Nickel Boron BCG moving too fast?

[Vapor]

 

[Mosinitis]

I am not an old man, but old enough to not use memes. Memes are juvenile and idiotic.

 

[Vapor]

 

[Will556]

I am not an old man, but old enough to not use memes. Memes are juvenile and idiotic.

No, what is juvenile is while people are attempting to have an intelligent conversation and pass on some knowledge, you reply with “Longwinded drivel to back up bullshit claims” and “The term us gear queers.” When faced with someone that uses some logic against your beliefs and you have zero information to back up any of your stance in this debate, you automatically default to name calling because you are unable to obtain actual numbers or statistics that defend your argument. The reason you can’t argue it is because you’re wrong and there is not one person worth their two cents that would state that a PSA bcg is on the same level as an LMT or KAC. People that usually buy parts from PSA or an equivalent company and attempt defend it to the end of the earth are really just trying to justify their purchase because they didn’t want to spend the money on something higher quality, just because it’s “Good Enough”! If you’re happy with your parts, that’s fine but don’t give terrible advice and try and tell anyone that there’s no difference between them...cause it’s just irresponsible to pass on such faulty information. If PSA meets “Mil-Spec” standards and are cheaper than the parts that the military currently issues, than why doesn’t the U.S. Government save a ton of money and buy PSA parts since they are equal to what they are running now? “Mil-Spec is Mil-Spec” right?! Not all companies that claim they are Mil-Spec are created equal.

 

[Will556]

 

[FRB]

Would have been an interesting conversation too, I was in for the ride TO LEARN! raw rookie here with AR Platform and I am a monster size sponge absorbing all the know how I can. I cannot believe I waited this long to get interested. Always had confidence in my abilities with my hand to hand defense, but age is catching up and I have a huge family to protect!

So please reconsider men, very interested in the reasoning on both sides.

 

[Mosinitis]

I have no idea what PSA stands for, much less defend it. The value of such debates is out the window, because it will be a contest of egos and the bigger BS artist wins. If I post my qualifications, I will be accused of boasting. Been down that road before. So fuck it, I will just post my 2 cents worth. Take it or leave it.

 

[spat]

Y

You mean high quality BCG’s that aren’t “Mil-Spec” but have superior features than the standard BCG which achieve higher round count’s before failure/breakage, superior metal choices, wear less, have options for better dispersion of gas, better friction coefficients don’t “outperform”?

How many rounds do you shoot that you wear out even a cheap BCG ?

Sometimes "good enough" is the way to go, and "better" is just a waste of money.

 

[Will556]

How many rounds do you shoot that you wear out even a cheap BCG ?

Sometimes "good enough" is the way to go, and "better" is just a waste of money.

The discussion wasn’t if standard Mil-spec bcg’s are bad (I stated numerous times that they are good and definitely work) but that there are options that exceed the Mil-Spec standards and are a better. But then statements were made stating there were no such things as “Outperform” Mil-Spec and that I was “Bull”. I wasn’t having a contest of ego’s. I made my claims and had information to prove it, the same can’t be said for the other side of the argument. With money not being a factor, since almost anything that is higher quality than an another option is going to cost more money. It’s up to the end user to decide if they want to spend more money for the benefits. But to say that there is no such thing that exceeds the Mil-Spec standard is wrong.

 

[spat]

The discussion wasn’t if standard Mil-spec bcg’s are bad (I stated numerous times that they are good and definitely work) but that there are options that exceed the Mil-Spec standards and are a better. But then statements were made stating there were no such things as “Outperform” Mil-Spec and that I was “Bull”. I wasn’t having a contest of ego’s. I made my claims and had information to prove it, the same can’t be said for the other side of the argument. With money not being a factor, since almost anything that is higher quality than an another option is going to cost more money. It’s up to the end user to decide if they want to spend more money for the benefits. But to say that there is no such thing that exceeds the Mil-Spec standard is wrong.

well, obviously with the appropriate definition of "better" you can find something.

The question is better at what ?

You would have to define the goal of the BCG in such a way that there was *room* for "better" than mil spec.

About the only meaningful change I could think would be something lighter than mil-spec? that you would then compensated for by adjusting the buffer parameters to reduce the overall weight of the rifle.

But in my thinking, the BCG is just a component of the rifle. So unless it makes the rifle it's in somehow "better" then it's not a better BCG.

The expensive ones don't increase reliability, or accuracy, or longevity, or any other meaningful performance metric for the rifle, so what good are they ?

 

[Will556]

Let’s just say if there were a bcg that was made out of stronger materials and designed differently than the standard Mil-Spec bcg that it made it less prone to lugs shearing, bolts breaking, more reliable extraction, improves dwell time, still maintains high round counts or even exceeds them AND was the same exact price as any other bcg, would you buy it?

