Page 6 of 19 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 185

Thread: BCM Lower not compatible with PMAG Gen3

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    893
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    My complete BCM rifles came with D&H mag with a BCM floor plate
    Quote Originally Posted by Outlander Systems View Post
    In 2014, a RDS and a WML are pretty much mandatory for a defensive long-gun.

    Lights are way easier to fire up than NODs when rolling out of bed.

    Quote Originally Posted by SJC3081 View Post
    You should have your balls removed for posting such stupidity. This is not the other site...

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    875
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    I have four BCM lowers. Every one of them functions fine with every generation of PMAG I've used, as well as with Lancer mags and USGI mags.

    I can tell no difference between them and my Colt lowers, functionality wise. Of course, that doesn't mean there isn't an issue either..

    I honestly wonder what percentage of their lowers have issues with PMAGS.

    Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,097
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rogue556 View Post
    I have four BCM lowers. Every one of them functions fine with every generation of PMAG I've used, as well as with Lancer mags and USGI mags.

    I can tell no difference between them and my Colt lowers, functionality wise. Of course, that doesn't mean there isn't an issue either..

    I honestly wonder what percentage of their lowers have issues with PMAGS.

    Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
    The fact that a certain percentage of their lowers won't works with Gen 3 PMAGs is only half the issue... The other half is their attitude concerning this incompatibility.

    Frankly, they just lost another couple of sales from me and my buddy because of this. Can't stand "it's not our problem" attitude kind of customer service.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    64
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)
    FWIW, my brand new BCM lower accepts Gen 3 Pmags without issue.
    Honor Necessity

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    4,630
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ace4059 View Post
    To me that is pretty much an industrial standard if it works with just about all other lowers and several different Firearms.
    "Pretty much" and "just about" is not how anything is made to a standard. I'm a machinist, I make parts to a print with dimensions and an allowable tolerance. It's a Engineer's job to make that tolerance reasonably large to keep the price low, while being fully functional in relation to other parts and their tolerances.

    If I make a pile of parts most of them will be right about in the middle of the tolerance (if I do my job right) but that doesn't mean that the few that use almost all of the tolerance are wrong. It either meets the print spec and is 100% good or it does not and is 100% bad.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    60
    Feedback Score
    18 (100%)
    Every major companies lowers are "in spec" the overwellming majority of the time, yes, a few bad apples might pass, but you can still buy a lower with confidence. After a quick Google search, there are a lot of issues with M3 mags and different companies lowers. None of this was a problem until Magpul released the M3. Now people are bashing the companies (Like BCM-who, by my knowledge, doesnt even produce their own recievers) lowers because "some" won't work with a $12 piece of plastic...

    Here's a crazy thought...just buy M2's. Their cheaper too.

    Maybe Magpul should've stated that the over insertion tab (that makes this particular mag work on more platforms) may have issues with a few lower receivers.

    *Side note, I only have 10 M3's, and they fit all my lowers BCM (3) AERO (1) COLT (1)

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    610
    Feedback Score
    0
    I'm a huge fan of both BCM and Magpul, and I don't see how people can blame BCM here. That over-insertion tab is clearly not part of any spec since other mags don't have it. Magpul should have made their mags compatible with all lowers, not the other way around. I think Magpul was probably targeting military sales, so that's why they focused on Colt lowers when designing the mags. But just because the mags are prevalent, are manufacturers of lowers like BCM and KAC supposed to adapt? What if another accessory product becomes prevalent, are they then expected to adapt then too? It should be the other way around. That said, I do wish would BCM would just go ahead and change their spec to adapt to what I consider to be Magpul's screw up.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,688
    Feedback Score
    40 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by BCMNick View Post
    Every major companies lowers are "in spec" the overwellming majority of the time, yes, a few bad apples might pass, but you can still buy a lower with confidence. After a quick Google search, there are a lot of issues with M3 mags and different companies lowers. None of this was a problem until Magpul released the M3. Now people are bashing the companies (Like BCM-who, by my knowledge, doesnt even produce their own recievers) lowers because "some" won't work with a $12 piece of plastic...

    Here's a crazy thought...just buy M2's. Their cheaper too.

    Maybe Magpul should've stated that the over insertion tab (that makes this particular mag work on more platforms) may have issues with a few lower receivers.

    *Side note, I only have 10 M3's, and they fit all my lowers BCM (3) AERO (1) COLT (1)
    Quote Originally Posted by jackblack73 View Post
    I'm a huge fan of both BCM and Magpul, and I don't see how people can blame BCM here. That over-insertion tab is clearly not part of any spec since other mags don't have it. Magpul should have made their mags compatible with all lowers, not the other way around. I think Magpul was probably targeting military sales, so that's why they focused on Colt lowers when designing the mags. But just because the mags are prevalent, are manufacturers of lowers like BCM and KAC supposed to adapt? What if another accessory product becomes prevalent, are they then expected to adapt then too? It should be the other way around. That said, I do wish would BCM would just go ahead and change their spec to adapt to what I consider to be Magpul's screw up.
    http://soldiersystems.net/2016/12/19...-pmag-for-m27/

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    9,931
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    deleted tinfoil hat stuff
    Last edited by 26 Inf; 03-17-18 at 19:17.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,511
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    BCM Lower not compatible with PMAG Gen3

    What came first, the AR15 lower and the dimensional specification required for it to function correctly or the Gen 3 Magpul magazine? Personally, BCM is still good to go in my book. YMMV. Is over insertion an issue generally? I’ve never experienced it? Mine works with Gen 3, but I have enough Gen 2’s that I don’t think I ever need to worry.
    Last edited by Inkslinger; 03-17-18 at 19:39.

Page 6 of 19 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •