Cast receiver SW5 owners...

[scatsob]

I just picked one up at a good price and had a question. The gun has never been fired and was built in 1999, and I am just wondering if there are any common problems with the guns manufactured early on. I know I need to get to the range and try it out...just looking for useful info from people with more experience than I. Thanks.

[Shattered Mind]

Early owners bitched and howled about the fit of the front foregrip, the stiffness of the paddle release (if so equipped), the fact that the cocking handle didn't lock forward and usually rattled, and that for the sear owners, the semi shelf on the receiver was usually mounted too low so the sear lever didn't release the hammer in full auto, weak extractor springs, sticky extractors, and poor machining on the barrels.

As a semi auto gun, it generally worked as advertised. Most of the complaints were cosmetic... and VERY vocal. Most of the above complaints above were easily overlooked by those who realized they had an inexpensive copy of a German gun that worked for less than half the price of the real thing. Others wanted a perfect copy of their German gun for less than half and complained with increasing vigor that continues to this day.

Eh...

[75bronco]

The fit of the stock on the back of the reciever was always an issue. We started to machine about .015 off the casting following the contour. This helped. Barrels were not fluted but seemed to work without problems. Carriers were either full auto or semi. No tungsten in the full auto. Alot more genuine hk parts were in the older ones just because Todd was not making all the other parts yet. All in all the Stainless casted receiver was great, very stong and straight rails. I know he sold the molds. Someone would do pretty good if they started making just the receivers again.

[retrodog]

I have a 2000 model year SW5. It was a very nice gun right off the line, from what I can tell. The key thing it had that needed to be changed out was a rifle hammer spring. This robbed power from the cycling of the bolt assy.

Look here for information on this:
http://hkpro.com/forum/showthread.php?t=65232


The second key difference was that the early cast receivers were made to an additional thickness that appeared on the outer side, as to not impact internal components. This extra thickness added a lot of strength to the receiver. I suspect that since this was designed and built during the AWB and as such, there was no need to use the retractable stock, the additional thickness could be added with disregard to the ability to attach an A3. So the A3 stock doesn't really work with these guns.

The extra thickness does not go all the way to the rear of the gun. It was tapered back down to standard thickness just before the stock fitting surfaces. If you look closely at my SW5, you can see the thickness increase just in front of the stock:




Mine came with a POF A2 stock and a genuine HK SA trigger pack from an HK91. That's why it had the rifle hammer spring.

In any case, it's very common to switch out various components like the extractor, extractor spring, ejector, ejector spring, hammer spring, and whatever else you want to. But I'd check on the hammer spring first and switch that out. Also, only use good quality ammo with muzzle velocities of >1,200 fps. Most people here like S&B or Fiocchi.

[scatsob]

Thanks for the info guys, I really appriciate it. I have already noticed some of the "problems" mentioned. I think the shelf is a little low but Ill never be able to afford a sear. The cocking handle seems fine but the paddle mag release is a little stiff, but im sure it will get better with use. The only thing I have noticed is the trigger has a tendency to get stuck foreword after being pulled, anyone else have this problem? I havent taken a really close look at the trigger pack to diagnose the problem and im sure its not a bid deal. Also, anyone shoot the steel case S&B ammo? Its about all I can afford in quantity. Anywhoo, here are some pictures of my new toy. Goes nicely with my PTR and the SL8 I have coming.:D

[retrodog]

Thanks for the info guys, I really appriciate it. I have already noticed some of the "problems" mentioned. I think the shelf is a little low but Ill never be able to afford a sear. The cocking handle seems fine but the paddle mag release is a little stiff, but im sure it will get better with use. The only thing I have noticed is the trigger has a tendency to get stuck foreword after being pulled, anyone else have this problem? I havent taken a really close look at the trigger pack to diagnose the problem and im sure its not a bid deal. Also, anyone shoot the steel case S&B ammo? Its about all I can afford in quantity. Anywhoo, here are some pictures of my new toy. Goes nicely with my PTR and the SL8 I have coming.:D

That gun has been modified. It's got the thicker receiver that I was talking about earlier but the lower has been replaced with what looks like the real HK SEF lower that Adam Webber sells, with the finger grooves. Or it's a nice looking knock-off.

Here it is on my CA89 for comparison:

[Las_Vegas_HK]

No one mentioned weight.
The heavier weight has it pros and cons.
On the pros side, in full auto, you could not ask for a more stable robust MP5.
On the cons sides, it feels like the cast recevier adds a half pound of weight and makes a heavy gun even heavier.

The other items are finish which has been mentioned. The finish on the cast looks very grainy especially if you have some shine to your finish.

The rails can be ground down to accomodate a A3 stock, mine was.

It is my opinion that the cast receviers should just about last forever versus the sheet metal which tears and cracks over time.

[usas12]

I sent it to Ralph and he did an SD on it. I sanded the casting marks off of it, and also did the receiver untill it no longer looked cast. I did the sanding by hand. It looks very nice and it has never had a failure. But its still cast. But for a blaster its worked out well.

[scatsob]

Thanks for all the info guys. Its just nice to see the cast receiver guns being talked about in a posative manner. There was no way I could afford a real HK94 and I just figured the cast receiver would give me less trouble in the long run as far as durability was concerned. I cant wait to get to shoot it now.

[jamac99]

It's got the thicker receiver that I was talking about earlier but the lower has been replaced with what looks like the real HK SEF lower that Adam Webber sells, with the finger grooves. Or it's a nice looking knock-off.

I believe they are knock-offs and not HK. My SW5 that I bought in 2000 had the same SEF lower but the letters weren't painted very well.





After SBR'ing it. I messed up the lugs a little so I covered them with a flash hider.



I had failures with the straight mags but found that when I changed to curved ones it feeds and ejects fine.