Look at this http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/n=y/p...T_BOLT_CARRIER . What do you guys think? I always thought the M16 bolt carrier could use some debris grooves in it like the sand grooves in the L1A1.
Printable View
Look at this http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/n=y/p...T_BOLT_CARRIER . What do you guys think? I always thought the M16 bolt carrier could use some debris grooves in it like the sand grooves in the L1A1.
Looks like marketing/branding to me.
The mil spec carrier has only four places it touches the upper.. the rest of it is clearanced significantly so it would take some serious fouling before crap in the upper will stop the carrier.
My first thought is that this is a solution looking for a problem.Quote:
What do you guys think?
Given that it's the same folks who gave us this piece of ridiculousness (double the price of a standard RE and in craptastic 6061 to boot), I'd say it's exactly that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric
For some reason PWS seems determined to reinvent every wheel they can get their hands on. While their Muzzle Devices are pretty good, the rest of their efforts are much less impressive.
OP: I'm not qualified to say whether or not the BC is better or worse.
I applaud their efforts and I look for vendors trying to do things better. I like their piston systems. The fact they took a proven, successful system and improved it with modern technology kicks butt. In fact, you illustrate my point with your FH comment. Without their efforts and efforts from folks like AAC, we'd still have the A2 birdcage.
Different doesn't mean better. Neither their buffer tube nor BCG achieve anything the mil-spec parts don't already provide for much less cost with higher-grade materials. When PWS comes up with something that actually solves a problem, instead of just redesigning something for the hell of it, they can have their props.Quote:
Originally Posted by czydj
Are you kidding me? The first piston-driven autoloader was patented by JMB in 1895, almost 60 years before Stoner's DI design. There's nothing the least bit modern about piston systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by czydj
As I've stated before, the only thing of actual use I think PWS produces is their muzzle devices. That said, they were hardly innovators in that market, as there were literally dozens of alternative AR MDs available before PWS showed up.Quote:
Originally Posted by czydj
So no, I don't illustrate your point at all, because outside of some functional MDs, all PWS makes is useless junk that's different just to be different.
Snake Oil
A solution looking for a problem!!
Ya, thats kind of what I thought.
They have to do something to be different. Kinda hard to sell a product that is exactly the same as every other one on the market.
Like I have said many times before. The AR-15 DI system is a near perfect system from an engineering perspective. Manufacturers instead of finding ways to improve quality and decrease cost to make a profit, either lower quality or create a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. They know that there are too many people out there who do not know any better and will buy the latest "enhancement" or "tacticool" feature.
ok. so a new product is released and everyone craps on it with out even trying it or hearing an actual review. very nice. :( I fear change.
it is heavier than a standard carrier so it will slow dwell time, like a heavy buffer does. the PWS carrier = 9.9oz, m16 carrier is 9.46oz, colt carrier is 8.87oz.
for reference the H buffer is .87oz more than standard buffer. some guns will run better with a heavy buffer or carrier.
also isonite is a very strong treatment. it increases resistance to heat, abrasion and seizure. resistance to pitting is 50-60% better than untreated. also material strength and stiffness are increased. overall improved durability.
so with these benefits why talk bad about something you have no experience with? there are alot of (different) parts that were made for guns that i like alot. such as the spikes st-t2 buffer, magpul AFG, and polymer, nylon 6 (glock frames).
Durability/strength/stiffness has not been an issue with the standard mil spec type carrier. Have you ever seen one fail?Quote:
...also material strength and stiffness are increased. overall improved durability.
...so with these benefits why talk bad about something you have no experience with?
Somebody shut-up and just test the damn thing. Everything else is conjecture. This is turning into a thread from Barfcom. :rolleyes:
have you ever been out on the range, blasting away, and stopped and thought to yourself, "you know... my carrier is lacking. i wish somebody would improve it."
?
retarded.
OR maybe we just have eyes to see retardation when we see it.
have you not noticed that when TRUE innovation appears on this website, it's well received? that guy with the mag-release-bolt-hold-open thing came on here with his "battery assist device" and was laughed off the board. but when he came back with something that WAS potentially useful, everyone gave encouragement. for example.
but what the hell does any of this have to do with TOS?
Look beyond the "sand cuts" to see a bolt carrier with a slick coating for $99. That's cheeper than FailZero! :D
Huh...
If it works just as well, however, then I'd be really interested.
Also, can we just have someone freakin try the thing? If for some reason it's just as good as a BCM bolt, then we could save some money every time we purchased a bolt. If it's a good bolt, and it's cheaper than the competitors, what's so bad about that? I don't see any thing about the design, besides the single gas ports, that makes it look worse than other designs.
In my rush, I seemed to have not noticed that. Thanks for the correction. I seem to lump the bolt and the BCG together also... It's a bad habit, I know.
I just went to PWS website, and looked at another picture of it. The bolt staking looks pretty bad, comparable to a Bushmaster, but the photo was at a bad angle, so I could be wrong.
The PWS carrier with the Isonite coating is listed for $99 at the Brownell's webpage. Plain Jane carriers are about the same. The FailZero carrier with it's Exo coating is $175. $99 for a carrier with a "special coating" looks pretty cheep to me. Yes, I realize I'm taking about carriers only not complete BCGs.
(Please don't confuse what I'm saying with "Holy Toledo! That carrier rocks- everyone should try it!" I don't even know if the thing will work or that the Isonite coating is worth considering. Just saying it's cheep compared to other plated carriers)
ETA- Ok, Bravo Company has standard carriers for $70, a better price than those listed at Brownell's
Honestly, I think someone should just buy it and learn about it the fun way.
This product could range from POS to something along the line of KAC's E3 bolt in terms of impact on a AR's performance. Most likely, it will just end up being another bolt carrier that looks cooler than the rest and will be a little easier to clean, but only testing will actually tell.
Yeah, after I made the post, I checked out Bravo Company and edited to include that. I should have reversed that order of events.
I did order a Failzero carrier just to try it out. I hope I like it's special coating. Worse case, I paid too much for a carrier and a standard carrier will go into my next AR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Find ManBearPig!
I've tried to let this go, but it bothers the hell out of me. You seriously expect expect us to shell out our hard-earned cash on an idea we view to be obviously stupid to satisfy YOUR curiosity/optimism? If you're so hot to see how it performs, buy it yourself and post about it. If you're unwilling, stop trying to make us do it for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Find ManBearPig!
If your a Mil/LE with Brownells's it is even cheaper than $99.00 more like 82.00(?)
S/F
29
It will be in many ARFcom rilfes soon!
No. Conjecture would be saying that, even though I have never ran one, it is a POS. We are merely pointing out that the standard USGI carrier has not demonstrated flaws which necessitate it being redesigned. I have no reason to believe that this thing will not run just as good, but it does not solve any particular problem in the existing product.
Using your quote from earlier in the thread:
"My first thought is that this is a solution looking for a problem. "
I agree that there are no basic deficiencies with a quality basic bolt carrier. However, friction is ALWAYS an enemy....and reducing it is a never ending journey.
I know little about this BC, but if it reduces friction without creating any other detrimental side effects, it might be a decent 'coated' BC for the money. I currently run a FZ BCG and have found the reduction in friction (and tolerance to shitty russian ammo even while using heavy buffers) has been greatly improved.
I'm only personally concerned about the single gas port...that's really the only feature I would call into question without touching/testing one. But maybe there is some engineering behind that. Great place for a factory rep to chime in.
You know, sometimes companies win when the innovate, and sometimes they don't. At least PWS is trying. It's a free market. If a fool wants to part with his money, let him.
It's a fiercely competitive marketplace. Companies in the AR space can either grow (DD, BCM, Spike's), innovate (Vltor, Magpul, etc), or die. PWS is trying to innovate their way to growth, so good for them (and Next Generation Arms etc).
Some of the traditionalists probably wouldn't have tried a midlength 16" when they came out because their carbine 16"worked just fine. Now, that same carbine gas system causes the AR to recoil so violently that it literally jumps out of one's hands. Then that same previous 16" carbine lover wouldn't shoot anything other than a midlength. Oh, just a reminder that the gold standard aka Colt 6920 still uses a carbine gas system. [/sarcasm]
Hmm. Seems there was some misunderstandings, most likely my fault for not clarifying. What I was trying to state is that someone needs to shoot the thing before we start passing judgement, and that is the only to find out if it does what is advertised. If my post came across as me saying someone should buy it, well then yes, that was the point. If my post came across as someone should buy it just so I can see how well it works without having to spend my own time and money, then I am sorry about the miscommunication. While experience with similar products and the system as a whole can give someone huge amounts of insight and the ability to pass of judgement based only on pictures, you still cannot say the products has no purpose in almost all cases like this until you actually try it.
Now if a product, like this one, advertises something that many people most likely don't need, they can say, "What is the point of this?" and can simply pass over it and explain why, but they should reserve full judgement about it doing something positive or negative until they have used it to do something, in this case shooting.
Hope I clarified well enough. I tend to ramble and have issues with getting my point across. I'm sure you can understand. I never meant what I said in the way I appeared to have come across. And yes, your right, we can say this product dose not offer much, and talk about why, but we still should not pass full judgement until one of us owns one and has used it extensively. Who knows, it could be great product.
Anyhow, I hope that cleared things up. As I said before, I tend to ramble and have trouble getting my point and tone across. It just happens with the nature of the internet.
Without being to contrarian here. PWS makes fantastic muzzle devices, likely one of the best piston systems (if you think you need one, I realize this is another debate) so I am willing to give them a little leeway here before I make a judgement.
Chris
For a guy who rarely cleans his rifle and uses loads of crappy wolf ammo, when I have some extra cash lying around that I don't know what to do with...I may bite.
That was a huge reason why I bought my FZ BCG. It made a HUUUUUUUGE difference (read: improvement) with wolf, tula, etc. I got a bud who switched to BCM's IONbond and it was the same deal...an enormous reduction in friction when using Slip2k EWL.
A test would quickly reveal whether it is a decent piece of kit or total junk. More legitimate competition means lower prices. I'm down with that. Time will tell...