View Full Version : BCM 11.5 vs Triarcs 12.5
SHERWINVILLARETE
01-09-20, 21:53
I'm torn between the BCM 11.5 and the Triarcs 12.5 uppers. I have no experience with both. I only have a BCM 14.5 and a couple of 16s. Does anybody know if one shoots softer than the other? Is the TRACK barrel by Triarc longer lasting compared to BCM? I'm looking for a workhorse upper.
BCM 11.5 - very light rail with a superior design (IMO)
Triarc 12.5 - mid length gas (might shoot softer and have better parts wear?)
Renegade0100
01-09-20, 23:28
FWIW, my 12.5" carbine BCM is jumpier and more violent than my 14.5" carbine Colt 6920.
Renegade0100
01-09-20, 23:33
Also, here's a review on a Triarc 12.5": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaQAkVbPKbI
The Triarc is going to shoot softer than the BCM.
The BCM rail is not superior to the Wedgelock rail.
Firing schedule will determine which barrel lasts longer. For the average shooter, both barrels will last a life time.
Both barrels are proven and both barrels are going to serve you well. If you want a slightly softer shooting rifle, go with the Triarc.
If you want a wider operational window, go with the BCM.
Triarc has done their homework and their barrels work but any time you start pushing performance envelopes, your reliability window closes. I cannot quantify by how much but this is a fact.
FWIW, my 12.5" carbine BCM is jumpier and more violent than my 14.5" carbine Colt 6920.I had the same experience so I put an A5H3 on it and it is markedly less jumpy now and could even be described as smooth.
I set mine up with as many basic, non-moving, reliable parts as possible. It was hard not putting a SDC trigger in but it did get a milspecish ACT.
Dennis.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200110/f89153b888024c6e93d93fbbd551024f.jpg
FWIW, my 12.5" carbine BCM is jumpier and more violent than my 14.5" carbine Colt 6920.
Well, yeah.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not to mention the Triarc is a mid length.
SHERWINVILLARETE
01-10-20, 13:30
The Triarc is going to shoot softer than the BCM.
The BCM rail is not superior to the Wedgelock rail.
Firing schedule will determine which barrel lasts longer. For the average shooter, both barrels will last a life time.
Both barrels are proven and both barrels are going to serve you well. If you want a slightly softer shooting rifle, go with the Triarc.
If you want a wider operational window, go with the BCM.
Triarc has done their homework and their barrels work but any time you start pushing performance envelopes, your reliability window closes. I cannot quantify by how much but this is a fact.
Daaamn. Now I'm leaning towards the Triarc. I appreciate your input!
Many, myself including feel that a 12.5 is too short for mid gas, also be aware that BCM makes the Kino and other 12.5 barrels along with DD, that's a great barrel length.
dylank0723
01-10-20, 17:23
Pm sent
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You're comparing apples (11.5" carbine) to oranges (12.5" mid).
BCM 11.5" are "over-gassed" for use with 5.56 in my opinion, especially with a suppressor.
Triarc's 11.5" are nicely ported at 0.065" (0.045" for the suppressed only variant).
Please be aware that, if you plan on shooting crap ammo (Tula and other weak .223), you will likely encounter cycling issues with conservatively ported barrels such as the Triarc.
everready73
01-10-20, 21:03
I would go with the triarc, especially if going suppressed at all
The one thing I don't like about BCM is there barrels. The triarc will be more accurate
You're comparing apples (11.5" carbine) to oranges (12.5" mid).
BCM 11.5" are "over-gassed" for use with 5.56 in my opinion, especially with a suppressor.
Triarc's 11.5" are nicely ported at 0.065" (0.045" for the suppressed only variant).
Please be aware that, if you plan on shooting crap ammo (Tula and other weak .223), you will likely encounter cycling issues with conservatively ported barrels such as the Triarc.
This is a good post and has very valuable information in it. If you shoot shit ammo, go with the BCM. (I have no issues with shit ammo, you just need to recognize that its under powered. I actually love shit ammo as it goes bang just like all the rest).
me2hootyhoo
01-11-20, 08:15
You say workhorse. BCM is the workhorse of the two. Plain and simple. Like said earlier, Triarc is pushing the 12.5 barrel to mid length, may be leaning on the less reliable end for the sake of gun reviewers claiming it to be super smooth.
No experience with Triarc but Garand Thumb didn't have any reliability issues in his evaluation. To my knowledge though the 12.5 mid isn't as proven as the carbine length gas system in the shorter barrel lengths.
You're comparing apples (11.5" carbine) to oranges (12.5" mid)...
... and? They're both fruit. Some years ago, I was looking for a new car and had narrowed my choices down to two- a V8 Grand Cherokee or a rotary Mazda RX-7. The salesman couldn't wrap his head around that, but so what? Some days your choices come down to choosing between an apple or an orange. If narrow your choices down to two apples, there's nothing left to talk about. Eat your apple or go hungry.
... and? They're both fruit. Some years ago, I was looking for a new car and had narrowed my choices down to two- a V8 Grand Cherokee or a rotary Mazda RX-7. The salesman couldn't wrap his head around that, but so what? Some days your choices come down to choosing between an apple or an orange. If narrow your choices down to two apples, there's nothing left to talk about. Eat your apple or go hungry.
Oh there’s plenty to talk about BCM vs. Triarc 11.5 offerings.
I highly doubt you’re going to get 1MOA or better from the BCM, and it’s going to suck with good ammo and a can.
SHERWINVILLARETE
01-11-20, 11:34
Gonna go with the BCM. From what you guys have said, it will chew crappy ammo and that's a major point that I like, I won't be running suppressed anytime soon but it when I do, seems like the shorter and lighter BCM will fit me better because I am short and medium build (5'8" tall").
My BCM 14.5 is super soft shooting but I did encounter a short stroke running cheap Tula ammo which is to be expected. I'll take the extra gas for the extra reliability. Thanks guys
... and? They're both fruit. Some years ago, I was looking for a new car and had narrowed my choices down to two- a V8 Grand Cherokee or a rotary Mazda RX-7. The salesman couldn't wrap his head around that, but so what? Some days your choices come down to choosing between an apple or an orange. If narrow your choices down to two apples, there's nothing left to talk about. Eat your apple or go hungry.
LOL! I also dig this post.
What did you end up going with? :P
LowSpeed_HighDrag
01-11-20, 15:19
FWIW, my 12.5" carbine BCM is jumpier and more violent than my 14.5" carbine Colt 6920.
That's generally how that works.
SouthwestAviator
01-12-20, 13:32
I don't understand the desire to trade off reliability for smoothness. Reliability is absolutely paramount over all other factors. If a gun isn't 100% reliable even with .223 low pressure ammo like PMC bronze, it's a paperweight. I do draw the line at steel cased, though (unless it's for an exclusively training/range beater rifle, in that case who cares). I'd rather have a slightly "jumpier" rifle that is reliable with a wide range of ammo in a wide range of temperature/environmental conditions than one that's slightly "smoother" but has a smaller reliability envelope. But that's just me.
I don't understand the desire to trade off reliability for smoothness. Reliability is absolutely paramount over all other factors. If a gun isn't 100% reliable even with .223 low pressure ammo like PMC bronze, it's a paperweight. I do draw the line at steel cased, though (unless it's for an exclusively training/range beater rifle, in that case who cares). I'd rather have a slightly "jumpier" rifle that is reliable with a wide range of ammo in a wide range of temperature/environmental conditions than one that's slightly "smoother" but has a smaller reliability envelope. But that's just me.
That's the beauty of a properly tuned AR- it gives you reliability, smoothness and durability. If ammo won't run a properly tuned AR, that ammo isn't just low powered, it's out of spec. An AR that's over gassed to run on low powered out of spec ammo places more strain on its parts when running in spec ammo, especially the springs. To get "jumpier" for more "reliability" you sacrifice durability.
Leonidas24
01-12-20, 22:59
I don't understand the desire to trade off reliability for smoothness. Reliability is absolutely paramount over all other factors. If a gun isn't 100% reliable even with .223 low pressure ammo like PMC bronze, it's a paperweight. I do draw the line at steel cased, though (unless it's for an exclusively training/range beater rifle, in that case who cares). I'd rather have a slightly "jumpier" rifle that is reliable with a wide range of ammo in a wide range of temperature/environmental conditions than one that's slightly "smoother" but has a smaller reliability envelope. But that's just me.
