<...> Yes, it sucked that <Dragon> fell short on some of the details but when has anyone ever been 100% spot on with all of the details on a scale model? Aside from the gun tube, the other mistakes are in the IDGAS* category for me. <...>
And that's perfectly fine. More power to you, Jeff! :) To me, they were deal breakers. It's not so much a mm here or there, the big problem to me is that the turret is too far forward, making the glacis too short and the engine deck too long. That, in my eyes, completely alters the look/feeling/appearance of the vehicle and makes it look more like the WWII designs (short/steep glacis), rather than paving the way for tanks with turrets more in the center of the vehicle (such as the M60). It should look less M26-ish and more M60-ish, if that makes any sense.
And while the barrel is easily swapped out, the turret location is much harder to change and would make drastic cutting, splicing and reshaping necessary. However, should I find one for a decent price, I might consider going through those troubles and using ERA panels to hide the mess that would undoubtedly ensue, plus adding a fictitious engine deck.
For anybody interested in the Dragon M103's shortcomings, take a look at Vodnik's write-up here:
LINK!EDIT: Actually..... looking at pics of the hull in Vodnik's review, it seems that with the kit's breakdown of the upper hull, it shouldn't be
that hard to move the turret ring assembly back a couple of millimetres and re-contour the glacis. You'd still be left with lots of smaller things to tackle (or not), but that could go
some way towards restoring the "feel" of the M103.