Fas 6004 v 604

[andyals]

I keep reading that the original mark 2 604 is the superior pistol compared to the latest 6004.
Having owned a 604 back in the day before it got nicked, and comparing it to my current 6004 I'm just not seeing it.
Could someone please elaborate on the differences.
Thanks.

[I. J.]

I had a 6004 two days before it broke. (the back sight). I took it back to the suppliers and got a refund.

[mikehill]

Hi Ian, did did they fix the fault on later guns ?

[Sgibbar]

I have seen a few 6004’s through pony club (low use, carefully used) with loose pins, oval pin holes that just suggest that the frame metal is just not as good, the triggers are also just not as good. So these 5-6 year old guns are already showing signs of wear whereas 40year old 604’s generally just need a £6 set of seals if not working and maybe a coat of paint if badly worn. The old 604’s definitely had more hand finishing on the internals. Where there are breakages on the 604’s it’s usually the top cover where it sweeps up over the grip and that is usually as a result of being dropped.

[I. J.]

Hi Ian, did did they fix the fault on later guns ?

I dont know. Mine was one of the early ones. I had waited weeks for them to arrive. What a disappointment.

[clipper]

Never used a 604, but had shocking experience with a 6004, poor consistency, pellet fussy, poor build quality, replaced it with a Gamo Compact which after spending about £5 on some files, wet&dry and some time to fettle trigger was everything the 6004 should have been for 1/3 of the price

[candleman]

Sorry but I believe I'm reading a lot of BS on this thread.
Human nature I guess but it's wrong to judge in the context of a few isolated incidents.
I bought a new Ford Focus some years ago which spent more time in the garage than it did on the road in its first six months.
So all Ford Focus's are bad then.
I mean that's the logic being applied here.
As for components on earlier models being hand finished, what a crock.
Please evidence that stupid claim.
BS of course.
The 6004 is made by the same company using the same parts and tooling.
I challenge anyone here to strip a 604 and 6004, put the components side by side and illustrate the differences.
Won't happen or course because the people spouting this ill informed nonsense are I believe just making stuff up.
Feel free to prove me wrong.

[I. J.]

Sorry but I believe I'm reading a lot of BS on this thread.
Human nature I guess but it's wrong to judge in the context of a few isolated incidents.
I bought a new Ford Focus some years ago which spent more time in the garage than it did on the road in its first six months.
So all Ford Focus's are bad then.
I mean that's the logic being applied here.
As for components on earlier models being hand finished, what a crock.
Please evidence that stupid claim.
BS of course.
The 6004 is made by the same company using the same parts and tooling.
I challenge anyone here to strip a 604 and 6004, put the components side by side and illustrate the differences.
Won't happen or course because the people spouting this ill informed nonsense are I believe just making stuff up.
Feel free to prove me wrong.

Oh dear. It appears my experiences with a single example of a 6004 has ruffled some ones feathers. Someone asked for opinions so I gave them mine. Sorry if it doesn't meet with your approval.

Of course I cannot comment on all the examples of 6004 sold ( but see post # 4 and 6 ). What I can, and did, was comment on the one example I owned for a brief period. Of course, perhaps this was just a bad example - but then again it could also be a true example.

[andyals]

There was a major design flaw in the 604.
Due to the sharp angle at the upper rear of the barrel shroud it was prone to cracking due to the forces it was subjected too.




Here you can see the slight change in the design that was done to address this.
I'm no engineer but it looks like the less sharp more sloping angle provides more even distribution of forces.

[mikec4]

I had a 6004 two days before it broke. (the back sight). I took it back to the suppliers and got a refund.

Sorry but I believe I'm reading a lot of BS on this thread.
Human nature I guess but it's wrong to judge in the context of a few isolated incidents.
BS of course.
The 6004 is made by the same company using the same parts and tooling.
I challenge anyone here to strip a 604 and 6004, put the components side by side and illustrate the differences.
Won't happen or course because the people spouting this ill informed nonsense are I believe just making stuff up.
Feel free to prove me wrong.

The example bought by I.J. was brought up to Rivington to set up on the 10 metre range.

On adjusting the elevation, on the second occasion, the adjusting screw parted company with the pistol.

When it was examined, the 3mm screw was tapped off line into a very soft aluminium mounting block.

Poor design and execution; no comparison with an FAS 604 at all. (We had one of those in the club at the time to compare)

I was there - do you have a time machine or do you just comment with no knowledge..

[candleman]

I was there - do you have a time machine or do you just comment with no knowledge..

Yes I was there and had a lot of experience shooting the 604.
You're telling me a fault with the rear site which is easily repairable is reason not to buy the 6004.
Meanwhile the OP points out a far more significant design flaw in the 604 which you choose to ignore.
Unbelievable.
I hear these stupid old is better than new cases all the time related to all sorts of things and most of it comes from ill informed forum sages who set themselves up as experts but in fact haven't a clue what they're talking about.

[I. J.]

Yes I was there and had a lot of experience shooting the 604.
You're telling me a fault with the rear site which is easily repairable is reason not to buy the 6004.

