View Full Version : Anyone using any of the new BCM.....?
Anyone using any of the new BCM muzzle devices?
Much like the other parts BCM has released lately, BCM has done so quietly and without fan fare. Was anyone in on testing or use? Is anyone using any of these new muzzle devices or have any 2nd hand feedback if not personal use?
https://bravocompanyusa.com/search-results-page?q=BCMGUNFIGHTER%E2%84%A2%20Compensator%20MOD%20
https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-16115g8ghe/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/3363/11323/_TCK1599-1-3__16360.1665590652.jpg?c=1
Anyone using any of the new BCM muzzle devices?
Much like the other parts BCM has released lately, BCM has done so quietly and without fan fare. Was anyone in on testing or use? Is anyone using any of these new muzzle devices or have any 2nd hand feedback if not personal use?
https://bravocompanyusa.com/search-results-page?q=BCMGUNFIGHTER%E2%84%A2%20Compensator%20MOD%20
https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-16115g8ghe/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/3363/11323/_TCK1599-1-3__16360.1665590652.jpg?c=1
I saw these the other day at my local BCM retailer, the guys behind the counter didn't know about them or that they were even coming in
Wow! Cool. This is the first I've seen them.
They’re all listed as compensators. So far all comps have more flash and are louder than a standard A2 birdcage.
They’re all listed as compensators. So far all comps have more flash and are louder than a standard A2 birdcage.
Yea, isn't that the nature of all comps, if they work I should say?
The ones on the left look like modified bird cages. Cant see how the others actually work, maybe I need to see a 360 view to appreciate their build.
PB
everready73
10-25-22, 12:56
They’re all listed as compensators. So far all comps have more flash and are louder than a standard A2 birdcage.
This it what they have bolded at top of page
"This Compensator was not designed as a gamers comp. It was designed for tactical applications to reduce muzzle rise, flash signature, noise, and lateral pressure.''
titsonritz
10-25-22, 16:30
I hadn't noticed, but then I typically roll on past anything "compensator" or "brake".
Might check this/these out. Description claims:
Designed to have less side blast and noise associated with typical compensators.
I’ve tried most of the ‘tactical’ comps.
They’re just louder and produce more flash than an A2 and don’t do much as a comp.
Yea, isn't that the nature of all comps, if they work I should say?
The ones on the left look like modified bird cages. Cant see how the others actually work, maybe I need to see a 360 view to appreciate their build.
PB
The other ones look like closed tine A1 3 prongs.
https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-16115g8ghe/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/3363/11324/_TCK1594-2-2__19476.1665590652.jpg
jackblack73
10-25-22, 17:37
The ones on the left look like the comps that have been around for a while. The new ones look like 2 prong flash hiders as far as I can tell. Not sure I’ve ever seen a 2 prong before.
OutofBatt3ry
10-25-22, 20:30
They look slick. The only BCM parts I have are RE kits. Just what was quickly available during those builds, coincidentally.
I'll have to try their MD's if I ever get a bug to build another AR.
(edit. Creeping toward $100 for an MD..I don't know, what suppressors do they accept?)
I have the mod 3 on a 14.5 elw upper. I haven’t fired it at night yet so can’t speak to flash suppression. I was shooting with my buddy the other day, he was using a 6920 with an a2 birdcage. I couldn’t tell a difference between the two noise wise though I do feel like it helps with muzzle rise noticeably. Nothing game changing but it’s noticeable.
The mod 3 produce significantly more flash than the A2 birdcage.
The new variations appear to be a 2 prong open tine and 2 prong closed tine in 556 and 762 in both standard and extended lengths.
According to the description the open tine reduces flash more than the closed tine version.
I should get some time on this one shortly.
https://64.media.tumblr.com/465880828fd34d64e0ae5becbdcf8d66/32aa25a601ee5e80-0b/s1280x1920/bf4d6c8754f7ab120a6334dc1fd5da03d888d146.jpg
I should get some time on this one shortly.
https://64.media.tumblr.com/465880828fd34d64e0ae5becbdcf8d66/32aa25a601ee5e80-0b/s1280x1920/bf4d6c8754f7ab120a6334dc1fd5da03d888d146.jpg
Give us a range report when done, particularly on flash suppression and muzzle rise mitigation.
Give us a range report when done, particularly on flash suppression and muzzle rise mitigation.
I'm being lectured by people that I need to upload video and start learning to do vids. I'll see if I can do a quick project with it.
Leicafan1990
11-04-22, 23:04
Any updates on these? They look nice but BCM put zero effort into selling them. How about some night footage for flash performance vs an A2 birdcage. The main competition is the Surefire Warcomp and the SOLGW Nox so maybe some kind of comparison against those?
They look nice but BCM put zero effort into selling them.
Pray tell, what has BCM put a lot of effort into selling with new launch items? These were a low launch item, the stocks before them were low launch items, their new receivers were low launch, the new URGs have been low launch. The BCM MK2 recoil mitigation systems were low launch, and their new book is something you probably haven't even heard of.
Not only that, but the item they are about to release I'm betting will be also super low level launch.
Leicafan1990
11-05-22, 13:25
Pray tell, what has BCM put a lot of effort into selling with new launch items? These were a low launch item, the stocks before them were low launch items, their new receivers were low launch, the new URGs have been low launch. The BCM MK2 recoil mitigation systems were low launch, and their new book is something you probably haven't even heard of.
Not only that, but the item they are about to release I'm betting will be also super low level launch.
Sure, but most of those products don’t really need videos of any kind. The MK2 buffer system is just a rebranded Vltor A5. Nothing to get excited about, just another source for A5 buffers.
With muzzle devices, especially ones that cost $100, its nice to see something even as minimal as some flash photos at night and even a quick 10 second video showing a string of fire to see if the device is over compensating the muzzle down. Not a requirement. Just nice to have.
The FCD 6315 page is a good example of low effort but useful product info: https://www.forwardcontrolsdesign.com/6315_p_76.html
I've had 2 range sessions with the Mod 6 on a factory BCM 16".
First session was a direct comparison at dusk first with a standard A2 bird cage, then replacing it with Mod 6. The only difference I could tell was just a tad bit more flash with the Mod 6. No perceptible difference in muzzle rise or felt recoil.
Ammo was a Federal tactical 223 load.
Pray tell, what has BCM put a lot of effort into selling with new launch items? These were a low launch item, the stocks before them were low launch items, their new receivers were low launch, the new URGs have been low launch. The BCM MK2 recoil mitigation systems were low launch, and their new book is something you probably haven't even heard of.
Not only that, but the item they are about to release I'm betting will be also super low level launch.
What new book?
Leicafan1990
11-05-22, 14:56
I've had 2 range sessions with the Mod 6 on a factory BCM 16".
First session was a direct comparison at dusk first with a standard A2 bird cage, then replacing it with Mod 6. The only difference I could tell was just a tad bit more flash with the Mod 6. No perceptible difference in muzzle rise or felt recoil.
Ammo was a Federal tactical 223 load.
So it costs almost $100 but it performs slightly worse than a $10 birdcage. I guess that’s a pass from me. Not trying to be harsh but I guess I question why companies bother trying to make these hybrid flash comps when no one seems to really be able to beat the birdcage for all around performance. The Warcomp can sorta beat the A2 but I think it overcompensates, same with the Nox.
So it costs almost $100 but it performs slightly worse than a $10 birdcage. I guess that’s a pass from me. Not trying to be harsh but I guess I question why companies bother trying to make these hybrid flash comps when no one seems to really be able to beat the birdcage for all around performance. The Warcomp can sorta beat the A2 but I think it overcompensates, same with the Nox.
That’s also one opinion… lots of people claim comps don’t do much on 5.56 guns, I disagree. Could just be a similar train of thought.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Leicafan1990
11-05-22, 21:20
That’s also one opinion… lots of people claim comps don’t do much on 5.56 guns, I disagree. Could just be a similar train of thought.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Comps definitely do something on 5.56 but sometimes I think they do too much. I ditched the Warcomp because it was driving the muzzle down too much on my 16”. A brake is the only way to reduce recoil but then you get a ton of side blast. I still think the A2 does that best job of balancing flash control, recoil reduction without side blast and light compensation.
Do those duckbills have a baffle on the inside that vents to the side? (Not talking about the birdcages) Looks that way in the profile pic.
Edit: it looks like the birdcages have one, too. With at least one port at 12 o'clock.
It would be great to see a chart of the BCM muzzle device options (along with an A2) that compares flash, recoil, compensation, etc.
I'm a fan of BCM products but it can be hard to compare which MOD does what on many of their products.
It would be great to see a chart of the BCM muzzle device options (along with an A2) that compares flash, recoil, compensation, etc.
Maybe these guys could be convinced to do an addendum?
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/ar-15-flash-hider-shootout/
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/556-muzzle-device-shootout/
My favorite is the Forward Controls Design 6315 Stoner 63 inspired muzzle device. No greater flash than an A2 and a pinch of compensation. A very small pinch....
Leicafan1990
11-07-22, 09:37
My favorite is the Forward Controls Design 6315 Stoner 63 inspired muzzle device. No greater flash than an A2 and a pinch of compensation. A very small pinch....
Agreed. It’s the most well rounded muzzle device I have ever encountered. It’s not the best at anything but it doesn’t suck anywhere either which is important. There are other devices that kill flash to near zero but you get some muzzle rise. There are some devices that do a much better job of killing recoil but you get a shit ton of flash and side blast. The 6315 is balanced like a Hanzo sword. It’s everything the Battlecomp wishes it was.
methical20
12-02-22, 16:41
Is there any news regarding the BCM T2 mount or the new stock that they have been showing for a while now?
BufordTJustice
12-02-22, 20:45
Tried a new A5H4 BCM Mk2 buffer. Smoother than the Vltor A5H4.
I see why Erik got the patent.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Tried a new A5H4 BCM Mk2 buffer. Smoother than the Vltor A5H4.
I see why Erik got the patent.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
How does it differ from Vltor's A5H4?
BufordTJustice
12-02-22, 21:58
How does it differ from Vltor's A5H4?
Uses an improved biasing spring, with longer service life (possibly indefinite due to a vastly lower K value than the std A5 buffer). Also uses an improved bumper.... apparently improved material and internal geometry to further reduce the jarring impact of the weight stack bottoming out during the recoil stroke.
It works.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
titsonritz
12-03-22, 01:15
Uses an improved biasing spring, with longer service life (possibly indefinite due to a vastly lower K value than the std A5 buffer). Also uses an improved bumper.... apparently improved material and internal geometry to further reduce the jarring impact of the weight stack bottoming out during the recoil stroke.
It works.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Is there anything special about the receiver extension or will the buffer improve a rifle with a standard A5 RE?
Uses an improved biasing spring, with longer service life (possibly indefinite due to a vastly lower K value than the std A5 buffer). Also uses an improved bumper.... apparently improved material and internal geometry to further reduce the jarring impact of the weight stack bottoming out during the recoil stroke.
It works.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Where did this information come from?
chamber143
12-03-22, 06:28
Where did this information come from?
Maybe in the product description on their website? Not sure but there is some info there.
https://bravocompanyusa.com/bcmgunfighter-mk2-recoil-mitigation-system-mod-1-t0/
Buffer Weight Comparison
M16- 5.1
Mil-Spec
H – 3.8oz.
H2 – 4.7oz.
H3 – 5.0oz
VLTOR
A5H0- 3.8 oz
A5H1- 4.56 oz
A5H2- 5.33 oz
A5H3- 6.08 oz
A5H4- 6.83 oz
BCM MK2
T0- 3.8oz
T1-4.7oz
T2- 5.6oz
T3- 6.5oz
T4- 7.4oz
Notice the BCM Mk2 weights are heavier.
The biasing spring in the BCM MK2 buffer is definitely larger than the biasing spring in the VLTOR and looks like a better design.
I'm curious if the steel and tungsten weights are in the correct order? I bet they are.
The A5 weights are not.
69287
BufordTJustice
12-03-22, 10:47
Where did this information come from?
Or the patent filing. [emoji6]
Eric and JJ are the kind of inventors that, when they invent something, you slap your forehead. Simplicity has a beauty all its own.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US10415907B1/en?oq=10%2c415%2c907
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221203/e07f9a3092dd6edf81d9f893af5adeab.png
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Or the patent filing. [emoji6]
Eric and JJ are the kind of inventors that, when they invent something, you slap your forehead. Simplicity has a beauty all its own.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US10415907B1/en?oq=10%2c415%2c907
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I do believe the MK2 buffer is an improved design based on the larger biasing spring and the interface between the bumper and the weight.
The bumper appears to have been made specifically for this application.
BufordTJustice
12-03-22, 11:07
I do believe the MK2 buffer is an improved design based on the larger biasing spring and the interface between the bumper and the weight.
The bumper appears to have been made specifically for this application.
Yeah it's not a COTS solution.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
BufordTJustice
12-03-22, 11:12
The original A5 buffer patent (Eric as well):
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8296984B2/en?inventor=Eric+Stephen+Kincel&page=1
Colt reciprocating mass buffer patent of 1968:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US3366011A/en?inventor=Foster+E+Sturtevant
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
BufordTJustice
12-03-22, 11:14
And the original hydraulic buffer patent from '74:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US3977296A/en?inventor=Stanley+D.+Silsby
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The original A5 buffer patent (Eric as well):
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8296984B2/en?inventor=Eric+Stephen+Kincel&page=1
Colt reciprocating mass buffer patent of 1968:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US3366011A/en?inventor=Foster+E+Sturtevant
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
That shows how small the A5 biasing spring is compared the MK2
This also shows a redesigned bumper.
69288
BufordTJustice
12-03-22, 11:26
That shows how small the A5 biasing spring is compared the MK2
This also shows a redesigned bumper.
69288
Yessir. I have found that the A5's original biasing spring appeared to be very similar to a std AR15 trigger group's disconnector spring.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Tried a new A5H4 BCM Mk2 buffer. Smoother than the Vltor A5H4.
I see why Erik got the patent.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
You are documented proof that marketing 100% works and there’s a sucker born every minute.
BufordTJustice
12-03-22, 11:33
You are documented proof that marketing 100% works and there’s a sucker born every minute.
Who the f*ck are you?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Who the f*ck are you?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It’s all in your head. You think you can feel a difference between two damn near identical buffers that are way too heavy to be considered smooth by any metric.
The A5 nonsense around here is absolutely ridiculous.
BufordTJustice
12-03-22, 11:41
It’s all in your head. You think you can feel a difference between two damn near identical buffers that are way too heavy to be considered smooth by any metric.
The A5 nonsense around here is absolutely ridiculous.
So, despite my having many thousands of rounds through the A5 system, suppressed and un, across half a dozen guns, over a large part of the last decade..... and me telling you that *I TESTED THIS*.........
your play is to call me delusional? And with zero personal experience on your part?
Here's mine: you're a dishonorable liar. And a shill.
NOTE: a 30 second forum search would reveal many high quality posts from me on this very subject.
EDIT: I think now would be a great time for you to disclose any and all industry affiliations you have. I've none; I work for one of the largest tech companies in the country. Your turn.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Voodoochild
12-03-22, 12:25
Stop with the bickering and name calling. Either act like adults or go take a walk.
BufordTJustice
12-03-22, 12:51
Stop with the bickering and name calling. Either act like adults or go take a walk.
Check. Understood.
Going forward, I won't label complete strangers as delusional fanboys and we'll all be GTG. [emoji106]
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Or the patent filing. [emoji6]
Would you mind disassembling your buffer and taking pictures? There are several different spring configurations in the patent and I wonder which they are using presently.
So, despite my having many thousands of rounds through the A5 system, suppressed and un, across half a dozen guns, over a large part of the last decade..... and me telling you that *I TESTED THIS*.........
your play is to call me delusional? And with zero personal experience on your part?
Here's mine: you're a dishonorable liar. And a shill.
NOTE: a 30 second forum search would reveal many high quality posts from me on this very subject.
EDIT: I think now would be a great time for you to disclose any and all industry affiliations you have. I've none; I work for one of the largest tech companies in the country. Your turn.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I discredit the snake oil nonsense accessories/‘upgrades’ that don’t do anything but separate people from their money at best.
You gush on about a patent reiteration of a product that has demonstrably reduced reliability for some people that have actually tested it, and you call me a shill.
There’s delusion but it ain’t me..
Would you mind disassembling your buffer and taking pictures? There are several different spring configurations in the patent and I wonder which they are using presently.
Where are the different spring configurations?
Where are the different spring configurations?
Figures on sheets seven through nine. I'll see if these embed.
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a2/42/ac/bb9761b3c96c1c/US10415907-20190917-D00004.png
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/41/8f/41/90f37e82086abb/US10415907-20190917-D00007.png
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f3/5d/d9/545a5b3e2c7ff4/US10415907-20190917-D00008.png
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/05/fc/2b/d7f16c6e7dd83d/US10415907-20190917-D00009.png
Figures on sheets seven through nine. I'll see if these embed.
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a2/42/ac/bb9761b3c96c1c/US10415907-20190917-D00004.png
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/41/8f/41/90f37e82086abb/US10415907-20190917-D00007.png
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f3/5d/d9/545a5b3e2c7ff4/US10415907-20190917-D00008.png
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/05/fc/2b/d7f16c6e7dd83d/US10415907-20190917-D00009.png
I only see one spring. But I’m not an expert with diagrams. Am I missing different springs?
