Very cool! Looking forward to it!
Originally Posted by HawkWei
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Very cool! Looking forward to it!
Although I'm curious to see if EMEI will respond, I looked at the T97 as a diamond in the rough.
It begs to be modified, like a modern day bullpup SKS. I spent hours with the feed ramps after a few FTF. Then I had an issue with the trigger rod, and had to make a shim to fix that. By that point I was so comfortable with the rifle that it just made sense to go with the FTU. Like you, I also wanted to retain iron sights so I added some Troys.The rail now allows me to run whatever I want for an optic or sight. Right now I'm running a 4x optic after pulling the red dot off. It truly has become a modular platform.
This rifle is a Honda civic, at best. The funny thing is that my brother has a Tavor, aka the BMW. I prefer to shoot the T97, and while he won't admit it, he likes shooting it too. So while I'll never have the BMW, I will have a very cool Honda.
Once my LHG arrives this week, I think that all of the little complaints that I once had will be dealt with.
Turbo Honda?
I too have a Tavor, and while I like all the bells and whistles, it's also heaver, bulkier, and seems ever so slightly more fragile.
My T97 was a bit of a project gun (I had the file down the magwell to get Lancer L5AWM mags to fit) but it also seemed like a gun that could really take abuse! I also liked how easy it was to completely strip down. The Tavor needs all kinds of screwdrivers and hex keys and you have to take things apart in a particular order or you'll break the gun. The T97 was completely tool-less and grunt-proof. Anything more complicated than cleaning the Bolt Carrier group on the Tavor feels a chore. But the T97 I would routinely detail strip for fun. I enjoyed it!
There were a lot of things I really liked about it.
I feel you Jarvy.
Like I mentioned, I was having a few issues with the trigger rod coming off the pin at the firing mechanism in the back of the gun. I ended up fixing that, but in the process I learned a ton about the rifle, how it worked, and how to make it work better.
My t97.ca lower hand guard came in yesterday, and it really changed the gun.
We went from this.
To this
Added the FTU
Bought an optic
Added the LHG (pic taken last night)
I'm going to throw the battle irons back on and see how she feels. But needless to say, I'm really happy with my little rifle.
Well he said the reason for the change is to minimize the production cost, as there are no requirement for the T97NSR to have a mil-spec front post similar to QBZ-95. The reason why you see the original sight on T97 early photos is because these early display guns are made before the mass production, thus before the change of the front post design.
Figured as much. So the only way well see a proper front sight post is if North Sylva asks for them I suppose.
I am waiting for the official flattop 97 straight out of EMEI, they might get here late this year or early next year.
Just wanting to bounce this off knowledgable people here: Would removing the hood on the front sight fix this problem? Not completely, but make the sights more usable. I'm asking before I go chop chop.
It would probably solve the problem, or at least make it less glaring.
So a while back I actually got a PM from North Sylva regaarding this issue-
I didn't get a response to my reply, so I'll post it here. I'm pretty sure a lot of people have complained about the sights, but just in general terms. "They suck," "They strain my eyes" and so on.Are you having issue with accuracy? Frankly, this is the first complaint I've heard regarding these sights.
I personally find it creates an accuracy issue, because of the difficulty in making sense of the sight picture. Might also be a partial cause of eye strain as your brain tries to sort out conflicting information of what to focus on. This probably varies from rifle to rifle. I had to crank my front sight post pretty far over, so the effect was very pronounced for me.
So we know now that the front sight change was a cost-cutting measure. On paper maybe it makes sense, but I think that was a mistake. That change, to me, took it from an unergonomic, but completely functional rifle, to a rifle that is just not worth the price tag. There's a certain charm to the awkward but rugged safety and mag release. You can work around it. But the front sight is offensively cheap.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
