BCL102 Range Review, SECOND RANGE TRIP POST 123!!!
- Thread starter Jay
- Start date
Beware wall of text incoming. TLDR: Norinco Ammo is a no go. Lack of consistency rifle to rifle.
A friend and I both received our OD green BCL 102s and hit the range to sight them in. This really is the tale of 2 very different guns. These are 11 serial numbers away from one another in the initial batch. I will call them here on out Gun A and Gun B. I wish I could say they were flawless and but each had their own unique issues as well as common ones.
It is not often that you get 2 seemingly identical products side by side and a chance to see any differences that they present. We both took turns on each others rifle, and the thoughts expressed below are based on our consensus.
Magazines Tested:
Pmag Gen 2
Pmag Gen 3
IWI Mag
XCR Pistol Mag
No issues seemed to be attributable to the magazines. These seemed to be ammo and rifle related.
Ammo Tested:
Norinco Copper washed (Terrible function in both rifles. Short Strokes/ Failure to Eject/ Failure to Feed. This happened at least once per 5 rounds)
MFS Steel cased (Functional but not recommended. Two failures to fire (possible light primer strike) experience in each gun)
Federal M80 Ball (Function was flawless in both rifles)
Hornady 168 BTHP Match (Only tested in Gun A. Repeated failure to feed. Possibly due to HP tip getting caught)
Both guns were thoroughly cleaned in advance of the range trip, and also cleaned and lubed repeatedly over the course of the morning.
Review
Gun A. This arrived damaged. The charging handle was bend and fractured on the left hand side. This prevented the latch from properly functioning. It does not appear this could have happened from the gun being dropped as it is bent uniformly on both the thicker upper and thinner lower leaf. No other signs of damage were visible on the rifle. As such a back-up charging handled needed to be scavenged from an Armalite AR10.
SFRC has been contacted and there is no doubt they will make everything right with the damaged product.
Racking of Gun A felt extremely rough. The sound of the charging handle rubbing inside the upper is quite prominent. We tested taking the charging handle from gun B and putting it in A. This was a problem, Gun A locked up and the action would not move with a “BCL102” charging handle. Once we put back in the loaner, charging resumed as normal but with the continued gritty feel.
Racking of Gun B felt smooth albeit stiff. No feeling of grit, and quite different from gun A.
Buffer of Gun A popped out ~ 50% of the time the upper and lower were separated. No apparent issues with the retainer. No such issues were encountered with Gun B
“QD” hole in the front handguard would not accept a QD sling swivel. It appears the barrel assembly to handgaurd clearance is insufficient to allow the QD to go in and lock. This was also noted by another person previously, but it was confirmed with both Gun A and B.
Trigger of Gun A was what could be expected from a standard milspec trigger. Stiff with some creep. Not overly pleasant, but again what was expected. Trigger is liveable and will not be immediately replaced.
Trigger of Gun B is horrible. Repeatedly we would check to see if the safety was engaged as we could not believe the pull. Inspection of the trigger did not identify any issues. We suspect this may be closer to the average experience thus why so many people have talked about a replacement trigger being a required upgrade.
Accuracy was not tested. Sights that were used ranged from irons, to red dot, to 1-6 variable. The intent was to get zero’d and test function.
Function with the cheapest Norinco copper wash was terrible. We were unable to go for a full 5 round mag in either rifle without some issue presenting. Most seemed to be short stroking. Guns were re-cleaned, re-lubed, and the issues continued. This seems to be at odds with the experience of others on the board. If it was just one of the rifles, it would seem like an isolated issue or a lemon, but it was consistent with both. This is a real shame as many people stocked up on this stuff, and it made affordable plinking ammo in an affordable platform. Total ~150 rounds were fired between the 2 rifles
Function of the MFS steel case was reasonable. The actions cycled as expected, no signs of short stroking or failures to feed or eject. Both rifles had a failure to fire. We did not try and re-strike the rounds in question. Total ~60 rounds were fired between the 2 rifles
Function of the Federal M80 Ball was as expected. The actions cycled as expected, no signs of short stroking or failures to feed or eject. Rifle B had a case bounce back and get turned around in the action however this was the last round of a mag and the action was locked open. It is unclear if this would have caused a jam otherwise. ~ 80 rounds fired between the 2 rifles.
Function of the Hornady 168 gr. BTHP Match was terrible. The first round when charging the rifle would feed, but the second when the action cycled would jam up and fail to feed. This occurred repeatedly in gun A. ~ 10 round attempted.
Conclusion
We want to like these rifles. They seem on paper to be the answer to everything the Canadian market has been asking for. Gun A did appear to have more issues than Gun B, but many of those appear to be driven primarily by ammo. What surprised us is that side by side, both fresh out of the box they could have such a different feel. It might not come across in this range report, but it felt like we were behind different types of rifles as we switched off. At one point we said taking the best parts from each of these could build one stellar rifle, but we do ask how that can be.
Currently we are looking to the after market to solve the various problems each rifle is presenting. Gun A needs a proper charging handle, and ideally a way to run the cheap surplus (adjustable gas block? Tinkering with the buffer weight and spring?) Gun B needs a new trigger in very short order, and again some way to run both the cheap ammo and match grade.
It is frustrating that right beside these, an Armalite AR10 running the same mags & same ammo can function flawlessly and chew through whatever it is fed.
Ultimately we feel that this will be a great base platform being non-restricted, but it will need to be built off of as we find more compatible parts.
A friend and I both received our OD green BCL 102s and hit the range to sight them in. This really is the tale of 2 very different guns. These are 11 serial numbers away from one another in the initial batch. I will call them here on out Gun A and Gun B. I wish I could say they were flawless and but each had their own unique issues as well as common ones.
It is not often that you get 2 seemingly identical products side by side and a chance to see any differences that they present. We both took turns on each others rifle, and the thoughts expressed below are based on our consensus.
Magazines Tested:
Pmag Gen 2
Pmag Gen 3
IWI Mag
XCR Pistol Mag
No issues seemed to be attributable to the magazines. These seemed to be ammo and rifle related.
Ammo Tested:
Norinco Copper washed (Terrible function in both rifles. Short Strokes/ Failure to Eject/ Failure to Feed. This happened at least once per 5 rounds)
MFS Steel cased (Functional but not recommended. Two failures to fire (possible light primer strike) experience in each gun)
Federal M80 Ball (Function was flawless in both rifles)
Hornady 168 BTHP Match (Only tested in Gun A. Repeated failure to feed. Possibly due to HP tip getting caught)
Both guns were thoroughly cleaned in advance of the range trip, and also cleaned and lubed repeatedly over the course of the morning.
Review
Gun A. This arrived damaged. The charging handle was bend and fractured on the left hand side. This prevented the latch from properly functioning. It does not appear this could have happened from the gun being dropped as it is bent uniformly on both the thicker upper and thinner lower leaf. No other signs of damage were visible on the rifle. As such a back-up charging handled needed to be scavenged from an Armalite AR10.
SFRC has been contacted and there is no doubt they will make everything right with the damaged product.
Racking of Gun A felt extremely rough. The sound of the charging handle rubbing inside the upper is quite prominent. We tested taking the charging handle from gun B and putting it in A. This was a problem, Gun A locked up and the action would not move with a “BCL102” charging handle. Once we put back in the loaner, charging resumed as normal but with the continued gritty feel.
Racking of Gun B felt smooth albeit stiff. No feeling of grit, and quite different from gun A.
Buffer of Gun A popped out ~ 50% of the time the upper and lower were separated. No apparent issues with the retainer. No such issues were encountered with Gun B
“QD” hole in the front handguard would not accept a QD sling swivel. It appears the barrel assembly to handgaurd clearance is insufficient to allow the QD to go in and lock. This was also noted by another person previously, but it was confirmed with both Gun A and B.
Trigger of Gun A was what could be expected from a standard milspec trigger. Stiff with some creep. Not overly pleasant, but again what was expected. Trigger is liveable and will not be immediately replaced.
Trigger of Gun B is horrible. Repeatedly we would check to see if the safety was engaged as we could not believe the pull. Inspection of the trigger did not identify any issues. We suspect this may be closer to the average experience thus why so many people have talked about a replacement trigger being a required upgrade.
Accuracy was not tested. Sights that were used ranged from irons, to red dot, to 1-6 variable. The intent was to get zero’d and test function.
Function with the cheapest Norinco copper wash was terrible. We were unable to go for a full 5 round mag in either rifle without some issue presenting. Most seemed to be short stroking. Guns were re-cleaned, re-lubed, and the issues continued. This seems to be at odds with the experience of others on the board. If it was just one of the rifles, it would seem like an isolated issue or a lemon, but it was consistent with both. This is a real shame as many people stocked up on this stuff, and it made affordable plinking ammo in an affordable platform. Total ~150 rounds were fired between the 2 rifles
Function of the MFS steel case was reasonable. The actions cycled as expected, no signs of short stroking or failures to feed or eject. Both rifles had a failure to fire. We did not try and re-strike the rounds in question. Total ~60 rounds were fired between the 2 rifles
Function of the Federal M80 Ball was as expected. The actions cycled as expected, no signs of short stroking or failures to feed or eject. Rifle B had a case bounce back and get turned around in the action however this was the last round of a mag and the action was locked open. It is unclear if this would have caused a jam otherwise. ~ 80 rounds fired between the 2 rifles.
Function of the Hornady 168 gr. BTHP Match was terrible. The first round when charging the rifle would feed, but the second when the action cycled would jam up and fail to feed. This occurred repeatedly in gun A. ~ 10 round attempted.
Conclusion
We want to like these rifles. They seem on paper to be the answer to everything the Canadian market has been asking for. Gun A did appear to have more issues than Gun B, but many of those appear to be driven primarily by ammo. What surprised us is that side by side, both fresh out of the box they could have such a different feel. It might not come across in this range report, but it felt like we were behind different types of rifles as we switched off. At one point we said taking the best parts from each of these could build one stellar rifle, but we do ask how that can be.
Currently we are looking to the after market to solve the various problems each rifle is presenting. Gun A needs a proper charging handle, and ideally a way to run the cheap surplus (adjustable gas block? Tinkering with the buffer weight and spring?) Gun B needs a new trigger in very short order, and again some way to run both the cheap ammo and match grade.
It is frustrating that right beside these, an Armalite AR10 running the same mags & same ammo can function flawlessly and chew through whatever it is fed.
Ultimately we feel that this will be a great base platform being non-restricted, but it will need to be built off of as we find more compatible parts.
Generally speaking, steel cased ammunition is more likely to have extraction issues than brass cased ammunition.
Given the demand, there was pressure to get product out the door.
I really hope that this BCL product has not been NEA'd.
Given the demand, there was pressure to get product out the door.
I really hope that this BCL product has not been NEA'd.
Not to defend NEA/BCL cuz I'm a long time 'hater' ( and the range report of Gun A and Gun B doesn't help), but i know quite a few people having problems with Norinco copper washed 7.62x39 and .308 ammo recently. (In SKS and AR10 rifles that run fine with brass cased). Most of these guns used to run fine with it but literally out of the blue just stopped working with it.
Agreed. I have no issues with a firearm 'not liking' certain ammo, but it's gotta run AND print decent groups with ammo it does like... My BCL102 would be an example of this, as per my 3 range reviews.
That being said, the other issues Rank notes do concern me & I really want to hear back from him once they correct them.
Cheers
Jay
Steel cartridge cases have coatings. Sometimes the coating can build up in the chamber, which contributes to extraction issues. Some designs have little or no primary extraction and depend on a strong extractor bite and brute force to extract cases.
During WW2, Evansville Chrysler (EC headstamp) made a vast amount of steel cased. 30 carbine, .30-06 and .45ACP ammunition. The ammunition was not to be shipped overseas for combat use.
Jay's rifle ran like a top. Sure hope it isn't the exception.
Back in the day, when genuine AR-10s could be had and used, the things were not ammunition sensitive.
During WW2, Evansville Chrysler (EC headstamp) made a vast amount of steel cased. 30 carbine, .30-06 and .45ACP ammunition. The ammunition was not to be shipped overseas for combat use.
Jay's rifle ran like a top. Sure hope it isn't the exception.
Back in the day, when genuine AR-10s could be had and used, the things were not ammunition sensitive.
Just got back from my second outing with mine. Ran flawlessly for the box and a half I put through it. Federal Blue Box 150 and 180 grain, and Federal Premium 165 grain Sierra Game Kings.
My buddy was at the bench beside me, and he made a number of comments about it being very loud.
Shot one 3/4" group at 100 yards, but the rest were 2-3".
Can't wait for my new trigger.
My buddy was at the bench beside me, and he made a number of comments about it being very loud.
Shot one 3/4" group at 100 yards, but the rest were 2-3".
Can't wait for my new trigger.
what ammo was the 3/4" group shot with?
That was the 180 grain Federal.
how many round groups?
