My complete BCM rifles came with D&H mag with a BCM floor plate
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.
FWIW, my brand new BCM lower accepts Gen 3 Pmags without issue.
Honor Necessity
"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.
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)
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.
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.
Bookmarks