Compare select fire 93 versus 53 versus 33

1323 Views 9 Replies 7 Participants Last post by Teufelshund Tactical, Feb 20, 2012

Gray51

Discussion Starter · Feb 11, 2012

Has anyone fired a select fire 93, 53, and 33? Can anyone who's fired any of these compare them as far as handling, capability, reliability??

Save

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

jdonovan

· #2 · Feb 12, 2012

shorter barrel are a bit easier handling.

both are reliable if built properly.

Capability? Thats a personal one.... What do __YOU__ want it to do.

Save

My thinking, in an urban tactical situation and climbing in and out of vehicles, shorter is often better. But for longer ranges, longer barrels to keep the velocity a bit higher, to reach out a little bit further.

Save

GZire

· #4 · Feb 13, 2012

Gray51 said:
Has anyone fired a select fire 93, 53, and 33? Can anyone who's fired any of these compare them as far as handling, capability, reliability??

I've shot a 53, but can't really comment on the reliability as I don't own it and don't have to clean/maintain it. Handling is fairly easy. Cyclic rate was a bit on the slower side, but pretty soft shooting. Don't know if that is typical or just typical of the one I shot.

Save

harrissr

· #5 · Feb 16, 2012

my v53 is run with an ace folder on it and has proven to be 100% reliable with various ammo. it is accurate although i have not bench rested it at distance . i practice with it on f/a control and accuracy. it is noisy but the flash is not bad depending on ammo. certain ammo it is blinding and with other it is minimal. it is cleaned after every outing. have not tried it with a suppressor (short barrel is questionable with a suppressor ) handling is comparable to an mp5 but noit as handy as my mp5kpdw. i believe that if there is a relative accuracy problem with a 53 it is more with the shooter than the gun if i have to go over a long distance then i will switch to my 51 mainly for the cartridge and the gun. long range precision shooting takes a platform specifically set up for those parametersand this idea of one gun for everything doesn't really exist as well as one ammo for everything. if i had to grab just one gun i would grab my 51 and the .22 conversion for it to have most of it covered.

See less See more

Save

fordemti

· #6 · Feb 18, 2012

I personally don't like the full size 93 as it is quite heavy and slightly unwieldly. I've not fired it in fa but have shot one extensively in semi. I was not impressed. YMMV.

Save

MJ11

· #7 · Feb 19, 2012

100 yards

See less See more

Save

Gray51

Discussion Starter · #8 · Feb 20, 2012

Is the tight group at 100 yards with iron sights?

Save

MJ11

· #9 · Feb 20, 2012

Gray51 said:
Is the tight group at 100 yards with iron sights?

I think I just said that. Set on 2 on the drum. Turn it to 3 and it's spot on at 300 which is a 320 yard shot with 125' of elevation at our range.

You can see the bunker on the hill at 320 yards.

And that is with a 55g pellet

See less See more

Save

Teufelshund Tactical

· #10 · Feb 20, 2012

93 and 33 are the same except for full auto capability. They are the way to go, if you plan on shooting well past 200m. The 53 is much better for closer targets and CQB type scenarios. All are the same functionally. In full auto, you get a big muzzle flash and loud noise from the 53 though, due to it's shorter barrel. Great fun for you, but not so much the other guys in your stack or in the lanes on either side of you at the range. I've actually had people move lanes on me and complain to the range officer.

Save

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.

Top Contributors this Month