But are those actual paint chips or dirt that has scuffed onto the weapon. The kind you often get on the black furniture of camera equipment that isn’t actually damage, and is just dirt that can be brushed off?notice the paint chipping , either the training is much more intensive then I think , or the paint isn't that much "grunt proof"
I'm quite sure the PLA has its reasons and that they do provide some advantage, but my god that rubber scope cover (the one on the rear) is not good looking at all.
As long it's replaceable it should be good enough.Aren't there four lengths for the stock?
That said, I agree that to me the stock looks fine as a baseline variant.
I think it compares fine to the standard stock of say, the standard M4s that are issued in the world (CAR-15 style). It's relatively slim and looks lightweight.
If anything, the stock is one thing that I think they got right on the first go.
yeah I just personally don't like the look of it, don't mind me XDIt looks just like a normal eyepiece cover.
It seems very much like an optional addition, as we see some of the scopes fitted with the eyepiece cover, and some without.
I think he's refering to the lower edges of where the magazine goes in? The way I interpret the picture is that there is wear at that location as suggested by the silver sheen, but that is not exactly "chipping"...?What paint or surface chipping is visible??
Probably reflection.yeah I just personally don't like the look of it, don't mind me XD
btw can the cover help the shooter quickly find the correct eye relief by simple pushing his eye socket against it? The normal rifle has an unlimited eye relief scope as I understand, but it may be very helpful for the sharpshooter varient as iirc it is equipped with a LPVO that needs a certain range of eye relief to work properly
I think he's refering to the lower edges of where the magazine goes in? The way I interpret the picture is that there is wear at that location as suggested by the silver sheen, but that is not exactly "chipping"...?