Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/23/2006 1:27:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2006 4:20:35 PM EDT by pathfinder74]
I tried to buy it today but didn't realize I needed a Maryland state driver's license to do it. I have an out of state (NJ) license with a MD address on it because I was in .mil. But I got out in 03 and the expiration on my NJ license is this year. I didn't know I was supposed to get a Maryland license within 30 days of becoming a permanent resident.

Anywho... I'm getting my license tomorrow and then right ot the gun shop.

The tag price is $624 at On Target. He said he'd hold it for 24 hours. Everywhere else seems to be about $700+ so I consider it a decent deal. I suppose there's a good chance it would be cheaper at a PA gun show (since I think I'd be able to buy it out of state since it's a "sporting arm"). Maybe I should wait... any gun shows this weekend?

I'm putting the Oly/Glock lower plans on hold. I just don't like the mixed reviews on it. Since I'll have the extra money I'm looking into getting the Cx4 supporessed instead. We'll see how that goes though.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 8:30:30 PM EDT
Are you gettin a seperate can or are you going to gat an intagrated system?
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 4:55:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bblake00:
Are you gettin a seperate can or are you going to gat an intagrated system?



I'm looking into getting an integral can. Not sure who could do it at this point. If I do I'll need to figure out if I can swap out barrels on it so I can use in non-Title 2 compliant states.
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 7:16:24 AM EDT
Have you given it any thought of SBR'ing it. You're might be able to take an SBR more places than a can.

Plus you don't have the added expence of buying another barrel.

If you do decide to do this I know of a guy in Pasadena that does builds. And he does great work.
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 7:23:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bblake00:
Have you given it any thought of SBR'ing it. You're might be able to take an SBR more places than a can.
Plus you don't have the added expence of buying another barrel.
If you do decide to do this I know of a guy in Pasadena that does builds. And he does great work.



I'm not sure how much accruacy would be sacrificed by cutting the barrel back that far.
Plus I'm guessing a spare barrel would probably be just as much as the tax stamp for the SBR.

I'm hoping to do integral with the hopes of getting the same effect of an LRM 169... which is that it'd suppress regular 115gr ball ammo. In the long run it might save a few bucks on buying sub-sonic, but mostly I just like the idea of it.
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 5:55:44 PM EDT
Well, I got it today. I ended up picking up the top rail for it as well because I couldn't wait to mount my CQ/T on it.

Pretty sweet little rifle. I can't wait to take it out and shoot it.

Disassembly is a piece of cake. It seems pretty confortable holding it.

My only concern at this point is how long it will last being mostly plastic. Odds are I'll never use it enough to have to worry about that... or at least I hope not. I wonder if some areas where the moving parts come in contact with the plastic might see some wear but as long as it doesn't interfere with the function I guess it won't be a big deal.
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 6:33:13 PM EDT
How does it look as far as getting the integral can set up. Will you need to have any of the plastic cut away?
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 7:07:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bblake00:
How does it look as far as getting the integral can set up. Will you need to have any of the plastic cut away?



I won't know until I hear back from some of the guys I e-mailed today about it. I should think not but I don't really know.
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 10:01:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2006 10:10:12 PM EDT by Forest]

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:
Well, I got it today. I ended up picking up the top rail for it as well because I couldn't wait to mount my CQ/T on it.



A CQ/T on a 9mm carbine? Dude! what are they putting in the water where you live?

Put the CQ/T on your AR and use an Aimpoint/EOTech or even a SPOT on the CX4.
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 11:01:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:
Well, I got it today. I ended up picking up the top rail for it as well because I couldn't wait to mount my CQ/T on it.



A CQ/T on a 9mm carbine? Dude! what are they putting in the water where you live?

Put the CQ/T on your AR and use an Aimpoint/EOTech or even a SPOT on the CX4.




He's from up north...
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 4:06:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:
Well, I got it today. I ended up picking up the top rail for it as well because I couldn't wait to mount my CQ/T on it.



A CQ/T on a 9mm carbine? Dude! what are they putting in the water where you live?

Put the CQ/T on your AR and use an Aimpoint/EOTech or even a SPOT on the CX4.



It's not permanent... at least I don't think. Right now I have an IOR M2 4x24 Tactical sitting on the AR.

I had an EOTech... didn't like the fuzziness of the reticle (I think it was my eyes).

Yeah I was thinking it was kinda strange putting a scope on that cost more than the rifle...
If I got a 9mm AR I would have done the same thing though.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 5:09:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:
Well, I got it today. I ended up picking up the top rail for it as well because I couldn't wait to mount my CQ/T on it.



A CQ/T on a 9mm carbine? Dude! what are they putting in the water where you live?

Put the CQ/T on your AR and use an Aimpoint/EOTech or even a SPOT on the CX4.



It's not permanent... at least I don't think. Right now I have an IOR M2 4x24 Tactical sitting on the AR.

I had an EOTech... didn't like the fuzziness of the reticle (I think it was my eyes).

Yeah I was thinking it was kinda strange putting a scope on that cost more than the rifle...
If I got a 9mm AR I would have done the same thing though.



I had the same fuzziness with the eotech on my storm. Try with my contacts and fuzziness went away. Also just got new glasses and its still a litle fuzzy, but not as bad as it was with old glasses.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 6:22:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bblake00:

He's from up north...



So am I (born & bred as a CT Yankee).

FYI on the EOTech were you looking at the target or the reticule. If you look at the reticule it will look "fuzzy", it clears up alot if you focus on the target instead. Though if you have an uncorrected astigmatism it will still look fuzzy.

Tough choice between the IOR & CQT for the AR, yeah I guess I'd do the same in your shoes till I could get a SPOT or something for for the CX4.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 6:59:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By bblake00:

He's from up north...



So am I (born & bred as a CT Yankee).




That explains alot...
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:06:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:
FYI on the EOTech were you looking at the target or the reticule. If you look at the reticule it will look "fuzzy", it clears up alot if you focus on the target instead. Though if you have an uncorrected astigmatism it will still look fuzzy.

I had LASIK surgery to correct my vision... the astigmatism does not get corrected in that procedure though. I was aware of that being a problem and noticed it when I was playing with an EOTech at Quantico Arms, but thought I could just deal with it. After I had it and read threads about how to correct it by looking at the target I tried like hell to work around it but it just annoyed me too much.

Tough choice between the IOR & CQT for the AR, yeah I guess I'd do the same in your shoes till I could get a SPOT or something for for the CX4.

That's my thought. now that there is a reticle retrofit option for the CQ/T I am considering trading off the IOR, getting the retrofit, and then getting a cheaper scope with the money left over for the Cx4. The CQ/T has the same magnificatoin as the IOR, but I thought the reticle in the IOR was pretty slick (plus it looks pretty cool on the AR).


Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:13:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2006 7:17:30 AM EDT by bblake00]

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:



What are you looking at getting for the CQ/T?
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:28:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bblake00:

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:



What are you looking at getting for the CQ/T?



The IOR... not the CQ/T.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:00:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:

Originally Posted By bblake00:

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:



What are you looking at getting for the CQ/T?



The IOR... not the CQ/T.



Sorry... the IOR. My reading comprehention drops when I get closer to bed time.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:01:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:

Originally Posted By bblake00:

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:



What are you looking at getting for the CQ/T?



The IOR... not the CQ/T.



Still need a price... .
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:11:39 AM EDT
I have no idea... just something I was tossing around in my head. To be honest with you I haven't even shot the AR with the IOR on it. I have had some gripes about how it sits on the AR, but I haven't figured out how annoying it would be when actually shooting it.

When I decide for certain I'll let you guys know if you are interested. It's got the Gragunov reticle, if that matters.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:15:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:
I have no idea... just something I was tossing around in my head. To be honest with you I haven't even shot the AR with the IOR on it. I have had some gripes about how it sits on the AR, but I haven't figured out how annoying it would be when actually shooting it.

When I decide for certain I'll let you guys know if you are interested. It's got the Gragunov reticle, if that matters.



It does matter the Gragunov reticle sucks big time. The Dragunov reticle however is superior in design.

Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:27:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bblake00:

It does matter the Gragunov reticle sucks big time. The Dragunov reticle however is superior in design.




You sure you're not from Massachusetts? Hyannis Port or Boston?


Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:36:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By bblake00:

It does matter the Gragunov recticle sucks big time. The Dragunov reticle however is superior in design.




You sure you're not from Massachusetts? Hyannis Port or Boston?





Yes... I'm going to bed now. I have to get up for work in 7 hours.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 5:15:01 PM EDT
Took it to On Target today. I'm beginning to warm up to that place now. Mainly because they are close, and because they are not as prickish to me as they were... as long as I'm friendly and they are getting my money.

I took my Cx4 Storm and my Glock today. The Storm for its first shoot, the Glock for its second shoot and first since I installed the LaserMax.

Cx4 Range Report:
1.) I only fired about +/-250 or so rounds through it. I was on a time limit.
The first 3-4 mags (15 rounders. I haven't bought anything that holds more yet) I used up ona chance I getting the scope sighted in. It was originally sighted in on my Bushmaster V-match. It was shooting quite a bit low and a little to the left. I was aiming directly at the 6 area (the head)... it was hitting in the 9 area (around the thorax area). I got it in but it took quite a few clicks to get it up there. The entire the time groups were reasonable. I'm a lousy shot when shooting from the standing/unsupported position. But about 97% of the hits were in the black.
2.) I shot it with the Leupold MkIV CQ/T. 3/4 of the time I shot it I had it set at 3x, the rest at 1x.
I didn't bother with iron sights this time around.
3.) I used a standard military silhouette target like this one except the one I had goes to six at the neck/head area. I'm not sure what the dimensions are, but I'm guessing they are close to life-size.
4.) I set the target as far as the "clothes line" would take it, which is just a bit over 50m.
5.) I was using Wolf 9mm Luger (9x19mm) 115gr. Copper FMJ Steel case non-corrosive. I know this ammo is the topic of much debate. Not saying it was from the ammo (although I'm not sure what else it could have been) I did feel a bit of "debris" hitting my face from time to time... Like I said, I'm not sure what exactly it was. for all I know it could have been dust coming off the lane walls when the shells hit it. On my next buy I might go with something a little 'better" and see if I notice any difference; maybe Federal brand.

Handling of the Cx4 Storm:

Pros:
I wasn't really sure what to expect. I've only shot a 9mm AR and carbine and an MP5. I don't remember them being very difficult to control, and neither was this. In fact it seemed really smooth in terms of controlling it. There didn't seem to be much if any muzzle rise.

The "ergonomics" are nice. I didn't have any problem with the "thumbhole stock" that people seem to hate so much. I don't mind in terms of appearance either which I'm guessing is what people have the biggest issue with. The controls are all well placed. I have to admit I never used the safety. The rifle was either on the bench with the mag out or in my hands with the mag in and bolt to the rear.

For some reason I forgot that the bolt locked to the rear after the final round was fired. I have no idea why but I was pleasantly surprised by this; makes reloading a new mag much easier. No different than an AR...

Not that I expected t have any mechanical failures, but I didn't experience any.

I didn't notice any flash from the end of the barrel. I kind of remember hearing someone say that in the "flash hider on a Cx4" thread. So I wouldn't see much point in having one put on it. However, I do plan on putting a fake suppressor on it if/when Beretta starts selling one. I just think it makes it look even cooler.


Cons:
The first thing I noticed that bothered me wa that facial hair kept getting caught in the cheek piece. That was seriously annoying. Pretty much to the point where I am going to have to make some modifications to it (not my face) to avoid this again.

Part of it might have been where I was putting my cheek because the CQ/T sits a kind of high. It may or may not have been better if I had a lower sitting scope or sed the iron sights.

The next thing I noticed was the sling lug kept hitting my support hand index finger. No there wasn't much recoil. Probably as much as an AR. But when I had my support hand all the way forward on the 'handguards" it would hit hard enough that I'd move my grip back an inch or two.

Next... the trigger. It sucks. it's really "crunchy". I don't know what better way to describe it. It just doesn't feel the same every time I pulled it. There's a bit of play before you feel any resistance, but between that it seems like it sometimes grabs or hangs up on something. In other words it's far from a smooth pull. I suspect after a little more break-in things will get smoother.

The last thing I noticed that was negative was that after a whiel I was really starting to feel the heat through the plastic. to the point where if I had continued shooting I would have expcted it to get hot enough to where it would bother me holding it or I would worry about it somehow damaging the frame receiver. I'm planning on buying the front 3-rail attachment so I can slap a light and VFG on it. I'm guessing once the VFG is on there I'll eliminate both the problem with the sling lug and the heat transfer.

If I can think of anything else I'll add it into this post. For the most part, though, I'm extremely happy with this rifle. Whether or not I'd sell it the second I see a Glock carbine in the stores is debatable though.

Glock w/ LaserMax:
I was pleasantly surprised when I fired first without using it and then with and discovered my aim was a little better without it. Some people might think this is a bad thing but I was happy because I won't become dependant on it.

It does look wicked cool shooting it though. I didn't even noticed the "pulsing" of the dot at a range of 25m-50m. And I guess because of the smoke from shooting I could see an actual beam which made it even cooler.

I was also happy when the final round was fired, the slide locked back, and the laser shut off. For some reason I thought it was going to stay on until I turned it off manually. I assume for the purpose of not giving away a shooters position while reloaded or something. Whatever the reason I like that it does that.

The on/off switch is just a kind of tight still, but it's getting easier to move it.

Overall, it's another purchase I'm glad I made.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 10:41:22 AM EDT
Got the front 3-rail attachment and put a TangoDown VFG on it. Haven't shot with it yet. I'm probably going to take it out once before I send it to have the barrel threaded.

Feels pretty good with the VFG on it. I'm looking forward to seeing how it handles.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 10:50:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:

4.) I set the target as far as the "clothes line" would take it, which is just a bit over 50m.


Not quite, On Target's max is almost 25y, those numbers are FEET not meters.

Link Posted: 3/6/2006 12:24:38 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 4:08:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:

4.) I set the target as far as the "clothes line" would take it, which is just a bit over 50m.


Not quite, On Target's max is almost 25y, those numbers are FEET not meters.




D'oh! I thought that was meters. Stupid me. I'm bad at gauging distance.
Top Top