I’m enjoying this thread I started. I’m learning a lot and we got the root cause of my KB. BCL also admitted to the root cause and I’m suppose to get a new free replacement rifle next week. For all BCL 102 owners I hope BCL is wrong that this can happen with normal use. I mean FFS, do you have to constantly check alignment as you have normal use?
BCL 102 catastrophic failure
- Thread starter slash547
- Start date
You don't want to stick your barrel in a common steel jaw vice unless you want to ruin it.
A barrel vice is not that common to a home builder, it's a specialized tool. Barrel vice blocks are available, but usually only fit one specific profile. Most folks have just made due with a decent upper receiver block for barrel and muzzle device install. 5.56 crush washers are not that hard to crush/time. 308 ones are tougher though.
The 102 is supposed to be 6061, but who knows what it really is or how well it's heat treated. NEA couldn't figure out how to nitride parts properly in 10 years so anything they claim is pretty suspect.
Just so we are clear, I fully inspected my rifle upon receiving it and the barrel was not out of alignment. It happened on I’m guessing the first shot because it functioned correctly just once. The second round didn’t feed properly. I cleared it and tried again. Fed fired and stove piped. Fourth round fired and ejected, fifth round is when mine locked up partially closed. I had to pound it open with a squib rod with the live round in it. I actually put the rod in it and bashed the whole thing into a fence post incase the round went off. So I’m 95% positive it happened during use on mine and I’m sure it did with Slash’s as well or he’d have been lucky to get 5 shots off, not 25. And no I never touched my muzzle device or barrel. I put a magpul stock and grip on it is all.
BCL sent me a new rifle and it looks to have had quite a few rounds through it already. Pretty heavy brass marks on thee bottom of the bolt, brass ring on the bolt face and lots of fouling.
BCL sent me a new rifle and it looks to have had quite a few rounds through it already. Pretty heavy brass marks on thee bottom of the bolt, brass ring on the bolt face and lots of fouling.
No doubt it was thoroughly test fired to insure that it was working smoothly.
OK, these barrels are secured with an outer sleeve which threads onto the upper receiver, and an inner collar which threads into this sleeve and tightens against the barrel extension shoulder, holding the barrel in place. I wonder if these collars are uniformly tightened. This assembly system replaces the conventional AR barrel nut.
I do not know what alloy is used in these rifles. 6061 is often used in some ARs. Heat treated 7075 is used in some premium ARs. It would require material testing equipment to determine what these uppers are made from. A web search will reveal the properties of these alloys.
And BCL is not NEA. It is a successor company, but isn't simply a rebranded NEA.
Last edited:
6061 is not uncommon in an AR receiver set but I'm pretty sure it's usually surface hardened not just Cerekote'd. Perhaps that's all that was needed to be able push the index pin through the threaded section of the receiver barrel socket.
Funny that when BCL started they didn't say anything about being a completely new company, this just came out in the last couple months.
They can say whatever they want to try to distance themselves from the terrible reputation NEA had but it doesn't really matter since they are building a completely new terrible reputation for themselves.
At least NEA had a reputation for having outstanding customer service. BCL has gone a different direction and I've read a few people post that the service is nearly non existent and that they have had to chase after them for months to get an update on their warranty claim.
People just need to stop buying anything that says NEA or BCL on the side. There have simply been way too many negative reports regarding quality and reliability.
Last edited:
With a typical barrel nut - either the original or aftermarket float tubes - it is spun on and the barrel is torqued.
The gas tub goes on and slots - usually through a hole in the barrel nut and prevents further torquing or un-torquing of the barrel.
The NEA/BCL barrel nut on the BCL-102 doesn't have this interaction. The nut can spin on and wrenched on with no alignment requirement for the gas tube.
As mentioned, it is a 'jamb nut' and does not thread onto the receiver threads, but rather threads into the fore-grip 'sleeve'.
The fore-grip sleeve threads onto the receiver threads and 'bridges' the interaction of the receiver and barrel nut.
The index pin is flush with the bottom of the threads on the receiver, as are most index pins - so no surprises there.
While I suppose it is plausible that bullets traveling down the bore would impart some rotational force on the barrel jamb nut and receiver, that is a ridiculous hypothesis considering the OP fired 60 rounds total from the rifle.
I think based on the information gathered it is most likely that the barrel was way over-torqued from the manufacturing/assembly process in the first place.
The gas tub goes on and slots - usually through a hole in the barrel nut and prevents further torquing or un-torquing of the barrel.
The NEA/BCL barrel nut on the BCL-102 doesn't have this interaction. The nut can spin on and wrenched on with no alignment requirement for the gas tube.
As mentioned, it is a 'jamb nut' and does not thread onto the receiver threads, but rather threads into the fore-grip 'sleeve'.
The fore-grip sleeve threads onto the receiver threads and 'bridges' the interaction of the receiver and barrel nut.
The index pin is flush with the bottom of the threads on the receiver, as are most index pins - so no surprises there.
While I suppose it is plausible that bullets traveling down the bore would impart some rotational force on the barrel jamb nut and receiver, that is a ridiculous hypothesis considering the OP fired 60 rounds total from the rifle.
I think based on the information gathered it is most likely that the barrel was way over-torqued from the manufacturing/assembly process in the first place.
You can make barrel vise blocks for your vise out of a couple pieces of wood. Not the fanciest but it works. Definitely a lot better than holding the upper receiver when installing the barrel nut or muzzle device.
I use a reaction rod, I don't trust the take down pin holes in the receiver with that torque and I don't like the upper receiver clamps since they don't usually fit over billet uppers properly.
I realize the standard is to secure the receiver when torquing the barrel nut but it's not the only way that works.
- Location
- Red Deer, Alberta
You don't heat treat aluminum technically, you temper it. A part like a billet upper made from aluminum is machined at the full hardness (or temper) of the metal. 6061-T6 is what I believe the BCL102 is made from. The T6 at the end of a aluminum specification refers to the Temper specification. T-0 is zero temper and is full soft, T-4 is artificially aged to be a bit harder and have a higher tensile strength. T-6 temper is the most common 6061 aluminum you will fine in the machining industry.
I had a raw aluminum BCL 102 receiver set I purchased before the Stag 10's came out. It seemed a bit soft for 6061-T6. And definitely much softer than 7075-T6 that I'm used to machining.
It seems with the BCL 102 you have the perfect firestorm of problems potentially stacking up that the end result can be a barrel not indexed properly
Softer 6061 aluminum (instead of 7075)
No anodizing to induce surface hardness (ceracoat doesn't surface harden aluminum like anodizing does)
a bad barrel nut design
potentially used the wrong method for muzzle device installation
And the lack of quality / quality control NEA/BCL is famous for
- Location
- Red Deer, Alberta
So you'd rather trust the surface bearing area of a tiny 1/8" steel pin in a barrel extension rather than the two 0.277" pins in a upper receiver vise block? that doesn't make sense.
I do know one current & one former CF armourer who have taken apart & assembled hundreds of Diemaco / Colt Canada uppers using a Geissele reaction rod and have never had a issue. So while this is generally an accepted way to do it, it is not necessarily the best way.
You are correct that a upper vise block is the correct way to torque a barrel nut. I use clam shell upper reciever vice block for milspec AR15's. For billet uppers I now use the new Wheeler engineering upper receiver vise block that clamps on the top picatiny rail. Works on any flat top picatiny rail upper regardless of the takedown / pivot pin locations or receiver dimensions. They are $38 USD at brownells. I use the Geissele reaction rod for installing muzzle brakes, gas blocks and handguards once the barrel nut is torqued.
Last edited:
I don't think the index pin takes all the torque when using a reaction rod, (in my mind anyway) the reaction rod holds the barrel stationary, the barrel slips into the receiver extension with a lot of bearing surface (sides, base, and the back of the lip the barrel nut presses on. The only force transmitted to the receiver extension or the index pin would be the force from the lip on the barrel extension interacting with the back of the barrel nut. This is less surface area than the barrel to the receiver surface area, which in my mind anyway means that just like how you can tighten a bolt that is going through two pieces of steel without actually holding the head of the bolt and only turning the nut. The friction of the bolt in the hole is greater than the torque created by tightening the nut on the threads so the nut/bolt tighten without holding the bolt head. In the same way I think the barrel nut will be slipping on the barrel extension while it tightens down rather than transmitting that torque to the receiver.
So, I may be wrong but I've never seen any signs of stress around the index pin on the soft aluminum receiver barrel extension (I've built quite a few uppers).
Either way, in my mind both methods are correct in that they both give you a properly torqued barrel nut and after that I leave it up to the assembler to choose whichever they like the best.
I also have one of those Wheeler blocks that can grab the pins or the rail. I'll use it if I can't use my reaction rod, like if I am working on an AR-10 but for the most part I only use that tool to hold the upper in the vise while I assemble the rest of the upper receiver (FA and port door)
When using the clamshell style receiver holder 100% of the torque exerted on the barrel nut is transmitted to the base of the thin threaded section of the receiver barrel socket, that looks like a weak point to me, especially if someone goes to the upper range of the torque specs for the barrel nut in order to get gas tube passage alignment.
Again, I could be completely wrong but I've built a few AR's and have a lot of mechanical experience. So unless someone can show me more evidence than what the 50 year old military armorers manual says I'll continue to successfully assemble my rifles the way I have been for the last few years. If I break something doing it this way I will definitely be posting pics and an explanation to warn others.
Don't rule out that the military doesn't change very quickly, especially if what they're doing is not creating any problems (they're no different than any other business in that regard), maybe the reaction rod is a better way to do it but the military hasn't switched to it because what they're already doing is working just fine. Buying new equipment and amending the armourers manual cost money, hard to justify that on a request when the tools and manual already being used are not creating a problem.
There are better battle rifles out there these days than the 60 year old AR-15 but they still use the AR so that tells you that the military doesn't always use what's best or do things the best way possible.
Last edited:
I was chatting with the Troy rep. At Taccom yesterday looking at the Troy 102 and enquired and was told the receivers are 6061 hardened. He said they chose the softer aluminum so it will crack versus shatter should there be a KB. Hmmmmm
Otherwise he was not sure if the barrel nut had the speed holes in it lol
Otherwise he was not sure if the barrel nut had the speed holes in it lol
There are other manufacturers that use 6061, it's not terrible as long as it get anodized to harden the surface so it doesn't wear as fast. It's plenty strong enough for the forces it has to take when shooting normally.
Using it in case of a KB is a pretty weak excuse to be cheap. The rifle is designed to take a KB and direct it out the magazine well, the rifle may be destroyed during the process but it should direct the forces downward regardless of the material used.
I felt like I knew more about the gun than he did. Some of the answers were pretty shady.
As the OP, I can finally close out this terrible experience with the BCL 102 and this thread My BNIB Stag 10 arrived yesterday from Marstar. The LEV2 Handguard and extra goodies from Arms East “Enhanced version Is impressive. Big thanks to the new Marstar and their John Arcobelli for great communication and timely service.
OP OUT
OP OUT
Barf. "Canada spoke. They listened". Haha...(except for the 6 months when they shut they phones off and ignored us who had major issues)