Ultimately it depends on how wide your definition of reliable and smooth is. Since starting over fresh my one AR is a 12.5" SBR with a Centurion Arms CHF barrel (carbine gas), and it's ported at .066". Combined with a Sprinco blue spring, H2 buffer, and an FCD 6315 flash hider it's incredibly reliable and smooth suppressed or unsuppressed with Federal AE193. From what I've seen others post about BCM's 11.5, it's ported somewhere between .073-.076 -- that's huge in the 11.5 world AFAIC. Colt specs their 11.5 barrels at .069 for comparison.
The general rule of thumb I've come to realize in the last 12 years is that the shorter you go on a 5.56 platform the narrower your "reliable" range of operation becomes. By comparison I had a 14.5" FN middy with a .076 port, and when paired with VLTOR's excellent A5 system using an H3 buffer it would run anything from PMC .223 all the way up to Federal XM193F, and in all honesty I couldn't tell a huge difference between relatively low pressure .223 and high(er) pressure 5.56 NATO spec ammo. The same could be said for the 16" Sionics barrel I had with a .076 port; though, it'd be preferable in the .072 range IMHO.
Alternatively, a previous build with a Noveske 12.5" stainless barrel was ludicrously over-gassed to the point of needing an H3 buffer and a Sprinco red spring to reliably cycle 5.56 ammo. When I finally shot that barrel out I swore off Noveske forever and haven't looked at their barrels since.
Lastly, good on Triarc for deviating from the gov profile. The gov profile is retarded and deserves to die a horrible, agonizing, painful death. Noveske had a good idea with their medium taper barrels but they were/are grossly overgassed. Sionics is doing it right with the medium profile. BA's Hanson profile is awesome though it'd be gangster if they offered it again CHF and chrome lined.
dylank0723
01-12-20, 23:08
Does anyone know how the current, chrome lined noveske barrels are gassed?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Leonidas24
01-12-20, 23:43
Does anyone know how the current, chrome lined noveske barrels are gassed?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
AR-15 5.56/.223 Gas Port Size (Responses) (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tXunBDX5Gaz87BqxwNxDUlWNK9nEv-cZEQoLq2JXXrk/edit#gid=766121382)
This has data ranging from 2009-2018.
Walker_Texasranger
01-13-20, 08:32
Ultimately it depends on how wide your definition of reliable and smooth is. Since starting over fresh my one AR is a 12.5" SBR with a Centurion Arms CHF barrel (carbine gas), and it's ported at .066". Combined with a Sprinco blue spring, H2 buffer, and an FCD 6315 flash hider it's incredibly reliable and smooth suppressed or unsuppressed with Federal AE193. From what I've seen others post about BCM's 11.5, it's ported somewhere between .073-.076 -- that's huge in the 11.5 world AFAIC. Colt specs their 11.5 barrels at .069 for comparison.
The general rule of thumb I've come to realize in the last 12 years is that the shorter you go on a 5.56 platform the narrower your "reliable" range of operation becomes. By comparison I had a 14.5" FN middy with a .076 port, and when paired with VLTOR's excellent A5 system using an H3 buffer it would run anything from PMC .223 all the way up to Federal XM193F, and in all honesty I couldn't tell a huge difference between relatively low pressure .223 and high(er) pressure 5.56 NATO spec ammo. The same could be said for the 16" Sionics barrel I had with a .076 port; though, it'd be preferable in the .072 range IMHO.
Alternatively, a previous build with a Noveske 12.5" stainless barrel was ludicrously over-gassed to the point of needing an H3 buffer and a Sprinco red spring to reliably cycle 5.56 ammo. When I finally shot that barrel out I swore off Noveske forever and haven't looked at their barrels since.
Lastly, good on Triarc for deviating from the gov profile. The gov profile is retarded and deserves to die a horrible, agonizing, painful death. Noveske had a good idea with their medium taper barrels but they were/are grossly overgassed. Sionics is doing it right with the medium profile. BA's Hanson profile is awesome though it'd be gangster if they offered it again CHF and chrome lined.
Don’t forget BCM’s ELW barrels which are a pretty perfect profile.
The enhanced medium weight fluted barrels look awesome for a heavier tapered barrel as well. I don’t think they are as popular as the ELW because they don’t offer it in BFH.
I don't understand the desire to trade off reliability for smoothness. Reliability is absolutely paramount over all other factors. If a gun isn't 100% reliable even with .223 low pressure ammo like PMC bronze, it's a paperweight. I do draw the line at steel cased, though (unless it's for an exclusively training/range beater rifle, in that case who cares). I'd rather have a slightly "jumpier" rifle that is reliable with a wide range of ammo in a wide range of temperature/environmental conditions than one that's slightly "smoother" but has a smaller reliability envelope. But that's just me.
