I don't have a Modern Hunter...
BCL102 Range Review, SECOND RANGE TRIP POST 123!!!
- Thread starter Jay
- Start date
I don't have a Modern Hunter...
The MH has Been beaten to death. It is capable of sub moa with the right ammo and shooter behind it. I saw it first hand from mine with the match 7mm-08 barrel and with a remington R25 .308 barrel installed.
Can we move on?
Nope. I want to try that as well before abandoning it. But I am on a budget.
Pax+Caritas
CGN Regular
Please post your process. While I may replace it in my 102, I would like to re-use the stock trigger in another build.
Thanks.
Here's a good video. It's essential to polish while maintaining trigger geometry and the sharp edges. To polish I use the aluminum wheel polish paste and a Dremel with polish disc attachment (soft fabric material)
Last edited:
Pax+Caritas
CGN Regular
Thanks!
You're the only one I see trying to start a fight. As for accuracy... if you say so. I have however seen and shot AR10 rifles were you are trying for sub .5 moa and it's not an impossibility. That's with 5 rounds, not 3. Honestly with the 102 and if the barrel is good or with an aftermarket barrel, that's the type of accuracy I will be aiming for. With regards to aiming for Sub moa... Ya ok, the 1990's called and want their rifle back.
You're the only one I see trying to start a fight. As for accuracy... if you say so. I have however seen and shot AR10 rifles were you are trying for sub .5 moa and it's not an impossibility. That's with 5 rounds, not 3. Honestly with the 102 and if the barrel is good or with an aftermarket barrel, that's the type of accuracy I will be aiming for. With regards to aiming for Sub moa... Ya ok, the 1990's called and want their rifle back.
I am not trying to start a fight, it is just this "Modern shotgun" business is unfounded. I am no fan of that business trust me, but the rifle itself is a great rifle. A tad pricey for what you get to be sure.
If that were truly the case I would own one.
While not a fan of some of the NEA business shenanigans of past, I still plan on buying one of these rifles. I like what I see and the possibilities. Plus the price is worth taking a bit of a risk.
You're the only one I see trying to start a fight. As for accuracy... if you say so. I have however seen and shot AR10 rifles were you are trying for sub .5 moa and it's not an impossibility. That's with 5 rounds, not 3. Honestly with the 102 and if the barrel is good or with an aftermarket barrel, that's the type of accuracy I will be aiming for. With regards to aiming for Sub moa... Ya ok, the 1990's called and want their rifle back.
I don't see that as starting a fight, I see that as someone who feels the same as I do. I'm tired of the bashing the MH constantly takes from people who have never even held one, it is far from a shotgun, I've shot six of them and been shooting with a couple other guys that own one and every rifle has shown groups close to 1 moa but unfortunately other than my rifle I haven't seen anyone shoot developed handloads or even premium match grade ammo, I'm not finished load development on mine yet but it's looking promising. Judging from the targets posted so far the MH is more accurate than the 102 so it's stupid to see the tombstone pics and crap talk. They are two similar but very different rifles aiming at two different markets. Both manufacturers claimed moa or better but one has proven it and since you shoot AR-10's for 0.5 moa I think you would be doing the same in a short amount of time once you found the ammo either rifle likes. I still think most of the poor accuracy reports are caused more from poor marksmanship skills than a rifle not capable.
Your problem with the modern hunter has been obvious from day one of your posts regarding it. You don't like Rick and you are appalled that a $3500+ rifle has DPMS parts in it. The part I don't understand with everyone is that since the early posts of the 102 most people haven't been able to stop talking about all the things they're going to change on the 102 and that's fine but then when talking about the MH it's nothing but complaining that the parts are not what every individual wanted exactly and the DPMS parts are supposedly sub standard. If the DPMS parts are not good enough for you then why not just change them? With a minor fix from a machinist or if a carrier was supplied when the rifle was ordered I'm pretty sure ATRS will fit any BCG you like and put any lower parts in you ask for as long as you are willing to pay the difference. Just going on past history would you rather have a DPMS BCG or an NEA BCG? To me, until it fails I'm not going to worry about just because I think there is a better BCG available, and if it does fail some day it's a cheap fix.
Driller is the only one I know of so far that did something about his rifle not being exactly what fit is needs and swapped out the barrel instead of just coming on here and complaining, he has also seen consistent moa or better groups showing the platform is capable in the right hands.
I was shooting my MH yesterday with a buddy who brought his over to do some shooting and both of us were doing the same thing, three shots pretty much into one hole with a couple ooops shots bringing the group out to around an inch or just a little over. Neither of us are match grade shooters but the groups were still plenty acceptable considering the ammo we were using (mostly factory with one group using the last of my test loads from before I switched powders).
Sure the 102 is half the price of a MH but I am pretty sure than anyone who hadn't held either one previously would pick a MH over a 102 if you just put both rifles on a table with no brand markings and said pick the nicest one.
Is the price difference worth it? Only the person spending the money can decide that, I'm sure the 102 is a fine rifle and I'll probably own one some day but I really doubt MH or MV sales are going to drop off with the release of the 102, it's still an NEA and three rifles in customer hands and two range reports is far from enough to judge the rifle in any way other than to say it's looking good so far.