Figures 4A and 4B show a standard coil spring at the tail, uncompressed and compressed.
Figures 7, 8A, and 8B show multiple disk springs distributed between the buffer weights, exploded, assembled uncompressed, and compressed.
Figures 9A and 9B show a bumper with an integrated elastomeric spring in place of the coil spring.
Figures 4A and 4B show a standard coil spring at the tail, uncompressed and compressed.
Figures 7, 8A, and 8B show multiple disk springs distributed between the buffer weights, exploded, assembled uncompressed, and compressed.
Figures 9A and 9B show a bumper with an integrated elastomeric spring in place of the coil spring.
Don't know what to make of the star shaped discs. A standard buffer has rubber discs between the weights.
The patents says it flatware chrome silicon spring.
I betting it like figure 3
I discredit the snake oil nonsense accessories
I'm dead tired right now, and got about an hour sleep last night, so I'm probably missing more than one thing in the thread. What was discredited, or what group of things? I may hate myself in the morning for asking, but I can't figure what I missed on this one.
I'm dead tired right now, and got about an hour sleep last night, so I'm probably missing more than one thing in the thread. What was discredited, or what group of things? I may hate myself in the morning for asking, but I can't figure what I missed on this one.
17K previously posted a thread that demonstrated he was experiencing reduced reliability with the Vltor A5 system. The issues concerned the BCG not going fully into battery when stripping the top round of a loaded magazine. The common fix, using the Sprinco Green spring, is not an option for him. He ran a series of tests with other shooters in which he could not eliminate the issue, and found the standard carbine RE setup to not have the reliability issues he was experiencing with the Vltor A5 system.
BufordTJustice
12-03-22, 19:42
17K previously posted a thread that demonstrated he was experiencing reduced reliability with the Vltor A5 system. The issues concerned the BCG not going fully into battery when stripping the top round of a loaded magazine. The common fix, using the Sprinco Green spring, is not an option for him. He ran a series of tests with other shooters in which he could not eliminate the issue, and found the standard carbine RE setup to not have the reliability issues he was experiencing with the Vltor A5 system.
Having an axe to grind. Makes sense now.
Forgot I even attempted to assist. Lol.
Brownells had a recall on EPMs and Vltor had a free-swap-out for some period due to their springs being on the weaker side of the spec.
SOLGW uses A5 in all their top-tier lowers. I've spoken with Mike about this. Stellar reliability that has proven, for him, to be superior to the carbine system (which he also still sells). BCM has been moving their top tier setups to A5 for a few years now.
That's a f*cking massive sample size. Mike told me he's shipping hundreds of complete SOLGW AR's every week. At least half with the A5 system in any week. Many are LE contract orders (which means their round counts will be non- trivial). Per him.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
BufordTJustice
12-03-22, 19:45
Don't know what to make of the star shaped discs. A standard buffer has rubber discs between the weights.
The patents says it flatware chrome silicon spring.
I betting it like figure 3
I have seen some spring set (reduction in overall length) for my well-used A5 buffers. Independent of buffer mass, it appears.
Flatwire springs like that in the BCM Mk2 will have a lower K value than the original A5 biasing spring. The original, if it didn't compress to solid height, came very close to doing so. The larger spiral flatwire spring's solid height is much smaller than the cavity created by the "nub" on the internal surface of the new Delrin buffer tip. So it appears that it will last much longer even when using the same material, compared to the original.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Its A2 or suppressor for me...anything in between is lost in the noise
Don't know what to make of the star shaped discs. A standard buffer has rubber discs between the weights.
excerpt
FIG . 7 illustrates a third embodiment of an internal
assembly 610 of the buffer 240. The internal assembly 610
also includes conventional weights 420, but uses a dead
blow biasing member in the form of compression washers
620 positioned between and bearing against the flat ends of
adjacent weights 420. The compression washers 620 include
a spacer body 620a and a resilient ring 620b extending from
the spacer body 620a in opposite axial directions. A compression
washer 620 is positioned between the flat ends of
adjacent weights 420 and between the forwardmost weight
420f and the forward end of the buffer cavity 270c.
FIG . 8A illustrates the internal assembly 610 in an at - rest
condition. The resilient rings 620b of the compression
washers 620 contact the flat ends of the adjacent weights 420
to keep the weights 420 from sliding freely. FIG . 8B
illustrates the internal assembly 610 in a rearward - inertia
condition, in which the internal weights 420 compress the
resilient rings 620b to reduce, minimize, or eliminate bounce
or rebound of the buffer 240 (i.e., reduces bounce of the
buffer 240) at the rear end 220b of the buffer tube 220. In
alternative assemblies , multiple compression washers 620
could be stacked between adjacent internal weights 420. The
third embodiment is not limited to a single compression
washer 620 between adjacent weights .
BufordTJustice
12-03-22, 20:12
excerpt
There's also a recent patent for a magnetically biased buffer weight stack.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
17K previously posted a thread that demonstrated he was experiencing reduced reliability with the Vltor A5 system. The issues concerned the BCG not going fully into battery when stripping the top round of a loaded magazine. The common fix, using the Sprinco Green spring, is not an option for him. He ran a series of tests with other shooters in which he could not eliminate the issue, and found the standard carbine RE setup to not have the reliability issues he was experiencing with the Vltor A5 system.
Upgrading the upgrade with a junky chrome silicon spring to attempt to make it equal to the parts you are supposedly upgrading?
Come on man.
Tried a new A5H4 BCM Mk2 buffer. Smoother than the Vltor A5H4.
I see why Erik got the patent.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It should feel smoother. It extends/slows the bolt carrier/buffer deceleration and stores a bit more kinetic energy (in the larger biasing spring) that is then released in a more controlled manner.
Different buffer material and 'tween weight springs are icing on the cake.
Will I be using the BCM buffers? No, because I am tight fisted and standard buffers work fine for me. I still appreciate the elegant solution they represent though.
