Quote:
Why does MSAR us plastic trigger pack and other critical parts? As I understand it this causes the sloppy trigger. It seems that the weight difference between alloy/steel/aluminum vs. plastic is trivial for this small but critical piece. I also heard that the magazine catch is plastic so you cannot use metal AR mags in the E4 model. Is this true? I am a fan of tupperware on frames and such, but not for internal guts.
Thoughts?
|
I don't have a specific answer for you, only observations and conjecture.
Steyr has been using polymer in the AUG's internal parts for decades. I don't see them sticking w/that for as long as they have if there was any sort of problem w/performance or longevity. I guess they use polymer because it works (I don't know the cost breakdown but I'd bet that polymer components are less expensive to mfg than equivelant metal components).
All bullpups can attribute part of their trigger pull complaints to the long but necessary linkage between the trigger proper and the hammer pack. One of my STG's has a hammer pack that was worked over by Dave at MSAR and it's *excellent* albeit not match-grade (MSAR is supposedly working on a carbon-fiber "match" hammer pack at this time). Like mil-spec triggers on AR's, they can be improved significantly w/just a little work and the aftermarket Trigger Lite and Trigger Tamer reduce pull weight substantially.
Regarding the polymer mag catch in the E4 I have to agree w/you, MSAR should have anticipated greater wear when using metal mags, perhaps using an aluminum mag catch.
I have several STG's in my gunsafe, a couple w/over 2K rds through them. Using the proprietary STG mags (which I love, btw) there's no excessive wear on the mag catches (polymer on polymer vs polymer on metal).
HTH...
Tomac
ETA: Latest STG configuration w/Trijicon RX30, E4 optic rail, Magpul MBUS, 9" accessory rail and Fenix TK11 taclight:
