Lozart

Aren't we just drifting into cosplay here?

You're welcome, I went through this very voyage of discovery fitting a Magpul MOE hand guard to my TM M4A1. Anything else you need pointers on just ask! While I think of it - don't forget to thread the battery wires through the delta ring BEFORE you put it all together. Voice of experience.

First things first - does the Marui Delta Ring have teeth or just a couple of lugs? I'm going to assume the latter and say that you'll need a new Delta Ring. You're probably going to need a new handguard cap too as the plastic one on the TM is too bulky to fit around the front end of the new guard. http://www.fire-support.co.uk/product/king-arms-delta-ring http://www.fire-support.co.uk/product/kingarms-handguard-cap Once you have those, you'll need to remove the old delta ring which can be a bit fiddly due to the three part design of the inner barrel - you'll need to remove the small hex hed screws that hold sthe barrel together to get the nut off. You'll also need an armorers wrench to fit the new one properly. http://www.fire-support.co.uk/product/guarder-extra-heavy-duty-armorers-wrench You may also need a small washer to help fit the hand guard cap - the TM one is held in place by a tiny screw in the back face of the sight, the hole for a similar screw in the KA cap is much bigger!

If your battery is wired reverse you're still going to have issues when you try and connect it to the gun! Better to just make sure you get it the right way around in the first place and probably safest to get the wiring done with Deans as they seem to share a common wiring standard!

No worries, let us know how you get on.

I would reply with "what...you don't know what this loadout is? Hmmmm...." and walk away.

Review is done! http://www.airsoft-forums.co.uk/index.php/topic/20839-sls-type-drop-leg-holster-from-taiwanguncom/

I recently purchased a Safariland SLS6004 style holster for my M9A1 with tactical light as the Viper adjustable one I was using just wasn't secure enough considering the weight of the gun. The product can be found here: http://www.taiwangun.com/en/sls-type-leg-holster-for-beretta-92-black-acm and is spectacularly cheap at a little over £23 plus postage. The holster apes the originals SLS or Self Locking System which is basically the latched hood where a thumb break would normally be. there is a strong and rather stiff leg panel which holds pretty securely using two leg straps. The part of the leg strap that is sticking out to the right in the picture is actually elasticated so it works better than the Viper one just because it holds tighter! The gun itself is a Socom Gear M9A1. It's all metal and is pretty hefty. The torch is a Nextorch WL10 which is a pretty slim, single cell style torch. The holster will take a Surefire X300 double cell style one as well. The gun fits in quite easily and the top of the slide is held in place quite well by the moulded shape of the holster, front to back (as you look down on the handgrip) though it's quite loose which results in it rattling about like mad when you run. The gun will not fall out as long as the SLS hood is in place but it does make you sound like a tactical maraca! In use, the hood is cleared out of the way by pushing down and forward; there's a little moulded button on the leg side of the hood to help with this. It felt a little clumsy to start with but once you've tried it a few times it's pretty intuitive. The holster needs to sit fairly high though as the bottom corner of the leg panel can cut into the back of your knee if it's worn too low. Overall I'm pretty happy with the holster. It is very sturdy and fits my weapon of choice WITH the torch, it holds securely with the SLS hood and it was let's face it, cheap as chips. I'm going to try lining it with something to lessen the rattling (which may just be down to my choice of torch not filling the space) but other than that, it's so good I'll be selling the Viper one!

You could try lubing the little catch by the BB tube, it may just be a bit sticky from what you've just described. Sounds like the tolerances on the magazine just don't quite match up with the M4 to me though. I'd say, next time you're at a game ask some people if they would mind you test firing a few shots with their mag. Either that or try the same in your local shop. That's how I ended up with Dytac Invaders for my M4!

M105 should get you there assuming your air seal etc are good.

Have you checked the hop unit is seated properly? If it's not straight that may cause the problem. Has it ever worked properly? Are there particular mags that work or do none of your mags work? Also, what make is the M4? MAG magazines seem pretty reliable. Also Classic Army, Dytac Invaders and G&G but some mags just don't work right in some guns. Minor variations in the size if the magwell/hop unit alignment can make a gun picky about mags!

You say that, but I recently bought a Deans to Tamiya adaptor from an RC spares shop and it was wired in reverse to the other adaptor I have. There may be different conventions applied depending on the application....

Quick question before we get to recommendations - if you take the tape off, does the mag feed properly (disregarding the rattling)?

Also - I'm wondering if any of the mesh eye protection available is ever actually submitted to any form of standardised testing? Is any of it EN or ANSI marked? Or is it all just "I shot at some a bunch of times and it was fine"? Serious question by the way.

I wouldn't be so quick to deal in absolutes there Ian, just because a fragment is so small that it lacks any significant force does not mean that it can't damage your eye. Granted we're not talking about having your eye shot out here, but a piece of BB small enough to get through your mesh is still significant in terms of abrasion and cutting the surface of the eye.

I have a huge (95litre) police holdall that all my soft kit goes in, the rifles are all stacked up in gun bags. All of it generally stays in the spare room apart from the obligatory two days after a skirmish when it lives in the hallway, then the landing (period is dependent upon the intensity of the wife's nagging).

If the tape goes all the way around, then you've covered up the place where the magazine catch locks into. That's why it drops out. Some mags just don't feed well in some guns...

Which is why I said "if you really want glasses and not goggles" as they appear to have at least the correct impact resistance. The main drive of the point I was replying to was one of impact resistance, not whether or not you could get a ricochet between them and your face. Full seal eyewear incorrectly worn is no safer then non sealing eye wear correctly worn in that respect and I've seen plenty of people wearing goggles that are being displaced by their face masks.

I assume the tape is to stop it rattling, do you have a variety of mags?

That'll be an Elcan Spectre. Possibly a Spectre DR if it's the variable zoom.

STANAG 4296 incorporates 2920. 2920 is the ballistic impact testing standard, 4296 is the overall standard for military eye wear and as such has a wider scope (such as fit and finish etc). So if it says STANAG 4296 you can rest assured it is tested to the same standard as STANAG 2920.

I was only looking at the Bolle safety range to be fair. Having looked again you are right, specifically the Tactical range are tested to STANAG 4296.

Had a dig through the details on Revision Sawflys as there seems to be quite a few ex-issue ones kicking about. Revision state that the Sawfly exceeds the ANSI and EN impact standard by a factor of 3 which gives at least 2.58 joules so it would seem that if you really want glasses not goggles then Sawflys are the way to go...

ESS say their entire range is tested to the ANSI Z87.1-2010 standard. For glasses the high velocity impact test is very similar to the EN test in that it is a 6.35mm steel ball but tested at 150FPS. Assuming a marginally higher weight for the slightly larger ball (0.9g typical weight for a steel ball of this size) this still only achieves 0.94 joules. Again, goggles have a higher rating (1/4" steel ball at 250FPS) at 2.6 joules but not as high as the EN rated Bolle Goggles. As an aside the new standard for marking according to ANSI is that Z87 is NON impact rated Z87+ IS impact rated. So it's worth checking the markings on everything!

I use plastic lensed glasses/goggles because I struggle using mesh in the dark corridors of the Malls. Tried it, hated it, end of. This weekend I used a pair of the new Bolle Cobra full seal safety glasses with their new Platinum anto fog coating and I must say it worked exceptionally well. As previously mentioned I sweat like Jimmy Saville in a childrens ward so fogging IS an issue. Normal people would fine them utterly fog free. Having read Ian's very techy but informative post I thought to myself "I'll go check the numbers on the Bolle stuff, see if I can prove a point". So let's do the math(s): Let's say you have a gun set right on the site limit for the Mall. 340FPS on a 0.2g BB. This gives you an energy of 1.07 joules Bolle safety glasses have a maximum impact rating of "F" according to the EN standard of marking which is tested with a 0.86g steel ball at 45m/s. 45m/s is 147.64FPS which then gives you an energy of 0.86 joules. So as you can see the glasses are insufficiently rated for even a fairly conservative site limit. 0.2 of a joule may not seem like much but if you were unlucky enough to be shot point blank in the face (which DOES happen in CQB) then your eye protection may fail. Bolle GOGGLES on the other hand are rated "B" which is tested with a 0.86g steel ball at 120m/s (393.7 FPS) with an energy of 6.16 joules. The moral of this particular tale then is wear goggles, not glasses (from Bolle at least) and make sure you WEAR THEM PROPERLY. You can have the best eye pro in the world but if your face protection doesn't let them fit properly you may as well not bother.