Andy
With the change in spring and total weight, do recommendations for equivalent function change? The A5H2 seemed to be expected to function like an M16. Will a T1 now suffice, or do we needed the added weight to take “feel” the redesign?
With the change in spring and total weight, do recommendations for equivalent function change? The A5H2 seemed to be expected to function like an M16. Will a T1 now suffice, or do we needed the added weight to take “feel” the redesign?
The A5H2 weight is 5.33
The T2 would be closest match at 5.6
The A5H2 weight is 5.33
The T2 would be closest match at 5.6
I understand that. Both are heavier than the M16. I am curious whether the different biasing spring and adjusted weight of the T1 makes in the better all around option.
The platform has evolved by way of many incremental improvements. Very few of them were out of necessity. It's just human nature to try to make things a little better.
I understand that. Both are heavier than the M16. I am curious whether the different biasing spring and adjusted weight of the T1 makes in the better all around option.
The A5H2/Sprinco green is most popular in the VLTOR line.
To answer your question I would say it depends on whether you use a standard M16 spring or a Sprinco spring.
The BCM Mk2 T2 with a Sprinco Green would probably be the better option but we are talking about splitting hairs IMO.
At this point it's a new product to the consumer that hasn't been tested out in the wild yet.
The platform has evolved by way of many incremental improvements. Very few of them were out of necessity. It's just human nature to try to make things a little better.
Agree 100%
M16- 5.1
Mil-Spec
H – 3.8oz.
H2 – 4.7oz.
H3 – 5.0oz
Carbine - 3.0oz.
I didn't include the carbine buffer weight because nobody recommends them.
If we’re insisting all buffers get included, the H6 is 5.15 oz. I’m run one, actually, but I notice just now that my bookmark to Damage Industries’ H6 is dead, so these may not be available at all any more.
BufordTJustice
12-04-22, 13:11
I understand that. Both are heavier than the M16. I am curious whether the different biasing spring and adjusted weight of the T1 makes in the better all around option.
I would wager, pending actual testing (which should always occur with any mod made to any gun, obv), that the closest mass to the original Vltor A5H2 would be the "universal" solution. As Prepare highlighted, still the "H2" weight class.
I have been using 17-7 ph Colt rifle springs for years now in my A5's (And the Tubbs for suppressed use) and they have been rock solid. Sprinco Green is likely a better spring overall but usually gave me some muzzle dip on the return-to-battery stroke after tuning the buffer mass.
I always get my Colt rifle springs from Specialized Armament or Brownells.
I had a buddy who loved his modified A2 rifle stock but who also loved his super hot 77gr handloads through his 20" Colt. In every rifle buffer there is actually an aluminum spacer that occupies the space of two (IIRC) sliding weights. This results in the roughly 5.2-5.4oz rifle buffer mass. Trading those out for steel weights showed a noticeable improvement in his brass health and brought overall buffer mass into the low/mid 6oz range. 6.2-6.3iz if memory serves. Using a factory Colt rifle spring, it still ate .223 pressure Hornady steel case 55gr training ammo and PMC Bronze 55gr. Zero issues.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
BufordTJustice
12-04-22, 13:12
If we’re insisting all buffers get included, the H6 is 5.15 oz. I’m run one, actually, but I notice just now that my bookmark to Damage Industries’ H6 is dead, so these may not be available at all any more.
What's your experience been with the H6?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Basically, it works. I have it on a backup lower that has shot a BCM 12.5 and Colt 6960 16”. I will soon try it with the BRT 11.5 Suppressed Only upper, suppressed and unsuppressed, as well as a BCM 7” 300BLK.
It’s my “short option” since regular lowers right now are all A5. It, uh, was purchased for the heck of it and with the expectation of acquiring a forced reset trigger before that became less desirable.
My “shorter option” is soon going to be an LWRC UCIW kit that still needs to be installed. I want to use with the 300BLK, but need to confirm function.
Speaking of new BCM products ... Anyone know anything about their new upper receiver? It does not appear to be on sale yet I got an email regarding it.
Speaking of new BCM products ... Anyone know anything about their new upper receiver? It does not appear to be on sale yet I got an email regarding it.
The MK2? That’s been out for years.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
The MK2? That’s been out for years.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
OK, I guess I'm a little late to the party.. I looked for it on their website but couldn't find it.
OK, I guess I'm a little late to the party.. I looked for it on their website but couldn't find it.
Don't feel bad. The Mk2 was unobtainium for the longest time. I found a stripped Mk2 upper receiver when they were first released, and then basically never saw one available again until the recent emails. To be fair, I haven't looked hard for them.
They’re coming back now. You still have to search but they’ll be on the site every so often.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
titsonritz
12-05-22, 04:52
Having an axe to grind. Makes sense now.
Forgot I even attempted to assist. Lol.
Brownells had a recall on EPMs and Vltor had a free-swap-out for some period due to their springs being on the weaker side of the spec.
SOLGW uses A5 in all their top-tier lowers. I've spoken with Mike about this. Stellar reliability that has proven, for him, to be superior to the carbine system (which he also still sells). BCM has been moving their top tier setups to A5 for a few years now.
That's a f*cking massive sample size. Mike told me he's shipping hundreds of complete SOLGW AR's every week. At least half with the A5 system in any week. Many are LE contract orders (which means their round counts will be non- trivial). Per him.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Iraqgunz turned me onto the A5 system years ago, Will wasn't the type to go in for snake oil bullshit. He was probably the one to turn Mike onto it.
Don't feel bad. The Mk2 was unobtainium for the longest time. I found a stripped Mk2 upper receiver when they were first released, and then basically never saw one available again until the recent emails. To be fair, I haven't looked hard for them.
OK, so the question is; is a Mk2 worth it for Mr. Average User like me? I like buying quality if the benefits meet the cost. Usually I buy a BCM blemished upper.
