Author Topic: G&G GR-16 Commando vs CA M15A4  (Read 1925 times)

Offline TommyBoy!

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Private
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
    • Http://www.myspace.com/tommy_boy_1
G&G GR-16 Commando vs CA M15A4
« on: March 18, 2009, 11:28:23 AM »
I really need help with this one guys..I have been searching the net for quality issues with both AEGs and I am not sure which one to get, I am leaning towords the G&G because its 320 where CA with the same things will run me about 400. Anyone have an opinion that can help me out?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Guest »
[/quote]

Offline USNSEAL986

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Corporal
  • ****
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
Re: G&G GR-16 Commando vs CA M15A4
« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2009, 12:18:18 PM »
I like Classic Army personally but i dont really know much about G&G though. Plus CA has a lot of after market parts for replacement and upgrades.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Guest »


Offline Ranger_Robby

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 531
    • View Profile
Re: G&G GR-16 Commando vs CA M15A4
« Reply #2 on: March 18, 2009, 12:36:05 PM »
Quote from: "USNSEAL986"
I like Classic Army personally but i dont really know much about G&G though. Plus CA has a lot of after market parts for replacement and upgrades.
just about anything Marui based that is of the AR-15 type will have alot of aftermarket parts or replacement and upgrades as they are built similar to the original marui gun. they both have the same version gearbox and since it's AR most accessories will work with both. if i'm not mistaken, Classic army's rails on the upper receiver and rail are a tad higher then every other manufactor. if you want to put on a rail later or change bodies be aware of this, i noticed this when my guarder body did not line up to my CA CQBR RIS front end. My G&G plastics seemed of higher quality then my CA but both are good, CA's finish on recevier didnt seem as lasting compared to G&G body.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Guest »
Quote from: \"Vince\"
ALRIGHT GIRLS YOU\'RE BOTH PRETTY

NOW SHUT THE **** UP

Offline Bow-tie Assasin

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 501
    • View Profile
Re: G&G GR-16 Commando vs CA M15A4
« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2009, 03:01:21 PM »
Don't skip over G&P, they make pretty good stuff too. Iv'e never owned a G&G M16/M4 but iv'e had several CA's and never had any big issues.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Guest »
"First There"
Never Quit!

Offline Ferrarilove1

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Private First Class
  • ***
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: G&G GR-16 Commando vs CA M15A4
« Reply #4 on: March 24, 2009, 11:39:28 AM »
I'd go with G&G.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Bow-tie Assasin

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 501
    • View Profile
Re: G&G GR-16 Commando vs CA M15A4
« Reply #5 on: March 24, 2009, 01:07:10 PM »
Quote from: "Ferrarilove1"
I'd go with G&G.
How are they better than CA's models?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Guest »
"First There"
Never Quit!

Offline stealthmaster14

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant First Class
  • *****
  • Posts: 276
    • View Profile
Re: G&G GR-16 Commando vs CA M15A4
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2009, 11:31:12 AM »
G&Gs have BB spring guides, 7mm bearing bushings, "reinforced shells", and some other nice internal parts.   The so called "TBB" are like 6.06s and aren't any better than a TM stock barrel.  

They are both pretty equal internally, just go with what you like the looks of more I guess.  

I'd probably get a CA because of the metal hop up chamber and the armalite trades.  If something breaks, I can fix it myself, so that doesn't matter to me.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Ferrarilove1

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Private First Class
  • ***
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: G&G GR-16 Commando vs CA M15A4
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2009, 10:01:57 PM »
As the post above me said G&G's have better internals, there barrel is a 6.035 bore, there wiring is not shoddy, and the hop up is excellent. As for the externals, no they do not have the real steel trades but the trades are still very nice, there are no creaks in the stock, the plastic has no seam lines, and the metal is higher quality that classic army's. G&G's are also cheaper the CA's, in the experiences I've had G&G's are better.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Bow-tie Assasin

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 501
    • View Profile
Re: G&G GR-16 Commando vs CA M15A4
« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2009, 10:05:22 PM »
Quote from: "stealthmaster14"
G&Gs have BB spring guides, 7mm bearing bushings, "reinforced shells", and some other nice internal parts.   The so called "TBB" are like 6.06s and aren't any better than a TM stock barrel.  

They are both pretty equal internally, just go with what you like the looks of more I guess.  

I'd probably get a CA because of the metal hop up chamber and the armalite trades.  If something breaks, I can fix it myself, so that doesn't matter to me.

The G&G has a metal hop up unit just like the CA. Their barrels aren't 6.06 they're 6.04 which is a tightbore unlike stock TM's.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Guest »
"First There"
Never Quit!

Offline stealthmaster14

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant First Class
  • *****
  • Posts: 276
    • View Profile
Re: G&G GR-16 Commando vs CA M15A4
« Reply #9 on: March 26, 2009, 11:14:02 PM »
Quote from: "Bow-tie Assasin"
Quote from: "stealthmaster14"
G&Gs have BB spring guides, 7mm bearing bushings, "reinforced shells", and some other nice internal parts.   The so called "TBB" are like 6.06s and aren't any better than a TM stock barrel.  

They are both pretty equal internally, just go with what you like the looks of more I guess.  

I'd probably get a CA because of the metal hop up chamber and the armalite trades.  If something breaks, I can fix it myself, so that doesn't matter to me.

The G&G has a metal hop up unit just like the CA. Their barrels aren't 6.06 they're 6.04 which is a tightbore unlike stock TM's.

http://www.airsoftgi.com/product_info.p ... ts_id=3474
That's a stock hop up unit and it's plastic.

