Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 104

Thread: Discussion on BCG finishes

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Iraq
    Posts
    489
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelZWilliamson View Post
    I'm always amazed at people who'll hang a grand of rails and gadgets on the outside but don't want to "Waste money" on internals without which the weapon is a very pretty ornament.
    I don't think that is particularly the case for a lot of people here when it comes to BCG's - as most people who frequent this forum are running top tier BCGs. Most on this forum do not believe in skimping on important components. However, the question a lot of people will be asking when it comes to the coated BCGs is this - is it really worth the extra $120 or so for a fail zero BCG when you never hear of any problems with high mileage BCM/DD/Noveske etc 'normal' BCGs?

    I personally believe there well may be some benefit to the coated ones, but how many tens (or hundreds) of thousands of rounds would you need to get through one to reap those benefits?

    As an earlier poster said, I think the jury is still out for a lot of people....but it isn't a question of skimping.
    Dan

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    87
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SA80Dan View Post
    I don't think that is particularly the case for a lot of people here when it comes to BCG's - as most people who frequent this forum are running top tier BCGs. Most on this forum do not believe in skimping on important components. However, the question a lot of people will be asking when it comes to the coated BCGs is this - is it really worth the extra $120 or so for a fail zero BCG when you never hear of any problems with high mileage BCM/DD/Noveske etc 'normal' BCGs?

    I personally believe there well may be some benefit to the coated ones, but how many tens (or hundreds) of thousands of rounds would you need to get through one to reap those benefits?

    As an earlier poster said, I think the jury is still out for a lot of people....but it isn't a question of skimping.
    I shot chrome and park side by side for 5 years. I won't say the park are crap by comparison, but they are definitely second tier, if for no other reason than maintenance. The extra $50 or so for chrome is recouped in the first five cleanings, in time and materials saved. Unless someone believes chrome is INFERIOR in function.

    If the chrome avoids one jam at the wrong time, and statistically it will, it's worth it.

    At the extreme end, I saw a sealed container of M16s that were put away wet and dirty. They were opened up 12 weeks later, because someone decided it might be a good idea to double check before an IG visit.

    Parked assys, rusted shut into the lugs, unsalvageable, trash.

    Chrome assys as above, required replacement of rusty hammers and some very serious cleaning and oiling, but were functional.

    It doesn't matter how good the materials and workmanship are when oxygen comes calling.

    I'm tempted to do a salt water immersion test. I have a spare BCG I could donate.
    Last edited by MichaelZWilliamson; 01-23-11 at 10:36.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Richmond CA
    Posts
    209
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Spikes FZ BCG experiences

    I have and run a variety of BCG's (DD,Stag,Olympic, Noveske,Spikes,AA.) I am not a LE/SF/Mil operator, but I do shoot and build a fair amount of AR platform. I am personally sold on the FailZero/EXO coating though. I have purchased 3 of these units to date (2 in 5.56 and 1 in 6.8 SPC.) They are the smoothest BCG's I have ever used, several friends that have shot the platforms have commented on them comparing them to their own rifles. I was paying about $160 for my DD BCG's and $60 bones for the FailZero coating on such a critical part is a no brainer for me personally. Clean up is also a breeze comparably. I highly recommend, do a search for FailZero torture tests on google for some demonstrations and make your own call

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    103
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    I believe that the newer coatings absolutely have an application in LE. I currently teach patrol rifle for my department, and have prior military and SWAT experience. Believe it or not, most cops are not gun guys. They typically know very little about guns, and tend to put even less effort in maintaining them.

    For a guy that does properly maintain and lubricate a rifle, I doubt that there would be any dicernable difference between an EXO coated BCG, and a parked BCG. The guy might comment on the ease of cleaning, but the two will run the same because they are both well lubed and clean.

    However, most cops don't properly maintain or lube their rifles. They tend to be shot a few times a year, lightly cleaned if at all, then put away. Whatever lube might or might not have been applied, tends to evaporate over time, as the rifle moves from their home, to cruiser trunk, to locker. What you are left with is dirty rifle with very little lube.

    In these particular circumstances, the EXO coating does give you an edge. The inherent lubricity of the coating ensures that even though it is dirty and dry, the rifle will still run, or at least have a better chance of running.

    As an instructor, I still try to instill that a duty weapon needs to be cleaned and lubed, no matter what kind of BCG a guy has. But time and time again, we'll see dry & dirty traditional BCG's choke, while the coated ones keep singing along. Most all of us as instructor's have gone to either the Fail Zero or Spike's BCG's, and most of our students have transitioned as well.

    I would expect the nay-sayers to be gun guys, who maintain their guns, and thus see no benefit to the coatings. For anyone in LE, the coatings provide a extra bit of reliability, when your life is on the line.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    87
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by PatrolRifleGroup View Post
    For a guy that does properly maintain and lubricate a rifle, I doubt that there would be any dicernable difference between an EXO coated BCG, and a parked BCG. The guy might comment on the ease of cleaning, but the two will run the same because they are both well lubed and clean.
    My experience was that the hard chrome ran significantly better in all circumstances. There's not much difference for the first few dozen rounds, but after that, it's noticeable.

