slave1pilot Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 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 Top of the receiver devoid of detail This is the flash suppressor. It has the same poor trimming as the buttstock Here is the barrel The bipod assembly. The nail is to hold the bipod legs up once they are folded. 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD1043 Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 All I can say is "wow." That cushman gun looks pretty sad. Is that how they all turn out, or could that have been a bad one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SethB6025 Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddocvjm Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith-Necromancer Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 it looks awful Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hpdblues Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tk1888 Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 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) Finished Gun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith-Necromancer Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 how much is a hyper firm ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hhuggins Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daetrin Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith-Necromancer Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 next step is we wear all pink palderon because a non trooper can´t see the differences. omg th afx is not only not accurate. the material is to thin! and it looks "not so nice" (so i mustn´t say its awful) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hhuggins Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daetrin Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith-Necromancer Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daetrin Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 but i´ll try to be as accurately as possible with the budget i can spend for! Exactly! Now if I can just make more money... :-p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolf Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dirty Trooper Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 I have the very same one and all I can say is in the words of Sebulba: Foodoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daetrin Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbo890 Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Dirt Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boingo Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SethB6025 Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearden6521 Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 Seth you were absolutely right. That's QUITE a difference...funny this got posted a day after I PM'd you about MG-34s!!! This definetly helped me make my decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avatar_man Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 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.. I am working on making flexible foam copies of the rear stock.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakengine Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 Avatar man, I think that looks awesome for homemade! Any closeups of the receiver area? It looks like you did plenty of detail work there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.