Tristar is under-rated. They were very close competition for Dragon, and in some cases, even better. Just their particular construction style turned off some modelers, calling them "unbuildable", and "crap"!

I've got one of these and they're really quite good. Looking forward to building it soon, along with a comparison build/upgrade on the Tamiya kit.

Frank- That'd be good to see. I've only ever seen a parallel build done once and found it fascinating with the differences between the two kits. Really helpful if thinking of buying one. I've never built anything by Tristar, although I have one of their early Panzer IV's in the stash, but looking at the contents of the box and the detail in there they look to be top notch. Their figure range,although small, I found to be better than Dragons for useability (not sure if that's a real word. Probably not lol)and the moulding was a lot sharper. I just wish they'd expanded it a bit. I built the Tamiya version of this many years ago and could be tempted by this as it's an attractive little armoured car and having seen Tristars work like the detail on it. I will admit though I don't see the sense in reboxes. Okay it's cheap for the 2nd company as they don't have to invest time in research etc but if there are mistakes then that's carried over to the new box. I've noticed Tamiya are doing a lot of Italeri reboxes, throwing in a couple of figures and charging £20 more! I'll stick to the Italeri issue if that's the case.

It is a real word: LINK alternative spelling for: LINK I used to use it a lot when discussing the usability of HMI's to computer systems/tools (HMI Human Machine Interface). Never really bothered to check for the most correct spelling though When the usability of the system was bad I used to say/write uselessability instead / Robin

Later figure sets are better than earlier ones. My favorite is the Self-Propeller Gun Crew Vol. 2. Great for most open-topped German tank destroyers. Especially the loader, who's ramming the round home with clenched fist (the proper way) so he won't lose fingers in the breech! All figures have good expressions on their faces. LINK

Tri-Star was not without problems, as my friend Georg Eyerman pointed out to me on one kit he built (Pz IV/70(A)).

What was the problem with this particular kit? I just read a couple of build reviews on this kit and there were no problems noted, except that it might be a slightly complicated build, especially compared to Tamiya. After having built a few Tri Star kits I realize building up the hulls with the beveled edges (no butt joints) can be a little PITA, as a slight mis-alignment in edges will throw off the whole assembly. Vigilance is key!

I just built the Hobby Boss 222 and will be building their 223 to accompany it in a dio . Really comprehensive kit , But - there were some fit issues ,, especially with the gun mount ... and the hull . I added a steel rod to the rear bulkhead to facilitate pulling it together . No reason to believe this kit will have similar issues though . The Tamiya is basically a toy -- ridiculous to compare it to these offerings .

Thanks for the comment Karl, but I've sworn off most Italeri kits as being either superficial or just simply long-of-tooth and dated. Ditto on the kits that Tamiya has disappointingly rebadged. The shame of it for Tamiya must have been considerable