No. Exact upper/lower fitment has the exact same effect as glass bedding a rifle. It increases repeatability of condition from shot to shot. It's objectively beneficial. Which explains the prevalence of the "accu-wedge" and a big market for "matched pair" receiver sets with zero play priced at $600 USD+.
This is completely, utterly, false.
It's been disproven time and time again.
It is in fact so false, that you posting it as to believing it as fact has me doubting the validity of anything you say.
I mean really, 'glass bedding'? This clearly indicates to me you haven't the foggiest idea about the rifles you are comparing.
So, just one more from the top: Early days of US Army marksmanship use of the m-16 in competition(and yes, that goes for the AR-15 and AR-10 too). They tested and re-tested ideas of what worked in the past on previous rifles, including the notion that 'bedding' between receiver and stock (like done on an M-14 or Remington 700) would work on an AR rifle. They went so far as to mig/tig weld receivers together with no discernible differences. Not bubble gum or mag wedges - they physically through the powers of THOR God of Thunder and lightning, fused the two pieces together at the molecular level. This was done, like you know, 40 years ago or something to that effect, so new info it is not.
If you are buying 'matched' sets of receivers, you are no doubt purchasing some fine components with undoubted attention to detail built into them, but if you think for one second they are giving you any increase in accuracy of the platform, well, you are buying snake oil, son.
Again, Anodizing and Cerakoting are completely different operations. They are not "both finishes". Anodizing is a surface alteration, it alters surface aluminum chemistry to oxidize and harden, you dunk the aluminum you want to anodize in an electrolytic solution, and run current through the solution with the aluminum piece as your anode. Anodizing does not "wear off". The color from anodizing WILL wear off if the anodizing isn't sealed properly, because anodizing increases the porosity of the surface. That's how you get colored anodized finishes, just by adding dye to the electrolytic bath. Cerakote is a COATING, a baked on ceramic paint. It's color will not fade as easily, but it can chip and scrape off easier, because it's just paint.
Who cares if their application is by different method? Who cares that they achieve similar performances and have passed testing that matters by different means?
I don't need you to explain to me what anodizing is. It is a coating, it says so in its specification. And yea, that anodized coating does wear off of aluminum (provided wear is induced), and FYI, type III has no color additive to wear out along with the anodized portion of the coating when you see the silvery shiny bits of your AR.
The issue was never of objective quality of any particular rifle. This entire debate is about relative quality of the 102 as compared to the Stag10. The Stag is miles ahead in every measurable aspect of quality, includes more parts, and is $200 cheaper than the 102.
Well, as you say the relative quality is really what this thread is about.
By undercutting the consumer cost of the BCL product, Stag is certainly in the pole position just on price point alone.
However, I argue this notion that it is 'miles ahead' of BCL in terms of measurable quality.
Aside from costs, no one has provided any tangible proof of this disparity between the two.
Stripped receiver costs, advantage goes to Stag. Completed rifle costs, so far from what I see, gives a marginal advantage to BCL.
There is the anecdotal evidence of poor QC from person to person, first bringing, or should I say dredging up, NEA and by association BCL, and then there are some that appear genuine against BCL, although in fareness to BCL there are probably a few 'QC' issues levelled at the guns from users with the level of understanding about their new purchase that think bedding the two receiver halfs makes a difference...