Don't worry, once more people get a 102 in their hands and get it out shooting there will be more complaints and then people will be blaming the rifle for their poor groups. I'm hoping it's limited to that and that NEA has gotten their QC in line and we don't have rifles breaking.
I picked up some Hornady superformance 178 BTHP ammunition to test out. I have never been much for loading highly precise ammo so I'll see how it stacks against my 147grn fodder. Too bad my rifle is still a month or more from arriving...
Make it to two weeks, I can send my ATRS Modern hunter to you on my dime. We just need somebody else to send out BCL102.
It depends. To go from a 3" group at 100 to a 2.5" group, not to me. To go from a 3/4" group to a 1/4" group at 100, would be worth a hell of a lot more than that. It's all relative. (talking about rifle potential, excluding all other factors)
And that is on me how? I didn't post the tombstone. I didn't start a fight on this. I thought Jay had a MH and it turns out he didn't. So lay off.
Forget the Rick part. Could care less about that. I'm not a fan of NEA either and even received infractions for some of my previous NEA posts. Yet here we are and it looks like I'm going to be ordering a 102. So sorry to dispel your "hater" or "personal issue" red herring argument. That's just the usual lazy labeling garbage people seem to like to mistake for a rationale as to why someone has a different opinion. Why debate the argument on it's merits when you can simply label the person.
The second part. $3500+ rifle with DPMS parts in it. Yes that is definitely part of it. Now add in that I'm not seeing the accuracy that I would expect, that ATRS claimed at the .5 to .75 moa. Which is what a good AR10 will do. Here's where it gets more interesting... ammo restrictions, mag restrictions and frequent fliers when trying for 5 round groups. This says to me feeding geometry issue. Which not only can lead to certain ammo jamming but more importantly with a semi auto, it can lead to the bullets getting pushed back even when it does feed. Hmmmm, pressure changes... what would that result in? Maybe unexplained fliers as the velocity changes depending on the bullet being pushed into the case? Strange indeed.
Now let's also recall that I mentioned this at the start with the MH when we saw this in the first few range reports. I received all the same "hater" garbage etc and excuses. ATRS however did come out and say they had an issue with the first 75 rifles. Something about the bolt cam pin on the DPMS BCG needing to be trimmed down if I recall correctly. Weird it's like the DPMS part wasn't to spec or something. So it was even verified by the company that makes them and they agreed to fix this issue. Yet I still had to put up with the same hater and excuses crud. Even after it was 100 percent verified. But then again it's not like I went through the same garbage when I posted that it was a DPMS part. Oh wait. It actually was. More heckling, more flack until ATRS verified that it in fact was a "modified" DPMS BCG. Then, oh it's not that bad and the excuses etc start up again.
Yes, Driller swapped his barrel/extension out with a DPMS R25 one. The Remington R25 is a rebranded DPMS LR308. More money and not an upgrade. Reliability issues cleared up and just as accurate as with the match barrel? Brings about some interesting theories/possibilities doesn't it?
Now let's also go into my recommending that Driller didn't buy DPMS SR25 mags for the NEA 102. I told him, I have 3 of them and one didn't even fit the gun it came with. Complete garbage. Now we find out that they don't work with the NEA 102. No surprise there considering some of them don't even work in the DPMS LR308! Quality!!!
Not only do I not think the price difference isn't worth it, but it wouldn't surprise me if the NEA 102 ends up being the better rifle even at half the price. It might not look as pretty or have as many ambi options but if it shoots like a real AR10 and continues to be as reliable as a real AR10, well then it's the superior firearm.
Could be, especially considering the numbers of NEA 102 rifles is likely to be a lot higher than MH rifles. But sadly if that's the case then it will still be on par with the MH at half the price.
Anyways I'd like to get back to the NEA 102. That really is my real interest here.
Last edited:
Well to clarify I only changed it because I wanted it to be in .308 instead of 7mm-08 (not a match chambering either) so that it could in fact run surplus/bulk ammo as the match chambers tend to be picky. It was reliable (using my modified pmags, more on that later) with both the match barrel and the SR25 barrel. I agree that you are right about the DPMS mags, I just like the look of them so much, I am a shallow bugger sometimes
I may order some ASC 5/20s and try them out as they are manufactured slighty differently from what I understand. The accuracy; it was more accurate with the match barrel, but not by much unfortunately. I didn't document much of my groups, and only have one pic of my first good group that I took with my cell phone, so if you don't believe the accuracy the rifle was giving me I totally understand that.About the Pmags, yes you are correct. I deduced that the feed angle on the MH was not right for my Gen 3 Pmags. It was hard on my handloads, and likely pushing the bullets in a small amount. I modified my Pmags (Gen 3 modification instructions in the ATRS forum) to work and it chugged away happily after that. I hope that in future generations of the rifle that they work on that issue, and I would assume they are (assuming they can place their ego aside).
PS if you wanna sell me those mags for cheap I would love to try to mod em to work
