View Full Version : YM VS BCM
I am almost done with my build. All I need is the bcg, ch and buis. I was going to go with the bcm bcg with the ionbond finish. They are currently out of stock so I was wondering what other bcg would suffice?
My build is being done at Rainier Arms. They carry the full line-up of YM bcg, all of which seem to be staked. I was wondering if it would be a good idea to buy one of their chrome ones? I was also thinking of the skeletonized version of their chrome one. DO you think that would be worth it?
Thx
I wouldn't get the lightweight one. Go see what Grant has or Denny at GTS. He gets them ionbonded I believe.
Any reason why I should stay away from it besides price? Also, what about just the standard national match version? I am pretty sure they are staked from rainier and other than that high quality bcg's right?
Any reason why I should stay away from it besides price? Also, what about just the standard national match version? I am pretty sure they are staked from rainier and other than that high quality bcg's right?
They don't list any specs for their components, so who knows what kind of quality they are. If they're not willing to say, then that makes me wonder.
Also, Young states that if your gas key is staked (by you or the vendor, doesn't matter), your warranty is voided. They're kind of weird about the staking thing.
National Match BCGs are a gimmick.
I was going to suggest you try out the new Rainier Arms Thunder Bolt but I see they are out. They do have LMT in stock so I would probably go with the LMT if I were you.
organdonor
06-26-10, 13:11
LMT is good stuff.
Ok, thanks for the replies. YM seems to be quite controversial? Also, anyone know how they would work with a mega mono upper since their bcg is slightly larger than normal? YM seems to be more of a "match" bolt with their tighter tolerances. I am building more of a shtf gun not a match ar so the tighter tolerances may actually have a higher chance of jamming/fouling up because of the possibilities of dirt ect getting in the way? The bcm ionbond seems to be the right way to go at this point?
Ok, thanks for the replies. YM seems to be quite controversial? Also, anyone know how they would work with a mega mono upper since their bcg is slightly larger than normal? YM seems to be more of a "match" bolt with their tighter tolerances. I am building more of a shtf gun not a match ar so the tighter tolerances may actually have a higher chance of jamming/fouling up because of the possibilities of dirt ect getting in the way? The bcm ionbond seems to be the right way to go at this point?
They're not "match" anything. You don't need tighter tolerances on the carrier. That only creates problems, doesn't solve them. Standard, high quality BCG's are the way to go. The 'NM' and chrome sets are only going to cost you more money with no real benefit.
[QUOTE= The 'NM' and chrome sets are only going to cost you more money with no real benefit.[/QUOTE]
If so than why do the guys at Magpul run chrome??????? Think with thier experiance and range time they would know best.....
"Never ask the man sitting on the couch how to fight the war."
You didn't really just say that did you?
Well I am talking to the gunsmith at Rainier I want to see what he has to say about them. The fact YM does not release specs about what their process is, is not very good either I guess. I will see what I can find out there. I would not mind having one if I knew it would serve me well. I am willing to pay a little more for the convenience factor. Idk there are great reviews then just good "nothing special" reviews about these....
They also stock the FailZero BCG's @ Rainier. I would also recommend the Daniel Defense BCG they have in-stock.
ge_traveler
06-27-10, 06:16
I would go with the LMT. After that, the BCM or DD.
If so than why do the guys at Magpul run chrome??????? Think with thier experiance and range time they would know best.....
I shouldn't entertain a remark like that, but go here, http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=55930 and pay attention to post #16, if you really want to treat that sort of thing as gospel.
I've experienced enough issues with chrome carriers to hold the opinion that they're not worth it. They were often too tight of a fit in the receiver, probably due to uneven chroming. No reason to pay more for out of spec parts.
Stick with BCGs from known quality manufacturers and you'll be fine. LMT and BCM are two of my favorites.
YMMV
petergun870
07-01-10, 20:46
WAIT for BCM
I shouldn't entertain a remark like that, but go here, http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=55930 and pay attention to post #16, if you really want to treat that sort of thing as gospel.
I've experienced enough issues with chrome carriers to hold the opinion that they're not worth it. They were often too tight of a fit in the receiver, probably due to uneven chroming. No reason to pay more for out of spec parts.
Stick with BCGs from known quality manufacturers and you'll be fine. LMT and BCM are two of my favorites.
YMMV
Your right you shouldn't have entertain my comment, or should I say voiced your opinions. I'm sure you are making your statement based on actual experience as a gunsmith or engineer. Right. Not just another over weight, computer commando that I have seen all to often taking up instructors time in clinic asking unrealistic hypothetical scenario based, "what if questions." While those of us who use firearm for a living and have put round on something other than paper have to endure you asinine opinions.
Now back to the facts: For one if chrome plating has a high level of inconsistencies then I guess it wouldn't be uses in the interior of the carrier group that makes contacts with the bolt. Second if you familiar with the term Mil Spec. it a degree of variance that the weapon part falls into that makes it within Spec. Maybe I'm talking in circles to you but next time just keep your ignorant opinions contained in that turd you use for head.
Just stick to the basics....
ARMY TM 9 1005 319 23&P
AIR FORCE TO 11W3 5-5 42
Page 3-17
NOTE
There are bolts and bolt carriers on fielded rifles, some with chrome-plated exterior surface finishes
and some with phosphate coating Both finishes are acceptable under certain operational requirements
and or restrictions Phosphate-coated bolt carriers are required for divisional combat units Chrome
plated bolt carriers are acceptable for divisional noncombat units and training center units. Chromeplated
and phosphate-coated bolt assemblies, bolt carrier assemblies, and repair parts for these
assemblies may be intermixed In any combination, with the following exception:
Phosphate-coated bolt carriers are required for all deployable and deploying units Chrome-plated bolt
carriers are acceptable for nondeployable and training center units.
>>>>>>
Put the one that YOU want in YOUR gun. :)
.
Your right you shouldn't have entertain my comment, or should I say voiced your opinions. I'm sure you are making your statement based on actual experience as a gunsmith or engineer. Right. Not just another over weight, computer commando ... snip... Maybe I'm talking in circles to you but next time just keep your ignorant opinions contained in that turd you use for head.Did you notice that Post#16 was from Travis Haley of MagPul Dynamics stating, "There you have it folks... That's why we run BCM!"
In case you're wondering and/or it makes a difference, I'm not fat.
Never use chromed BCG's or YHM BCG's.
C4
Okay....so why not just get a standard BCM BCG if they are out of stock on the Ionbonded ones?
NCPatrolAR
07-14-10, 22:46
Your right you shouldn't have entertain my comment, or should I say voiced your opinions. I'm sure you are making your statement based on actual experience as a gunsmith or engineer. Right. Not just another over weight, computer commando that I have seen all to often taking up instructors time in clinic asking unrealistic hypothetical scenario based, "what if questions." While those of us who use firearm for a living and have put round on something other than paper have to endure you asinine opinions.
Now back to the facts: For one if chrome plating has a high level of inconsistencies then I guess it wouldn't be uses in the interior of the carrier group that makes contacts with the bolt. Second if you familiar with the term Mil Spec. it a degree of variance that the weapon part falls into that makes it within Spec. Maybe I'm talking in circles to you but next time just keep your ignorant opinions contained in that turd you use for head.
and
If so than why do the guys at Magpul run chrome??????? Think with thier experiance and range time they would know best.....
"Never ask the man sitting on the couch how to fight the war."
Let me say this first; you currently have an infraction notice sitting in your PM box.
Second; M4C is not a bubblegum forum where you can act like a smartass to other forum members just because you feel like it. If you disagree with someone, you do it in a civil manner without the grade school comments.
MichaelZWilliamson
01-19-11, 13:14
Just stick to the basics....
