MAC is running a BCM factory rifle until it malfunctions. He's currently at 6000 rounds with no preventive maintenance. Pretty good video series. I love my BCM mid length and this only adds to my confidence in it. Thought you gents would like it.
Yeah. When he got the rifle he took it down and wiped everything with CLP, put it back together and hasn't done anything since. He's firing 150 rounds then cooling the barrel and so on. He usually does 1k rounds in a day.What's preventative maintenance? Like no oil? No wipe down?
Bcm is one of those things that are worth the money
Is it? I mean, it's mil-spec right? Proper spec and consistent, sure, but still just mil-spec. I learned long ago that parts ain't parts. Hard lesson... I wouldn't put a PTAC kit gun up with a Daniel Defense and say it's the same, but is that DD much better than a S&W M&P15? I don't know...
So serious question... Other than the operator guys on M4carbine sucking them off for the last decade and a half what makes BCM special?
Is it? I mean, it's mil-spec right? Proper spec and consistent, sure, but still just mil-spec. I learned long ago that parts ain't parts. Hard lesson... I wouldn't put a PTAC kit gun up with a Daniel Defense and say it's the same, but is that DD much better than a S&W M&P15? I don't know...
BCM (and others) have a good QA/QC process; therefore, few turds pass through. Some do, but not many. And when they do, they make it right. @bigfelipe , some are mil-spec, but the quality and consistency is what sets them apart. Also what @chrishf12 said, when you get big gun guys who made careers running M4s endorse the product, it carries weight.
I've actually always heard their customer service is crap. And their barrels(non-chf) can't hold 4 moa. But they run. I think 15 years ago they had something. Now the market is saturated with quality mil-spec for much less. I think they hurt their brand going all-in on keymod too, but that's moot to this conversation.
Brand name seems to be what you are buying now...
So...like every 5.56 (and my 6.8) AR I own?Yeah. When he got the rifle he took it down and wiped everything with CLP, put it back together and hasn't done anything since.
I'd like to know what the specs are on the barrel and bolt. Video won't run thru the firewall at work.
If it's just a plain phosphate bolt and CL barrel I'd be very impressed as well. QPQ Nitride on either or both of those parts would be what I am guessing. It's a "game changa" in the AR world (firearms world isn't a stretch)
Consistency in quality is what I see as their +. I mean I’m sure there’s bcm rifles that have problems but when’s the last time you heard about one?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Honestly not super familiar w/ BCM brand...but generally, when it comes to mass produced, std spec products, higher end brands have higher quality control standards. That often means both higher quality built INTO the process, and more stringent rejection protocols. Really up to the consumer unless proper studies have been done as to whether the quality impacts the product reliability.
An n-of-1 isn't too informative. MAC should at least be running this experiment in parallel w/ a budget rifle. then there is at least a control. a study would do this with maybe 15 or more BCM rifles and a few more in control group.
That being said, I did see a study not too long ago that did what I describe above, but I forget what it was testing (I think ballistics of different barrel lengths). Many larger manufacturers have conducted these studies as part of their product development pipeline, but they generally dont publish. I assume the information has more value to them as competitive intelligence than it does as marketing validity.
I'd love to see a PSA freedom, PSA premium, LMT, Colt, etc. lined up in this test.
Highly doubt you will come across commercial brand line ups like that, but probably a colt vs some others in military studies.
We have enough people on this forum where it could be done. A variety of ARs, from the S&W MP15 all the way to KAC or Noveske.
Yup, you and I are saying the same thing with regard to Milspec. Milspec is a set of dimensional and materials specifications, driven from a functional or performance requirement. So in my opinion, something better than Milspec has both better tolerances (flick a BCM selector vs a standard Milspec one) as well as better quality, finish. For example, the specs of the selector detent spring: is the most important spec a length, a level of pressure applied to the detent, the material? Obviously all of it. So take small variations or subpar materials in that one part, then apply it across every part. So every part may be within spec for Milspec designation, but imagine taking the entire system and optimizing it so that each part has less variation and is made of better materials in a way where everything functions better.@JRHorne I largely agree with everything you posted above. I would respectfully point out regarding your comment "I'd argue that most of the quality components are better than Milspec in that more attention is given to the QA/QC process......", I read this a couple different ways. If a part isn't mil-spec, it's not going to fit a mil-spec weapon, as part of being "mil-spec" is just that, sizing and specifications. But I agree that the quality of the parts (of reputable manufacturers) often exceed the quality of crap parts, even if all of them are mil-spec. To your point, this is in manufacturing and the QA/QC process.
I also want to point out something you mentioned as key, which is the minimum per unit cost. I can't recall what the M4 cost is per unit, but it's pennies on the dollar, comparatively. Bulk sales will do that. A PD can get purchase Glocks for $200 and change. It doesn't make them 'cheap' (as is often interpreted), it makes them inexpensive. Also, the DOD's criteria for "good enough" is actually pretty rigorous, again comparatively. We (civilians) will likely never, ever shoot a M4 to the DOD's "good enough" standard for breakage.
Great thread.