mastiffhound
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2011
- Messages
- 420
I was on another forum and people kept telling me to call it a mid length barrel or middy because, why type that much. Sorry old habits.
BCM upper... Issues or is this typical?
- Thread starter SMITHWESS
- Start date
- Status
Z-Michigan
Member
Most manufacturer ammo claims are based on a 24" SAAMI test barrel, and you won't came anywhere close unless you are using a 24"+ barrel bolt-action rifle with a fairly tight chamber. And a lot of the claims are a bit inflated anyway.
Zerodefect
member
They could just be lying. Chances are they tested with a 24" barrel.
OP may just have a chunk of .22LR stuck in his gas port.
I love this rifle!
Thanks for all the replies fellas.
To be clear, I have been very happy with this rifle, and would purchase the same configuration again if this one was stolen.
I was candid in describing my lack of experience with the platform, so the guys taking the time out of their day to drop some knowledge on me is very much appreciated.
I experimented this morning at the range, as someone suggested in this thread. I shot about 350 rounds of .22, switched the bolt back out, and fired some M855 62 gr. through it with zero issues.
I understand, now, that my configuration of bbl and gas length prefers higher pressure ammo. Fine by me now that I'm aware! (anyone want to buy 900 rds of PMC .223?!)
Even with mil-spec 5.56, this rifle shoots noticeably smoother, softer, and level than my trusty old mini 14 firing .223. I think the battle comp brake has considerable influence in the muzzle staying on plane.
As to BCM's cust. service, I will just say that it would have been nice if they offered the same explanation of why I was experiencing the issue. If folks on this forum can do it, then the guys I shelled out over a grand to should be willing to take the time as well.
Thanks again,
-A
BTW, shopping around I found a decent price on PMC XTAC 5.56. http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/AMM199-1.html
Is this any good?
Thanks for all the replies fellas.
To be clear, I have been very happy with this rifle, and would purchase the same configuration again if this one was stolen.
I was candid in describing my lack of experience with the platform, so the guys taking the time out of their day to drop some knowledge on me is very much appreciated.
I experimented this morning at the range, as someone suggested in this thread. I shot about 350 rounds of .22, switched the bolt back out, and fired some M855 62 gr. through it with zero issues.
I understand, now, that my configuration of bbl and gas length prefers higher pressure ammo. Fine by me now that I'm aware! (anyone want to buy 900 rds of PMC .223?!)
Even with mil-spec 5.56, this rifle shoots noticeably smoother, softer, and level than my trusty old mini 14 firing .223. I think the battle comp brake has considerable influence in the muzzle staying on plane.
As to BCM's cust. service, I will just say that it would have been nice if they offered the same explanation of why I was experiencing the issue. If folks on this forum can do it, then the guys I shelled out over a grand to should be willing to take the time as well.
Thanks again,
-A
BTW, shopping around I found a decent price on PMC XTAC 5.56. http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/AMM199-1.html
Is this any good?
Zerodefect
member
You can really see why it's worth it even if you have to run good ammo. Seems like a silly compromise, but it's so worthwhile.
14.5 middys are smooooooth.
I'd stick to .mil ammo. M855 62gn is good.
Federal .223 55gn FMJ is good stuff. Usually my go to round for troubleshooting.
SSA is really good stuff:
http://www.ssarmory.com/5.56mm_ammunition_55gr_FMJ_Bulk.aspx
Premium defensive stuff:
http://www.ssarmory.com/556ammunition-2.aspx
Black hills 75 or 77gn has allmost the same Zero as M855.
Everything you ever wanted to know about 5.56:
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=16&t=503947
14.5 middys are smooooooth.
I'd stick to .mil ammo. M855 62gn is good.
Federal .223 55gn FMJ is good stuff. Usually my go to round for troubleshooting.
SSA is really good stuff:
http://www.ssarmory.com/5.56mm_ammunition_55gr_FMJ_Bulk.aspx
Premium defensive stuff:
http://www.ssarmory.com/556ammunition-2.aspx
Black hills 75 or 77gn has allmost the same Zero as M855.
