View Single Post
Old 04-23-2011, 11:41 PM   #6 (permalink)
MCB Member
Join Date: Oct 2007

Originally Posted by Talfuchre View Post
One of the great advantages of CCM is that they listen to their end users. They are constantly making tweaks and adjustments to their markers to suit the customer. This can have one disadvantage, however, concerning this review is that I am much more likely to list what I would like to change to a company that will actually listen to me. In this vein - I have owned my S6.5 for about eight months now and have thought heavily about what I like about it and would like to change. After a full day of play today - I would like to list the nit picks about this marker.

I will be comparing the S6.5 to other CCM markers - mostly S6.

Weight: The major advantage of the 6.5 to the S6 is weight. It is markedly lighter and because of this factor - I can hold the marker longer, snap shot quicker, and hold the marker more steadily.

Feedneck: The S6.5 uses a two piece removable feedneck that is made to for Spyder two hole style feednecks. This, as seen with the T2 is a more versatile feedneck design that allows for myriad of feednecks and feed styles. It is easily removable with two screws and makes for an easier clean at the end of the day.

Nit Pick:
Make more feed styles. In particular, make a compatable stock class feed. You made a cram and jam for the T2 in VERY low supply and with very little modifications you could at least make this for the S6.5. We all know this is not a stock class marker - but MANY MANY people want to shoot modified stock class. (Further, there are little to no Stock Class markers that are truly stock class)

For that matter, make a feedneck that is actually a tube. Make it hold 13 balls and come out the back. You don't have to make it a 17 piece kit like the SS-25 feed was - look at the Gargoyle and design one that is similar.

One Piece Body: This change was made with the S6. I am not sure of the advantages other than having one less seal and one less screw to worry about - but I don't really care. It is damned cool - it looks cool, it works perfectly and I love it.

Newer Auto Trigger Retention Pin:
Whomever had the idea of the ball and spring retention system should be slapped. It only works when it is held in with a tiny grub screw or all you EVER do is loose the little damned things.

With that said - whomever thought of the cam pin at CCM needs a raise. An elegent solution to a complex problem. This is, by far, the best AT on a CCM yet. The pin stops the cam from binding on the trigger and the shorter cam and single hole in the frame makes for a more elegant trigger design. Mad Kudos here. (If the same person had the ball and spring idea as had the pin idea - slap them and THEN give them a raise.

AT pump arm Pin:
Love it. Simple and elegant. Please tell me you are done messing with this design. You have had every allen key size and hole ever imagined in that single hole on the pump arm and this latest design works, stops rub, and is hot.

Pump Guide Arms:
Bill is going to hate this one - but I don't think they need to be stainless - or if they need to be stainless - they could be skelotinized more. Love the tear drops - but you could drop some serious weight by rethinking the larger guide arm on the later models. With that said - if you have tried it and you lost reliability or increased wear and tear - skip it - a few grams are not worth it in the long run. Just a thought.

Love and have loved the single 3/16th allen key removal slot in the end. Awesome and has been awesome.

Valve: Don't touch it. I still want to find Garret and slap him for the delrin fart years of the CCM. This newer modular valve stem is awesome and efficient.

Hammer and main spring:
This is where my main gripe is for the S6. A longer heavier hammer meant getting a redesign on the spring. A design for an end cap meant less room in the bottom tube. What did we end up with? A lighter and FAR more efficient valve design - that had VERY little back travel if you were ever over FPS. My S6.5 and my T2 run at the very back end of their IVG settings and I have to reg down if I am hot.

Not optimal. The advantage of every hammer in the CCM family besides the halfblock hammer is that you had a huge variance in FPS adjustment. The disadvantage to the T2 and S6.5 shielded hammer is a loss in this adjustment.

Further, the "250 forever" problem exists in both markers if they get paint or debris in the bottom tube, which is very easy due to the half block design. About 1/2 of the problems I field with these two markers is cured by saying 'clean you bottom tube'.

I don't know how you can fix this - in the short run I would ellipse the hammer so that it more tolerant to grime and dirt in the bottom tube. In the long run - you need to look at a redesign (in my opinion).

: Keep the efficiency (it is 50% more efficient than the S6) but loose the lack of rear adjustment and the lack of a back cap on the S6.5. Let's face it - on the S6.5 it is ugly to simply have the IVG hanging out the *** end. The vanity cap was a great addition to the T2 - but a lack of one on the S6.5 shows a lack of design time. This was a must on MODIFIED markers (cockers turned into half blocks) but not on a marker built from the ground up.

Grip Frame: I think this one has been addressed but my grip frame has a hole in it for a beaver tail that is taken up by a grub screw. Omit this.

Bolt and Detent Design: Spot on. Nothing to see here. Fast, elegant, has the Circle C CCM logo on the back, has great detents and detent covers. This is the sort of thing CCM is all about. Awesomeness. Take that thinking and apply it to the hammer of the bottom tube on the S6.5.

Lower Hole on the CCM Reg: It is about damned time. I love it. The 90 degree fitting fits UNDER the Grip frame. Thank you CCM for fixing this once and for all!

CCM Rail: Bring back the CCM logo on the rail. Little touches like that make a marker hotter.

With all of this said - I love my S6.5 I have ONE down game with this marker in 8 months (paint on the hammer after being bunkered) and have killed more than the plague with it. It is an accurate, fast, reliable, sexy, head turning, death machine - and frankly - the reason I run a CCM marker. If I had to own ONE marker - it would be the CCM S6. Tried, true, and death in my hands. If I had my choice of markers to run - the S6.5 is my choice.

I will be taking pictures of my S6.5 and doing a manual for this marker soon. Stay tuned.

Feedneck on 6.5- we thought more people liked the 2 piece style.Making it in both styles would be a pita.

Stockclass feed tubes and feed systems have always been a love hate situation for us. We have designed a system that works on the threaded feed necks as well as the Spyder style but something has to give for machine time.

The latest T2 grip frame has all pin retension system.The trigger,the sear and the A/T cam. The screws with the 4-40 threads will soon be gone on all of the frames. . We are moving slow on the change over for all of the grip frames just to make sure this pin system works.

The ball,spring and screw was really short lived.

The pump guide arms are stainless because aluminium didn't work for us.We could drill them out but the time didn't justify the weight difference.

That delrin valve pin was designed to give CCM guns a distinctive sound. You could always tell someone was playing with a CCM gun without ever looking.
Maybe we should patent that fart sound? Smell would be awsome.

Hammer and main spring. It is what it is. We could make the body a 1/4" longer? We will figure something out one or these days.We have an idea in the works.

Vanity Cap on 6.5- The issue would be timing the threads so the cap lines up with the 2 angles on the bottom tube. We thought about a slip fit cap with a set screw under the grip frame but that just didn't fly.The 6.5 wasn't from the ground up.The slot in the bottom tube is being looked at.Something will come up.

Beaver tail hole. Get somebody to change the rules.

We can't inventory two styles of frames. Would you like yours with or with out? I don't like beaver tails either. Their time has passed.

Deleting the engraving CCM on the parts was more of a cost saving than anything else and not because of machine time but because of anodizing cost. If the polishing compound is not cleaned out by hand labor the anodizing would not take and the part would have to be stripped and repolished again then re-anodized. Big cost.

I love the engraving on parts. It's better than "Jewels" (Chinese engraving). but I would have to have a full time employee wearing lint free cotton gloves using soft picks to clean out the engraving

The small issues will get resolved and this type of constructive advice is most welcome.

Last edited by CCMachinist; 04-23-2011 at 11:45 PM.
CCMachinist is offline   Reply With Quote