Quick fabarm sat-8 question
- Thread starter knock-knock
- Start date
I read the same review and thought "What the hell?". I still bought the shotgun and can happily report that it does lock open on an empty chamber.
Perhaps the spring was extra stiff and the loads anemic which wasn't working the bolt all the way back?
That's the only conclusion I could draw from that internet-article.
Cheers~
P.S. The writer also stated something weird like "You need to shift the gate rearwards to hold the bolt open." That makes absolutely no sense and you can ignore that as well.
The SAT-8 is similar in operation to most-all semi-auto shotguns out there. No surprises.
Perhaps the spring was extra stiff and the loads anemic which wasn't working the bolt all the way back?
That's the only conclusion I could draw from that internet-article.
Cheers~
P.S. The writer also stated something weird like "You need to shift the gate rearwards to hold the bolt open." That makes absolutely no sense and you can ignore that as well.
The SAT-8 is similar in operation to most-all semi-auto shotguns out there. No surprises.
yes, very happy. Button. As I said, controls are similar to that on a Remington 1100 and virtually all other semi-auto shotguns. No surprises.
That article was either testing a proto-type or the design has change a lot since it was written.
It's suppose to be 5 3" shells but mine is plugged to only hold 4 3" shells. It hold's 5 2 3/4 shells though. I was thinking of taking the pug out to make it fit 5.9 3" shells. That means it should hold 6 2 3/4 in the tube, 1 in the chamber and 1 ghost load = 8 at the ready
I'm also noticing some unusual wear near the ejection port on mine, the shells seem "rubbing" when ejected taking a noticeable amount of material from the receiver....anyone else have this issue?
I'm also noticing some unusual wear near the ejection port on mine, the shells seem "rubbing" when ejected taking a noticeable amount of material from the receiver....anyone else have this issue?
Fatalus_Viridae
Regular
It's suppose to be 5 3" shells but mine is plugged to only hold 4 3" shells. It hold's 5 2 3/4 shells though. I was thinking of taking the pug out to make it fit 5.9 3" shells. That means it should hold 6 2 3/4 in the tube, 1 in the chamber and 1 ghost load = 8 at the ready
I'm also noticing some unusual wear near the ejection port on mine, the shells seem "rubbing" when ejected taking a noticeable amount of material from the receiver....anyone else have this issue?
Thanks for the reply, 5.9 3" sounds like a good idea, too bad they don't ship them that way.
Yeah, but at least it isn't crimped like the M4, so you have the option to mod without buying actual new hardware, where as with the M4 you have to buy a new magazine tube.
I shot my SAT 8 along side with my friends M4. The M4 seems to have a bit less recoil and the cycling feels smoother. Nothing compares to the M4 but I'm still very happy with the SAT 8 though, and its about $1000 cheaper than the M4
I shot my SAT 8 along side with my friends M4. The M4 seems to have a bit less recoil and the cycling feels smoother. Nothing compares to the M4 but I'm still very happy with the SAT 8 though, and its about $1000 cheaper than the M4
Scott Rhodes
Member
- Location
- Mission BC
Hey the question about ejection port wear on SAT 8, Mines the same, along the bottom right? On mine I also have wear up front on the ejection port wear it looks like the Crimping thats been opened up on the spent shells is rubbing when ejecting the shells.
I think its from shooting light loads and the bolt isn't quite going far enough back to cleanly eject the shells.
Can't say I'm overly impressed with mine considering I paid around 1200 bucks for it, and after a few hundred rounds Its already showing wear.
I think its from shooting light loads and the bolt isn't quite going far enough back to cleanly eject the shells.
Can't say I'm overly impressed with mine considering I paid around 1200 bucks for it, and after a few hundred rounds Its already showing wear.
This is what mine looks like, I would say around 150 rounds. Half being magnum loads, the other half being normal trap rounds.
You can't really see it, but the middle right side, there are a bunch of scratches, not a bid deal.
http://imgur.com/ZuOPZ
But the two is my concern after such a low round count.
http://imgur.com/EjjN0
http://i.imgur.com/BAfoY.jpg
You can't really see it, but the middle right side, there are a bunch of scratches, not a bid deal.
http://imgur.com/ZuOPZ
But the two is my concern after such a low round count.
http://imgur.com/EjjN0
http://i.imgur.com/BAfoY.jpg
Scott Rhodes
Member
- Location
- Mission BC
Yours doesn't look all that bad, compared to mine. I've probably got around 500 rounds through mine, and is showing quite a bit more wear, I'd post pics if I could figure out how. I guess it's just the way the shotguns are made, just would have thought aluminium receivers would have been stronger than that.
Fatalus_Viridae
Regular
I would think anything made of aluminium or softer will wear like this. Steel receiver would not i suspect.
On his pics it looks like the whole port is wearing. Im not sure this could be attributed to light loads? You could load up some 00 buck or regular slugs, take a sharpie and colour in the wear. See if the full power loads takes the sharpie off. If it does its just how the shells are extracted. Worth a try?
On his pics it looks like the whole port is wearing. Im not sure this could be attributed to light loads? You could load up some 00 buck or regular slugs, take a sharpie and colour in the wear. See if the full power loads takes the sharpie off. If it does its just how the shells are extracted. Worth a try?
