BCL102 Range Review, SECOND RANGE TRIP POST 123!!!

When mine arrives I will be going the other way with ammo, I'll be trying the 130ttsx. Have had great luck with those in other rifles. A 130gr monometal at 3100 what's not to like?
 
Throttle_monkey1 said:
When mine arrives I will be going the other way with ammo, I'll be trying the 130ttsx. Have had great luck with those in other rifles. A 130gr monometal at 3100 what's not to like?
Click to expand...

I like those bullets too. I crank them up tot 3500FPS in my 300WSM, they kill bear and deer like lightning. :)

I will for sure try them in the 102 for a hunting load. I doubt I would be shooting this rifle at game past 350 yrds or so, where heavier bullets really start to shine.
 
Fuuuuuuuck's sake... I really like my FN FNAR, but your range reports and groups are making me want to get rid of it and buy one of these... Though the FNAR does run well with cheap-o FMJ ammo like PMC and Hirtenberger.

BAH!!!
 
Scotty454 said:
Fuuuuuuuck's sake... I really like my FN FNAR, but your range reports and groups are making me want to get rid of it and buy one of these... Though the FNAR does run well with cheap-o FMJ ammo like PMC and Hirtenberger.

BAH!!!
Click to expand...

9SPoi04l.jpg
 
Jay said:
My rifle now has OVER 200 rounds through it & can repeatedly print 1.5" to 2" groups with Norma Match OR Barnes TSX hunting ammo.

I LIKE THIS RIFLE!!!

:rockOn:

Cheers
Jay
Click to expand...

Thanks Jay, yes thats a nice rifle, seems like it shot pretty good with the Norinco as well
 
wicked_police said:
https://1.bp.########.com/-KRT9vNP3azU/WZSAIrBvoNI/AAAAAAAApVg/OEIwzvZWdGk_U9WBXPgiAiTaTAQZIbyRwCKgBGAs/s1600/ATRS%2BModern%2BHunter%2BTombstone%2B%25282%2529.jpg
Click to expand...

Lol, well considering both manufacturers claimed sub moa and only one rifle has shown 1 moa or better groups I'd say the MH has lived up to the claims more than the NEA so far. Yes the MH is more expensive but at least there have been pictures of groups not just a few 3 shot groups on pie plates.
My Modern Hunter shoots tighter groups than any pics I've seen from an NEA so far so...

I'm also going to go back to what I've been saying for a while now. I'm guessing more of the poor accuracy reports are are result of poor marksmanship and ammo selection than a rifle not capable of shooting 1 moa or better. This I'm sure applies to both rifles and is why I only want to know if it's reliable because most people's shooting results are unreliable when judging the potential of the rifles accuracy.

Even though it cost me a couple thousand more I'll still take my MH over an NEA any day. I've never jumped on the NEA bash train and I still have a rifle with some of their parts that works perfectly but if you take NEA's reputation and ATRS's reputation (ignoring that there are people who have a personal problem with Rick) and to me it was money well spent.

Cheaper is rarely better.
You get what you pay for.
Two sayings that don't always apply to everything but on average can be counted on.
 
Last edited:
cr5 said:
Lol, well considering both manufacturers claimed sub moa and only one rifle has shown 1 moa or better groups I'd say the MH has lived up to the claims more than the NEA so far. Yes the MH is more expensive but at least there have been pictures of groups not just a few 3 shot groups on pie plates.
My Modern Hunter shoots tighter groups than any pics I've seen from an NEA so far so...

I'm also going to go back to what I've been saying for a while now. I'm guessing more of the poor accuracy reports are are result of poor marksmanship and ammo selection than a rifle not capable of shooting 1 moa or better. This I'm sure applies to both rifles and is why I only want to know it it's reliable because most people's shooting results are unreliable when judging the potential of the rifles accuracy.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't understand this back and forth bashing. Both rifles seem great (I have only owned a MH and my BCL-102 is on its way still..) so why do we have to bash one or the other. I think they are both going to be great rifles, and both are trying to fill different markets (hunting/plinking vs high end precision).

I agree that this idea of "joe blow got 2 inch accuracy with one type of ammo, a red dot, and no real shooting skills, so that is all this rifle is capable of" is really stupid and makes me realize how many people on here don't really know what they are doing. If they did they wouln't be getting caught up in school girl gossip, and would only take scientific range reports seriously.

Just my .02
 
cr5 said:
Cheaper is rarely better.
You get what you pay for.
Two sayings that don't always apply to everything but on average can be counted on.
Click to expand...
If there's anywhere those sayings dont apply, it's in the Canadian Non Restricted market.

To question the groups at this point is bit presumptuous. It's been, what, two weeks since it arrived... give people time to figure out what works just like the MH has been given.

At the end of the day, the BCL 102 is less than half price of a MH. I was very interested and tried building a MH, every option I added ended up costing me more than it would have been buying myself, full price and no credit for removed parts! On top of that, it would takes months to arrive. No plans to offer recievers individually, and lots of explanation about expecting poor groups unless you run match grade. As they say on Dragons Den, for that reason, I'm out.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom