In-Box Review
Resicast Canadian Bogies
Resicast – Sexton Heavy Duty Canadian Bogies
  • move

by: Kevin Brant [ SGTRAM ]


I have come to believe that bogies on Sherman and Sherman variants is no exact science. While there seems to be an assortment of photographs and lists of what came from the factory, there is an assortment of photographs that will prove that wrong. When Montreal Locomotive Works were tasked to build the Sexton SPG, it was based on the Grizzly chassis that was currently being built at MLW. These Sherman M4 variant chassis were built with the Canadian built Heavy Duty bogies. These bogies are most distinguishable by the larger “fins” on the front of the bogie.

With the release of the 25pdr Sexton II by Dragon in recent months, there was a lot of discussion over the correct configuration, with the bogies being a major topic. Enter Resicast with two new options for the correct bogies for the Sexton. Resicast has produced two sets of resin cast bogie replacements for the Dragon kit:

35.2356 – Sexton Heavy Duty Canadian Bogies Type A
35.2358 – Sexton Heavy Duty Canadian Bogies Type C


Two of the latest releases from Resicast are these great looking bogies. The parts come in a small plastic bag, inside a slightly larger bag with instructions. Both sets are cast in a beige colored resin and each set contains six bogies parts to replace the kit parts, as well as skid plates. The Resicast bogie replacement is only the suspension housing and return roller cast as one part and a separate skid plate. The builder will need to use the wheel arms of the bogies from the Dragon kit. The parts are very well cast, with great looking detail, and including cast numbers. While the return roller is cast as part of the bogies, it is very well done, and does not look “molded” on.


With both sets, the kit wheel arms will need to be modified for use of the Resicast bogies. While the Resicast bogies do not build up like the Dragon kit parts with separate springs, they do look great, and will really improve the look of the Sexton model kit. In a way, the use of the Resicast bogies looks to improve the assembly of the sometime daunting build of the Dragon bogies.

Resicast is offering two different sets of the Heavy Duty bogies, a Type A with an angle return roller arm and Type C with a horizontal return roller arm. Looking at photographs, I have found that both were used on Canadian and British Sexton’s. I was unable to determine if this was done by production lot, nor if the use of either type was based on the country receiving the vehicle.

Also included in both sets are new skit plates, which can be used to replace the kit provided parts. These are the later style of skid plates for the bogie, and again looking at reference images,

I found some of the Canadian Heavy Duty bogies did have both the late and mid style skid plates. So the builder will need to determine which version will be required for the specific vehicle they are building. It should be noted that the mid style skid plates are included in the Dragon kit, if needed.

Overall either one of these two sets would be a great addition to your Sexton build (and if they ever release a Grizzly). Both sets are very well cast, with great detail, and represent the Canadian built Heavy Duty bogie. I highly recommend both sets, they are a must addition to the Dragon Sexton kit.

Note, I will be starting the Sexton build very shortly, with the build covered on Armorama, in which I will make use of these great looking bogies from Resicast.
Highs: Much needed update for Dragon kit, very well cast, look great.
Lows: None that I could find
Verdict: Great update, highly recommended
Percentage Rating
  Scale: 1:35
  Mfg. ID: 35-2356 & 35-2358
  PUBLISHED: Apr 15, 2013

Our Thanks to Resicast!
This item was provided by them for the purpose of having it reviewed on this KitMaker Network site. If you would like your kit, book, or product reviewed, please contact us.

View Vendor Homepage  |  More Reviews  

About Kevin Brant (SgtRam)

I am an IT Consultant and father, with a passion for plastic models. I mostly prefer 1/35 Armor and 1/48 Aircraft. My main interests are anything Canadian, as well as WW2 German and British Armor and Aircraft. I have been building models since I was a young kid, got away from it for awhile, but r...

Copyright ©2021 text by Kevin Brant [ SGTRAM ]. All rights reserved.


Nice review, Kevin. Nice to see other points of view, too, on this manufacturer.
APR 15, 2013 - 10:26 AM
Hi Kevin, Look forward to the build. I bought both sets and agree they look like a good update option. Minimal work required on the kit to make the switch. Who'd have though we would have a Sexton in plastic, grand times for Allied Modellers. Cheers Al
APR 16, 2013 - 04:11 AM
Alan Now that we have a Sexton, can we have a Grizzly? Kevin
APR 16, 2013 - 07:30 AM
Thanks for this review. Resicast M4 molded-in-one VVSS boggies proved To be vert convenient to up date some kits (italeri, Tamiya...) or save time on others (Tasca...). I guess these Canadian twins Will do the same. Also, Formations Models had offered such a conversion before - If #F116 is planned To convert Tasca boggie, I did modified Dragon VVSS boggie with a set from Formations without major issue... Now I am just waiting for the Sexton kit to reach my bench...
APR 16, 2013 - 10:18 AM
Sure. Buy a good M4A1 75 Dry VVSS, modify the stowage to commonwealth pattern and ensure the tracks are either T54E1 or CDP and voila, you have a Grizzly. It's no more difficult than that. Now, a Ram. That would be loverly! Paul
APR 16, 2013 - 03:45 PM
...and file the notch on the rear hull top edge! But you knew that! Jim
APR 16, 2013 - 03:52 PM
Just so!
APR 16, 2013 - 04:15 PM
What was the purpose of the notch? I always wondered why it was implemented.
APR 17, 2013 - 05:05 AM
I'm not sure anyone has ever come up with a definitive answer for that, Roy. The most common answer I've heard is that the notch on the cast Lees, Shermans (and Grizzlies) and Rams that had it appears to have been to permit rain water falling on the engine deck to drain off over the stern as opposed to filling up the ledge around the deck plates and then seeping into the engine compartment. Makes some sense, I suppose, especially if the engine electrics were very suseptable to damp/water, but later vehicles didn't have anything of the kind, and the welded Shermans never did, so it must not have been really needed. Perhaps it was one of those things thought "good to have" when the initial requirements were created and then never got removed from the casting drawings until much later in the war. Paul
APR 17, 2013 - 06:23 AM

Click image to enlarge
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move