G&R Tactical
Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 111

Thread: BCM Prototype upper?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    9,153
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by methical20 View Post
    Stick,

    Any idea if there will be new lower forgings as well? Ambi?

    I can make vague generic comments, and say there are a lot of interesting things coming.
    Stick


    Board policy mandates I state that I shoot for BCM. I have also done work for 200 or so manufacturers within the firearm community. I am prior service, a full time LEO, firearm instructor, armorer, TL, martial arts instructor, and all around good guy.

    I also shoot and write for various publications. Let me know if you know cool secrets or have toys worthy of an article...


    Flickr Tumblr Facebook Instagram RECOILMAGAZINE OFF GRID RECOIL WEB

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,169
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stickman View Post
    I can make vague generic comments, and say there are a lot of interesting things coming.
    Can you give us eta of when we get to know more?

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    203
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    If anyone from BCM is reading this:
    - I've been waiting for this upper for the last 5 months now...
    - I'm also still waiting for the 14.5" or 16" (regular profile barrel) BFH MCMR upper with the FSP for a year now

    It would be great if BCM would introduce both together. At this point I'm questioning if I should wait any longer...

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,304
    Feedback Score
    20 (100%)
    I've been calling out the lightweight crowd ever since they started going full retard and skeletonizing the area behind the barrel extension compromising the failure cascade. Good thing kabooms are so rare I haven't heard of someone being seriously injured from running these idiotic skeletonized receivers. Good to know BCM is going in the opposite direction.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,169
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Well here’s your answer.

    https://youtu.be/yG2gAmkvnL4

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Oh, Dah Nord Minnersoda.
    Posts
    1,270
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by vicious_cb View Post
    I've been calling out the lightweight crowd ever since they started going full retard and skeletonizing the area behind the barrel extension compromising the failure cascade. Good thing kabooms are so rare I haven't heard of someone being seriously injured from running these idiotic skeletonized receivers. Good to know BCM is going in the opposite direction.
    Just playing devils advocate, wouldn't the skelotonizing provide relief cuts for the pressure blast to go instead of just out the mag well?

    With that theory of pressure drop off, the cut outs should send the gasses out, instead of causing a critical fracture in the metals.

    Than again, I suppose the dust cover is open too when they happen, so, who knows.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,304
    Feedback Score
    20 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by HeruMew View Post
    Just playing devils advocate, wouldn't the skelotonizing provide relief cuts for the pressure blast to go instead of just out the mag well?

    With that theory of pressure drop off, the cut outs should send the gasses out, instead of causing a critical fracture in the metals.

    Than again, I suppose the dust cover is open too when they happen, so, who knows.
    Im not talking about cutting holes in the receiver. A more visual analogy.

    Doing this:


    Prefragments your upper receiver in the event of a kaboom similar in concept to this:

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Oh, Dah Nord Minnersoda.
    Posts
    1,270
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by vicious_cb View Post
    Im not talking about cutting holes in the receiver. A more visual analogy.

    Doing this:


    Prefragments your upper receiver in the event of a kaboom similar in concept to this:
    Awh, yeah.

    Great visual comparison too. That sure can look ominous with those two compared.

    Thanks for clarifying, my point is certainly invalid with those receivers.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,031
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by vicious_cb View Post
    Im not talking about cutting holes in the receiver. A more visual analogy.

    Doing this:


    Prefragments your upper receiver in the event of a kaboom similar in concept to this:
    Two different concepts. The raised ribs of the upper stiffen and strengthen the structure.

    The cuts in the grenade are there to create fracture points.
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    N. Georgia, USSA
    Posts
    1,109
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    You see ribs, i see pockets. Material removed, even to create ribs, doesn't make a part stronger. That receiver may be stronger than a receiver of equal mass, but uniformly reduced diameter, but i doubt any serious thought has gone into its design other than it looks cool.

Page 3 of 12 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
  •