It would be nice if these built-in CO2 GBBR's could use the standard GBBR mags (with built-in CO2). However if a standard AEG mag was inserted, the "backup" CO2 would be used to propell the BB's. The "backup" CO2 could be an interchangeable gas canister or a hose for extensible gas tube in a buffer tube. This flexible feature would offer the best of both worlds.

just...no, there are SO many reasons why that could never work

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...2984714729812#
If a paintball marker can do it Im sure it would work even better for an airsoft gun.

It would be cool to at least have a choice to hook up an external tank on a GBBR. Personaly I wouldnt mind as long as the hose ran out from the back of the gun somewhere. Then I could just have it running along with my sling.

Why? I don't want to use AEG magazines, I like the idea of being able to swap a fresh gassed up mag, and I like the fact that they are real cap, I like the fact that they weigh as much as a real full mag

GBBR mags are much more expensive and heavier than AEG mags. The current GBBR designs will never replace AEG's market. If GBBR manufactures want to lure current AEG players to GBBR domain, this would not be a bad idea.

If players would want to stick to the standard GBBR mags, of course they should be able to do so. I simply think an additional option for utilizing standard AEG mags, supported by a backup CO2 would be a big plus as well.

On the other side of the coin, there are certain AEG improvements could be made as well. I think the key is the battery sizes. The advancement of LiPo is a great step forward, however there is a safety issue and an additional cost of a separate charger. It would be nice if there are new form of batteries with the size of multiple CR2032 stack together. It could reuse same chargers as for standard NiMH batteries. The same or better throughput/capacity as the current LiPo. This kind of batteries would make our lives much easier. The size of fuse boxes are also in needed to be miniaturized.

The goal is to easily fit a battery, fuse, cables and connectors into a buffer tube.

I remember when a TM M4 Low cap cost 35-45 USD to buy. I pay less than that for a WE Gas mag. As more people adopt the GBBR the prices will go down. As for putting the gas somewhere else...I just don't understand your logic.

Before the prices "can" do down, how would manufactures motivate AEGs players for getting GBBRs?

It's a personal choice. If your a bb hose paintsofter type player then ya a GBBR would not be for you but if you are a Milsim/realism type player then you would already see the advantages and get on board.

They don't.

Either the players like the added realism and can deal with gas and the heavier mags, or they don't.

Obviously players have accepted GBBR's and companies are profitable, otherwise it wouldn't have stayed as an option currently.

in my experience all that is needed to motivate an AEG user to switch to GBBR is to shoot one ..

I hardly ever touch my AEGs any more... and I have $thousands$ of dollars in AEGs

If realistic recoil is the main attraction of GBBRs, surely AEGs could easily simulate that. I have seen (youTube) TM AEG M4's have quite a strong kick too. However I have not seen other companies release any realistic recoil AEGS probably due to the added production cost.

I have another question about GBBR recoil. Can the "strength" of the GBBR recoil adjustable? If they are not adjustable, why not?

The recoil is from the bolt moving to the rear of the rifle, by the force of gas, to chamber the next round: In the identical fashion to a real rifle.

The recoil could certainly be decreased, by short stroking the bolt... or padding the buffer. But why would you want to do that? It is about 75% the recoil of the real gun. If there was an easy way to increase the recoil, they would do it from factory to make it 1:1 with the real gun's recoil.

Many companies offer heavier buffers in attempt to increase recoil , but I haven't seen any noticeable increase in recoil with the few I've tried.

Recoil isn't adjustable, because it's a fundamental function of the rifle to operate. FPS is adjustable, with an inexpensive modification from a 3rd party, and this is key to play indoors or outdoors without injuring other players.

Also, as an extension to your initial question: Yes, AEG's can simulate blowback and recoil. But at great expense to their mechanical infrastructure. You are trading operational reliability, which is the only reason to stick with AEG's in the first place in my opinion, with an unnecessary secondary function to add faux 'kick'. This makes for a symbiotic relationship with the recoil system and mechbox, where if one goes down, both go down. It's just one more thing to break in the complex mechbox of an AEG.

The WE GBBR, on the otherhand and speaking from experience, are very easy to maintain and to repair. All guns break. Which gun costs more to fix, is up to what kind of gun you have.

Sure, if your tappet plate on the aeg breaks, it's only $10... but unless you're confident at repairing an AEG, you have to pay someone else to do it, and it can take an hour or two to do and get running at 100%.

The WE GBBR, can easily be learned, and is a simple design mimicing the real rifle. If something breaks, repairing it is as easy as stripping the rifle and having a little common sense. That being said, not everyone is mechanically inclined, and such, the easier a gun is to work on, the quicker it will take to fix when you take it to a gun doctor.

you are missing every single point of GBBRs,
if you cant see the positive points then stick to AEGs, personally Ill leave the AEGs in my closet

So I was wrong to say GBBRs offer realistic recoil because it only have a 50-70% of real steel recoil.

Your explanation makes sense. I think your logic applies to all existing AEG designs, which I agree. However TM AEG M4's have quite a strong recoil and they are known to produce reliable airsoft. Clearly there is a way to develop durable AEGs with reasonable recoils.


I agree your point but it depends on the type of failure. If GBBRs are structurally more simple than AEGs, then why GBBRs cost more than AEGs? Should it be the opposite is true where AEGs were more expensive?

Correct, but to add to this, GBBRs don't have a lead round comming out the front at 3,000 feet per second.


Sure, and TM's recoil engine requires special parts, just like the GBBR. So it's totally up to the end user. My prediction is that unless more manufacturers pick up on recoil aegs, there will always be very limited replacement and aftermarket parts available.



They don't. A WE GBBR overseas costs $280 to $350, which is comparable to TM and LESS than other manufacturers like Real Sword and VFC. It's all about materials. AEG's may take a lot longer to manufacture, due to the complexity of a mechbox and wiring etc etc... but they sell a lot more AEGs than they do GBBRs.

WE Tech have made a KILLING in the last few years. Having one product sell so well, is almost unheard of by such a previously disreputable company. Their prices and new selection reflect this. If we paid what it cost to build the products we own, shoes would cost a nickel. It's all business, and if you support your manufacturer, with any luck, prices will come down. Which is why so many people have made the leap to GBBR, and biting the bullet against reliability of an AEG for the fun factor of shooting a GBBR.