Everything you ever wanted to know about 5.56:
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=16&t=503947
Last edited:
SmithWess, I'm glad that things worked out for you. That PMC is usually some pretty decent stuff. Apparently you got a hold of a lot that was a bit under par. Still, you don't have to abandon the idea of low cost shooting. Believe it or not, not all steel cased ammo is equal. I've had really good luck with Silver Bear's 62gr loads. Hornady also sells their steel cased line of "practice ammo." Of course, if cost were no object, I'd opt for M193 or 855 all day, any day; but cost is an object.
I'm glad you are enjoying your rifle now. I am surprised at how limited your ammo choices are, though. Before the BCM fanboy's jump all over me, I am well aware that the gas system and barrel length make things more tricky in this configuration, but to not be able to cycle PMC .223 would be a deal breaker for me. If I can't buy ammo that will cycle reliably without going to a gun shop or rolling my own, I would find the rifle to be of limited use.
I still hold to my original premise that if BCM is going to sell this configuration, they should take great pains to ensure the buyer knows the ammo limitations or open the gas ports a bit. Opening up the ports enough to cycle with .223 will not "hammer" the gun...it just requires a little testing and development. It will be harder on the gun a bit, but isn't that why they sell milspec?
I still hold to my original premise that if BCM is going to sell this configuration, they should take great pains to ensure the buyer knows the ammo limitations or open the gas ports a bit. Opening up the ports enough to cycle with .223 will not "hammer" the gun...it just requires a little testing and development. It will be harder on the gun a bit, but isn't that why they sell milspec?
Zerodefect
member
That would defeat the point of haveing a middy 14.5" instead of a carbine 14.5".
I do think BCM should be a little more up front about what ammo will cycle the rifle or not. I don't expect this rifle to handle some of the softer .223 out there, but at the same time, not everyone reads thread upon thread on which gas system to buy to know the drawbacks of a 14.5" with a midlength system.
For me, I'd take a slightly more violent system to be able to blast away at the range with the weak cheap stuff.
For me, I'd take a slightly more violent system to be able to blast away at the range with the weak cheap stuff.
Z-Michigan
Member
I've shot 4-5 boxes so far and it's pretty good. It is loaded to M855 specs, true 5.56 NATO and hotter than almost any .223 Rem. It has been reliable for me so far. FYI, NONE of the M855 from any manufacturer is highly accurate ammo - the bullet design is simply not consistent enough to be really precise ammo. You can expect 3 MOA 10-shot groups in a good rifle, which is just slightly worse than good quality M193, but well below top quality match ammo.
FYI-2, PMC 55gr FMJ .223 is known for being somewhat weaker, but it has always cycled reliably for me in any gun I've tried it in.
There are sound reasons that certain barrel lengths use recommended gas lengths. And it's all about measuring the optimal length of time the bullet passes the gas port to exiting the muzzle - which is a pretty short window, about 5-7 inches.
Anytime that spec is changed, tradeoffs will happen. In this case, the shorter window means less potential gas pressure, and low powered rounds should be expected to malfunction.
Should the vendor make this plainer? I've been caught in similar situations, it would be nice if it had been something I knew, or spelled out. However, the issue is really whether we should be using low powered cheap ammo at all in guns specifically marketed as tactical grade for actual use as a weapon.
I don't see it marketed as a plinker for poking holes in dirt. EAG isn't promoting this as a weekend range shooters toy, the whole purpose of the organization is to train LEO/MIL to a higher level of competency in actual combat. Or did I miss a memo?
Goes to misapplying things again, if you purchase a tactical rifle built for tactical use marketed by a tactical training company, and then shoot the cheapest ammo possible in it, who misinterpreted the point?
I would expect someone filling the tank of an RX8 with Coleman fuel to expect poor performance - I baffles me to understand why the shooting community blames the vendor when the user is the main culprit.
Self loading actions are tuned to a specific powder and pressure curve - military actions even more so. Governments do NOT issue bullets in a dozen different weights, tips, and applications, usually just one or two at a time, and it's required to meet standards for pressure to cycle the action without fail under ANY circumstances. It's a system, monkey with any one part, you introduce something not included in the original design.
It's not EAG, .Mil, or BCM stating "shoot whatever junk you want." It's casual posts on the internet that promote it - and there are plenty of them complaining about how it DOESN'T work, either.
Anytime that spec is changed, tradeoffs will happen. In this case, the shorter window means less potential gas pressure, and low powered rounds should be expected to malfunction.
Should the vendor make this plainer? I've been caught in similar situations, it would be nice if it had been something I knew, or spelled out. However, the issue is really whether we should be using low powered cheap ammo at all in guns specifically marketed as tactical grade for actual use as a weapon.
I don't see it marketed as a plinker for poking holes in dirt. EAG isn't promoting this as a weekend range shooters toy, the whole purpose of the organization is to train LEO/MIL to a higher level of competency in actual combat. Or did I miss a memo?
Goes to misapplying things again, if you purchase a tactical rifle built for tactical use marketed by a tactical training company, and then shoot the cheapest ammo possible in it, who misinterpreted the point?
I would expect someone filling the tank of an RX8 with Coleman fuel to expect poor performance - I baffles me to understand why the shooting community blames the vendor when the user is the main culprit.
Self loading actions are tuned to a specific powder and pressure curve - military actions even more so. Governments do NOT issue bullets in a dozen different weights, tips, and applications, usually just one or two at a time, and it's required to meet standards for pressure to cycle the action without fail under ANY circumstances. It's a system, monkey with any one part, you introduce something not included in the original design.
It's not EAG, .Mil, or BCM stating "shoot whatever junk you want." It's casual posts on the internet that promote it - and there are plenty of them complaining about how it DOESN'T work, either.
Again, I'm not saying I expect this rifle to work with soft ammo, but more a case where it would be nice for the manufacturer to state what works with their rifle when selling to the GENERAL PUBLIC. Any car requiring something more than 87 octane will CLEARLY state what it takes to run the car properly. If it was meant to take 93 octane, the manual and probably somewhere either on the dash or by the fuel filler will boldly say so. The fact this rifle is for sale side by side with plinkers and varminters in many shops puts it in the general publics eye as just another upper and not some dedicated LEO/Military only upper for only the extreme user.
When dealing with the general public I feel it's a bad idea to assume everyone understands how everything you sell is meant to be used. It's why most everything comes with a manual. If you want to claim that the manufacturer has no responsibility to let a user know what ammo flat out won't work with their rifle, that's fine. More and more of these threads will pop up when more and more people buy the upper because it looks cool, not to mention all the "hard core operators" are telling everyone its the best thing in the world with no drawbacks. If I were the one making and selling the uppers, I'd state that the design only works with full power loads. That's all that's needed. Nothing more and you cover your butt. If you wanted to go into it a little more in depth in the manual you could, but at least say to use full power loads if the rifle NEEDS them to work.
When dealing with the general public I feel it's a bad idea to assume everyone understands how everything you sell is meant to be used. It's why most everything comes with a manual. If you want to claim that the manufacturer has no responsibility to let a user know what ammo flat out won't work with their rifle, that's fine. More and more of these threads will pop up when more and more people buy the upper because it looks cool, not to mention all the "hard core operators" are telling everyone its the best thing in the world with no drawbacks. If I were the one making and selling the uppers, I'd state that the design only works with full power loads. That's all that's needed. Nothing more and you cover your butt. If you wanted to go into it a little more in depth in the manual you could, but at least say to use full power loads if the rifle NEEDS them to work.
ny32182
Member
This is why I have never been interested in a 14.5" midlength. It doesn't take a genius to see this setup is getting less gas than a milspec rifle, and that it will eventually lead to problems if every other factor is not optimal.
This thread, however, is the first time I've ever seen anyone acknowledge it.
This thread, however, is the first time I've ever seen anyone acknowledge it.
Tirod wrote:
Your analogy is flawed. Running steel cased ammo isn't the equivalent of running coleman fuel in a car, it's the equivalent of running regular vs. super unleaded. The difference? The car will still run with 85, the gun won't run with Wolf.
I appreciate your perspective and don't entirely disagree, which is why I wouldn't run steel ammo in such a gun. That said, there is a very good argument to be made that is just the opposite of your conclusion.
If you are an "operator", LEO or otherwise, the most critical aspect of your gun is reliability. It trumps all other concerns. It must go bang every time you pull the trigger, as your life depends on it. The second biggest concern is that you are properly trained for the task at hand. Training and staying sharp with a firearm requires lots of rounds downrange...a very expensive endeavor that many institutions look to defray costs on by using cheaper ammo like Wolf. Lastly, it should be adaptable to numerous fluid situations, including environmental and ammo variations. By these definitions, the BCM 14.5 middy fails. I take that to mean it is clearly aimed at the civilian market, not the LEO/operator market.
For civilians, one could also make an excellent case that shooting steel cased ammo gives far more training per dollar, and with enough rounds downrange, the savings are enough to replace the parts that see extra wear due to the steel cases and still come out ahead over brass. It's not for me, but it is a compelling argument nonetheless. This BCM example clearly meets no solid niche, and should be marketed as such.
As cars go, it starts with a flawed design, making it more of a Corvair than an RX8.
Your analogy is flawed. Running steel cased ammo isn't the equivalent of running coleman fuel in a car, it's the equivalent of running regular vs. super unleaded. The difference? The car will still run with 85, the gun won't run with Wolf.
I appreciate your perspective and don't entirely disagree, which is why I wouldn't run steel ammo in such a gun. That said, there is a very good argument to be made that is just the opposite of your conclusion.
If you are an "operator", LEO or otherwise, the most critical aspect of your gun is reliability. It trumps all other concerns. It must go bang every time you pull the trigger, as your life depends on it. The second biggest concern is that you are properly trained for the task at hand. Training and staying sharp with a firearm requires lots of rounds downrange...a very expensive endeavor that many institutions look to defray costs on by using cheaper ammo like Wolf. Lastly, it should be adaptable to numerous fluid situations, including environmental and ammo variations. By these definitions, the BCM 14.5 middy fails. I take that to mean it is clearly aimed at the civilian market, not the LEO/operator market.
For civilians, one could also make an excellent case that shooting steel cased ammo gives far more training per dollar, and with enough rounds downrange, the savings are enough to replace the parts that see extra wear due to the steel cases and still come out ahead over brass. It's not for me, but it is a compelling argument nonetheless. This BCM example clearly meets no solid niche, and should be marketed as such.
As cars go, it starts with a flawed design, making it more of a Corvair than an RX8.
Last edited:
kwelz
Member
M&PVolk this isn't about running steel cased ammo. It is about running underpowered ammo.
Zerodefect
member
You can't just make things up.
Noone cares that you want it to run on cheap junk ammo. I want my guns to run on free tap water and shoot AMRAAM missles out the barrel with zero recoil. I expect BCM to provide free Hello Kitty stickers every time my gun fails or else that bad customer service. It shouldn't require Pmags, dented CK mags with sticky followers are fine. The moon is made of cheese, I'm sure of it.
Wolf is not defensive ammo. Use Hornady TAP and all these problems go away.
A middy 14.5 is a compromise to get a smooth lower recoil weapon. That can be quite an advantage in a fight. Being easier to stay on target during rapid fire is a nice thing to have.
Save the cheap ammo for playtime. Prepare properly and use quality defensive ammo and quality mags for serious work.
If you want an AR that likes junk ammo better get a Carbine 16". No AR company, 1911 company, or even Glock promises any kind of reliability on junk ammo.
