CFET BCL Siberian 4000 Round Final Report
- Thread starter CFET
- Start date
There must have been something wrong with their test rifle… I’ve treated my own personal Siberian horribly shooting in sand and dust, not treated like a bench dwelling range princess at all. Never “cleaned” only wiped down & more lube added, didn’t tighten any screws or touch the gas block. rd count is documented at 2460rds currently, 90% max 5.56 reloads w/cfe223 and 55gn Hornady fmj, 10% PMC m855. feeds from every kind mag I own (Pmag m2&3 10/20/30/40’s, GI aluminum, Lancers, LAR 10rds, Steel “458 Socom” and chinese drums) but i don’t monopod on the mag… use a bipod. Has had EXACTLY 2 malfunctions, both failure to feed in the first five rounds, likely from lack of lube.
BCL deserves some of the hate, but don’t be thinking the sample of ONE rifle is what every rifle is like.
BCL deserves some of the hate, but don’t be thinking the sample of ONE rifle is what every rifle is like.
Last edited:
He is promoting the M+M smarty gun.
- Location
- Prince George
Of course! This is just ONE group testing. Though it's worth noting that it was the same rifle warrantied and had the "seal of approval" from BCL when sent out, so its really a sample size of 3 imo, but I absolutely get what you're saying - I have seen some great results with some of these rifles, but more often than not, I see something in between what CFET experienced and the "flawless" accounts I read about online and the generally favourable ones I have heard 2nd hand from people I know. Great way to look at it phoenix!
Last edited:
It is in regards to the OP and the endurance test. I’m not trusting a rifle that has random parts fall out, or one I can’t trust with literally any brand of magazine. I like to buy things that work
I think the issue is the uncertainty. When I buy a Siberian, am I getting one like yours, or one like the test model that was sent to warranty 3 times?
It's a sample of 1 that BCL let out the factory 3 times thinking it to be good enough and needed to go back to the factory for a 3rd time by the end of 4000 rounds.
BCL had every opportunity.
That being said we're always happier seeing people like yourself enjoying your gun
In fairness, according to the report they were trying to approximate the same testing procedure used for the M4. To alter any parameters would make the results non-representative.
Also, I'm really baffled by all the salt in this thread. It's simply a firearm, not someone's relative or personal honour. If I purchased something that didn't function well I would want to know about it, and would not take poor results personally. I'm glad that these fellas are doing this and I really don't think that there's some nefarious anti-BCL, let's-make-fool-out-of-everyone-who-bought-one sort of bias here.
I feel that’s what a manufacturer should do, before dumping them onto us to solve
I’m not, this is the perfect example of the sunk cost fallacy
sunk-cost fallacy
noun
the phenomenon whereby a person is reluctant to abandon a strategy or course of action because they have invested heavily in it, even when it is clear that abandonment would be more beneficial.
"the sunk-cost fallacy creeps into a lot of major financial decisions"
I look forward to taking out my Siberian this coming weekend as I can't take out any of the 8 rifles I currently have in the govt penalty box. I will not be filling it with mud and am sure that it will function just fine. Not sure that I will ever get to the 4000 round mark but what the heck it will still be fun, and in't that the point?
It's a milspec trigger. That's how they are. I have the BCL Bronco Howitzer and the trigger is amazing.
As to the testing. As I understand this is the third owner and many issues were magazine related. I am still waiting for a detailed description and correspondence between BCL and the owner which another gunnut requested. As I understand, you have to fill out a warranty registration on BCL's website with purchase receipt.
The history of this rifle is unknown.
There are a lot of positive reports about the SVR online. The only negative I find after a google research was echoing to this report.
Reminds me a bit of a politician but sorry repeating yourself over and over is no proof of anything, like "BCL had 3 chances to fix this", but that's as far as it goes.
Details matter and proof.
No, many mil-spec triggers are just fine and significantly better. Saying mil-spec is ok to be bad is just lazy and encouraging poor quality low price approaches that can be gotten away with "cos mis-spec"
Your understanding is incorrect. This rifle had one owner as was iterated earlier.
Personal correspondence between two parties is just that, personal. I can´t recall the last time anyone started sharing screenshots of back and forth correspondence between them and a manufacturer.
Your proof so far is "nuh uh". Ours is hundreds of photos, videos, detailed write ups and the shared experiences of a large group of experienced and in some cases professional shooters.
It´s ok to enjoy your rifle, even if it´s not a good one and you could have bought something better
I think you will find that some of us are also "experienced and professional shooters". I have shot civilian and and military for 60 plus years in multiple countries around the world. Everything from a potato gun to a 155mm howitzer. I have won International competitions and have an extensive collection.
There are better rifles out there than the Siberian. There are also worse. I don't shovel dirt into it and I don't slam my mags home and so far it has been OK.
I can't shoot my ARs, VZ, Scorpion, M305 etc. so will enjoy my Siberian while I can.
There are better rifles out there than the Siberian. There are also worse. I don't shovel dirt into it and I don't slam my mags home and so far it has been OK.
I can't shoot my ARs, VZ, Scorpion, M305 etc. so will enjoy my Siberian while I can.
so, apparently bcl didn't test their gun. apparently bad. you tested ONE gun and think you have a definitive assessment. just as bad. certainly not scientific.
you'd been called out previously for treating a civilian rifle like a military rifle. so, you create your own personal definition of 'utility rifle' that is more onerous than that of a military rifle and then use military criteria to test it. again, not much of a test whatsoever.
your justification? the vendor says that a version of their firearm that isn't even to market yet (ie not the one you tested) might be sold to law enforcement/military clients. again fail.
and your test was sponsored by the competition.
fail.
you'd been called out previously for treating a civilian rifle like a military rifle. so, you create your own personal definition of 'utility rifle' that is more onerous than that of a military rifle and then use military criteria to test it. again, not much of a test whatsoever.
your justification? the vendor says that a version of their firearm that isn't even to market yet (ie not the one you tested) might be sold to law enforcement/military clients. again fail.
and your test was sponsored by the competition.
fail.
