All,

I've done some research, and looked at Vodnik's fabulous comparison between the various Abrams models (unfortunately, not yet completed for all areas of the models), but I have not really read anywhere how the exterior detail, overall, particularly the turret and top of the hull details, compare between the new Rye Field M1A1/A2 Abrams kit with full interior, and the Dragon M1A1 AIM/M1A2 SEP kits. I have many of the Dragon kits, including the M1A2 V2, and have found them to be as good as everyone always said they were. Using the Dragon kits as the 'gold standard' for the Abrams tanks, I'm wondering what those of you who have built the Rye Field versions think about that kit versus the Dragon, in terms of detail. I love the idea of the full interior, which Rye Field offers, but I don't want to sacrifice what I feel as great detail (not necessarily accuracy, but I've never heard of any complaints about the Dragon kit accuracy for the M1 series) just to have interior details.

So, what do those of you who have built both, think? Is the Rye Field tank as good as Dragon, in the turret and top of the hull areas (i.e., those areas most readily seen)?

I've built several of both the dragon and the rye field, I like them both but I like the detail on the rye field much better, it's sharper and much more crisp in detail. Accurate? find a model that is 100% accurate!
DJ

I have the Dragon A2 SEP,and the rye field m1/a2 with interior and also the Rye Field tusk kit.And my opinion is The Rye Field is a AWESOME kit,not without its issues but I love it and have bought 3 kits within the last 2 weeks.I love the ease of building it compared to the Dragon kit.The instructions are light years ahead of Dragon and the details of the Rye Field are super crisp.I'm really happy with Rye Field kits and enjoy building them.Plus the RFM tusk kit gives you the option of building 1 of 3 different Abrams!!

Wow, two very positive reviews of the Rye Field kit. I must admit to being surprised, because the level of detail on the Dragon kits seems, to me, to be so impressive. What I mean by that, is, for instance, the metal front fender springs, and the tiny metal hold down 'bolts' for those springs, the details on the fuel filler caps, pieces/parts like that. If the Rye Field models have details that fine, on top of the interior, I'll be thrilled to try of them!

I would definitely recommend the RMF KIT,you won't be disappointed.

like the others I own several of both brands plus at least one Tamiya M1. There are things I like about each one. Plus there are things about the Meng kit I like. I think my favorite Dragon kit is the M1a1HA. Yet the M1a1AIM and SEP are also very nice. The RFM kits are as nice as posted, and expect to see all of them in the future.

I want to see them do an M1 I.P. and maybe the XM1 from both Chrysler and Allison. They also built a prototype tank retriever and a bridge layer. I've seen both in the flesh
gary

Interesting thread, I was wondering similar questions few weeks ago. I have yet to purchase the RFM or the Meng Abrams kits because I too have several of the Dragon M1A1AIM, SEP, and SEP V2 kits. However, it's interesting to me how many comments all over the internet talk about difficulties in building dragon kits but isn't that what model building is? I have many nice kit but yet to see a kit that is accurate, detail, and easy to build. Maybe enough discussions on popular forums might one day lead to such kit. Until then I will enjoy reading different point of views and my kits.

Yes, model building is more complicated than slapping together a LEGO-kit
BUT
there is a difference between lots of small parts with clear instruactions and lots of small parts with instructions that only show the general area where the small parts are supposed to go (and forgets some parts, list the wrong parts et.c. )
Some kits are simply more complicated than others but bad/unclear instructions can make it unnecessarily complicated.
There are also kits that are badly designed or overengineered and create unnecessary problems. Sometimes the kits are simply a collection of plastic pieces that a really good model builder can scratch build a model from .....

Nice to read all the positive comments about the RFM kit since I would like to get the ABV sometime

/ Robin

I'm with you Robin !

Building the Dragon M1 kits is "a piece of cake" compared to building some of the lastet track-sets you get with a kit ! And then most of it is hidden under side-skirts anyway ..... love the Dragon "Rubber" tracks
AFV Club M60s .... fantastic kit ! .... till you tackle that "horrible" surface

I always feel so sorry for some guys who really do such an amazing job in detailing / scratch building .... only to lose all these efforts because their painting and weathering skills are not as equally developed.
It's not just the kit itself which defines a good model .... but it can be a good start !

Cheers
Christopher

You must always allow that there are some people who aren't very good modelers. Tamiya kits stymie them. Look at some of the photos on the internet or even in magazines: open joints, mold seams on parts, misaligned pieces, assemblies puttied to within an inch of their life. Those aren't the fault of the kit.

KL

I agree with you guys, not all kite fit well and not having a clear visual instructions to make a matter worst. What I meant by statement is we as modelers will never find a perfect kit as it will always come down to our own attitude to weather we want enjoy what we have or not. And believe me, I have my shares of complains as I build all sorts of subject matter and some kits leave me scratching my head

Don't ignore the Meng kits. I just finished the M1A2 SEP TUSK and it was FANTASTIC. The tracks are worth the price of admission: snap-together and easy to paint/weather. So impressed I ordered their USMC version.

Just throwin' this out there..... I just started Academy's 3 in 1 kit, #13298. I'm having a nice time building it ! Fit has been good for the most part, just a little putty. Nice non-slip texture, "nesting barrel" for simple seam clean up. New ideas in the 3 piece hull tub & upper hull assembly. Tab & pocket mounting for the side skirts, very solid. MGs are weak. Haven't started the CROWS yet, but there are masks for it included. Rubber band tracks but have Bronco's set. It was not very expensive.
I've built the Dragon kits #3535 & #3556. I'll have to dig them out when I get done for comparison to the Academy kit.
Tom

O, yeah, RFM, Academy, Meng, Dragon, and Tamiya Abramses. Aren't we spoiled? As shown in Pawel's extensive comparison review: http://vodnik.net/pages/M1A2comp/m1a2comp_01.htm All latest Abrams kits have their pros and cons (including the Dragon offerings from 10 yrs ago). I personally like Academy's offering the most because of all the flexibility but RFM and Meng are all excellent products no doubt. Of course DML Abrams have stood the test of times in the last 10 years. Tamiya TUSK definitely took the short cut and only included some "update" parts.
I have all these Abrams kits, and I am sure many of you do, too. Maybe someone will build almost "perfect" Abrams kit by kit-bashing all four kits like crazy. Haha