View Full Version : What would you change on the MR3?

01-28-2008, 01:29 PM
Overall, I've been really pleased with my MR3. But it seems like there are some glaring engineering issues that don't seem to really make sense.

What would you have changed on the MR3 if you were in the engineering department?

1) The stock.
Rickity. That's the only way to describe it. The fact that one screw holds it into place, that there is an angled connector that is about an inch long that attaches the stock to the receiver. I tighten it up and literally 20 minutes into a game and its wobbly. The other major snafu is that you can't see the sights with the stock on while wearing a mask. The stock renders the sights useless. A gun with out a sight is pretty much a slingshot in my opinion. Raised sights would have also done the trick.

2) The grips.
Flimsy. You could see my battery after I installed it. Penny grips on a $330 (msrp) gun. Ridiculous. After another $24.99, the MR Flux Wraparounds are much better, but not perfect. They still aren't rigid enough to keep the grip from flexing when you wrap your hand around it.

3) The Rate of Fire Selector.
And the absence of a true safety. While in the middle of a woodsball game, my ROF selector will move on me. It sometimes will slide up to full auto, or sometimes it will slide all the way down to OFF, which really chaps your hide when you would like to shoot him before he shoots you. I would have liked to have seen a ROF on the thumbside of the receiver, along with a manual safety.

Those are my big three. I have a couple of other nitpicks, but these are the major ones.

01-28-2008, 01:50 PM
I agree with you on those three.

In addition:
Obviously the shroud-barrel restriction puts a damper my overall contentment with the gun. I realize that this isn't a particularly easy fix for the designers though. When your trying to achieve a decent mil-sim look, something's got to give. They chose barrel adaptability.

01-28-2008, 02:02 PM
Amen, Brother.

I haven't had that issue, only having a J&J ceramic that fits, but I've been wanting a Smart Parts Tactical that I have a feeling won't fit, unless it's ground down.

slim and shady
01-28-2008, 05:49 PM
I think that the total overall langth of the MR3 is to long as well(at least the front shroud) this narows down its customisability(SP) this restricts the use of alot of barrel shrouds and other mil sim looking assessories because they just look plain ugly on the MR3's. I dunno its just my opinion though.

01-31-2008, 06:05 PM
they just look plain ugly

Agreed, MR3's=UGLY

But art's is ill nasty