But it wasn't. A 3mm threaded hole taped into ally? There was no way of increasing the size of the hole because of the lock up. We have a few engineers and mechanics in the club and everyone who looked at it commented on its poor design.

Im no expert - Ive only been shooting match pistols over 10 years - but sights on a match pistol , any make of match pistol are very important.

'Yes I was there' ???? What? At Rivington Riflemen when this happened?

Ive never owned a 604 so dont know about any flaws so I wont comment on that. I have owned a 6004 for a very short period and it was cr*p.

[mikec4]

Yes I was there [not at Rivington on the day in question you weren't] and had a lot of experience shooting the 604.
You're telling me a fault with the rear site which is easily repairable is reason not to buy the 6004.
Meanwhile the OP points out a far more significant design flaw in the 604 which you choose to ignore.
Unbelievable.
I hear these stupid old is better than new cases all the time related to all sorts of things and most of it comes from ill informed forum sages who set themselves up as experts but in fact haven't a clue what they're talking about.

I'm sorry I touched a nerve; the fault with the 6004 was a steel 3mm screw badly aligned into a soft alloy block. It stripped the thread in the alloy and was totally u/s.

As a skilled engineer - toolroom fitter and production machinery maintenance technician as well as an ill informed forum sage I can usually recognise a design fault.

You can wind your neck in now; I don't argue with idiots as they tend to bring you down to their level and beat you with many years of acquired experience.

[zooma]

Sorry but I believe I'm reading a lot of BS on this thread.

The 6004 is made by the same company using the same parts and tooling.

Won't happen or course because the people spouting this ill informed nonsense are I believe just making stuff up.
Feel free to prove me wrong.

The 6004 is not made by the same company using the same parts and tooling as the 604.

When the 6004 was first introduced and being marketed the new business owners (two brothers if my memory serves me right) contacted myself and many others to promote their new business and their new design SSP air pistol that was intended to be a "next generation" variant of the successful and popular 604 that had been manufactured by the previous FAS company.

For what its worth, I thought that the newly designed 6004 was a good looking and nice handling air pistol that showed a strong resemblance to its highly regarded 604 predecessor and I was very tempted to buy some of them for our club as it was no longer possible to buy any more new 604 pistols due to the original manufacturers no longer being in production.

A trawl through the previous threads on the BBS regarding the various 6004 owners experience's will help you to see that these claims were certainly not bullshit but genuine concerns and disappointments from new owners who had spent their cash on these poorly executed models that had all the hallmarks of being rushed into production without being thoroughly tested

The 604 was (and still is) a highly regarded SSP air pistol. The 6004 is not so highly regarded.

I am aware of the problem mentioned regarding the fracturing of the upper shroud casting on a few 604 air pistols but I have been lucky with every Mk1 and Mk2 604 that I have owned and/or used over the years to have never seen or experienced this fault - but they did exist as the pictures on this thread clearly shows.

If the current 6004 air pistols have been revised and had the early faults corrected I would be pleased to own one as I still like the look and feel of them.

The 604 was the first air pistol that I stripped and re-sealed many years ago. I found the 604 to be a very simple air pistol to work on and I would not hesitate to strip another alongside a 6004 to compare them to see if any of the components would actually fit each other. If they did, it could provide a useful source of spare parts for the many ageing 604 air pistols that will need some replacement parts as years go by.

It would certainly be an interesting exercise.

[I. J.]

The 6004 is not made by the same company using the same parts and tooling as the 604.

When the 6004 was first introduced and being marketed the new business owners (two brothers if my memory serves me right) contacted myself and many others to promote their new business and their new design SSP air pistol that was intended to be a "next generation" variant of the successful and popular 604 that had been manufactured by the previous FAS company.

For what its worth, I thought that the newly designed 6004 was a good looking and nice handling air pistol that showed a strong resemblance to its highly regarded 604 predecessor and I was very tempted to buy some of them for our club as it was no longer possible to buy any more new 604 pistols due to the original manufacturers no longer being in production.

A trawl through the previous threads on the BBS regarding the various 6004 owners experience's will help you to see that these claims were certainly not bullshit but genuine concerns and disappointments from new owners who had spent their cash on these poorly executed models that had all the hallmarks of being rushed into production without being thoroughly tested

The 604 was (and still is) a highly regarded SSP air pistol. The 6004 is not so highly regarded.

I am aware of the problem mentioned regarding the fracturing of the upper shroud casting on a few 604 air pistols but I have been lucky with every Mk1 and Mk2 604 that I have owned and/or used over the years to have never seen or experienced this fault - but they did exist as the pictures on this tread clearly shows.

If the current 6004 air pistols have been revised and had the early faults corrected I would be pleased to own one as I still like the look and feel of them.

The 604 was the first air pistol that I stripped and re-sealed many years ago. I found the 604 to be a very simple air pistol to work on and I would not hesitate to strip another alongside a 6004 to compare them to see if any of the components would actually fit each other. If they did, it could provide a useful source of spare parts for the many ageing 604 air pistols that will need some replacement parts as years go by.

It would certainly be an interesting exercise.

Well, thats the final comment and end of this subject for me - and I didn't get called once!