Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 104

Thread: Discussion on BCG finishes

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    184
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelZWilliamson View Post
    FZ costs more than $250 now, and I have the right hammer already. I'm not opposed to a treated hammer, but I don't see a real advantage except for the inside of the pivot being treated.
    It's still $250. I got mine from Brownells last week. FZ has them listed directly from them for $250.

    As far as the hammer being needed to be treated as well, I don't have a clue. $25 isn't a huge deal one way or the other. More than anything else I hate the Spikes logo.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    87
    Feedback Score
    0
    $265 FZ vs $225 Spikes. FZ doesn't list the metallurgy though, but I can call and ask. Spikes is spec steel. I'd want at least milspec steel, and there isn't much tougher than the Carpenter 158.

    I should have those heat treat specs in a day or so, and will be able to tell if Melonite treatment will affect the temper.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    184
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelZWilliamson View Post
    $265 FZ vs $225 Spikes. FZ doesn't list the metallurgy though, but I can call and ask. Spikes is spec steel. I'd want at least milspec steel, and there isn't much tougher than the Carpenter 158.

    I should have those heat treat specs in a day or so, and will be able to tell if Melonite treatment will affect the temper.
    I'm not trying to get into a pissing match but, link

    I've yet to hear of a problem with a FZ bolt or carrier. It's been said they are CMT BCG's but I don't know if they've said that for fact.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    87
    Feedback Score
    0
    Ah. Cheaper than the FZ site, and I get a discount at Brownell's. Thanks for the lead.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NW orygun
    Posts
    57
    Feedback Score
    0
    This is from the current ARMY TM 9-1005-319-23&P

    NOTE
    There are bolts and bolt carriers on fielded rifles, some with chrome-plated exterior surface finishes
    and some with phosphate coating Both finishes are acceptable under certain operational requirements
    and or restrictions Phosphate-coated bolt carriers are required for divisional combat units Chrome
    plated bolt carriers are acceptable for divisional noncombat units and training center units. Chromeplated
    and phosphate-coated bolt assemblies, bolt carrier assemblies, and repair parts for these
    assemblies may be intermixed In any combination, with the following exception:
    Phosphate-coated bolt carriers are required for all deployable and deploying units Chrome-plated bolt
    carriers are acceptable for nondeployable and training center units.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    87
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by madcratebuilder View Post
    Phosphate-coated bolt carriers are required for all deployable and deploying units Chrome-plated bolt
    carriers are acceptable for nondeployable and training center units.

    As I noted in another thread, this has nothing to do with function, and is strictly a cosmetic issue because "chrome is shiny." They're afraid it will show up when it's illuminated by muzzle flash or some crap.

    Notice they don't consider the bolt a problem if chromed, just the carrier.

    This is why when you design a weapon, you give the infantrymen sticks and send them out to whack snakes while the engineers do the work. Every time the Army has stuck its dick in the M16, they've ****ed it up worse.

    This matches the pattern of problems with the M14, Garand and previous weapons.

    Just because it's milspec does not make it smart. In fact, usually the opposite.

    I believe Kuleck noted in one of his books that the Army keeps insisting the M16 will be replaced "within a couple of years" and refusing to accept Colt, FN and other proposals for upgrades as "Wasted money."

    Sorry, but with respect, after 25 years in service, "The manual says so" means dick to me. The manual was usually written by ****stick.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    cincinnati
    Posts
    296
    Feedback Score
    6 (88%)
    Quote Originally Posted by boomhower View Post
    My $.02

    I am new to these things but I went with a FailZero BCG. I am in LE and it was worth the extra cash for just a little more piece of mind it will go bang when I need it to.

    Couple of things:
    All current FZ kits have FA carriers. I ordered a semi kit from brownells expecting a semi carrier and hammer. It came with a FA carrier. I contacted FZ for clarification and they verified all current kits going out are FA carriers due to customer demand.

    Spike isn't really any cheaper. FZ charges $250 and Spikes charges $225. But Spikes doesn't include a hammer. Then you need to spend $22 for a FZ hammer or $60 for Spikes battle trigger kit.
    spikes does come with the coated hammer for 225.00
    i bought one from aim and in the tube with the bcg was the coated hammer

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    910
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Just read on this site that many FZ employees have quit or been let go. Is FailZero in trouble?
    Have Fun, Be Safe

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    333
    Feedback Score
    0
    link?

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    910
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •