If someone has the stocks to loan me to measure up, I could probably make something happen.
B&T APC Range report, comparisons and groups
- Thread starter mikethebike
- Start date
If someone has the stocks to loan me to measure up, I could probably make something happen.
Personally, I think that a snap-on plastic riser for the standard buttstock (akin to.the SAN version) would resolve the comb-height issue for most users. This would provide the necessary flexibility to add magnified optics should one desire. The fixed LOP is probably fine for the majority of users, especially since most are casual shooters and won't be running armour.
From what I've been able to ascertain since receiving the "enhanced" adjustable buttstock from Wolverine yesterday, it may not address the comb-height issue, nor the short LOP for large-statured owners. Overall the stock is quite a disappointment; it is very heavy and "clunky" for what it is and does. The snap-on riser is quite low and only raises the comb 1/2". More height would be preferable, say 1" total to accommodate a variable-magnification optic. The LOP is likely no longer than the basic buttstock. I say likely because I don't yet have a rifle with a basic stock to compare it to. That will change early next week, but what I can tell you now is that fully extended, the adjustable stock is no longer than a G36K buttstock that I happen to have lying around. Furthermore, the LOP only adjusts by 1 1/2" total. You read that right - there are only 2 adjustment stops of 3/4" each that the enhanced stock slides in or out. It is so little as to be practically irrelevant - nothing like the length of adjustment on an AR stock. All things considered (weight, limited adjustment), I can no longer justify $500 for an optional buttstock that doesn't fully address the issues associated with the basic stock. Unfortunately, it will have to go back to Wolverine. If B&T come up with taller riser options and a system for lengthening the extended LOP, then maybe I would reconsider. Sorry, no pics right now was I am reroute to Calgary for the gun show.
For now it is back to the drawing board. Until someone comes up with a snap-on riser I reckon I can either be content with a low-mount T1 as envisioned by B&T, or I can get creative. Options range from a strap-on padded cheekrest to something more permanent. I'm thinking a couple of holes through the top of the stock, then use screws from underneath to attach a riser fabricated from hard rubber, carved wood, or whatever. The simpler the better....
Anyhow those are my current thoughts regarding the APC223 buttstock issue. I can't recommend the adjustable buttstock in its current iteration, which leaves us with a home-grown solution until such time as B&T see fit to produce a snap-on plastic cheek riser for the standard stock. For the sake of a couple of small holes through the top strut of the stock, I'm not going to wait around. Wile E. Coyote School of Gunsmithing, here I come! Just as soon as I get my carbine, put together the MDT ESS precision rifle chassis that arrived today, take out the garbage and otherwise " clear the bench" for another new project....
From what I've been able to ascertain since receiving the "enhanced" adjustable buttstock from Wolverine yesterday, it may not address the comb-height issue, nor the short LOP for large-statured owners. Overall the stock is quite a disappointment; it is very heavy and "clunky" for what it is and does. The snap-on riser is quite low and only raises the comb 1/2". More height would be preferable, say 1" total to accommodate a variable-magnification optic. The LOP is likely no longer than the basic buttstock. I say likely because I don't yet have a rifle with a basic stock to compare it to. That will change early next week, but what I can tell you now is that fully extended, the adjustable stock is no longer than a G36K buttstock that I happen to have lying around. Furthermore, the LOP only adjusts by 1 1/2" total. You read that right - there are only 2 adjustment stops of 3/4" each that the enhanced stock slides in or out. It is so little as to be practically irrelevant - nothing like the length of adjustment on an AR stock. All things considered (weight, limited adjustment), I can no longer justify $500 for an optional buttstock that doesn't fully address the issues associated with the basic stock. Unfortunately, it will have to go back to Wolverine. If B&T come up with taller riser options and a system for lengthening the extended LOP, then maybe I would reconsider. Sorry, no pics right now was I am reroute to Calgary for the gun show.
For now it is back to the drawing board. Until someone comes up with a snap-on riser I reckon I can either be content with a low-mount T1 as envisioned by B&T, or I can get creative. Options range from a strap-on padded cheekrest to something more permanent. I'm thinking a couple of holes through the top of the stock, then use screws from underneath to attach a riser fabricated from hard rubber, carved wood, or whatever. The simpler the better....
Anyhow those are my current thoughts regarding the APC223 buttstock issue. I can't recommend the adjustable buttstock in its current iteration, which leaves us with a home-grown solution until such time as B&T see fit to produce a snap-on plastic cheek riser for the standard stock. For the sake of a couple of small holes through the top strut of the stock, I'm not going to wait around. Wile E. Coyote School of Gunsmithing, here I come! Just as soon as I get my carbine, put together the MDT ESS precision rifle chassis that arrived today, take out the garbage and otherwise " clear the bench" for another new project....
Last edited:
Because the OP put an actual scope on the gun, whereas the APC was originally designed as a police carbine with something like an Aimpoint Micro on a low mount.
ok yes i have an aimpoint t2 for this rifle:
well yah, but hard to do groups with my t2
people were like bro we want to see groups, so groups are what I went on a quest for
cant do groups without a scope
but yes the t2 is going back on this rifle till we fix the stock issue
about .25 moa better than my dlask ACR, but the ACR has a geiselle the APC does not, the ACR has a perfect cheek weld the APC does not, so these groups given those factors are pretty good.
yes i used the same scope on both
What i dont get is the length of pull, jesus its so short, i know i have to scooch my face forward but still it is too short, i need two inches more, my firing hand is all scrunched up, feels really weird, unnatural. Maybe i can put a big pad on it or something.
Maybe Rami can cook up something.
Last edited:
The SAN one almost fits, it does stay on but the front half is loose, but it feels surprisingly good despite looking a little oversized.
If a chunk of Swiss cheese that wasn't made for it almost works and feels good, I'm pretty sure someone can cook up a lump of Canadian bacon that works and looks good.
If a chunk of Swiss cheese that wasn't made for it almost works and feels good, I'm pretty sure someone can cook up a lump of Canadian bacon that works and looks good.
Mr Wolverine
CGN Regular
- Location
- Manitoba. Canada
Thanks Mark for your assessment, it confirms what I have already sent to B&T a few days ago. We need a stock with at least an extra 1/2 inch rise on the comb of the folding/retractable stock and at least a 2 inch increase in the LOP, I have already requested this.
Thanks John, for your continued objectivity in assessing the identified shortcomings of the APC223 platform as currently configured. It would be easiest for an importer to simply say "like it or leave it", rather than work with the customer base to determine needs and with the manufacturer to effect those changes. Kudos to you for parking your ego and taking the path less travelled as it were. Hopefully your efforts will eventually be rewarded so that we can all benefit - B&T included, with an improved product and Increased sales.
Notwithstanding the current issues with the polymer retractable/folding stock, have you had any decent hands-on with B&T's steel, retractable "PDW" stock? I held and shouldered it briefly at SHOT, but can't recall how it stacked up in terms of LOP. I know the comb height is equally low with the steel stock, but I'm not so concerned about that with the short-barrel carbine in the close range role, as a low-mount RDS is well-suited to that particular task. Do you have any of the steel PDW stocks on hand? Or are they special order only? They look terribly ###y (to me), but are they at all practical for their intended role? Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide regarding those steel buttstocks.
Cheers,
Notwithstanding the current issues with the polymer retractable/folding stock, have you had any decent hands-on with B&T's steel, retractable "PDW" stock? I held and shouldered it briefly at SHOT, but can't recall how it stacked up in terms of LOP. I know the comb height is equally low with the steel stock, but I'm not so concerned about that with the short-barrel carbine in the close range role, as a low-mount RDS is well-suited to that particular task. Do you have any of the steel PDW stocks on hand? Or are they special order only? They look terribly ###y (to me), but are they at all practical for their intended role? Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide regarding those steel buttstocks.
Cheers,
mebiuspower
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Morontario
Well if a $4k rifle doesn't shoot 1moa or better I'd be floored.
But that picture of the unfinished bolt face made rounds on the internet. In fact some people thought it's a Norinco!
Last edited:
Really? What does retail cost have to do with a firearm's accuracy potential? At the end of the day, the B&T Swiss pricing notwithstanding, we are talking about a new design of piston-driven police carbine. Is 1 MOA a realistic expectation? While I agree that a $4k DI AR ought to group under 1 MOA based on the inherent accuracy potential of the platform and North American retail pricing for that domestic product, the APC223 is an expensive import from a first-world country renowned for high labour costs and resultant pricey export items. But relative high cost doesn't in and of itself guarantee that the APC platform is capable of 1 MOA or better. It is down to the manufacturer to determine and advertise the system's accuracy potential based on developmental testing. Personally, I'd be content with anything under 2 MOA from the APC or any other carbine intended for the same role. My $4k buys me more than just accuracy. It also pays for reliability and durability, precision engineering (including product testing) and top-notch ISO quality control. Accuracy is just one facet of a firearm's worth IMO.
As for the machining marks on the bolt face, those ARE unacceptable on a $4k Swiss rifle. Those marks run counter to the entire concept of Swiss precision manufacture and I would expect better for my money.
Well the factors I listed are what matters to me, accuracy is one of the factors.
Could it shoot 1moa and under consistently, as in 5 groups of 5 shots out of 5 groups under 1moa on the same paper? I think so with the right ammo if the ergos are fixed.
It's close enough already.
I think accuracy is actually the one thing this rifle is good at. The weight & the stock & the trigger are what I believe represent this platform's downfall with much better other NR platforms to choose from that already have the aftermarket products to fix those issues.
Weight not much can be done, unless Rami builds us a new light weight handguard.
Stock we need to fix that crap, it is one of the most horrible stocks I own.
Trigger we need to fix that crap, not great trigger at least not in my opinion.
The heat treatment on the carrier and the tool marks on the bolt face, yes disapointing for the price I agree, but it doesnt matter to the rifle functionning (it seems).
Could it shoot 1moa and under consistently, as in 5 groups of 5 shots out of 5 groups under 1moa on the same paper? I think so with the right ammo if the ergos are fixed.
It's close enough already.
I think accuracy is actually the one thing this rifle is good at. The weight & the stock & the trigger are what I believe represent this platform's downfall with much better other NR platforms to choose from that already have the aftermarket products to fix those issues.
Weight not much can be done, unless Rami builds us a new light weight handguard.
Stock we need to fix that crap, it is one of the most horrible stocks I own.
Trigger we need to fix that crap, not great trigger at least not in my opinion.
The heat treatment on the carrier and the tool marks on the bolt face, yes disapointing for the price I agree, but it doesnt matter to the rifle functionning (it seems).
Last edited:
PaveHammer
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Kingston, ON
Blanchard grinding is not an unfinished surface, and can be as flat and accurately machined as precision machined surfaces, if not more so depending on how it's finished.
It's akin to jeweling on a bolt body. That's not an unfinished or rough surface.
I think the point of expecting a certain accuracy potential for x amount of dollars is the fact where the firearms industry is in this day and age of manufacturing.
Good barrels, and I mean exceptionally good barrels capable of very good mechanical accuracy on a service rifle that were being mass produced used to be the exception and not the norm. With quality barrels installed in rifles such as LMT, Colt Canada, H&K, Swiss Arms, etc., the bar has been raised considerably.
When you combine that with advances in ammunition - from reducing tolerances and inconsistancies with bullet manufacturing, powders, primers, brass, etc. There really is no good reason for a rifle to come new from a factory that meets a bare minimum serviceability accuracy threshold.
I understand why a military would set that bar quite low - the guns in training are beat to sh!t, ran with blanks, over cleaned, used for field training and drilled with to such extent that isn't conducive to retaining the accuracy potential it had or could have from purely using it to shoot with.
Good barrels, and I mean exceptionally good barrels capable of very good mechanical accuracy on a service rifle that were being mass produced used to be the exception and not the norm. With quality barrels installed in rifles such as LMT, Colt Canada, H&K, Swiss Arms, etc., the bar has been raised considerably.
When you combine that with advances in ammunition - from reducing tolerances and inconsistancies with bullet manufacturing, powders, primers, brass, etc. There really is no good reason for a rifle to come new from a factory that meets a bare minimum serviceability accuracy threshold.
I understand why a military would set that bar quite low - the guns in training are beat to sh!t, ran with blanks, over cleaned, used for field training and drilled with to such extent that isn't conducive to retaining the accuracy potential it had or could have from purely using it to shoot with.
So I ran 200 rounds of Green tips thru my APC today. No one single malfunction. Than the guy who bought it off me tried to run some federal soft point , the 2nd round had a FTE and 3rd round had a FTF. So we proceeded to run green tips and live happily ever after...lol...
Don't know why it didnt like that particular box of soft points, But she ran everything else.
I must say its a super fun rifle to shoot. Recoil impulse is nicer than the X95 and ACR and also seem to stay on target better.
Don't know why it didnt like that particular box of soft points, But she ran everything else.
I must say its a super fun rifle to shoot. Recoil impulse is nicer than the X95 and ACR and also seem to stay on target better.
ok yes, but the accuracy is quite good on this rifle, way better than minimum serviceability, and better than my swiss! 1.366 inches at 100 meters, that means 1.23moa