ARMY TM 9 1005 319 23&P
AIR FORCE TO 11W3 5-5 42
Page 3-17
NOTE
There are bolts and bolt carriers on fielded rifles, some with chrome-plated exterior surface finishes
and some with phosphate coating Both finishes are acceptable under certain operational requirements
and or restrictions Phosphate-coated bolt carriers are required for divisional combat units Chrome
plated bolt carriers are acceptable for divisional noncombat units and training center units. Chromeplated
and phosphate-coated bolt assemblies, bolt carrier assemblies, and repair parts for these
assemblies may be intermixed In any combination, with the following exception:
Phosphate-coated bolt carriers are required for all deployable and deploying units Chrome-plated bolt
carriers are acceptable for nondeployable and training center units.
>>>>>>
Put the one that YOU want in YOUR gun. :)
.
From what I understand (having shot issue HC guns), that was a combination of worry that the HC would wear out the upper faster than the softer parked finish (and it will, but you'll have shot the barrel out long before it matters) and chest-thumping crap about a shiny BCG not being "Tactical." (REF: may be intermixed In any combination, with the following exception:
Phosphate-coated bolt carriers are required for all deployable and deploying units. They don't care if you use the chrome BOLT, just the carrier.)
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Stoner specified the chrome, AFAIR. You can trust him, or the morons who screwed the weapon up with "improvements" before sending it to 'Nam. (To be fair, the Army managed to screw up EVERY rifle of the last century by trying to be smarter than the designers. See my rant at http://mzmadmike.livejournal.com/74863.html)
I've put tens of thousands of rounds through both chromed and parked BCGs (in issue weapons), and my experience is such that if someone tells me chrome is a "Waste of money" I stop listening, and won't buy their products if they're a dealer. The HC was TREMENDOUSLY more reliable, and much easier to clean.
It's very easy to compare the surfaces of both by eye, much less with magnification. A slicker, harder surface has less friction. Fact.
Obviously, it must be properly applied to a good quality BCG, and won't substitute for inferior materials.
Now, WHICH slicker, harder surface is best is what I'm going to start a thread on. Was scoping out to see if a thread already existed.
So I'll start a new thread to discuss various options.
Your right you shouldn't have entertain my comment, or should I say voiced your opinions. I'm sure you are making your statement based on actual experience as a gunsmith or engineer. Right. Not just another over weight, computer commando that I have seen all to often taking up instructors time in clinic asking unrealistic hypothetical scenario based, "what if questions." While those of us who use firearm for a living and have put round on something other than paper have to endure you asinine opinions.
Now back to the facts: For one if chrome plating has a high level of inconsistencies then I guess it wouldn't be uses in the interior of the carrier group that makes contacts with the bolt. Second if you familiar with the term Mil Spec. it a degree of variance that the weapon part falls into that makes it within Spec. Maybe I'm talking in circles to you but next time just keep your ignorant opinions contained in that turd you use for head.
another one bites the dust, uh-huh... :haha:
From what I understand (having shot issue HC guns), that was a combination of worry that the HC would wear out the upper faster than the softer parked finish (and it will, but you'll have shot the barrel out long before it matters) and chest-thumping crap about a shiny BCG not being "Tactical." (REF: may be intermixed In any combination, with the following exception:
Phosphate-coated bolt carriers are required for all deployable and deploying units. They don't care if you use the chrome BOLT, just the carrier.)
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Stoner specified the chrome, AFAIR. You can trust him, or the morons who screwed the weapon up with "improvements" before sending it to 'Nam. (To be fair, the Army managed to screw up EVERY rifle of the last century by trying to be smarter than the designers. See my rant at http://mzmadmike.livejournal.com/74863.html)
I've put tens of thousands of rounds through both chromed and parked BCGs (in issue weapons), and my experience is such that if someone tells me chrome is a "Waste of money" I stop listening, and won't buy their products if they're a dealer. The HC was TREMENDOUSLY more reliable, and much easier to clean.
It's very easy to compare the surfaces of both by eye, much less with magnification. A slicker, harder surface has less friction. Fact.
Obviously, it must be properly applied to a good quality BCG, and won't substitute for inferior materials.
Now, WHICH slicker, harder surface is best is what I'm going to start a thread on. Was scoping out to see if a thread already existed.
So I'll start a new thread to discuss various options.
what you might want to consider is the "harder, slicker surface" of a chromed BC is riding in a forged aluminum receiver and there is no need for it to be either for good reliability or function...
MichaelZWilliamson
01-19-11, 20:40
what you might want to consider is the "harder, slicker surface" of a chromed BC is riding in a forged aluminum receiver and there is no need for it to be either for good reliability or function...
My 25 years of experience using M16s, M16A1s, M16A2s, M16A3s, M4s, M4A1s, GAU5s, GUU5Ps, as shooter, armorer, weapons courier, the wrench bender doing upgrades with furnished kits and electropencil, with a dozen civilian brands, several million rounds fired, several military trophies and a handful of college science courses says otherwise.
Thanks, though.
How has HC been "TREMENDOUSLY" more reliable? What issues have you seen with parked BCGs that you haven't withHC?
E.T.A.- Not trying to pick a fight. This is a serious question. Just curious what your experiences were with both that led you to favoring HC.
Badboy, MilSpec is adherence to the TDP and nothing but. If it does not adhere to the TDP it is not "MilSpec". Go read what is available on the TDP and determine whether or not an all chromed/stainless BCG is in it...
MichaelZWilliamson
01-19-11, 21:40
Parkerizing cruds up and jams.
I once came into the middle of an exercise with USAF medics, who pointed to a box and said, "Use one of those rifles [for OPFOR], they've already been cleaned."
Said "cleaned" rifle had hard chrome internals so black from blank residue it looked parkerized. It wiped clean outside in ten seconds, and one drop of oil was good for several hundred more rounds in rain, mud and dusty grass.
The only malfs I ever had with HC were two bad mags and one case separation. These were on M16 slicksides that were 20 years old at the time, [ETA] with tens of thousands of live rounds and blanks fed through [just during the time I used them].
By comparison, parkerized groups are a bad joke, IMHO.
MichaelZWilliamson
01-19-11, 21:46
Do people on this forum keep in mind that some of the considerations for milspec are cost, doctrine and appearance?
I offer the ACUs as an embarrassing example.
Milspec is the minimum standard deemed necessary for specific applications. It is rarely the best. Otherwise, lots of troops wouldn't be upgrading with civilian boots, rucks, and even stocks, slings and optics for their weapons.
Do people on this forum keep in mind that some of the considerations for milspec are cost, doctrine and appearance?
I offer the ACUs as an embarrassing example.
Milspec is the minimum standard deemed necessary for specific applications. It is rarely the best. Otherwise, lots of troops wouldn't be upgrading with civilian boots, rucks, and even stocks, slings and optics for their weapons.
It is a fairly good yard stick for ARs as many of the features outlined in the TDP will make a weapon substantially more/durable/reliable/accurate/etc than weapons that do not adhere to the TDP which is the majority of the commercial market.
MichaelZWilliamson
01-19-11, 21:55
It is a fairly good yard stick for ARs as many of the features outlined in the TDP will make a weapon substantially more/durable/reliable/accurate/etc than weapons that do not adhere to the TDP which is the majority of the commercial market.
Generally, yes. However, the change from HC to parked BCGs was a cosmetic reason by the same wankers who keep trying to turn a 5.56 assault rifle into a .30 battle rifle.
Generally, yes. However, the change from HC to parked BCGs was a cosmetic reason by the same wankers who keep trying to turn a 5.56 assault rifle into a .30 battle rifle.
As far as I know, every M110 issued has a chrome BCG. No comment on whether or not that means its better.
My 25 years of experience using M16s, M16A1s, M16A2s, M16A3s, M4s, M4A1s, GAU5s, GUU5Ps, as shooter, armorer, weapons courier, the wrench bender doing upgrades with furnished kits and electropencil, with a dozen civilian brands, several million rounds fired, several military trophies and a handful of college science courses says otherwise.
Thanks, though.
thanks what? what does it do that a parked BC won't. over your several million rounds fired...
MichaelZWilliamson
01-20-11, 00:02
thanks what? what does it do that a parked BC won't. over your several million rounds fired...
Crud up and jam a lot less.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.