Troy 102 !! EXCLUSIVE PHOTOS !!

[Scotty454]

Thanks for the clarification. So it is infact a rebranded NEA.

No. Re-branded means manufactured by a company, then branded by a different company that didn't manufacture it.

From what I gather (From this thread, correct me if I'm wrong), this firearm is being manufactured by Troy, and branded Troy. So not rebranded. It is fairly common knowledge that NEA/BCL has occasional quality control issues, not necessarily design issues. If a company with tighter quality standards manufactured BCL firearms, you could assume they would be much more functional firearms.

[josh1976]

Cool. I hope so. Thanks.

I do wonder though. Why, early-on, were any and all suggested affiliations shot down as rumour or tinfoil hat nonsense.

That's my question. Did TSE simply not know the details of what they were selling at 1st, or intentionaly avoid disclosing some facts.

[Scotty454]

Cool. I hope so. Thanks.

I do wonder though. Why, early-on, were any and all suggested affiliations shot down as rumour or tinfoil hat nonsense.

That's my question. Did TSE simply not know the details of what they were selling at 1st, or intentionaly avoid disclosing some facts.

Lol does attempting to avoid any association with BCL seem surprising?

[josh1976]

Lol does attempting to avoid any association with BCL seem surprising?

No. But it was wrong if they knew about the FRT, and blanket denied ANY association when directly asked.

[RAConnol]

Thanks. So since the FRT says "NEA" and the "NEA blueprint" is used, then it would seem to me that we infact have a rebranded NEA.

Something that was adamantly denied originaly by the importer (as quoted).

Good greif, the FRT is a legal document that Troy used as a starting point and then Troy clearly made many changes in the actual rifle.

Here is my, rather nicely put together, and well shooting BCL 102.
Note the following changes from the Troy 102:
All the furnature is different, but nobody cares.

Gone is the BCL Ambi bolt release, and the trigger guards also changed, so the lower is different.
The upper is similar but again different, notice the different lines.
The handguards are very different.
The barrel is completely different.

Most importantly, but not shown clearly is the that BCG is very different in who makes it.
It was the BCG and extractor issues that gave most people issues with their BCL 102.
I was lucky enough not to have any issues with my BCG.

So while both rifles follow similar AR10 patterns, claiming a Tory is a BCL is, in my mind, like claiming a Norinco AR15 is the same rifle and my Colt Canada MMR.
With no disrespect to BCL as they have given me no reason for complaining. The fit, finish, and tolerances of my BCL 102 upper, lower, and handguard are spot on, and on par with my CC MMR.

[josh1976]

Good greif, the FRT is a legal document that Troy used as a starting point

Fair enough. I understand. So, early on, why did both retailers/importers fail to disclose this relationship when asked?

[RAConnol]

Fair enough. I understand. So, early on, why did both retailers/importers fail to disclose this relationship when asked?

My understanding is that they did, and are, well before the rifles have shipped.
What I understand is the ongoing issue, is that some would have preferred to hear about Troy buying/licencing BCL AR10 pattern earlier.
That would be a business decision I cannot speak to. Perhaps they wanted the finished product to speak for themselves, however, only Tory can answer that question.

Regardless, I looking forward to someone picking up one of these in the Victoria Area so we can get the two rifles together for some hands-on comparison time at the range.
Or I could go to Calgary to visit family and bring my 102

Rick

[King0265]

Fair enough. I understand. So, early on, why did both retailers/importers fail to disclose this relationship when asked?

[jiffx2781]

Good greif, the FRT is a legal document that Troy used as a starting point and then Troy clearly made many changes in the actual rifle.

Here is my, rather nicely put together, and well shooting BCL 102.
Note the following changes from the Troy 102:
All the furnature is different, but nobody cares.

Gone is the BCL Ambi bolt release, and the trigger guards also changed, so the lower is different.
The upper is similar but again different, notice the different lines.
The handguards are very different.
The barrel is completely different.

Most importantly, but not shown clearly is the that BCG is very different in who makes it.
It was the BCG and extractor issues that gave most people issues with their BCL 102.
I was lucky enough not to have any issues with my BCG.

So while both rifles follow similar AR10 patterns, claiming a Tory is a BCL is, in my mind, like claiming a Norinco AR15 is the same rifle and my Colt Canada MMR.
With no disrespect to BCL as they have given me no reason for complaining. The fit, finish, and tolerances of my BCL 102 upper, lower, and handguard are spot on, and on par with my CC MMR.

There are more differences between your BCL 102 and the Troy 102 because the Troy isn't modeled after your generation of the BCL. The Troy is modeled after the Gen 1 BCL, the original generation before BCL #%@&ed it up with all the proprietary handguard/receiver fitment machining.



^^^ Gen 1 BCL. Now do the two look more familiar.

[Scotty454]

Hm. Seeing them side by side like that, they are very obviously different designs.

The magwell shape is totally different, the raised boss around the rear takedown pin on the Troy is different, the trigger guard on the Troy is solid whereas on the BCL is it is replaceable, the Troy doesn't have the mag release insert like the BCL does, the shape of the cutout for the bolt release on the upper is different, etc. If they did use the same designs, they modified it significantly (At least from an aesthetic perspective)