Page 34 of 46 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 451

Thread: BCM 14.5 Mid Length T&E/Range Report

  1. #331
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    FL -Where it's summer 10.5 months out of the year
    Posts
    4,114
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by markm View Post
    Exactly. And I don't know why. It still runs great. And it was NEVER meant to run the heavier buffers at all. So it's not a concern.... but it is strange.



    I have not tried the ion bond.
    Agreed, running the lighter buffer is not an issue...I'm just curious about the change.

    Paul states on the webpage that lighter buffers are preferred.

  2. #332
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    12
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by markm View Post
    Exactly. And I don't know why. It still runs great. And it was NEVER meant to run the heavier buffers at all. So it's not a concern.... but it is strange.



    I have not tried the ion bond.
    How many rounds did you fire with the H2 before it became unreliable? Do you believe that the unreliability is attributed to wear/break-in on the buffer spring and BCG? To me it seems the more the gun has been fired, the more accepting it should be of a heavier buffer. Have you tried an ST-T2?

    I have ~1500 rounds on my buffer spring and BCG and my BCM 14.5 mid still runs Brown Bear reliably with a ST-T2.
    Last edited by ATF Agent; 03-14-11 at 20:12.

  3. #333
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    27,217
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ATF Agent View Post
    How many rounds did you fire with the H2 before it became unreliable?
    It's never been unreliable. Not one Malf. I don't consider failure to lock back with a buffer too heavy for the design a malf

    But it just started cycling slower around a thousand rounds with the heavy buffer.

    Have you tried an ST-T2?
    I would never let that thing near any of my guns.

  4. #334
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    This changing around of buffers that seems to be popular of late strikes me as chasing down minutia for minutia's sake. It's one thing, I guess, to go to the range and change out the buffers a couple of times to see if there's any effect on the gun, but beyond that it just seems less than productive.

    I have 770 rounds on one BCM 14.5" midlength with one failure to feed of Wolf 75 grain. I still have this gun and am adding it to my stable of loaners for guys that come out and shoot with us. After that failure to extract I went to Brown Bear 62 grain (still a non-recommended ammo) and did not have another failure in 695 rounds (without cleaning).

    I have 443 rounds on another with 3 failures to extract (also with suspect ammo). This was a gun for an article and has since gone back to BCM. All of this was on H buffers. If I had to shoot that ammo in these guns, and continued to get failures, I might play with the buffer weights. But Paul was pretty clear with me when he sent me these guns that they should be used with higher pressure ammo and I ignored that at my own peril. Chasing minutia myself, now that I reflect on it and look back at my logs.
    Last edited by rob_s; 03-15-11 at 09:40.

  5. #335
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    12
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by markm View Post
    It's never been unreliable. Not one Malf. I don't consider failure to lock back with a buffer too heavy for the design a malf

    But it just started cycling slower around a thousand rounds with the heavy buffer.



    I would never let that thing near any of my guns.
    What reservations do you have about a tungsten powder buffer?
    Last edited by ATF Agent; 03-15-11 at 11:35.

  6. #336
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    27,217
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ATF Agent View Post
    What reservations do you have about a tungsten powder buffer?
    The videos 87GN made show that it works OK. Not as good as a real buffer though.

    It strikes me as a solution to a non-problem...

  7. #337
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,743
    Feedback Score
    47 (100%)
    It was the ONLY buffer that did not work consistently in my 14.5 with pmc, brown bear, ae, and aguila; 55 to 62gr. I wouldnt waste my time with it.
    (And by didnt work, i specifically meant FTFeed)
    Last edited by sadmin; 03-15-11 at 11:48.
    Matthew 10:28

  8. #338
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    27,217
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    I'll have to rerun another full auto test with the rifle buffer system and M855 again to see if there's any noticeable rate of fire difference from the original video.
    Last edited by markm; 03-15-11 at 12:31.

  9. #339
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    12
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by markm View Post
    The videos 87GN made show that it works OK. Not as good as a real buffer though.

    It strikes me as a solution to a non-problem...
    Can you please direct me towards those videos?
    Last edited by ATF Agent; 03-20-11 at 17:47.

  10. #340
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    27,217
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ATF Agent View Post
    Can you please direct me towards those videos?
    They should be found here.... he has a lot of videos though...
    http://www.youtube.com/user/VuurwapenBlog

Page 34 of 46 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... 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
  •