Mark II upper? Is this a solution looking for a problem?
Mark II upper? Is this a solution looking for a problem?
I think it it all about what BCM is all about. They make battle rifles, and throughout history, the battle rifle has been chambered in .308 (7.62). I have no issue with my LMT weapons (5.56 & 7.62) except for what they weigh, but I thoroughly love them just as my BCM stuff. If anyone can make a .308 battle rifle that works well and doesn’t weigh a metric stit-ton, I know that BCM can and will.
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. --Theodore Roosevelt--
I agree with and understand the changes, except for keeping the forward assist.
Doesn't mean it should be there.
Stoner and Sullivan were 100% against the forward assist being introduced and rightfully so. The bolt carrier was already designed with a forward assist, the divot on the side of the carrier in the ejection port.
Military doctrine does not = small arms design/weapons mechanics.
FA vs non-FA is like 9MM vs 45.
The self-licking ice cream cone of arguments, even when both options are readily available for people to choose what they want.
I'm an FA fan. I'm never going to think there is a round in the chamber until I see one, and loading slowly you can't guarantee the weapon is in battery.
Old / long dead no longer speak and their opinions are frozen in time.
Another plus of the MUR...If you like your FA you can keep your FA. If not you have the option of case deflector only. If the price is right on the Mark two upper with a FA it is a great lower cost option against the MUR-1S/1A.
Speaking of such, does anyone have an idea on the cost of the BCM Mark 2 upper receiver?
Bookmarks