Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 62

Thread: Failures to extract: Enhanced BCG and DD V7

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6,611
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    Get the LMT out of there and see if the problem goes away using the DD BCG. I bet that it does. Personally wouldn't run the LMT BCG. Every PiP I have read or heard the results from includes it, and every time it either breaks, or shows itself less reliable than the tried and true mil-spec BCG. Same for all the other "novel" BCG ideas out there. The last BCG involved PiP actually concluded early because the regular 'ol mil-spec phosphate BCG was not only cheaper, but more reliable and more durable across a wider range of operation than were any of the competition's offerings with their wonder-coatings and geometry changes. People can pontificate all the want about proprietary BCG's, but until one* out-performs the standard BCG in testing, I'll stick with the mil-spec variant.


    *KAC has a nice setup, but it won't interface with standard barrel extensions.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    8,539
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by E-man930 View Post
    +1... The current gen and previous gen LMT Enhanced BCG should have zero problems running in that DD middy. Contact LMT for a replacement extractor.
    Called them today. The guy offered to do whatever I wanted but suggested I run the stock BCG and see if extraction issues continue. If they do not then he said to send the bolt back in and he'd replace it. Fair enough. It'll be a week or two before I have the chance to go run enough rounds to satisfy me either way.

    Of course with XM855 at 40+ cents per round I'll be dropping ~ $24 to run another 60 through it! I oughta let them do it on their dime but don't feel like getting the same one sent back saying "It worked okay for us". I figure I had 4 FTE in 60 rounds the other day so if the stock BCG doesn't do it in 60 the LMT bolt is going back!
    Last edited by ABNAK; 10-23-13 at 23:23.
    11C2P '83-'87
    Airborne Infantry

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,157
    Feedback Score
    38 (100%)
    Nice! Good to hear it worked out for you. And yes, sending the bolt back is probably the best course of action. It may not be the extractor, but rather a problem with one or both of the dual extractor springs in the enhanced bolt (though it's probably the extractor). Either way, once the problem is isolated to the bolt, I'd let LMT worry about the rest. It could be any multitude of things and a new bolt would clear all of them up.

    As far as everyone claiming that this bolt offers nothing and is malfunction-prone, I'd love to see the sources. I haven't experienced a single problem in all 4 of my guns, and I never read about any problems outside of SBRs. In fact, every head-to-head comparison I've seen shows this bolt lasting beyond the point where mil-spec bolts were broken in the same test.

    I'm being honest, too. I'd love to see evidence of these claims.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6,611
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by DreadPirateMoyer View Post
    Nice! Good to hear it worked out for you. And yes, sending the bolt back is probably the best course of action. It may not be the extractor, but rather a problem with one or both of the dual extractor springs in the enhanced bolt (though it's probably the extractor). Either way, once the problem is isolated to the bolt, I'd let LMT worry about the rest. It could be any multitude of things and a new bolt would clear all of them up.

    As far as everyone claiming that this bolt offers nothing and is malfunction-prone, I'd love to see the sources. I haven't experienced a single problem in all 4 of my guns, and I never read about any problems outside of SBRs. In fact, every head-to-head comparison I've seen shows this bolt lasting beyond the point where mil-spec bolts were broken in the same test.

    I'm being honest, too. I'd love to see evidence of these claims.
    Here are the results of the last PiP. LMT submitted theirs, if I recall from when I saw the list of companies:

    PM SW completed its best value M4 bolt and bolt carrier assembly competition in April 2012, though the competition was scheduled to conclude in summer 2013. More than six months of testing and evaluation determined that none of the 11 competing designs met the overall requirements outlined in the solicitation. The M4’s current bolt and bolt carrier assembly outperforms the competing designs in the areas of reliability, durability, and high-temp/low-temp tests. The Army saved nearly $2 million as a result of the early completion of the competition.
    http://peosoldier.armylive.dodlive.m...am-pip-update/

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,157
    Feedback Score
    38 (100%)
    Meh, that's too general of a statement and doesn't disclose all of the data, in my opinion at least. It could be an entire BCGs experiencing problems (since the statement mentions bolts/bolt carriers), it could be that the bolt carriers were the problems, it could be weird circumstances, and heck, after watching some of the military's tests where they use aluminum mags without Magpul followers to compare the M4 to other rifles using PMAGs, I just can't take summaries like that without seeing the data.

    Do you know if the data is available somewhere?

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,922
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    I find it hard to believe the standard bolt outperformed it. Color me skeptical of the Army results.

    The ARMET steel LMT enhanced Bolt is about the only 7.62x39 AR bolt that refuses to shear lugs. i have nerer seen a single report of a broken LMT enhanced bolt, even in 7.62x39 and those are so hogged-out on the bolt face and receive so much greater bolt-thrust, they break far easier than the 5.56 bolts.
    Last edited by Heavy Metal; 10-24-13 at 00:35.
    My brother saw Deliverance and bought a Bow. I saw Deliverance and bought an AR-15.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,922
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ABNAK View Post
    Since I've had/have Enhanced BCG's before I have an extra extractor. However, I think a call to LMT is in order....why use the extra one when perhaps it'll be covered?
    If you have a spare extractor, swap it out and see if the problem goes away. If it does, call LMT and let them know they owe you a replacement extractor.

    I need to call them myself, I have a new bolt with a bad one that needs swapped. I had a complete spare bolt-head and just swapped the whole thing out and the dropped extractions stopped.
    My brother saw Deliverance and bought a Bow. I saw Deliverance and bought an AR-15.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,157
    Feedback Score
    38 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Heavy Metal View Post
    I find it hard to believe the standard bolt outperformed it. Color me skeptical of the Army results.

    The ARMET steel LMT enhanced Bolt is about the only 7.62x39 AR bolt that refuses to shear lugs. i have nerer seen a single report of a broken LMT enhanced bolt, even in 7.62x39 and those are so hogged-out on the bolt face and receive som much great bolt-thrust, they break far easier than the 5.56 bolts.
    Exactly. Every single objective test that I've seen shows the LMT bolt far outperforming everything else when used with the LMT enhanced carrier (and not in SBRs). On paper, it makes sense. The materials alone are far stronger, so maybe reliability concerns could crop up (though I'd also have a hard time believing that), but durability? No way, unless the laws of physics stopped working for some reason.

    Really need to see the data from that test.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6,611
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by DreadPirateMoyer View Post
    Exactly. Every single objective test that I've seen shows the LMT bolt far outperforming everything else when used with the LMT enhanced carrier (and not in SBRs). On paper, it makes sense. The materials alone are far stronger, so maybe reliability concerns could crop up (though I'd also have a hard time believing that), but durability? No way, unless the laws of physics stopped working for some reason.

    Really need to see the data from that test.
    I'm sure you can get it if you qualify.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    AZ-Waging jihad against crappy AR's.
    Posts
    24,902
    Feedback Score
    104 (100%)
    The LMT extractor assembly may be good, but I am not using their enhanced bolts simply because I don't want to be searching the ends of the earth of held hostage trying to get unique parts.

    The enhanced carrier itself is a good idea, based upon my use. I have one inside my 20" rifle, and both SBR's. I can tell a difference in the performance, especially when coupled with the A5 buffer and Springco spring.



    Owner/Instructor at Semper Paratus Arms

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SemperParatusArms/

    Semper Paratus Arms AR15 Armorer Course http://www.semperparatusarms.com/cou...-registration/

    M4C Misc. Training and Course Announcements- http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=141

    Master Armorer/R&D at SIONICS Weapon Systems- http://sionicsweaponsystems.com

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •