troutseeker
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Prince George, BC
Mine just doesn’t like Cross mags. But wow, that is a lot of tacticool gear in that video! 
BCL Siberian 1000 round range session - awful results
- Thread starter Bratwurst
- Start date
I feel I should add my experience as well.
I, for one, really appreciate people making an effort to test Canadian 180s beyond what manufacturers seem to be willing to do. If a few guys can do a test like this independently and discover failures and what are, fundamentally, design failures, why couldn’t BCL? As a Siberian owner, why could I find design/manufacturing missteps within my first 100 rounds? I don’t regret buying the Siberian, as much as it sounds like I “should”. But there are definitely design flaws, yes. There’s things that definitely need resolving, and things that honestly should be sent out to owners in similar fashion to the firing pin recall (I’m going to table this for a second).
That being said, I feel like calling this a “test” is a bit misleading. The purpose of a test is to find points of failure, to understand why the rifle is as unreliable as it is.
As an example: quite a few FTFs, and a couple “weird double feeds”? And some failures to go into battery in the video. I mention these because I had these exact, specific problems with mine around the 300 round mark. What I would’ve expected, in a test, is for the tester(s) to stop, and say “WHY is this happening?” When I experienced this problem, I had variances of those issues in 3/20 rounds fired. So, a 15% failure rate. Higher than the video’s overall test failure rate, but at the rate failures like that began to pile up in the video, I’d be considering trying to resolve them before continuing. I did. What I realized is that the gas block set screws and the gas plug had been backing themselves out. When the bolt wasn’t travelling far enough consistently, the bolt couldn’t get itself into battery. It would also cause failures to feed when the round didn’t get enough force behind it (as a side note, I find the Siberian is like my 870: it needs to be racked with AUTHORITY to reliably extract/feed). I would also notice an odd “double feed” (or at least, affecting two rounds simultaneously) when it would failure to push the bolt back far enough. After retightening the gas block hardware, I continued, to find they backed out again within 30 or so rounds, which in turn began to cause the same failures. Fixed it again, and now they hold on, having given me 100% reliable shooting until now. If I hadn’t stopped and thought about it, I’d be doing my rifle, and myself, a disservice. Though what I believe should happen, is that the gas block needs redesigning, in such as way that the gas block set screws need to be changed (with maybe a knurl point or deeper barrel dimple), with a revised version sent out to owners (like the firing pin). Maybe a similar captive solution for the gas block plug. Hardware backing themselves out in a critical part like that is unacceptable, even by basic manufacturing standards.
Look at it this way: let’s say I perform a similar “test” on a car with a dead taillight. If, if I press the brake 100 times, and the taillight turns on 0% of the time, does it mean my taillight has a 100% failure rate, and shouldn’t be considered reliable?
Now do the same test, but change the bulb after every failure, and I change the bulb 5 times. What percentage failure rate is that? Not only is it a very different result, but I also now understand that the failures must be related to something deeper than a bulb. While the car may not be reliable, I sort of get that there’s a deeper issue at work, and I tell folks to have a look at their taillight assembly/electrical system.
Now, I get that CFET is performing their testing to a different standard, and that their information is/will be much more comprehensive. And I watch MeatShower’s videos, I listen to the MCS podcast too. I get that the format is definitely meant to be humorous, and not always taken with seriousness. And I appreciate that Pat and Taylor have a unique view, even if it’s one I don’t always agree with. But when you say you’ve done testing, or you say the rifle is junk and unreliable and that BCL should be held to a higher standard, can you really say you contributed to the betterment of Canadian rifle manufacturing? Can you really say that your “test” could help people resolve problems with the rifles they own, or inform potential buyers of problems causing failures like the ones you had?
Again, I applaud that you were willing to go out and try a gun that you guys clearly already had misgivings about. It’s a lot of time and effort to make/edit a video like that. What I’m saying is, if you were willing to go to all that effort, a little extra would have prevented anyone from having a platform to crap on your work from. Try changing a taillight.
I, for one, really appreciate people making an effort to test Canadian 180s beyond what manufacturers seem to be willing to do. If a few guys can do a test like this independently and discover failures and what are, fundamentally, design failures, why couldn’t BCL? As a Siberian owner, why could I find design/manufacturing missteps within my first 100 rounds? I don’t regret buying the Siberian, as much as it sounds like I “should”. But there are definitely design flaws, yes. There’s things that definitely need resolving, and things that honestly should be sent out to owners in similar fashion to the firing pin recall (I’m going to table this for a second).
That being said, I feel like calling this a “test” is a bit misleading. The purpose of a test is to find points of failure, to understand why the rifle is as unreliable as it is.
As an example: quite a few FTFs, and a couple “weird double feeds”? And some failures to go into battery in the video. I mention these because I had these exact, specific problems with mine around the 300 round mark. What I would’ve expected, in a test, is for the tester(s) to stop, and say “WHY is this happening?” When I experienced this problem, I had variances of those issues in 3/20 rounds fired. So, a 15% failure rate. Higher than the video’s overall test failure rate, but at the rate failures like that began to pile up in the video, I’d be considering trying to resolve them before continuing. I did. What I realized is that the gas block set screws and the gas plug had been backing themselves out. When the bolt wasn’t travelling far enough consistently, the bolt couldn’t get itself into battery. It would also cause failures to feed when the round didn’t get enough force behind it (as a side note, I find the Siberian is like my 870: it needs to be racked with AUTHORITY to reliably extract/feed). I would also notice an odd “double feed” (or at least, affecting two rounds simultaneously) when it would failure to push the bolt back far enough. After retightening the gas block hardware, I continued, to find they backed out again within 30 or so rounds, which in turn began to cause the same failures. Fixed it again, and now they hold on, having given me 100% reliable shooting until now. If I hadn’t stopped and thought about it, I’d be doing my rifle, and myself, a disservice. Though what I believe should happen, is that the gas block needs redesigning, in such as way that the gas block set screws need to be changed (with maybe a knurl point or deeper barrel dimple), with a revised version sent out to owners (like the firing pin). Maybe a similar captive solution for the gas block plug. Hardware backing themselves out in a critical part like that is unacceptable, even by basic manufacturing standards.
Look at it this way: let’s say I perform a similar “test” on a car with a dead taillight. If, if I press the brake 100 times, and the taillight turns on 0% of the time, does it mean my taillight has a 100% failure rate, and shouldn’t be considered reliable?
Now do the same test, but change the bulb after every failure, and I change the bulb 5 times. What percentage failure rate is that? Not only is it a very different result, but I also now understand that the failures must be related to something deeper than a bulb. While the car may not be reliable, I sort of get that there’s a deeper issue at work, and I tell folks to have a look at their taillight assembly/electrical system.
Now, I get that CFET is performing their testing to a different standard, and that their information is/will be much more comprehensive. And I watch MeatShower’s videos, I listen to the MCS podcast too. I get that the format is definitely meant to be humorous, and not always taken with seriousness. And I appreciate that Pat and Taylor have a unique view, even if it’s one I don’t always agree with. But when you say you’ve done testing, or you say the rifle is junk and unreliable and that BCL should be held to a higher standard, can you really say you contributed to the betterment of Canadian rifle manufacturing? Can you really say that your “test” could help people resolve problems with the rifles they own, or inform potential buyers of problems causing failures like the ones you had?
Again, I applaud that you were willing to go out and try a gun that you guys clearly already had misgivings about. It’s a lot of time and effort to make/edit a video like that. What I’m saying is, if you were willing to go to all that effort, a little extra would have prevented anyone from having a platform to crap on your work from. Try changing a taillight.
I had 2 Siberians which I both sold, I am more into 7.62 with semis and 556/223 with bolt action.
After observing both rifles, I realized that BCL actually changed the gas block screws to a different size, so they realized that there is a problem and addressed it. Does it justify a recall? Not sure, it can be solved, as you mentioned, retightening and using red loctite will solve most situations. But then, you have to use heat when unscrewing them.
I had the same issue as you and a few others with that test. You have a problem, address it and not pounding the hammer on your thumb over and over.
After observing both rifles, I realized that BCL actually changed the gas block screws to a different size, so they realized that there is a problem and addressed it. Does it justify a recall? Not sure, it can be solved, as you mentioned, retightening and using red loctite will solve most situations. But then, you have to use heat when unscrewing them.
I had the same issue as you and a few others with that test. You have a problem, address it and not pounding the hammer on your thumb over and over.
- Location
- Nova Scotia
I'm 5'9 and I never had an issue with getting a shooting stance. But basing it on using just 1 grip, makes you sound un educated.
Also slamming the mags on concrete of course you are going to get issues with the mags.
Also slamming the mags on concrete of course you are going to get issues with the mags.
Same people who put a 6 inch lift kit in their truck with a rusted out frame - and wonder why it is sagging.
Oh, I didn't know that about the revised gas block, thanks for sharing that. My concern with using red Loctite is the same as with blue: gas blocks can get to very high temps under sustained fire (with a quick google search, AR owners state up to 700 degrees F), and the melt point for red Loctite is around 300. So eventually it'll fail as well. Rocksett is an option, but you'll never get the gas block off. I'm sort of surprised the SRV2 operator manual includes use of blue Loctite in reassembly, that type of thing shouldn't ever be relied on in manufacturing IMHO. Not that this rifle should be expected to shrug off that kind of volume of fire either.
- Location
- Nova Scotia
A2 stocks and Vietnam era flak vest, makes you adapt your stance. Too many youtube operators. My father pointed out the flaw training using a single shooting stance.