I get where you're coming from. People really need to think of their rifles as part of a system that includes, ammunition, magazines and lubrication. Taking all of that into consideration there very well might be some room for "improvement" in optimizing things for your specific environment an ammo sources. Just so long as people are aware that TANSTAAFL. I'd be perfectly okay giving up some arctic performance, but then again I don't live in North Dakota.
msnyder0609
01-13-20, 17:43
I had the Triarc 12.5 middy for a while. I ran it with an LMT enhanced carrier and vltor a5h3 buffer. I never had any malfunctions and it would eat anything I fed it. To include steel case Wolf. It was a pretty smooth shooting setup.
Five_Point_Five_Six
01-15-20, 09:51
I don't understand the desire to trade off reliability for smoothness. Reliability is absolutely paramount over all other factors. If a gun isn't 100% reliable even with .223 low pressure ammo like PMC bronze, it's a paperweight. I do draw the line at steel cased, though (unless it's for an exclusively training/range beater rifle, in that case who cares). I'd rather have a slightly "jumpier" rifle that is reliable with a wide range of ammo in a wide range of temperature/environmental conditions than one that's slightly "smoother" but has a smaller reliability envelope. But that's just me.
Didn't you sell a rifle because of an anodizing scuff inside the rear takedown hole?
Outlander Systems
01-15-20, 10:12
Welp.
I now have Copenhagen on my monitor.
Didn't you sell a rifle because of an anodizing scuff inside the rear takedown hole?
Didn't you sell a rifle because of an anodizing scuff inside the rear takedown hole?
he sure did! ROFL
hotrodder636
01-15-20, 11:23
Color me ignorant but I am not very familiar with Triarc. Reading up, they seem to make a legit product. I didn’t realize they have been around since 2013. I had seen threads about them here and there but never really looked into them.
I had a 16" BFH BCM factory upper that shot pretty bad with Wolf Gold at 100yds.. like, 6" groups. Thgat being said, I'd be willing to try agan. But between the two, I like what I've seen from Triarc and would lean that way
wittlescwappy
01-15-20, 20:58
I have only used a Triarc 14.5 mid-length barrel. The port size was quite small. Very soft shooting and NO gas to face suppressed - Very accurate too... but I had some issues cycling low power .223 un-supressed.
Since I mainly shoot low power .223 these days... I ended up switching it out.
I have only used a Triarc 14.5 mid-length barrel. The port size was quite small. Very soft shooting and NO gas to face suppressed - Very accurate too... but I had some issues cycling low power .223 un-supressed.
Since I mainly shoot low power .223 these days... I ended up switching it out.
Did you have the suppressor specific barrel with the purposefully undersized gas port?
wittlescwappy
01-15-20, 21:12
Did you have the suppressor specific barrel with the purposefully undersized gas port?
No - it was the normal 14.5" mid-length gas from Triarc.
It ran everything fine suppressed. Under gassed for unsupressed .223
Generally 14.5 Mid-length seems to be notoriously ammo finicky - shorter barrels might not have this issue at all.
No - it was the normal 14.5" mid-length gas from Triarc.
It ran everything fine suppressed. Under gassed for unsupressed .223
Generally 14.5 Mid-length seems to be notoriously ammo finicky - shorter barrels might not have this issue at all.
Good point on 14.5 midlength.
dylank0723
01-15-20, 21:24
Call me crazy but BCM is starting to become somewhat overrated, price is still good and they are reliable but comparing them to someone like Soms of Liberty Gunworks, I lean more towards the latter. I love BCM and always have, but haven’t been a huge fan of their CS attitude either.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Call me crazy but BCM is starting to become somewhat overrated, price is still good and they are reliable but comparing them to someone like Soms of Liberty Gunworks, I lean more towards the latter. I love BCM and always have, but haven’t been a huge fan of their CS attitude either.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They are an easy button. I have one that gives me gas in the face with a suppressor, but all their products that Ive used are robust, reliable and fill their intended role well.
Id be pissed if it didnt run, gas to-face I can deal with. Its not overgassed to the point it destroys buffers like other manufacturers ive used, and its not under gassed, so I have no problem with it.
I expect to have to customize an off the shelf product for comfortable silencer use. But thats just me.
When getting into niche uses- there may be better options.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.