Gearbox comparison Mach1 Vs. CAS

[pilotguy]

Hey folks.

The following is in no way a judgment on one supplier or the next, it is strictly a unbiased review the gearbox on a Mach1 G&G and a CAS supplied G&G. I am upgrading both guns so I thought this would be a good time to snap some pictures and share some notes.

I know there has been some debate and claims that the components in the CAS supplied G&G versions is cheaper as compared to Mach1, 007, etc.. I own two guns, one from Mach1 and one from myself as I sell the CAS versions locally to what is so far a small group of folks. In doing so, I've wound up owing one myself. As I said before, unbiased review here.

I haven't got nitty and gritty on the external details as beauty is in the eye of the beholder anyway. I can briefly state the following however.

Both CAS/Mach1 Bodies are sturdy and consist of the same material for upper and lower receiver. I know some will argue this, but I have them both sitting here and there is no difference at all. This could be something that changed later on as I have no doubt others who say there are a difference know what they are talking about. So as far as I can see, the biggest difference is the lower receiver - Clear on Mach1, smoked on CAS.

Ok - on to it then.

First here are some pictures, the 1st being a Mach1 mechbox prior to opening on both left and right side, followed by the CAS box.



I apologize for the angles being a bit off but as you can see there is no difference between the two receiver on the outside.

Both have 7mm metal bushings and the box is held together with 8 2mm hex screws. Something I did find interesting was the lack of lock-tight on either gearbox. Something I am used to seeing with TM V3 boxes anyway is lock-tight but none on these. Not a big deal, just an observation. The cylinder on both is ported the same way, just about the middle of the cylinder tube. Both guns were a bit greasy on the outside, also near the electrical connections too which was a simple clean up. Both guns come standard with Small Tamyia connectors. From the outside, the air nozzle appears to be the same make on each gun. The selector plate is the same on both guns.

Ok so, next, opening them up.



I had chronod both of these guns on two separate chronos and came up with similar results. The CQB-S version (from Mach1) came in at around 324 FPS with .20 gram BBS and the CQB-R version (from CAS) came it at a consistent 363 FPS on both chronos with the odd +/- 4 FPS variation from time to time, again with 0.20 gram BBS. THE REASON I bring this up is we have a big ole spring staring at us in the picture and as far as I can tell by doing a squeeze test on them and eyeballing them to pieces, they appear to be the same type of spring with equal tension.

The cylinders are again, identical.



It's kind of hard to see in these photos but both SPUR gears have a G&G stamp on them. At first glance at the CAS version I didn't think it was there... it was just greased over. Gears were in excellent shape (both guns gamed and plinked with for a time before opening.) The Mach1 version had about 3-4k rounds through it and the CAS version near 10k rounds. I checked the shimming on both and they were shimmed the exact same way. Closed up the box with no cylinder to check for freedom of movement and stability. Thumbs up, all was good. All bushings seemed firmly in place.




As far as you can tell from the picture (comparison shot), they both look equally greased, however I would definitely say that the CAS version was way too lubed up. Overkill and clumpy in spots. The Mach1 version not so much, still a bit too much but not nearly as bad. Again not a huge huge deal but definitely worth opening up and cleaning up a bit. I think maybe due to so much lube being in there, I noticed on both guns that there was lube VERY near the electrical contacts which is NOT COOL. Easy fix with a cue-tip.

Trigger and trigger sping - The same

Tappet plate and spring - The same

Safety lever and spring - The same

Anti-reversal latch -... You guessed it.. THE SAME

Wiring identical on both guns (rear wired)

Spring Guide / Piston

The spring guide on both all metal bearing spring guide. With smaller than normal tabs. Not sure why these tabs r so small but compared to other spring guides which fit snuggly, these have a bit of wiggle. Not that you would really notice with the spring pushing back... just picking at minor details.



Coming to the piston now, this is where the difference starts. Not from manufacturing but a failure. In test firing my Mach1 G&G I noticed my chrono drop from 323 to 280? Hmmm.. I wonder why. I carefully put on some goggles and looked in the magwell. I suspected this may be a hopup issue and the battery was fully charged and the barrel was clean. I did notice something black lodged in there. Opened it up and pulled out a chunk of plastic. Hmm, ok, test fired again, but with no rounds yet out something came flying - Another black piece of plastic. Ok so something self destructed inside. Cracked it open and found that the piston head on the Mach1 CQB-S had shattered into a bunch of little pieces. Keep in mind this is before I upgraded it. So it shattered itself under STOCK conditions after only 4k rounds. In the meantime my CAS CQB-R is going strong with 10K rounds through it. Picture below.

BROKEN PISTON


GOOD PISTON

Even on the good piston you can still see some some wear on the edges. I think if I had left that one in, it too would be on it's way out shortly.


It's the lighting, they are both black.


I think that's it for now. Hope I covered everything or most of it anyway. As mentioned before I opened both of these up for upgrades. I've added identical FTK kits to both guns. Modify s120 FTK with gears (still waiting on the right gears to come. The ones I have right now are 6mm.. Silly me.) The CQB-S has since had the factory silencer and front end removed (very bad experience with this front end btw.. Silencer never stayed on and threads were toast upon arrival.) I replaced the front end with a Madbull Noveske 7.5 inch rail and a 10.5 inch outer barrel with a 300mm deepfire 6.02 tightbore. The CQB-R has remained a CQB-R except with more thump plus a SOCOM silencer so I could put a slightly shaved down 455mm 6.03 barrel in it.



Well hope you enjoyed the read. Again, please be aware this is just my take on things and in NO WAY am I promoting or bashing one or another. Just thought I would share some thoughts and images for others to browse.

A few more pics of each AEG with its former "body" below it. First the CAS followed by the former CQB-S now just plain and simple CQB.

CAS

Former CQB-S


CAS

Former CQB-S


Both still projects in the works.

Cheers.

[cratedriver]

Great comparison Assassin! I could feel your pain with that silencer issue you had early on. But after seeing the Noveske front end and the new body she's kickin' some butt. I'll see you in the field with my new M249.