Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 185

Thread: BCM Lower not compatible with PMAG Gen3

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NN, VA
    Posts
    2,180
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by officerX View Post
    I’ll give you $100 for it.
    $101 and I’ll split the shipping. :-D
    "SEND IT" happens to be my trigger words...

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    64
    Feedback Score
    0
    I just want to reiterate. This is not an issue on all of their lowers.

    It is a defect from the forging, and it's not a dimension that is checked as part of BCM's quality control. They don't consider it to be important. According to customer service that area is not well defined within the milspec they reference.

    Perhaps, that is why Magpul states that their M3 mags are optimized for "Colt-spec" AR15s and M4s.

    By the way I replied to customer service that if they considered this to be normal and within their acceptable tolerances that they shouldn't mind if I post about it online.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    893
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bolverk93 View Post
    I just want to reiterate. This is not an issue on all of their lowers.

    It is a defect from the forging, and it's not a dimension that is checked as part of BCM's quality control. They don't consider it to be important. According to customer service that area is not well defined within the milspec they reference.

    Perhaps, that is why Magpul states that their M3 mags are optimized for "Colt-spec" AR15s and M4s.
    This is true. It is a very small chance that your lower will not work with a gen3 pmag.

    But I think BCM should take care of those few customers that are having problems.
    Quote Originally Posted by Outlander Systems View Post
    In 2014, a RDS and a WML are pretty much mandatory for a defensive long-gun.

    Lights are way easier to fire up than NODs when rolling out of bed.

    Quote Originally Posted by SJC3081 View Post
    You should have your balls removed for posting such stupidity. This is not the other site...

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    8,703
    Feedback Score
    0
    I am a BCM fanboy. They are technically correct that their lowers are made to work with milspec (i.e. aluminum GI ) mags.

    Having said that, we do live in a MagPul world, and if I ever get the desire to "thin the herd" the BCM's will be the first out the door. We know the Colts work with all quality mags, and that's just another reason to buy Colt. No matter if BCM makes a top tier weapon and the quality is equal to Colt, that one little issue is too much of an "if" in a situation where you might not have a choice of mags in a SHTF situation.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,688
    Feedback Score
    40 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bolverk93 View Post
    I don't think there is an issue of tolerance stacking. As previously stated the Army and USMC approved the M3 PMAGs for combat use after thorough testing. I don't want to talk out of my ass, but I'm sure that potential tolerance stacking issues would be identified. There's no way they would approve a mag that would fail to function in a percentage of their weapons.
    With KAC it is. Their are KAC lowers that have no issue with Gen 3 pmags and others that do. This means the magwell dimensions are different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Glockster View Post
    I am a BCM fanboy. They are technically correct that their lowers are made to work with milspec (i.e. aluminum GI ) mags.

    Having said that, we do live in a MagPul world, and if I ever get the desire to "thin the herd" the BCM's will be the first out the door. We know the Colts work with all quality mags, and that's just another reason to buy Colt. No matter if BCM makes a top tier weapon and the quality is equal to Colt, that one little issue is too much of an "if" in a situation where you might not have a choice of mags in a SHTF situation.
    Completely agree with this!

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    4,630
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bolverk93 View Post
    According to customer service that area is not well defined within the milspec they reference.
    And none of the blame goes to the company that used a not well defined dimension as an index point?

    It's a huge problem with many aftermarket parts, where someone goes out and measures a few parts and then assumes that is the nominal size. Not knowing the actual dimension, the actual tolerance, and some do not even know what nominal means.

    Magpul should release a print with an added dimension and tolerance that the magazine was designed to function with. Lower manufacturers can choose to add that to their process and advertise it as compatible.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,618
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd.K View Post
    And none of the blame goes to the company that used a not well defined dimension as an index point?
    ***
    Magpul should release a print with an added dimension and tolerance that the magazine was designed to function with. Lower manufacturers can choose to add that to their process and advertise it as compatible.
    I agree, and like this idea. I love Magpul products generally and am using M3 Pmags, but I think the overtravel stop tab is unnecessary and not a great idea, for the reasons described here. It also doesn't work with Noveske gen2 lowers, and probably various others. While it's probably the most reliable magazine available for lowers it will fit (based on the published military test results), having to go and check the mags for fit with every lower you own is a hassle, and a hassle that didn't generally exist with earlier gen Pmags.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    SOMD
    Posts
    908
    Feedback Score
    50 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SomeOtherGuy View Post
    It also doesn't work with Noveske gen2 lowers, and probably various others.
    To be clear, early Gen 2 Noveske lowers had issues. At some serial number going forward they are compatible.

    I took a dremel to my SBR early Noveske Gen 2 lower so I could run the D60. Is what it is.

    I have a later Gen 2 that has the wider cutout at the rear of the magwell.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Eastern NC
    Posts
    8,713
    Feedback Score
    88 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rayrevolver View Post
    To be clear, early Gen 2 Noveske lowers had issues. At some serial number going forward they are compatible.

    I took a dremel to my SBR early Noveske Gen 2 lower so I could run the D60. Is what it is.

    I have a later Gen 2 that has the wider cutout at the rear of the magwell.
    Yeah but Noveske lowers have always been too tight. I had a Gen II and now have a newer production Gen I. The only mags that will drop free are standard aluminum and M3s, though they’re still very picky. I’ve had aluminum mags fail to drop free just because the gun wasn’t completely parallel.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Sic semper tyrannis.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    581
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    I never understood a point of overtravel stop in Magpul mags. I'm not aware of any original military magazines in the world which have that. I think that if you rely on over travel stop in order for your mag to work you have a design issue with the weapon.

Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1234513 ... 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
  •