If reliability is key, then reliable ammo is the criteria. The militaries that use the Stoner platform - over 85 countries last I checked - issue full power ammo. None that I know of deliberately offer their troops inexpensive plinker ammo imported from where ever.
In real life and death endeavors, assuming is a guarantee of a short lifespan. Misuse of equipment and an insistence that something work contrary to the way it was engineered can be fatal. It's very much NOT the Mall, it's your maximus gluteus on the line, and you better know everything possible to protect it, because the "other guy" is committed to exploit every opportunity to help you lose it.
Reliability REQUIRES reliable ammo designed and specified for the weapon, tested and approved. You can use cheap fodder on the range all you want, don't even try to make the argument it should be acceptable. It's not, the failures are detailed, and using it for what it's not made to do will lead to a fatal error. That's the standard real professionals encourage and train to, not a get by attitude.
It's entirely the untrained civilian using cheap ammo in their toy guns, not the professional. It's not professional practice to use non standard ammo, and not tolerated or exercised whatsoever. Even approved full power ammo is inspected and removed from service if signs of deterioration are noted, that's the whole point of rotating stocks and selling off surplus. If it was still trustworthy, it would be in storage waiting to be used.
This goes far beyond import or commercially loaded ammo - the military won't even use what we buy as surplus. It's not good enough, much less some cheap import ammo underloaded to save a few pennies a round. THAT'S the military standard - it's prime full power fresh ammo, or it's not used at all.
Why some insist on using military spec weapons for their reliability, then insist that the ammo SHOULDN'T, is quite beyond my comprehension. If Milspec is the standard, then the standard is Milspec ammo, no exceptions.
In real life and death endeavors, assuming is a guarantee of a short lifespan. Misuse of equipment and an insistence that something work contrary to the way it was engineered can be fatal. It's very much NOT the Mall, it's your maximus gluteus on the line, and you better know everything possible to protect it, because the "other guy" is committed to exploit every opportunity to help you lose it.
Reliability REQUIRES reliable ammo designed and specified for the weapon, tested and approved. You can use cheap fodder on the range all you want, don't even try to make the argument it should be acceptable. It's not, the failures are detailed, and using it for what it's not made to do will lead to a fatal error. That's the standard real professionals encourage and train to, not a get by attitude.
It's entirely the untrained civilian using cheap ammo in their toy guns, not the professional. It's not professional practice to use non standard ammo, and not tolerated or exercised whatsoever. Even approved full power ammo is inspected and removed from service if signs of deterioration are noted, that's the whole point of rotating stocks and selling off surplus. If it was still trustworthy, it would be in storage waiting to be used.
This goes far beyond import or commercially loaded ammo - the military won't even use what we buy as surplus. It's not good enough, much less some cheap import ammo underloaded to save a few pennies a round. THAT'S the military standard - it's prime full power fresh ammo, or it's not used at all.
Why some insist on using military spec weapons for their reliability, then insist that the ammo SHOULDN'T, is quite beyond my comprehension. If Milspec is the standard, then the standard is Milspec ammo, no exceptions.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
There also seems to be a mistaken belief that military-spec rifles are more tolerant to a wide range of ammo when in reality they are probably less tolerant. Look at Australian F1 ball - this is STANAG 5.56mm NATO ammo; but put it in an M4 and you are going to see a higher rate of stoppages due to the low port pressure of this ammo's propellant. Likewise, if you take M855 ball and put it in an F88 rifle (Australian AUG) you will see a higher rate of stoppages due to the high port pressure of M855. And this is with 5.56mm NATO spec ammo that meets STANAG!
If you want maximum reliability, you build a rifle around a specific ammunition type. If you want maximum ammo availability, you will have to sacrifice some degree of reliability and/or service life of parts. No free rides.
If you want maximum reliability, you build a rifle around a specific ammunition type. If you want maximum ammo availability, you will have to sacrifice some degree of reliability and/or service life of parts. No free rides.
- Status
