View Full Version : BCM standard 16" upper receiver and barrel group
Bill Bryant
09-11-09, 11:38
What do y'all think of Bravo Company's standard 16" upper receiver and barrel group?
What do y'all think of Bravo Company's standard 16" upper receiver and barrel group?
One of the best. I prefer the middy to the M4 upper though.
C4
One of the best. I prefer the middy to the M4 upper though.
C4
THIS! BUY BUY BUY!
Both are great, but the middy has its advantages.
Fit and finish are fantastic. The uppers are very accurate and spit 55 gr M193 very well for training purposes. Overall value is top notch. I put mine on a RRA NM lower changed to a Magpul CTR stock and the rifle is an MOA shooter at 100 yards.
Can't go wrong. The upper with BCG, charging handle, and handguards will run about $700. Get the mid-length as well. Much smoother action and recoil seems less.
Bill Bryant
09-11-09, 13:00
A couple of you have expressed a preference for the middy. I just looked that up and now know what you're talking about.
In a nutshell, what do you like better about the middy, and if it's the cat's pajamas, why isn't it the USGI configuration?
(I think I understand in principle why the shorter system would have a harsher action, but I would also think that it could be engineered to work just fine at any length if you were to change the diameters of tubing, mass of components, etc. It's hard for me to imagine the M4 configuration being adopted so universally by the military if the basic engineering wasn't pretty much worked out. Of course I'm talking completely out of ignorance . . . )
The M4 carbine system is over-gassed resulting in a violent mechansim (bolt action). Using a heavier buffer (H/H2) to slow the BCG can nullify many of the issues. The mid-length also offers IMO a superior handguard (longer) and subsequent hand location for shooting.
Also, the military carbine is only 14.5" barrel and the longer dwell time in the civilian 16" barrel of the bullet in barrel past the gas port creates additional felt recoil over the mid-length. The middie is just the way to go. Opinions vary.
A couple of you have expressed a preference for the middy. I just looked that up and now know what you're talking about.
In a nutshell, what do you like better about the middy, and if it's the cat's pajamas, why isn't it the USGI configuration?
(I think I understand in principle why the shorter system would have a harsher action, but I would also think that it could be engineered to work just fine at any length if you were to change the diameters of tubing, mass of components, etc. It's hard for me to imagine the M4 configuration being adopted so universally by the military if the basic engineering wasn't pretty much worked out. Of course I'm talking completely out of ignorance . . . )
Softer shooting. Less pressure which equals less wear on the bolt.
The Middy gas system is a newer design so was not really available when the M4 was adopted by the Military.
C4
But we are still talking about a 5.56 round. I can't see felt recoil being that much of a concern.
But we are still talking about a 5.56 round. I can't see felt recoil being that much of a concern.
It is when you are trying to put the front sight back on target or shooting controlled pairs. It is subtle, but the mid-length has advantages that make it feel more like a full-length A2. Mine (RRA and a BCM) have both been phenomenally accurate rifles. I prefer the mid-length over my Stag Model 1 M4gery.
Also, the iron sight radius is longer aiding accuracy in that regard as well.
It is when you are trying to put the front sight back on target or shooting controlled pairs. It is subtle, but the mid-length has advantages that make it feel more like a full-length A2. Mine (RRA and a BCM) have both been phenomenally accurate rifles. I prefer the mid-length over my Stag Model 1 M4gery.
Also, the iron sight radius is longer aiding accuracy in that regard as well.
Thank you, I had not considered that.
A couple of you have expressed a preference for the middy. I just looked that up and now know what you're talking about.
In a nutshell, what do you like better about the middy, and if it's the cat's pajamas, why isn't it the USGI configuration?
(I think I understand in principle why the shorter system would have a harsher action, but I would also think that it could be engineered to work just fine at any length if you were to change the diameters of tubing, mass of components, etc. It's hard for me to imagine the M4 configuration being adopted so universally by the military if the basic engineering wasn't pretty much worked out. Of course I'm talking completely out of ignorance . . . )
The carbine length gas system was designed for barrels shorter than 16''. Problem is, we are restricted to that length unless you pay for the stamp.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.