainly priced like the real thing.
  14. I mean £565 plus £100-160 equals £665-725, and £500 is 75% of £665 and 69% of £725. 70-75% of RRP for a gun with less than one bottle of BBs through it isn't even all that high, although I would probably expect to receive more like 65-70% simply based on how much returns diminish after £400. I think you might also be forgetting to factor in the high cost of quality accessories which are usually included with NGRS packages. Taking this Delta as an example: Gun ~£550 Grip ~£20 Magazines ~£25ea. ODIN M12 Sidewinder ~£50 (assuming it's genuine, and I'm not sure there are tan fakes) IMAX B6 ~£35 Four batteries ~£50 That's £880, of which the £500 asking price is 57%. If he split the magazines, speedloader and charger off as separate items he'd be asking the equivalent of £341 for the gun and the batteries, which I would describe as "acutely reasonable".
  15. I'm not so sure about that as a strategy. Of all the guns my friends and I have imported - which must be substantially more than 100, I would have thought, by the time you go through all my various teammates - the only one that has ever been "seized" (I was told it's actually "detained" while they conduct enquiries, it's only "seized" if they're never going to give it to you) was a gun that was sent with a UKARA number but to an address that didn't match the number. Until @Asomodai's my gun was the only one I'd ever heard of being detained. If they'll detain any gun they find during an inspection, that means that that parcel was the only one they'd inspected out of all 100+ parcels we've ever received and countless thousands of other ones. It would be a pretty big coincidence if the only parcel of ours that has ever been inspected was also the only one where the details were wrong. If you wait for them to detain the gun and then get in touch, as @Asomodai will tell you (and as happened to my SVD) it is an absolute nightmare to extract it from them. It's difficult to get in touch with them, nobody you speak to seems to know anything, and the turnaround time between establishing that they have the gun, what they need from you to release it, who you send it to, them receiving it, them getting around to checking what you sent, and them releasing the gun is just glacial. My gun took something like 82 days to get to me.
×
×
  • Create New...