Jump to content

Cushman blaster review (MG-34) DLT-19 heavy blaster


Recommended Posts

A friend of mine recently purchased a "cushman" kit.

I'm going to try & be neutral on this & just post pics & comparisons.

I don't want this thread getting closed for bashing, so newbies can benefit from the information contained here.

Please refrain from posting overly negative responses.

here's some pics of the kit that he received compared to the Hyper-firm that was cast from a real MG-34

THE HYPER_FIRM PICS HAVE A YELLOW BOX AROUND THEM

Here is the Buttstock & receiver

Notice the lack of detail & overlap of vacuform pieces.

There are also some scratches from the "Trimming" done my the maker.

The trimming is horrible

Posted Image

Posted Image

Top of the receiver devoid of detail

Posted Image

Posted Image

This is the flash suppressor. It has the same poor trimming as the buttstock

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Here is the barrel

Posted Image

Posted Image

The bipod assembly. The nail is to hold the bipod legs up once they are folded.

Posted Image

Posted Image

I'd go into detail about my personal opinion on this product, but I feel that would get this thread closed immediately.

The guy that bought this from Cushman did say that he would have gotten

" more pleasure out of taking the 80 bucks & setting it on fire" {SMILIES_PATH}/6.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've never heard anyone have anything good to say about the cushman guns. The MG34, and most guns for that matter, really don't lend themselves to being vac-formed. For the pricepoint, do a scratchbuild, you probably won't even spend $80. For total accuracy, you will spend more money, but look at the difference! A picture is worth a thousand words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a Cushman MG-34 and I just purchased the hyperfirm MG-34 on ebay last week. Of course, the hyperfirm is far superior but more expensive. In this case, you do get what you pay for. My Cushman MG-34 did not look anywhere near as bad as those pictures. I did do a lot of sanding and customizing after I received mine about 8 months ago. I carved more detail into the plastic, removed all the seams, filled gaps, and changed the bipod mount to be more accurate. It actually turned out good and I got a lot of compliments on it. You can really fix them up nicely if you have the time and skills. It was good to troop with because it is very light, probably less than 3lbs.

Still, I really wanted the more accurate hyperfirm MG-34 and am glad Nathan made one available last week.

Vince

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, I really wanted the more accurate hyperfirm MG-34 and am glad Nathan made one available last week.

Vince

Hey bro!!

I'm really glad to hear that you finally got your MG-34! Now join up with the Pacific Outpost so we can come over and troop with YOU on the beautiful island of Maui!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The overall observations of the Cushman is correct. The details are very soft. It is a 'kit' and with most fan made kits there is usually some sanding, filing, filling, etc....to be expected. I would love, just as much as anyone else, to have a hyper firm, but I can not afford one. I purchased the Cushman and keeping the price and the quality I recieved in mind, I am very happy with it. It is by far not perfect and there actually is one thing about the Cushman that is spot on accurate. Since it is a kit, and you have to insert a 1" PVC pipe in it, you can fully cut out the holes in the cooling shroud. This is exactly how the original mg-34 was. There was an inner barrel and the outer shroud was a seperate piece. Of course this is trivial in the overall accuracy, but I still thought it nice to bring up. From a couple feet away it looks great, but on closer inspect, yes, the details are not very crisp. I really like it and I have also gotten a lot of compliments on the gun.

Shroud (Click on Pics to increase size)

Posted Image

Finished Gun

Posted Image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also bought a Cushman, before I knew better. I was very, very dissapointed. It also shipped a month later than stated. In the end, I purchased an HF on eBay for about twice what I paid for the Cushman. Frankly, I don't think the Cushman is worth the money.

HH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depends on what your end goal is in terms of accuracy. I've seen a bunch of fan made BFG's now and the quality delta between them can be pretty high.

To be honest, only another trooper would know or care about the difference. My pack sure doesn't look that great close up, but from a few feet away you can't tell the difference, and again no one but another trooper is really going to look too close anyway.

IMHO, it's like the difference between FX & TE. If you really care about accuracy and have the $$ & time to invest, then TE is the way to go. If you want "good enough" accuracy and a reasonable price, FX really isn't all that bad.

Vive le difference

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depends on what your end goal is in terms of accuracy. I've seen a bunch of fan made BFG's now and the quality delta between them can be pretty high.

I would have to disagree, in this instance. For the price you pay for the Cushman, you could scratch-build two guns that blow it away in quality. I don't think it has anything to do with accuracy. In this case it's about the quality of the product.

HH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

next step is we wear all pink palderon because a non trooper can´t see the differences. omg

Not what I'm saying at all. Should my pack not count because it's not 100% screen accurate? Should we ban anyone who wears FX from being in the 501st? I'm all up for quality and a definate standard of accuracy, but just because something isn't 100% perfect doesn't mean it's bad.

If the cushman out of the box looks like crap fine. If you can tune it to be acceptable, fine.

My point is that different people have different levels of accuracy that they are shooting for. And that should be OK. Obviously there is a minimum bar, but after that it should be up to each person, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

u are right!

i wouldn´t blame anybody! if someone thought so i´m sorry !

but i saw trooper with "helmets" like helmets u can win in a

shooting gallery from a amusement park and they were 501st too.

sometimes the level is to low i think! thats i wanted to say !

only a few real great trooper are 100% accurat ! respekt!!

but i´ll try to be as accurately as possible with the budget i can spend for!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Ill all got the crusmann, and not happy whit it. Ive been trying to get one from sci-frie over the last two years, but whit no luck so far

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive been trying to get one from sci-frie over the last two years, but whit no luck so far

Keep an eye on the boards, not just this but also the 501st as well as EBay. Several have come up this year already - at least three that I can recall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have a Cushman MP43/STG44. As others have stated, pretty soft detail. And fragile from a trooping standpoint. BUT, I filled that thing with resin, and peeled the styrene off, and now have a pretty solid block to carve my own 'Hoth' blaster. I'm sure there are better ways to do this, and I still have the shell that is the MP43/STG44 so in essence I wound up with two.

If you are on a budget, and want a lightweight blaster, and details are not a big issue, this is an option.

I think it's a decent way to get startend on a scratch build. You get the right scale, and basic outline, and you get to add all the details you see fit to add.

IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Sorry, but I have to defend the Cushman MG-34. Soft detail?-Yes. Fragile?-No. As stated before, it is "a kit." It's like a car model. In pieces and unassembled, it looks like crap. Put a bit of effort, detail, and some TLC into it and it rocks. Rivets and screws are a must and the expandable foam is great at adding rigidity and durability. Drop it all you want and it's ready for more. You get into this what you put into it. If you can make one from scratch that looks just like it, then just imagine what you could do with something that already looks like the MG. Try it. You'll be suprised. Just my two cents. Thanks for the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh!

That is the same piece of garbage I got when I went looking for an inexpensive MG34 prop, and I am certainly not happy with what I got.

Now I have done vacuuforming myself, and I can tell you that vacuuforming is a very good modeling technique. The Cushman MG34 however, is not a good example of how vacuuforming is supposed to be done.

The vacuuformed MG34 I received, which I simply refer to now as "vacuucrap", is possibly the worst vacuuforming job I have ever seen. Had I known better, I would never have purchaced it. It is simply not worth the money being charged for it by any stretch of the imagination. Had they just sent me four sheets of ABS with a note saying "Do it yourself" I probably would have been better off. The only thing I have found mine good for is taking measurements, with which I am trying to build a decent MG34 model from scratch.

The detail of the Cushman MG34 is terrible. It looks as if one had taken a real gun, and dunked it into a thick gooey mass of black pancake batter. I suppose it can still be useful as a prop however, provided the person holding the prop is only going to be seen from a quarter mile away.

If it benefits anyone out there who is looking for an MG34 model, I will whole heartedly recommend NOT buying the Cushman MG34. There are much better ways in which one can waste their money. Flushing cash down the toilet is much more highly recommended than spending it on this piece of trash.

I've been burned. Let's see that it happens to nobody else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard the term "kit" tossed around quite a bit. Kit doesn't mean crap. However, it's a cheap (read inexpensive), low detail prop. I'd have to agree with jimbo's comments on it. I think the achille's heel of it is that it looks better in pictures than in person, therefore it isn't living up to what people expect. Maybe some higher resolution shots on their website would result in less disgruntled customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until then - build your own for less than 30 bucks!

OK Fellow Troopers - here is the finished product.... these are the best pics I could take given the size of the gun... 04 parts, breaks down and re-assembled tight... I know it's not exact, or a Sci_fire, but hey, it's hand carved wood and light..

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

I am working on making flexible foam copies of the rear stock....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...