    Bunches of people (who are wrong) will disagree with me, but lube IS NOT the solution to second-rate function. Installing better components is the solution. As many people learn the hard way in the Sandbox, oil + Arabian dust = mud. Oil is a FIELD REPAIR for a rough running AR. If you can't run it without oil, it is mechanically inadequate.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    103
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelZWilliamson View Post
    My experience was that the hard chrome ran significantly better in all circumstances. There's not much difference for the first few dozen rounds, but after that, it's noticeable.

    Bunches of people (who are wrong) will disagree with me, but lube IS NOT the solution to second-rate function. Installing better components is the solution. As many people learn the hard way in the Sandbox, oil + Arabian dust = mud. Oil is a FIELD REPAIR for a rough running AR. If you can't run it without oil, it is mechanically inadequate.
    I realy cant speak about the hard chrome, since I've never owned one. I do see them periodically in class, and they are nice. My first experiences were with Robar/NP3, and then transitioned to the EXO/NiBoron. I am in agreement that an enhanced BCG, in whatever your flavor (Chrome/NP3/NiBoron) is always better choice.

    I should be able to provide better feedback on the chrome BCG's after this year. It seems like a bunch of guys have purchased the S&W MP-15 TS model. S&W's website shows that they come standard with a chrome BCG, but I have yet to actually inspect one.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    87
    Feedback Score
    0
    Did you notice any difference between Robar and Ni3B?

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    740
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelZWilliamson View Post

    Stoner intended and designed hard chrome. Parkerizing was a cosmetic change by the Army, for "tactical" reasons, since chrome is shiny.

    Chrome operating mass, combined with this chromed extension, led to almost flawless functioning regardless of sand, muck, carbon.
    Umm... actually you're wrong.

    You see, chrome plated BCGs were already being phased out by 1964 and chrome plated chambers were introduced in 1968. So, you're just a *tad* bit incorrect.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    740
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelZWilliamson View Post
    My experience was that the hard chrome ran significantly better in all circumstances. There's not much difference for the first few dozen rounds, but after that, it's noticeable.

    Bunches of people (who are wrong) will disagree with me, but lube IS NOT the solution to second-rate function. Installing better components is the solution. As many people learn the hard way in the Sandbox, oil + Arabian dust = mud. Oil is a FIELD REPAIR for a rough running AR. If you can't run it without oil, it is mechanically inadequate.
    Where do you come up with this shit?

    It's a frigging mechanical device, it needs oil. Oil is a necessity for all machines, and it is not a band-aid.

    Oh, and even the Army says you're wrong about heavy lubrication in sand:

    http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/0...cation_070716/

    Heavy lubrication shown to improve M16, M4 effectiveness




    By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
    Posted : Monday Jul 16, 2007 17:34:05 EDT

    Army weapons officials might have found a way to improve the M16 family’s performance in the desert.
    “Dust chamber” tests at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., last year show that M16 rifles and M4 carbines perform dramatically better when the weapon’s bolt assembly is heavily lubricated.
    During each phase of the two-part “system assessment” at Army Test and Evaluation Command, testers fired 60,000 rounds through 10 weapon samples of each model.
    Treated with light lubrication, new M16A4s and M4s, performed poorly in the extreme dust and sand conditions of the test, according to a January report from ATEC.
    But when testers applied a heavy coat of lubrication to the weapons, the test results showed a “significant improvement.”
    Out of the 60,000 rounds fired in each phase, the M4 stoppage-rate dropped from 9,836 with light lubrication to 678 with heavy lubrication.
    The M16A4 stoppage-rate dropped from 2,124 with light lubrication to 507 with heavy lubrication, results show.

    For years, Army weapons officials have preached to soldiers to virtues of applying a light coat of lubrication during weapons maintenance.
    But the test results reinforce a recent change in weapons maintenance guidance Army units are practicing in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Col. Carl Lipsit, project manager for Soldier Weapons.
    At the request of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., the Army will conduct a similar dust-chamber test in August, pitting the M4 against the Heckler and Koch 416, the H&K XM8 and FNH USA’s Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle.
    All of the participating weapons will be treated with a heavy coat of lubrication during the test, Lipsit said.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    87
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by .45fmjoe View Post
    Umm... actually you're wrong.

    You see, chrome plated BCGs were already being phased out by 1964 and chrome plated chambers were introduced in 1968. So, you're just a *tad* bit incorrect.
    Weapon was first in use in 1959. 1959 is before 1964.

    Back to my question. What experiences do you have, or technical information do you have, on the difference between Chrome, Ni3B, Robar or Melonite?
    Last edited by MichaelZWilliamson; 01-25-11 at 14:15.

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •