BCL102 - No need to add water

I don’t understand the hoopla about aftermarket parts. I don’t know of a single manufacturer who makes products to fit aftermarket parts. It’s vice versa in the real world.

Jared you keep complaining about a spec sheet. What kind of specs are you after? Machining diagrams? Drawings with specs? Compatibility list?
 
Throttle_monkey1 said:
I don’t understand the hoopla about aftermarket parts. I don’t know of a single manufacturer who makes products to fit aftermarket parts. It’s vice versa in the real world.

Jared you keep complaining about a spec sheet. What kind of specs are you after? Machining diagrams? Drawings with specs? Compatibility list?
Click to expand...

The AR family of firearms has maintained it's popularity by implementing STANDARDS for compatibility. There is absolutely NO POINT in producing a "NR AR" if it is completely proprietary. You've accomplished exactly nothing in a market of many other proprietary NR guns.

Right now, the BCL102 is compatible with a mix of Armalite and DPMS spec parts in the barrel, handguard, bolt, BCG, and buffer. The remaining parts are regular ar15 milspec. So the only proprietary components on the entire rifle are the upper and lower. There is no way that all happened by chance. BCL knew exactly what they were doing in making these compatibility decisions, but neglect to say anything about it officially. I wonder why?

I want BCL to officially publish a list of AR10 and AR15 standards to which their rifle conforms. That way, they are accountable to maintain those standards on the rifle going forward, and be required to communicate changes BEFORE they take peoples money.

That way, BCL can't pull the rug out from under us like they already have with the charging handle.

Standard AR10 charging handles worked on the BCL "preorder 1" guns, and Ryan insisted that there was no redesign, just "minor improvements" in the second preorder, so a bunch of people preordered and purchased aftermarket charging handles in anticipation of their preorder 2 gun.

But low and behold, when the second preorder guns started showing up, aftermarket charging handles wouldn't fit without modification. BCL changed their specification for no reason. And there is nothing the preorder 2 guys could do about it because they were given absolutely no facts or specification on the rifle to hold the manufacturer accountable to. Two ugly tabs were also added to the handguard and milled out of the receiver, which greatly decreased the aesthetic appeal of an aftermarket handguard, which was also an unprecedented and unwelcome change.

And this isn't the first time it's happened either. Shortly after the second preorder started, after the first gen owners discovered by trial and error that aftermarket DPMS AR10 barrels were compatible with the BCL, Ryan replied to a comment stating that the second preorder guns "may not be compatible" with DPMS barrels. After tons of people had already put $2000 down with the assumption that the SAME gun would retain it's compatibility with MAJOR components between preorders. But again, they were out of luck because BCL didn't state anywhere that the BCL102 actually WAS compatible with DPMS pattern AR10 barrels, in their demeanor it was all by chance, and the barrel compatibility can appear or disappear without any accountability.

I won't look at the spec sheet. I already know what would be on it. The reason it needs to be published is so this company is accountable for their product to be delivered in a predictable form. So that consumers can make an informed decision on what they are buying, and not just blindly throw money at what everyone in the community has heralded as the "NR AR10".
 
Throttle_monkey1 said:
I don’t understand the hoopla about aftermarket parts. I don’t know of a single manufacturer who makes products to fit aftermarket parts. It’s vice versa in the real world.

Jared you keep complaining about a spec sheet. What kind of specs are you after? Machining diagrams? Drawings with specs? Compatibility list?
Click to expand...

It was WWI when the US decided that small arms parts interchangeability was important, so this is not a new concept...100+ years old.
The receiver has to be proprietary, no argument there, but everything else does not need to be, and it would be a far more interesting firearm if everything was in some form of AR10/AR15 spec. We can bolt on HIGH quality kit and not be stuck with NEA/BCL proprietary scrap.
 
Hitzy & Jared- I understand what you’re saying, but in this situation this is a new rifle based on the AR102. What standard would they be adhering to? Milspec? Milspec for what? Or AR15 standards? Or DPMS standards for their AR10? KAC SR25? Or Armalite’s AR10? The original Armalite-Fairchild AR10 or 102? Or the modern Armalite (totally different company)?

Hitzy is absolutely correct. The military has standards. Standards are good. This is not a military rifle. It’s a new rifle based on the Armalite AR102 which predates the AR15.

Why not throw a #### fit because AR parts don’t fit the XCR-M? The SG-542?
 