 

[spat]

Let’s just say if there were a bcg that was made out of stronger materials and designed differently than the standard Mil-Spec bcg that it made it less prone to lugs shearing, bolts breaking, more reliable extraction, improves dwell time, still maintains high round counts or even exceeds them AND was the same exact price as any other bcg, would you buy it?

More reliable extraction and dwell time could be a bonus. But the rest of those don't seem like problems I might have that need solving.

If you had an option to upgrade your homeowners insurance to cover meteor strikes, how much would you pay ?

 

[Robin]

Buck a year.
Robin

 

[Calculon]

Let’s just say if there were a bcg that was made out of stronger materials and designed differently than the standard Mil-Spec bcg that it made it less prone to lugs shearing, bolts breaking, more reliable extraction, improves dwell time, still maintains high round counts or even exceeds them AND was the same exact price as any other bcg, would you buy it?

Less prone to failure and more reliable for same price is a clear win.

 

[Will556]

More reliable extraction and dwell time could be a bonus. But the rest of those don't seem like problems I might have that need solving.

If you had an option to upgrade your homeowners insurance to cover meteor strikes, how much would you pay ?

See, you keep going back to cost. My argument has nothing to do with the cost of the item. I strictly asked when given the option of two items at the same cost and one is superior, which would you choose. You already said that more reliable extraction and better dwell time would be a benefit to you. So for you, you would choose what appears to be the superior product. It’s up to the end user to decide if they want to spend the extra money for the better performance no matter how small or large the increased performance is. It’s really only a yes or no question. When given the choice between two options at the same cost, no one is going to choose the inferior product.

 

[spat]

See, you keep going back to cost. My argument has nothing to do with the cost of the item. I strictly asked when given the option of two items at the same cost and one is superior, which would you choose. You already said that more reliable extraction and better dwell time would be a benefit to you. So for you, you would choose what appears to be the superior product. It’s up to the end user to decide if they want to spend the extra money for the better performance no matter how small or large the increased performance is. It’s really only a yes or no question. When given the choice between two options at the same cost, no one is going to choose the inferior product.

That assumes that all things are equal and everyone has the same definition of "better".

That is not the case.

I'll give a good example. We all use USB charging cords. We all know they eventually wear out and have to be replaced because the plugs become unreliable.

You would certainly say a cord made with stronger materials that doesn't break is better, right ?

Well, I don't want that one.

The good ones are specifically designed so that the cord will break before it damages the charging port in the phone when it is being pulled at an off angle.

So you get your plug made out of AR500 steel that lasts forever, and you need to replace the phone every 6 months because you can't charge it anymore.

I'll keep the "inferior" cord that breaks, and get a new one every 6 months, but keep my phone.

The point is that before you can label some product "better" you need to agree what "better" means. What are the down sides of using the "better" BCG (even with cost removed). Sure it won't wear as fast, but does it make some other part of the rifle wear faster as a consequence ?

I'll give you another good example, many times a product will have a gear train with a steel gear running on a plastic or brass one. The softer gear will wear and break much easier. You do not generally want to replace that soft gear with a hard one. It is softer for a reason.

 

[Will556]

That assumes that all things are equal and everyone has the same definition of "better".

That is not the case.

I'll give a good example. We all use USB charging cords. We all know they eventually wear out and have to be replaced because the plugs become unreliable.

You would certainly say a cord made with stronger materials that doesn't break is better, right ?

Well, I don't want that one.

The good ones are specifically designed so that the cord will break before it damages the charging port in the phone when it is being pulled at an off angle.

So you get your plug made out of AR500 steel that lasts forever, and you need to replace the phone every 6 months because you can't charge it anymore.

I'll keep the "inferior" cord that breaks, and get a new one every 6 months, but keep my phone.

The point is that before you can label some product "better" you need to agree what "better" means. What are the down sides of using the "better" BCG (even with cost removed). Sure it won't wear as fast, but does it make some other part of the rifle wear faster as a consequence ?

I'll give you another good example, many times a product will have a gear train with a steel gear running on a plastic or brass one. The softer gear will wear and break much easier. You do not generally want to replace that soft gear with a hard one. It is softer for a reason.

Let’s theoretically say that there are no negatives to the “superior” bcg. There are no reports ever of this superior bcg prematurely wearing any upper receiver, hammer, barrel extension, or any other part that makes contact or interacts with it anymore than a standard version one does but it still maintains all the benifits I stated before, some of which you stated you could see how they would be beneficial to you. Then which is your choice?

 

[spat]

Let’s theoretically say that there are no negatives to the “superior” bcg. There are no reports ever of this superior bcg prematurely wearing any upper receiver, hammer, barrel extension, or any other part that makes contact or interacts with it anymore than a standard version one does. Then which is your choice?

In that example, I would expect the inferior one to not be for sale for long.

Much like you can't buy music on 8 track tape anymore.

If both products are still around, it's because each better fits someone's definition of "better".

 

[Will556]

In that example, I would expect the inferior one to not be for sale for long.

Much like you can't buy music on 8 track tape anymore.

If both products are still around, it's because each better fits someone's definition of "better".

In that case only way the inferior one is “better” for someone would be cost, which we removed that factor. All the possible benefits with no downside. If you can’t agree to that. You’re lying to yourself.

 

[spat]

In that case only way the inferior one is “better” for someone would be cost, which we removed that factor. All the possible benefits with no downside. If you can’t agree to that. You’re lying to yourself.

I agreed that in your example the "better" product is better.

I was just pointing out that in cases where that occurs the inferior product is quickly eliminated from the market and ceases to be an option.

It does happen though. There are plenty of cases where a product has been eliminated because it was made obsolete. Flash drives are superior to floppy disks in every respect. You don't see floppy disks anymore because of that.

The disappear from the market because nobody buys them when there is a completely superior alternative, and since nobody buys them, nobody sells them either.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Reason why lesser AR products are still on the market is because of poor people.

Bear Creek Arsenal is a perfect example.

Hell if you go any .450 bushmaster group on Facebook, a good like 80%ish uppers are from BCA.. and out of all those id say an 80% of the posts are "help my gun has problems with....." and mos to it has to do with gas ports and how inconsistent they are drilled, usually way undersized

BCA complete uppers are like what $75


On the other hand for $300 you can go to Tromix and get a quality barrel and bolt (no carrier) and the chances of having any issues is well I have yet to find anyone who has had an issue with anything from Tromix



Less expensive options don't die out for 2 very specific reasons that go hand in hand.

1st, because poors

2nd poors who give out shit advice (see example from earlier in this thread) and tell people that buying lesser is jUst aS goOd

 

[Will556]

I agreed that in your example the "better" product is better.

I was just pointing out that in cases where that occurs the inferior product is quickly eliminated from the market and ceases to be an option.

It does happen though. There are plenty of cases where a product has been eliminated because it was made obsolete. Flash drives are superior to floppy disks in every respect. You don't see floppy disks anymore because of that.

The disappear from the market because nobody buys them when there is a completely superior alternative, and since nobody buys them, nobody sells them either.

I 100% agree. No one is really making 8-Track tapes anymore because they are completely obsolete. I’m not saying the a standard Mil-Spec bcg is obsolete. The point that was originally made was that there are bcg’s that exceed the “Mil-Spec Standard”, which you’ve already agreed with since you stated that you can see the benefit of some of the features of the superior bcg. Those features you agreed with are not Mil-Spec features.

 

[Mosinitis]

I know what I can expect from a standard BCG. Just because there are claims and hype that something is better doesn't mean it is. It takes experience to know that most of these claims are BS. It's an unknown and it can also cause issues, whether it's quality made or not. For a part that works just fine, what's the point of improving and the risk that comes with it. I pay $450 for top shelf barrels, because they shoote better and longer. I use aftermarket parts only if I have to and they are not without issues.

 

[Robin]

Well it does in a way. Some of these bolts are machined to spec but from my observation were never tumbled leaving the extractors very sharp, tearing up the brass.
Robin

 

[Will556]

I know what I can expect from a standard BCG. Just because there are claims and hype that something is better doesn't mean it is. It takes experience to know that most of these claims are BS. It's an unknown and it can also cause issues, whether it's quality made or not. For a part that works just fine, what's the point of improving and the risk that comes with it. I pay $450 for top shelf barrels, because they shooter better and longer. I use aftermarket parts only if I have to and they are not without issues.

We aren’t talking about hype or an “unknown”. LMT is VERY well known and probably makes some of the nicest rifles out there. You’re proving my point the more you respond. Sure you are ok with parts that work “just fine”, but some people like parts that exceed “just fine”. There is no one who actually cares about quality gun parts that would ever turn down anything made by LMT because they think it’s poorly manufactured or doesn’t live up to their name.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Well it does in a way. Some of these bolts are machined to spec but from my observation were never tumbled leaving the extractors very sharp, tearing up the brass.
Robin

So I have to be a maste reloader to know about machining marks??

 

[Robin]

No, just a heads up smart ass.
Robin

 

[Edwardteach72]

No, just a heads up smart ass.
Robin

Its a serious question, I can only know signs of excessive wear on a case if I reload? Or do we live in a time where I can www.google.com my way to understanding signs of pressure spikes or extractor wear or any other signs of issues caused by well anything.

Or do I have to reload, what would be a good arbitrary number, of rounds to know about tumbling, tool marks, sharp endges??

 

[dwa12479]

Probably it's not the finish, but it's a variable he didn't need to have. One question to OP.
Are you using aftermarket bolt catch or bolt catch extenders?

No, just standard LPK's from various manufacturers.

 

[Shoots100]

Ford Sucks, buy a Chevy !
Since your new at reloading, you shouldn't comment on anything, especially the OP's BCG issues !
How dare you !!!!