Originally Posted by The Saint
I'm pretty puzzled by 007 perceived need to make CQB guns like the G36C and CQBR shoot 400fps. I'm suggesting it's Ken's choice due to the fact that I'm looking at SRC G36 Gen IIIs on US sites, and they are far from being all 400fps (even if they do include a spare M120 spring for you to DIYS).
Medium-to-long rifles are one thing, heck, I'll even play CQB with up to 370fps. But 400fps across the board long and short? That seems excessive and dangerous. Newbies are going to be caught between using overly hot guns and inexperienced DIYS (or payind someone else) downgrading right off the bat.
And frankly, even with a reinforced mechbox, I'd consider running 400fps on a version 2 a less than appealing idea. Especially with an aluminum piston head.
Unless Ken listed his fps wrong, of course.
I doubt Ken has listed it wrong.
He must have gone to a lot of trouble to make that SRC/G&G comparison chart, or at least enough trouble to verify the FPS.
However, I agree. I wouldn't want to be calling velocity checks all the time in CQB. Ken should be packaging the short guns with m100s and throw the m120s in the box.