That's what they are advertised as, but some German dude who did all these tests on barrels found the G&G he had to be of a 6.06 bore.  Pretty much all the people I've talked to say that the G&G"TBBs" really don't perform any better than a TM stock barrel.  Internal quality of the barrel triumphs bore size ANY day.  I don't have experience with either gun, so I can't say for sure, but I do know for a fact that a high quality barrel of a 6.08mm bore size will beat out a low quality barrel of a tighter bore.  

Either gun will be great with some teaking, if you are good with internals, go with what you like the looks of best.  If you are worried about CA's "bad rep", they do offer a 60 day warranty from Spartan Imports.  

Not good with gearboxes-G&G
Experienced with gearboxes/mechanically inclined-CA

my 2 cents :D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Bow-tie Assasin

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 501
    • View Profile
Re: G&G GR-16 Commando vs CA M15A4
« Reply #10 on: March 29, 2009, 03:49:33 PM »
I'm pretty sure its the G&G Sportline series that has the plastic hop-up because normal G&G's do have a metal hop up unit.

http://redwolfairsoft.com/redwolf/airso ... odID=17085

http://store.matrixbb.com/servlet/-strs ... ull/Detail
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Guest »
"First There"
Never Quit!

Offline stealthmaster14

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant First Class
  • *****
  • Posts: 276
    • View Profile
Re: G&G GR-16 Commando vs CA M15A4
« Reply #11 on: March 29, 2009, 05:02:22 PM »
I was under the impression that they had plastic hop ups.  I guess I stand corrected.   :D   Some of the reviews on ASGI say that it has a plastic unit, but you know how that goes.

OP- It kinda seems like G&G has better internals, but they don't have the real trades.  I think that's kinda what it comes down to; weather or not you are willing to sacrifice nicer internals for real steel trades.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Ranger_Robby

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 531
    • View Profile
Re: G&G GR-16 Commando vs CA M15A4
« Reply #12 on: March 29, 2009, 08:05:32 PM »
Quote from: "stealthmaster14"
I was under the impression that they had plastic hop ups.  I guess I stand corrected.   :D   Some of the reviews on ASGI say that it has a plastic unit, but you know how that goes.

OP- It kinda seems like G&G has better internals, but they don't have the real trades.  I think that's kinda what it comes down to; weather or not you are willing to sacrifice nicer internals for real steel trades.

well they arent exactly correct markings.. Real Armalite lowers have markings where the metal is parkerized or otherwise finished after the markings are engraved or stamped. And the externals arent the greatest thing since sliced bread either on the CA's. Just curious, have you ever owned either? or just putting on here what you read or thought you read elsewhere?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Guest »
Quote from: \"Vince\"
ALRIGHT GIRLS YOU\'RE BOTH PRETTY

NOW SHUT THE **** UP

Offline stealthmaster14

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant First Class
  • *****
  • Posts: 276
    • View Profile
Re: G&G GR-16 Commando vs CA M15A4
« Reply #13 on: March 30, 2009, 04:52:12 PM »
Quote from: "Ranger_Robby"
Quote from: "stealthmaster14"
I was under the impression that they had plastic hop ups.  I guess I stand corrected.   :D   Some of the reviews on ASGI say that it has a plastic unit, but you know how that goes.

OP- It kinda seems like G&G has better internals, but they don't have the real trades.  I think that's kinda what it comes down to; weather or not you are willing to sacrifice nicer internals for real steel trades.

well they arent exactly correct markings.. Real Armalite lowers have markings where the metal is parkerized or otherwise finished after the markings are engraved or stamped. And the externals arent the greatest thing since sliced bread either on the CA's. Just curious, have you ever owned either? or just putting on here what you read or thought you read elsewhere?

More what I think/read.  I haven't owned either (as I have said), just kinda info from reviews and such.  TECHNICALLY, ALL metal bodies are pot metal since they are not just pure steel or what not.  There's a lot of info on ASF about that.

If you aren't good with internals, G&Gs tend to shoot about 350+ fps, which is better for woodland play.  (yeah I know FPS isn't everything, but 20-30 fps can mean bbs cutting through brush or not at all)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Ranger_Robby

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 531
    • View Profile
Re: G&G GR-16 Commando vs CA M15A4
« Reply #14 on: March 30, 2009, 06:37:10 PM »
Quote from: "stealthmaster14"
More what I think/read.  I haven't owned either (as I have said), just kinda info from reviews and such.  TECHNICALLY, ALL metal bodies are pot metal since they are not just pure steel or what not.  There's a lot of info on ASF about that.

If you aren't good with internals, G&Gs tend to shoot about 350+ fps, which is better for woodland play.  (yeah I know FPS isn't everything, but 20-30 fps can mean bbs cutting through brush or not at all)

Technically, unless they are cloning another companies design, a bodies fit and dimensions will vary, for example as I stated before CA's rails are at a different height then other brands. Also "technically" there is more to external quality then the type of metal and even it's fit, there are the plastics that are included and finish on the metal as well. these are things you would know by owning or otherwise having personal experience with both brands, things like how G&G infact do have metal hop up chambers or how some CA models also have 7mm bushings. You should take care when you are recycling information that is not from first hand experience. I'm not saying you shouldn't share what you read about, it's just usually best to ensure that you are giving the correct information otherwise you are technically better off not leaving your input at all if it's wrong.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Guest »
Quote from: \"Vince\"
ALRIGHT GIRLS YOU\'RE BOTH PRETTY

NOW SHUT THE **** UP