Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 185

Thread: BCM Lower not compatible with PMAG Gen3

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    346
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    I just received one that is compatible, please advise...
    Older lowers may not be, but if BCM identified and corrected the problem they are gtg. What is it you want, them to replace a lower that was fine up until M3 appeared?
    Last edited by LMT/556; 04-09-18 at 06:05.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Oh, Dah Nord Minnersoda.
    Posts
    1,338
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by LMT/556 View Post
    I just received one that is compatible, please advise...
    Older lowers may not be, but if BCM identified and corrected the problem they are gtg. What is it you want, them to replace a lower that was fine up until M3 appeared?
    If you read this thread, it's discussed that SOME BCM lowers will work without issue.

    The problem is:

    The TDP doesn't specify a particular spec for this area. So, BCM uses a forging that, when fresh, might be "too much" material on the rear magwell lip to accommodate the over insertion tab.

    I am sure it is within 10ths, or even 32nds, of inches and would be an easy fix, but, they are technically in "MilSpec" per their TDP.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    2,268
    Feedback Score
    38 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by LMT/556 View Post
    I just received one that is compatible, please advise...
    Older lowers may not be, but if BCM identified and corrected the problem they are gtg. What is it you want, them to replace a lower that was fine up until M3 appeared?
    Has not been corrected. Read the thread.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,033
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by HeruMew View Post
    If you read this thread, it's discussed that SOME BCM lowers will work without issue.

    The problem is:

    The TDP doesn't specify a particular spec for this area. So, BCM uses a forging that, when fresh, might be "too much" material on the rear magwell lip to accommodate the over insertion tab.

    I am sure it is within 10ths, or even 32nds, of inches and would be an easy fix, but, they are technically in "MilSpec" per their TDP.
    We keep talking about the TDP, But isn't the only true M16 TDP owned and used by Colt and their licensees? FN etc...

    I don't think BCM has legal access to use the Colt TDP, do they? Are they paying Colt royalties?

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

    Edit: please correct me if I'm wrong.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by HeruMew View Post
    The problem is:
    The TDP doesn't specify a particular spec for this area. So, BCM uses a forging that, when fresh, might be "too much" material on the rear magwell lip to accommodate the over insertion tab.
    I am sure it is within 10ths, or even 32nds, of inches and would be an easy fix, but, they are technically in "MilSpec" per their TDP.
    Indeed, and to the extent their lower is within the TDP spec, I can't blame BCM. It would probably be a good business decision to make them compatible with M3 Pmags, but keep in mind that means BCM changing its process to accommodate another manufacturer's part that is not 100% compatible with other TDP-compliant parts. Would anyone be asking BCM to change a process to make their lower work with a random part from UTG or Strike Industries?

    I have another maker's lower that won't work with M3 Pmags, and I have never blamed that other maker for it. I think Magpul might want to look at their design here and maybe adjust it for wider compatibility.

    It's curious why Colt-made lowers seem to be 100% OK with M3 Pmags though. A conscious choice to keep the magwell on the small end of the TDP tolerance range?
    ____________________________________________________________________________________
    Use InfoGalactic instead of Wikipedia - avoid Wikipedia's left bias

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
    ____________________________________________________________________________________

    Product reviews stating "Only 4 stars because I haven't used it yet" are an idiot's signature.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    8,703
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SomeOtherGuy View Post
    Indeed, and to the extent their lower is within the TDP spec, I can't blame BCM. It would probably be a good business decision to make them compatible with M3 Pmags, but keep in mind that means BCM changing its process to accommodate another manufacturer's part that is not 100% compatible with other TDP-compliant parts. Would anyone be asking BCM to change a process to make their lower work with a random part from UTG or Strike Industries?
    On any other accessory I might agree with you, but Pmags are becoming such an industry standard that they are supplanting GI mags in the civilian market. I
    literally cannot find a gun shop within 50 miles of me that even has any aluminum GI type mags for sale--but everyone has Pmags. I know it's only the Gen 3's that are in question, but if a buyer is not schooled on the difference or maybe just grabs what's available one can get an unpleasant surprise.

    I have another maker's lower that won't work with M3 Pmags, and I have never blamed that other maker for it. I think Magpul might want to look at their design here and maybe adjust it for wider compatibility.
    Unlikely since the molds are perfected and they do work with most lowers.

    It's curious why Colt-made lowers seem to be 100% OK with M3 Pmags though. A conscious choice to keep the magwell on the small end of the TDP tolerance range?
    This is a good question, and gets to the issue of whether BCM's version of the TDP specs is an older variant, or if their specs are complete only in critical areas, or some other reason that we don't know.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    2,268
    Feedback Score
    38 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SomeOtherGuy View Post
    Indeed, and to the extent their lower is within the TDP spec, I can't blame BCM. It would probably be a good business decision to make them compatible with M3 Pmags, but keep in mind that means BCM changing its process to accommodate another manufacturer's part that is not 100% compatible with other TDP-compliant parts. Would anyone be asking BCM to change a process to make their lower work with a random part from UTG or Strike Industries?

    I have another maker's lower that won't work with M3 Pmags, and I have never blamed that other maker for it. I think Magpul might want to look at their design here and maybe adjust it for wider compatibility.

    It's curious why Colt-made lowers seem to be 100% OK with M3 Pmags though. A conscious choice to keep the magwell on the small end of the TDP tolerance range?
    The mags were built off the Colt lower. BCM is using a different magwell spec. Completely agree that this not BCM's fault and their answer from early last year was fine but the Gen 3 PMAG is now one of the Mil standard magazines. IMO it needs to be fixed - they are now the problem not magpul.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Glockster View Post
    Unlikely since the molds are perfected and they do work with most lowers.
    That word, it does not mean what you think it means!

    Not sure what you mean by "the molds are perfected" but anyway that's not the issue. The incompatible lower is a Noveske gen2 ("Flared, Forged Lower") which I bought around the same time that M3 Pmags were introduced. I'll assume that Noveske had no way of knowing another company was going to make an incompatible but market-dominating magazine at the time they designed their lower. I believe Noveske changed their magwell shape within a year or so to make it work with the M3, but in any event they were innovating one way and couldn't foresee that someone else's actions would cause a compatibility issue.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________
    Use InfoGalactic instead of Wikipedia - avoid Wikipedia's left bias

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
    ____________________________________________________________________________________

    Product reviews stating "Only 4 stars because I haven't used it yet" are an idiot's signature.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    8,703
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SomeOtherGuy View Post
    That word, it does not mean what you think it means!

    Not sure what you mean by "the molds are perfected" but anyway that's not the issue. The incompatible lower is a Noveske gen2 ("Flared, Forged Lower") which I bought around the same time that M3 Pmags were introduced. I'll assume that Noveske had no way of knowing another company was going to make an incompatible but market-dominating magazine at the time they designed their lower. I believe Noveske changed their magwell shape within a year or so to make it work with the M3, but in any event they were innovating one way and couldn't foresee that someone else's actions would cause a compatibility issue.
    My only point was that as long as Magpul continues to sell thousands of magazines they won't change anything. If this issue doesn't hurt a rifle or lower receiver manufacturer's business, they won't change anything either.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by themonk View Post
    The mags were built off the Colt lower. BCM is using a different magwell spec. Completely agree that this not BCM's fault and their answer from early last year was fine but the Gen 3 PMAG is now one of the Mil standard magazines. IMO it needs to be fixed - they are now the problem not magpul.
    Depends on how you look at it. I have never struggled with over inserting a mag. I have, however bumbled a reload. So flared mag wells aid in me getting the gun back up and running. Now, if you are heavy handed and cause malfunctions by slamming the mag into the gun, then you will have a different POV.

    Let us also note where the BCM flared mag well comes from (HK 416). This was done at the request of Mr. Vickers (who worked on the 416 project and saw the value of a flared mag well).


    C4
    Last edited by C4IGrant; 04-09-18 at 16:24.

Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... 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
  •