Kit or guns; which is more important to get right?

i honestly can't choose one or the other as extremes of each can give the wrong effect , i guess you can get away with look alike kit if the guns right or a generic bolt action rifle with good kit or even both a generic rifle and look alike kit with the correct helmet but a Russian with a sten look's wrong (just waiting for the photo evidence i'm wrong) or a Brit with a PPS41 etc , we have to live in the real world where we are not all super rich so there will always be somebody in flectarn or with the wrong gun , you just do you'r best and borrow the rest.

Kit is easily accesable for all major protaganists, guns are not easily accesable for all major protagonists. Ergo one bothers me more than the other as it is more of a "lifestyle choice" than the other. I have played whole games alongside someone with an M14 and never realised until I looked at the photos afterwards. But what is it compared to? someone wearing a Belgian Denison because they havent gotten a denison-denison yet? That doesn;t bother me; someone wearing pacific gear in the ETO? That would. It's just shades of grey really and a respect for the scenario put forward.

Then again If you wanted me to identify a No4 from an SMLE I would be flipping a coin, so of course my own prejudices come out. Hats are cool, guns is dull.

I've always been quite torn about this, but having had a think I personally feel that the right kit is more important than the right gun. In my eyes a guy in a '44 Para loadout using a No1 Mk3 or Mosin Nagant doesn't bother me, neither would a guy using a No4 Mk1 or M1 Garand at an early war game, as long as everyone's enjoying themselves and playing well, it doesn't bother me (weapon anachronisms in films and games on the other hand! ).
At the end of the day if you can afford to have the correct gun for each of your loadouts, great. If not, use what you've got and enjoy yourself. That's what I like about WW2 airsoft.

I guess I just about come down on the side of kit, purely because guns are so much more expensive. Wherever possible I want my gun to match the kit and I do have a gun to match virtually all the permutations of uniform I have. I have However at times compromised by using an M1AI Thompson for Brit Commando and also a Garand for the same. i justified it to myself but if I had a 1928 Thompson or a more reliable No4 I would rather be using them.

To my mind I think we should all be doing our best to get all of it right, otherwise why are we doing this specific genre? If that means basing weapons purchases around uniforms owned or vice versa then so be it.

Cheers

Charlie

I'd agree with the sentiment that we should all try and get both elements correct, but also recognise that not everyone can afford to order all the correct kit and a suitable weapon in one go.
My personal opinion is that, within reason, kit should be prioritised because to me an off uniform with the ideal weapon is more noticeable than an accurate uniform with an out of place gun. There are exceptions to this though, modern boots with gaiters look OK once covered in mud, and period boots can be expensive, so I'd buy the gun first then save up for some ammo boots or jackboots.

As long as it is a WW2 gun or close enough, then kit.

Yes, it is nice to have the right guns to go with the right uniforms, but I'd rather have the right uniforms (within the limitations of budget and storage space). I don't really care about the guns, as long as BBs come out of the end when I pull the trigger.

Cheers
Martin

I think this is an odd question, to me a gun is a part of the kit as much as a helmet or webbing. It all adds up to the general image of said kit. Little things can be off on one or two aspects/parts and the kit as a whole looks great. This has been my mantra on all of my impressions. If one part is grossly off, the sum will be off, no matter what the part is.

If one part is grossly off, the sum will be off, no matter what the part is.

Well, the OP did say reasonable.

For me, if I've seen a photo of the relevant army using said weapon, that is good enough (like Germans or Russians with Thompsons, Germans with SVT-40s and Brens). Not sure a Brit using a PPsH would be reasonable, although perhaps you could pretend it is a Lanchester.

There is much more leeway with a generic 'rifle' as they all look pretty much the same.

Cheers
Martin

Well, the OP did say reasonable.

Martin I'm not arguing, but elaborating what I meant: grossly off can be relative, to me AK or a Garand in a WW2 German impression is grossly off. I get why they're allowed but still does not look right to me. M4s or AUGs are a different class altogether. I understand that people have different levels of acceptance on this matter.

I think this question can be looked at from a couple of directions, from a more seasoned player angle then the correct full image is a key factor so both kit and gun are equally as important and different people have different levels of tolerance to these matters, but also if I were a new player looking at this and other discussion I would be slightly wary of coming to events if I felt my kit wasn't up to standard. This is not a moan about asking this question as I feel it is a valid question to be put across but I do feel that I would rather have players in field with slightly lower standards of kit rather than them not feeling they are able to till they reach a certain level. I mean you all must admit that the conversation you have had at games was a lot of help in deciding on the way to go with your kit and even just seeing other players kit made you more aware. And I know there is a wealth of knowledge on this site as to guidance for impressions but some people may just be too scared to ask and the option of borrowing kit is not totally viable for everyone but always a welcome side of everyone on here.

I think this question can be looked at from a couple of directions, from a more seasoned player angle then the correct full image is a key factor so both kit and gun are equally as important.

This!

One of the reasons I have only played brit once is because I have just got a sten, but I will not be happy until I get a No4. But also becuase my kit isn't to the level I would like yet.

Although I will say that some people will spend £1000's on kit but don't actually buy the right weapon for it. I surpose its the cross between Airsofters/LARP/Reenactors. Although you could turn that around too and say. "He has spend £1000's on airsoft guns but hasn't got the right boots yet....."

I think it boils down too.

Some people prefer the guns!
Others prefer uniforms / Watches / Personal Items / Helmets / Belts etc
Some like everything....

Although no one should be put off attending any event reading this post as so many people from the ww2 airsoft community are willing to lend Kit & Guns.

each item almost has a value , a helmet is more than a gun , a jacket is more important than boots , webbing is more important than trousers etc etc each item has its own visual impact , some people focus on one thing others on something else , i kind of agree that a gun is as much part of you'r kit as anything else , maybe a good question is "what could be left out of you'r kit list and still look good ?" you can boil that down to helmet ,jacket ,trousers and gun ,if you get those right then the rest is just improvement's you can add later .

What happens if I class my gun as a piece of kit?

Getting to events is the most important bit to get right. No point in having perfect kit and guns if you never use them!

Borrow if you need to.

Headshot hits it on...well the head

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I said kit. Kit is what tells people which side you are on. I think it's up to everyone to decide how correct they can afford to be but a £10 plastic brodie helmet and Khaki overalls with an M4 covered in hessian says that this is someone trying on a very low budget. A Lee enfield and a hoodie says this is someone not trying at all.
Obviously once someone is in full battledress steel helmet and P37 webbing and M4 wrapped in hessian might be pushing it knowing that a Sten can be obtained for £99 at the moment but there may be reasons why someone might have difficulty with the gun. Guns can break down unexpectedly, there are issues with UKARA etc.

Not sure about the 'kit v gun' debate as such but would suggest my order or priority would be....

right helmet/headdress... first thing people notice and where you would very quickly look out-of-place if wrong, also often one of the cheaper bits of kit to sort out....
right tunic... would help in the general 'blending in'..
right webbing... ditto, although scope for wearing none at all in some circumstances..?
right trousers... completes the overall look...
right weapon... bit like the helmet in some ways, German with a Tommy Gun? Even allowing for pick ups on the battle field, which certainly took place (Germans loved PPSH's for example) it would still be quite rare to see this within an ordinary unit on a ordinary day, so-to-speak.
right boots... ultimately what you want but muddy boots are, in the first instance, muddy boots..!

But as has already been posted, it comes down to budgets, priorities, unit and theater impression etc.