OK, so the question is; is a Mk2 worth it for Mr. Average User like me? I like buying quality if the benefits meet the cost. Usually I buy a BCM blemished upper.
If you can find it in stock, sure because it’s not that much if a price increase. I wouldn’t necessarily wait around for one though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
OK, I guess I'm a little late to the party.. I looked for it on their website but couldn't find it.
Geez. I already forgot about the Mk2 upper. I remember seeing some early pics, and then never heard much about it after that.
BufordTJustice
12-05-22, 12:05
Iraqgunz turned me onto the A5 system years ago, Will wasn't the type to go in for snake oil bullshit. He was probably the one to turn Mike onto it.
Same. Will was who got me on that train. He tested extensively. And on multiple Colt uppers/lowers.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
BufordTJustice
12-05-22, 12:06
Geez. I already forgot about the Mk2 upper. I remember seeing some early pics, and then never heard much about it after that.
Same. I actually like the way it looks but don't know much about it, in technical terms.
I've heard anecdotes that there can be compatibility issues with some oversized bolt catches but that's basically all I've heard.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I have one but it’s a backup gun. Also had issues last time I went out, I need to do some testing to try and isolate the problem.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
BufordTJustice
12-05-22, 22:44
I have one but it’s a backup gun. Also had issues last time I went out, I need to do some testing to try and isolate the problem.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Are the mk2 uppers also a borderline-interference-fit for the barrel extension, like the std forged BCM uppers?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I’ve used a few BCM uppers paired with BCM barrels, including a MK2. None of them required heat for assembly.
Are the mk2 uppers also a borderline-interference-fit for the barrel extension, like the std forged BCM uppers?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Mine required heat, freezing, grease, foul language, and a 2x4.
Mine required heat, freezing, grease, foul language, and a 2x4.
Sounds like a fun time at Bubba’s basement to me
I used a micro torch to heat the extension and then while it was still hot give it a few good wax with a rubber mallet on the end of the receiver to seed it
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
titsonritz
12-06-22, 03:38
Sounds like a fun time at Bubba’s basement to me
I used a micro torch to heat the extension and then while it was still hot give it a few good wax with a rubber mallet on the end of the receiver to seed it
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bring out the gimp.
Are the mk2 uppers also a borderline-interference-fit for the barrel extension, like the std forged BCM uppers?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I thought all BCM uppers were but this is a factory upper so couldn’t tell you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Sounds like a fun time at Bubba’s basement to me
I used a micro torch to heat the extension and then while it was still hot give it a few good wax with a rubber mallet on the end of the receiver to seed it
Heating the extension would make it expand and increase the difficulty of assembly no?
Heating the extension would make it expand and increase the difficulty of assembly no?
When rings expand with heat, the inside diameter increases.
When rings expand with heat, the inside diameter increases.
So it wouldn't help with the outer diameter that's tight fitting in the receiver right? I'm thinking you'd want either the receiver to expand or the Extension to contract. Thus, head on the upper receiver would be the trick.
When rings expand with heat, the inside diameter increases.
I think Mark is talking about the extension, as in the barrel extension. When we are talking about a desired tight fit (which I think we all want), heating the barrel extension would be pointless. If we are calling the upper receiver threads an "extension", it would make sense. However, I'm not versed in the threaded section ever being referred to as "the extension".
I think we are all on the same sheet of music with this, just using varying terminology. If someone is heating the barrel extension, to aid in the barrel to receiver fit, I would caution them to slow down and rethink their concepts.
You’re right…I misunderstood the question. I mean heating the threads on the upper receiver, not the barrel extension.
You’re right…I misunderstood the question. I mean heating the threads on the upper receiver, not the barrel extension.
I think it’s called the receiver extension but yeah the threaded part on the receiver it has heat that little section up with a micro torch or a heat gun it doesn’t take much heat to loosen it up since it’s aluminum then seat that barrel because the cold barrel will cause it to contract almost immediately upon contact
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FWIW, I've installed a few interference fit barrels to uppers. I've always put the barrel in the freezer for a couple of hours, and put the receiver in the oven. In the hopes that the entire thing would expand evenly and give me a few extra seconds of working time.
It has always worked like a charm. And the times I've needed to subsequently separate the barrel from the upper, it has required pounding it out using a wooden dowel and mallet.
I think it’s called the receiver extension but yeah the threaded part on the receiver it has heat that little section up with a micro torch or a heat gun it doesn’t take much heat to loosen it up since it’s aluminum then seat that barrel because the cold barrel will cause it to contract almost immediately upon contact
Do you not risk heat degrading the aluminum alloy when using a torch rather than boiling water? I am looking for information on 7075 but for 6061-T6:
An example for the wrought AA6061 alloy in T6/T651 condition is shown in Figure 2a,b. At temperatures above 150 °C, the alloy suffers a loss in strength with deterioration increasing over time. Above 200 °C, the weakening is substantial, and is accompanied by some gain in ductility. Most of the strength reduction induced by exposure to elevated temperatures is permanent, so the loss in strength is not recovered when the material is returned to a lower temperature.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7435424/
Do you not risk heat degrading the aluminum alloy when using a torch rather than boiling water? I am looking for information on 7075 but for 6061-T6:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7435424/
Yeah you don’t really want to overdo it this isn’t a muscle job but more of a finesse job
The professional builders in my area is use a heat gun
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FWIW, I've installed a few interference fit barrels to uppers. I've always put the barrel in the freezer for a couple of hours, and put the receiver in the oven. In the hopes that the entire thing would expand evenly and give me a few extra seconds of working time.
It has always worked like a charm. And the times I've needed to subsequently separate the barrel from the upper, it has required pounding it out using a wooden dowel and mallet.
This is what I do.
https://youtu.be/-cOlNGxUhsk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think we are all on the same sheet of music with this, just using varying terminology. If someone is heating the barrel extension, to aid in the barrel to receiver fit, I would caution them to slow down and rethink their concepts.
This... yeah. I see extension and assume barrel. Yes. Heating the upper would logically help.
titsonritz
12-06-22, 18:10
Sounds like a fun time at Bubba’s basement to me
I used a micro torch to heat the extension and then while it was still hot give it a few good wax with a rubber mallet on the end of the receiver to seed it
I think it’s called the receiver extension but yeah the threaded part on the receiver it has heat that little section up with a micro torch or a heat gun it doesn’t take much heat to loosen it up since it’s aluminum then seat that barrel because the cold barrel will cause it to contract almost immediately upon contact
FYI "Receiver Extension" is the proper term for "buffer tube".
FYI "Receiver Extension" is the proper term for "buffer tube".
I knew that was something lol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Would you mind disassembling your buffer and taking pictures? There are several different spring configurations in the patent and I wonder which they are using presently.
69343
This shows the modified bumper with an over travel stop to prevent the biasing spring from fully/over compressing.
69346
That is weird.
What's weird? Same principle as the VLTOR A5 but with a larger diameter biasing spring.
That is weird.
That is the result of having to change enough pieces significantly enough to get a separate patent from the A5.
What's weird? Same principle as the VLTOR A5 but with a larger diameter biasing spring.
Dramatically different. I'm not big on the bias spring after weighing all the opinions here. (I'm not pulling any more out, just not convinced of its value)
BufordTJustice
12-11-22, 10:49
Dramatically different. I'm not big on the bias spring after weighing all the opinions here. (I'm not pulling any more out, just not convinced of its value)
The biasing spring is what linearizes (and stabilizes) carrier velocity during the bolt-unlocking portion of rearward carrier travel. Which is the first 1/2" of carrier travel if memory serves. I'm sure Clint or Constructor or Lysander (or others) have the exact figure.
By forcing all the weights to the front of the buffer body when at-rest, this functionally increases carrier mass for every shot as opposed to a normal buffer where the weights could be in any number of arrangements of positions within the buffer body from shot to shot.
So, without the biasing spring, aggregate carrier mass during the unlocking phase (nominally 9.4oz IIRC, the mass of the bolt and cam pin are subtracted because they are longitudinally stationary until the cam pin reaches the front terminus of the cam pin track in the carrier; the bolt and cam pin are only rotating axially during this phase) can vary by the entire mass of the weight stack inside the buffer from shot-to-shot. I.e. a 4.6oz H2 carbine buffer can contribute a max of that mass to the overall mass of the carrier (during unlocking), and as little as .7oz (buffer body, roll pin, & delrin bumper), from shot to shot. So, shot #1 could see an aggregate mass of ~14oz and shot #2 could see 10.1oz total mass during unlocking, and so on. This becomes even more critical when shooting suppressed.
With the biasing spring, your carrier mass at-unlock sees very little variability, if any. I imagine Eric has done the math on what force it would take to displace the weight stack against that biasing spring.... and that not much else aside from a weapon-drop on the buttstock would cause the full weight stack to remain fully reward for any length of time. I.e., under most nominal conditions, there isn't any mass variability during unlocking.
Mass variability makes it more difficult to tune mass /or/ gas for any given gun as you've got these large variability bars at each end of your graph-of-function. As I stated above, things get even crazier with a can.
A biasing spring is certainly not mandatory for function (obviously) and speaks well of the overall design of the AR platform that it can accommodate this level of uncertainty and still function as well as it does. But it's an improvement. And the new BCM biasing spring further improves that concept with a lower K value for the biasing spring itself.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The biasing spring is what linearizes (and stabilizes) carrier velocity during the bolt-unlocking portion of rearward carrier travel. Which is the first 1/2" of carrier travel if memory serves. I'm sure Clint or Constructor or Lysander (or others) have the exact figure.
By forcing all the weights to the front of the buffer body when at-rest, this functionally increases carrier mass for every shot as opposed to a normal buffer where the weights could be in any number of arrangements of positions within the buffer body from shot to shot.
So, without the biasing spring, aggregate carrier mass during the unlocking phase (nominally 9.4oz IIRC, the mass of the bolt and cam pin are subtracted because they are longitudinally stationary until the cam pin reaches the front terminus of the cam pin track in the carrier; the bolt and cam pin are only rotating axially during this phase) can vary by the entire mass of the weight stack inside the buffer from shot-to-shot. I.e. a 4.6oz H2 carbine buffer can contribute a max of that mass to the overall mass of the carrier (during unlocking), and as little as .7oz (buffer body, roll pin, & delrin bumper), from shot to shot. So, shot #1 could see an aggregate mass of ~14oz and shot #2 could see 10.1oz total mass during unlocking, and so on. This becomes even more critical when shooting suppressed.
With the biasing spring, your carrier mass at-unlock sees very little variability, if any. I imagine Eric has done the math on what force it would take to displace the weight stack against that biasing spring.... and that not much else aside from a weapon-drop on the buttstock would cause the full weight stack to remain fully reward for any length of time. I.e., under most nominal conditions, there isn't any mass variability during unlocking.
Mass variability makes it more difficult to tune mass /or/ gas for any given gun as you've got these large variability bars at each end of your graph-of-function. As I stated above, things get even crazier with a can.
A biasing spring is certainly not mandatory for function (obviously) and speaks well of the overall design of the AR platform that it can accommodate this level of uncertainty and still function as well as it does. But it's an improvement. And the new BCM biasing spring further improves that concept with a lower K value for the biasing spring itself.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
What prevents recoil from placing the weights at the front of the buffer?
What prevents recoil from placing the weights at the front of the buffer?
Thats just it. The biasing spring provides a consistent weight placement, reduces carrier bounce which in turn positively affects the cycles of operation. It's not dramatic and not necessary but is an incremental improvement combined with the rifle length action spring.
Thats just it. The biasing spring provides a consistent weight placement, reduces carrier bounce which in turn positively affects the cycles of operation. It's not dramatic and not necessary but is an incremental improvement combined with the rifle length action spring.
So what prevents recoil from placing the weights at the front of the buffer before the carrier starts to move?
If the biasing spring is pushing the weights forward when the bolt is going into battery, wouldn’t it negate the buffering effect and increase bolt bounce?
So what prevents recoil from placing the weights at the front of the buffer before the carrier starts to move?
If the biasing spring is pushing the weights forward when the bolt is going into battery, wouldn’t it negate the buffering effect and increase bolt bounce?
Nothing, the weights could be front, back or in between.
Nothing, the weights could be front, back or in between.
If nothing prevents recoil from setting the weights at the front of the buffer how can they be anywhere else?
BufordTJustice
12-11-22, 15:55
What prevents recoil from placing the weights at the front of the buffer?
What guarantees they will be held there for an extended period of time? Long enough to guarantee they will couple with the mass of the carrier during unlocking?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
BufordTJustice
12-11-22, 15:58
Nothing, the weights could be front, back or in between.
Correct. The biasing spring is weak enough to compress during the return-to-battery stroke, permitting the deadblow effect. If it didn't, we would see a pronounced rebound bounce of the bolt carrier as with all solid-body 9mm buffers.
STVERT97 (Andrew from the defunct Vuurwapen Blog) has several videos showing this that were still on YouTube last time I checked. High speed video showing the suppression of bolt bounce using A5 buffers.
EDIT: it seems he removed all videos that were uploaded to the VWB channel. Only a few remain, AND none that I referenced.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
A video with cut-a-way versions of each system during the cycle of operation would be interesting.
What guarantees they will be held there for an extended period of time? Long enough to guarantee they will couple with the mass of the carrier during unlocking?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Inertia.
BufordTJustice
12-11-22, 16:06
Inertia.
Incorrect. The answer is: *nothing*.
There is zero guarantee of the position of the buffer weights within the buffer body without a biasing spring.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
BufordTJustice
12-11-22, 16:10
A video with cut-a-way versions of each system during the cycle of operation would be interesting.
Agreed. Not sure how to execute this with live ammo tho.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I am also skeptical of the bias spring, but I’m struggling to come up with consistent data one way or another. If anyone here has a mag with consistent top-round stoppages with an A5, shoot me an IM.
BufordTJustice
12-11-22, 18:30
I am also skeptical of the bias spring, but I’m struggling to come up with consistent data one way or another. If anyone here has a mag with consistent top-round stoppages with an A5, shoot me an IM.
I've only seen this one time. With an Anderson lower, IIRC.
The mag catch raceway was machined a couple thou too high in the lower. Resulted in the mag sitting higher than spec and excess upward pressure on the carrier from the round stack when fully loaded. Some mags were worse than others. Tried all A5 buffers. No fix.
What fixed that was a freaking RMA that resulted in a replacement lower being issued to that agency. The new lower was fully in spec and had zero issues.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Incorrect. The answer is: *nothing*.
There is zero guarantee of the position of the buffer weights within the buffer body without a biasing spring.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
That’s correct until recoil happens. Then the weights are stacked at the front of the buffer.
BufordTJustice
12-11-22, 20:20
That’s correct until recoil happens. Then the weights are stacked at the front of the buffer.
There's no guarantee of that. There's no way to know that they haven't struck the front of the buffer and rebounded to a more rearward position.
If only a spring could be fitted to ensure that the weight stack remained at the front of the buffer.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There's no guarantee of that. There's no way to know that they haven't struck the front of the buffer and rebounded to a more rearward position.
If only a spring could be fitted to ensure that the weight stack remained at the front of the buffer.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They only have to stay there for a few thousandths of a second. As long as the rifle is recoiling, the weights are at the front of the buffer.
69343
Forgive me if it’s been asked before but are there steel/tungsten weights inside the buffer weight body the same size as standard carbine buffer weights? Been considering the mk2/A5 system. Would be great to be able to play with weights without having to order multiple complete buffers
Thanks
Forgive me if it’s been asked before but are there steel/tungsten weights inside the buffer weight body the same size as standard carbine buffer weights? Been considering the mk2/A5 system. Would be great to be able to play with weights without having to order multiple complete buffers
Thanks
Dimensionally yes.
Any updates for the OP? I’m looking at getting a new 14.5” BCM upper and am curious if the BCM Comp Mod 3 would be much of a benefit over the A2X.
I really wish BCM had a chart that compared each model to the A2 FH. Like this one is marginally louder to the shooter, significantly louder to the side, a wee bit better at flash hiding, noticeably less recoil. The way they have them described, I have no idea what I'm getting. They say they are quieter than other compensators. Okay, how does that compare to an A2? And which comps are they quieter than? Is the 0 quieter than the 1? Does the 6 decrease recoil more than the 2? It's anybody's guess. I guess I can buy them all and figure out which one I want?
Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk
ChattanoogaPhil
05-02-23, 15:36
Any updates for the OP? I’m looking at getting a new 14.5” BCM upper and am curious if the BCM Comp Mod 3 would be much of a benefit over the A2X.
I have a 14.5 ELW with a pinned Comp Mod3. Obviously I can't swap muzzle devices for direct comparison but my opinion is that if you're expecting much difference in felt recoil or muzzle rise compared to an A2 look elsewhere.
In regard to BCM 14.5... I'm considering BCM MK2 Recoil Mitigation System. Does anyone here use one with a BCM 14.5 midlength? If so, what have been your observations of reduced muzzle rise? Recommend buffer buffer choice (they offer four T0,1,2,4) for shooting M193,M855,IMI 77? General thoughts? Thanks.
The Mod 6 flash hider makes a noticeable difference in recoil mitigation on a 10.5 pistol.
Could not tell any discernible difference on a 16"
The Mod 6 flash hider makes a noticeable difference in recoil mitigation on a 10.5 pistol.
Could not tell any discernible difference on a 16"
Good info, and that does a great job of noting that as barrel length changes, so do a lot of other variables.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.