Throttle_monkey1 said:
Hitzy & Jared- I understand what you’re saying, but in this situation this is a new rifle based on the AR102. What standard would they be adhering to? Milspec? Milspec for what? Or AR15 standards? Or DPMS standards for their AR10? KAC SR25? Or Armalite’s AR10? The original Armalite-Fairchild AR10 or 102? Or the modern Armalite (totally different company)?

Hitzy is absolutely correct. The military has standards. Standards are good. This is not a military rifle. It’s a new rifle based on the Armalite AR102 which predates the AR15.

Why not throw a #### fit because AR parts don’t fit the XCR-M? The SG-542?
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point that parts did fit and now it almost seems that they're going out of their way to make it so they don't. Myself being a second preorder purchaser bought in after I saw the compatibility in the first rifles released. The only thing that was said to change on the second run was the addition of ambi controls, there was no talk of adding tabs to the upper, making charging handles non compatible, switching out for an ugly muzzle brake and whatever new feature they're claiming with the dust cover. To me it feels like a bait and switch, show an initial rifle that was compatible in every way, barrel, bolt, charging handle, you name it. Now it's no so clear.

The XCR-M and SG didn't come out with a rifle, sell to limited amounts then take money for more rifles and then deliver something different did they? Whatever the standards of this rifle may be, it needs to be posted and stuck to so people know what they're buying.
 
Last edited:
Throttle_monkey1 said:
Hitzy & Jared- I understand what you’re saying, but in this situation this is a new rifle based on the AR102. What standard would they be adhering to? Milspec? Milspec for what? Or AR15 standards? Or DPMS standards for their AR10? KAC SR25? Or Armalite’s AR10? The original Armalite-Fairchild AR10 or 102? Or the modern Armalite (totally different company)?

Hitzy is absolutely correct. The military has standards. Standards are good. This is not a military rifle. It’s a new rifle based on the Armalite AR102 which predates the AR15.

Why not throw a #### fit because AR parts don’t fit the XCR-M? The SG-542?
Click to expand...

I had absolutely no expectation as to parts compatibility when I put my money down for the first preorder, on a non-descript rifle from NEA. All I knew is that it was chambered for 308, was semi-auto, and was NR. I was completely fine with that.

However we are long beyond that. The first rifles have been long delivered, and through trial and error, 1st gen owners discovered that all of the parts on the rifle were compatible with SOME existing pattern of aftermarket part. Yeah, the BCL RECEVIER shows some lineage to the AR102, and that was the legal vehicle they used to get the rifle NR. But beyond that, the "based on AR102" claim is completely inconsequential.

BCL chose a mix-match of EXISITNG standards to create the BCL102. The barrel nut didn't just happen to be 18 TPI by chance and accept armalite pattern handguards. The barrel trunnion did not just happen to be the exact diameter to accept a DPMS barrel extension. BCL specifically designed their guns this way. As to what pattern they selected, frankly I don't care. DPMS barrel nut thread would have been a better choice since it has better aftermarket support, but that is neither here nor there.

What I am asking for, is with the precedent set that the rifle exists in this configuration, that BCL put their word behind the rifle continuing to exist in that configuration, so that future buyers can have some confidence in what form of rifle they will receive when they put down their $2000.

That way, we don't run into this situation where BCL delivers a product that has undergone unprecedented changes between generations. If they are going to change the product, then let your damn consumers know BEFORE they put down 2 grand!

Again, we are long past what this rifle is "in essence", because we know exactly how this rifle exists in reality. The little "well it's BASED ON the 102" factoid is completely irrelevant.
 
Throttle_monkey1 said:
Hitzy & Jared- I understand what you’re saying, but in this situation this is a new rifle based on the AR102. What standard would they be adhering to? Milspec? Milspec for what? Or AR15 standards? Or DPMS standards for their AR10? KAC SR25? Or Armalite’s AR10? The original Armalite-Fairchild AR10 or 102? Or the modern Armalite (totally different company)?

Hitzy is absolutely correct. The military has standards. Standards are good. This is not a military rifle. It’s a new rifle based on the Armalite AR102 which predates the AR15.

Why not throw a #### fit because AR parts don’t fit the XCR-M? The SG-542?
Click to expand...

Well... The current spec of the bcl102 is dremel spec so....
 
NEA done kept on NEA'ing! lol
Ah, seriously though what a s**t show. What's that old saying? Fool me once?....
I had naive high expectations for this early on. Glad I held my breath. Just going to keep geting max joy out of my well worn trusty old M305 :rockOn:
 
I am disappointed, I totally remember "the second preorder is going to have ambi bolt release"... that's it.
This is totally a gen 2 , no question!
This totally soured me for any preorder ever again, unless it's a reputable company...seriously, the company totally knew and SFRC (don't kid yourself) what the gen2 entailed. I think they knew it would have lost the hype, the confidence, and would have had a lot of us pull out of the presale.
How easy it would have been just to make a press release or even a friggn PDF file as a memo.
Complete joke, as customers, we deserve to know, this is not to be treated as a privilege, I don't care if a customer only is purchasing a loaf of bread, they deserve more than what we got here. It is their responsibility to us . If they don't care, well... buh bye.
 
ixhIfDm.gif
 
Travis Bickle said:
NEA done kept on NEA'ing! lol
Ah, seriously though what a s**t show. What's that old saying? Fool me once?....
I had naive high expectations for this early on. Glad I held my breath. Just going to keep geting max joy out of my well worn trusty old M305 :rockOn:
Click to expand...

Yea, thank the lord we didn't have to check, modify or change parts on our M14s's.

Sorry bro, went down that road had fun, spent money.

I like both platforms.
 
HirvGotti said:
I spotted the ad myself today, lots of conflicting statements and imagery. I guess it is now officially gen 2 even though SFRC said it wasn't. They also used NEA's logo and didn't even use a silhouette of a BCL 102 (notice the bottom rail on the handguard.)

JD1qEJbl.jpg
Click to expand...

The one ad was published incorrectly. You’ll notice none of the other ads say that.

Ryan
 
I think my exact words were "ok..... ok... yes... yes.. wow. they did it.. whaaa.... wait a minute.. ahhhh.. ok.. ok... im out"
Due to mainly what Jared Coles noted for anyone who hasn't followed the threads.
BCL (NEA or whatever they are going to be now) truly had it all coming together. Then lost a ton of us. Now the fan boys are deflecting to the T81? Its gone bonkers.

JaredP said:
The AR family of firearms has maintained it's popularity by implementing STANDARDS for compatibility. There is absolutely NO POINT in producing a "NR AR" if it is completely proprietary. You've accomplished exactly nothing in a market of many other proprietary NR guns.

Right now, the BCL102 is compatible with a mix of Armalite and DPMS spec parts in the barrel, handguard, bolt, BCG, and buffer. The remaining parts are regular ar15 milspec. So the only proprietary components on the entire rifle are the upper and lower. There is no way that all happened by chance. BCL knew exactly what they were doing in making these compatibility decisions, but neglect to say anything about it officially. I wonder why?

I want BCL to officially publish a list of AR10 and AR15 standards to which their rifle conforms. That way, they are accountable to maintain those standards on the rifle going forward, and be required to communicate changes BEFORE they take peoples money.

That way, BCL can't pull the rug out from under us like they already have with the charging handle.

Standard AR10 charging handles worked on the BCL "preorder 1" guns, and Ryan insisted that there was no redesign, just "minor improvements" in the second preorder, so a bunch of people preordered and purchased aftermarket charging handles in anticipation of their preorder 2 gun.

But low and behold, when the second preorder guns started showing up, aftermarket charging handles wouldn't fit without modification. BCL changed their specification for no reason. And there is nothing the preorder 2 guys could do about it because they were given absolutely no facts or specification on the rifle to hold the manufacturer accountable to. Two ugly tabs were also added to the handguard and milled out of the receiver, which greatly decreased the aesthetic appeal of an aftermarket handguard, which was also an unprecedented and unwelcome change.

And this isn't the first time it's happened either. Shortly after the second preorder started, after the first gen owners discovered by trial and error that aftermarket DPMS AR10 barrels were compatible with the BCL, Ryan replied to a comment stating that the second preorder guns "may not be compatible" with DPMS barrels. After tons of people had already put $2000 down with the assumption that the SAME gun would retain it's compatibility with MAJOR components between preorders. But again, they were out of luck because BCL didn't state anywhere that the BCL102 actually WAS compatible with DPMS pattern AR10 barrels, in their demeanor it was all by chance, and the barrel compatibility can appear or disappear without any accountability.

I won't look at the spec sheet. I already know what would be on it. The reason it needs to be published is so this company is accountable for their product to be delivered in a predictable form. So that consumers can make an informed decision on what they are buying, and not just blindly throw money at what everyone in the community has heralded as the "NR AR10".
Click to expand...
 
F**K BCL, seriously, this company sucks ass and abuses customer trust.

If I were a distributor I'd stay clear as well. Who needs customers breathing down their neck for a manufactures BS ?

What a POS company.


JaredP said:
The AR family of firearms has maintained it's popularity by implementing STANDARDS for compatibility. There is absolutely NO POINT in producing a "NR AR" if it is completely proprietary. You've accomplished exactly nothing in a market of many other proprietary NR guns.

Right now, the BCL102 is compatible with a mix of Armalite and DPMS spec parts in the barrel, handguard, bolt, BCG, and buffer. The remaining parts are regular ar15 milspec. So the only proprietary components on the entire rifle are the upper and lower. There is no way that all happened by chance. BCL knew exactly what they were doing in making these compatibility decisions, but neglect to say anything about it officially. I wonder why?

I want BCL to officially publish a list of AR10 and AR15 standards to which their rifle conforms. That way, they are accountable to maintain those standards on the rifle going forward, and be required to communicate changes BEFORE they take peoples money.

That way, BCL can't pull the rug out from under us like they already have with the charging handle.

Standard AR10 charging handles worked on the BCL "preorder 1" guns, and Ryan insisted that there was no redesign, just "minor improvements" in the second preorder, so a bunch of people preordered and purchased aftermarket charging handles in anticipation of their preorder 2 gun.

But low and behold, when the second preorder guns started showing up, aftermarket charging handles wouldn't fit without modification. BCL changed their specification for no reason. And there is nothing the preorder 2 guys could do about it because they were given absolutely no facts or specification on the rifle to hold the manufacturer accountable to. Two ugly tabs were also added to the handguard and milled out of the receiver, which greatly decreased the aesthetic appeal of an aftermarket handguard, which was also an unprecedented and unwelcome change.

And this isn't the first time it's happened either. Shortly after the second preorder started, after the first gen owners discovered by trial and error that aftermarket DPMS AR10 barrels were compatible with the BCL, Ryan replied to a comment stating that the second preorder guns "may not be compatible" with DPMS barrels. After tons of people had already put $2000 down with the assumption that the SAME gun would retain it's compatibility with MAJOR components between preorders. But again, they were out of luck because BCL didn't state anywhere that the BCL102 actually WAS compatible with DPMS pattern AR10 barrels, in their demeanor it was all by chance, and the barrel compatibility can appear or disappear without any accountability.

I won't look at the spec sheet. I already know what would be on it. The reason it needs to be published is so this company is accountable for their product to be delivered in a predictable form. So that consumers can make an informed decision on what they are buying, and not just blindly throw money at what everyone in the community has heralded as the "NR AR10".
Click to expand...
 
Milspec is just a word.

Like I posted in another thread, is there anyone here who is capable of identifying the min and max OD of a bolt carrier group, for an AR 102 according to milspec?

Can someone provide a link to the part of the milspec that talks about those tabs, and what level of ugly falls within milspec?

CH length, ear location, sizes, dimensions with min and max tolerance?

They produce a rifle - people whine. They address some of the whining - people continue to whine.

I get the legit issues (BCGs rough finish, etc)

A long while ago, I figured it out that Lego only fits with Lego. All other copies and aftermarket may or may not fit. With the number of manufacturers of there, I don't care what they are pedalling, and by what spec, some fit and finish items might take manual love.

But people want to be able to bolt up things with absolutely no need to use any brain matter or skills required. You might have to invest in good tools, otherwise.

I've purchased and received dented, scratched, damaged items from many manufacturers. I don't see the need to lose my mind. Contact them and correct it, life goes on. How many hands handled that item before you received it? But you know it is the manufacturers fault. You dust cover is bent? Boo hoo. Pick up the phone and get it sorted out.

Machining marks in the fluting? Who gives a rats azz? Does that make the rifle not work anymore? What does it affect? I didn't buy mine for shiny sh!t. I bought it to shoot. Otherwise I would have waited for the ultra high gloss OD green model, and made a nice velvet backlit showcase to display it in.

Now that I have had my coffee, I'm going to the dump, then going to go shoot my BCL 102, and whatever rifles and handguns we prefer, for the rest of the day, with my wife until we both feel of burnt gunpowder.
A perfect date.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom