BCL rifles work fine. People who have never even seen one in person are the ones poopooing them. A couple people have some issues and all of a sudden it's an excuse to go back to the NEA is crap no matter what anyone says attitude. If you haven't owned and shot it you can't have an opinion on its function.
M10x Unboxing
- Thread starter bfiles
- Start date
BCL rifles work fine. People who have never even seen one in person are the ones poopooing them. A couple people have some issues and all of a sudden it's an excuse to go back to the NEA is crap no matter what anyone says attitude. If you haven't owned and shot it you can't have an opinion on its function.
I am genuinely curious just what degree of conventional grouping accuracy people are expecting from this semi-auto 7.62x39mm rifle? Is accuracy "equal to a Type 81" not good enough? If not, what is a realistic expectation for the calibre and platform? Given the superior ergos and the ease of mounting a low-power optic, I would suggest that the "practical accuracy" potential of the M10X is better than that of competing designs. My experience popping steel plates at 100m seems to bear this out, subject to further confirmation. Thus far, I am satisfied with the performance of my M10X. It is not just about the ability to launch bullets into tight groups. There are build quality, reliability and durability to consider alongside inherent accuracy. In other words, there is at least as much to be said for the quality of the ride as there is for the getting from "A" to "B". YMWV (Your mileage Will Vary), because the relative importance of accuracy versus reliability versus durability will always vary by individual....
The CZ 858 is probably the next best semi-auto 7.62x39mm rifle on the Canadian market in terms of build quality, so how does that largely mil-surp rifle honestly stack up to the M10X vis-a-vis grouping accuracy? My own 858 is new/unfired, so I am genuinely curious to know how they group with surplus versus commercial loads. The CZ would be a $2K rifle (if not more) were it new commercial manufacture instead of 75% mil-surp parts, so I believe the comparison is quite fair.
The CZ 858 is probably the next best semi-auto 7.62x39mm rifle on the Canadian market in terms of build quality, so how does that largely mil-surp rifle honestly stack up to the M10X vis-a-vis grouping accuracy? My own 858 is new/unfired, so I am genuinely curious to know how they group with surplus versus commercial loads. The CZ would be a $2K rifle (if not more) were it new commercial manufacture instead of 75% mil-surp parts, so I believe the comparison is quite fair.
Travis Bickle
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Upper Lower Middle Alberta
What were the average groups aprox Sir?
Did you shoot at 100 meters? With optic? If so what optic?
I'm genuinely curious. I personally can hit my 18" steel plate at 200 meters kneeling with my Ruger mini14 using irons and the gun is a 5 to 7 MOA gun with irons at 100 meters using bulk ammo. Hell even a 10 MOA gun can hit a 24" steel plate at 300 meters with very good consistency as long as the shooter is skilled.
Good enough for me.
Even an 8 MOA gun is very practical and extremely effective out to 300 meters. If you need accuracy semi auto blasters are the wrong tool for the job but that is just my opinion.
Did you take any pics of the groups?
Last edited:
Listen, I'm not here trying to convince anyone NOT to buy an M10X.... in fact, I want at least one person to buy one as mine is up for sale! Lol
To give you an idea of what I am comparing this rifle to, I own or have owned a Type 81, several SKS's, a CSA VZ 58 and a 7.62x39 AR upper.
I ran a red dot on the VZ 58 and its accuracy outperformed the M10x, where I'm using 4x magnification. My AR15 upper also has 4x magnification and groups 2 inches better minimum when comparing to the best groups I could get on the M10x.
I rank the M10X in between my Type 81 and my current SKS- both using irons. So yes, I am sure it SHOULD hit some part of an 18" gong at 200m.
If that's satisfactory for some of you on a 2k rifle then that's great! For me, I sold my VZ 58 and Type 81 to fund this project hoping for at least AR 15 accuracy, and am very disappointed.
So what was I expecting out of a semi-auto 7.62x39 $2k "DMR" rifle? I expected it to out perform all of the previous 7.62x39 rifles I've owned, or at least be equal to my AR 7.62 upper. Seems reasonable, no?
To give you an idea of what I am comparing this rifle to, I own or have owned a Type 81, several SKS's, a CSA VZ 58 and a 7.62x39 AR upper.
I ran a red dot on the VZ 58 and its accuracy outperformed the M10x, where I'm using 4x magnification. My AR15 upper also has 4x magnification and groups 2 inches better minimum when comparing to the best groups I could get on the M10x.
I rank the M10X in between my Type 81 and my current SKS- both using irons. So yes, I am sure it SHOULD hit some part of an 18" gong at 200m.
If that's satisfactory for some of you on a 2k rifle then that's great! For me, I sold my VZ 58 and Type 81 to fund this project hoping for at least AR 15 accuracy, and am very disappointed.
So what was I expecting out of a semi-auto 7.62x39 $2k "DMR" rifle? I expected it to out perform all of the previous 7.62x39 rifles I've owned, or at least be equal to my AR 7.62 upper. Seems reasonable, no?
Last edited:
Well, as I said above, "reasonable expectations" really depend on how you value accuracy as opposed to reliability, durability, ergonomics, and so forth. You seem to value accuracy above aĺl of those other attributes because it is the only readily measurable quality. To do so however, is to potentially sell those other considerations short when assigning their relative importance to the overall mix. Because at the end of the day, practical accuracy (the ability to ring steel versus tight groupis) is at least partially dependant on those ergonomics, the ease of mounting an optic with correct eye relief, etc.
Just as you are not trying to convince anyone not to like the M10X, I am not trying to convince anyone that grouping accuracy is not important. I am merely suggesting that it is not the only quality in a rifle, and depending on how you assign importance within that magical mix of qualities, it may not be the most important. Heresay? Well, you can't hit your target if your rifle won't fire in the first place, or if you can't obtain a comfortable sight picture, or, or, or.....
I am simply saying that grouping accuracy isn't everything. Based on the competing importance of other attributes, your expectation that "money spent ought to equal increased accuracy" might not be very reasonable after all, especially considering the limitations of the cartridge itself.
As always, YMWV...
I have no idea why you think that but I will clarify.
I find the AR 15 with 7.62 upper to be a better choice for "practical accuracy" as you have described it. The ergos are better and its lighter, it also has exta features the M10x doesnt such as BHO... not that it matters to me.
The vz 58 is a great comparison here as well. Mine worked great and felt great. For what its worth I could run and gun with a Type 81, my biggest issue with it was the rear sight.
Im not the best shot out there (although I did earn a marksmanship badge in the reserves haha kinda like a scouts badge) but I chose this rifle for a specific purpose. If I wanted "practical accuracy" (despite lacking actual accuracy), there are many other options out there for half the price. Ones that have been proven reliable and durable over time.
I think its important for those considering this rifle to have that knowledge before purchasing something being marketed as a DMR rifle. You and I may know that it is not, its good for others t know as well.
It will be a fun shooter, no doubt. But dont put much magnification on it and use it as a gong banger, and dont even think of competing unless its just for fun.
I find the AR 15 with 7.62 upper to be a better choice for "practical accuracy" as you have described it. The ergos are better and its lighter, it also has exta features the M10x doesnt such as BHO... not that it matters to me.
The vz 58 is a great comparison here as well. Mine worked great and felt great. For what its worth I could run and gun with a Type 81, my biggest issue with it was the rear sight.
Im not the best shot out there (although I did earn a marksmanship badge in the reserves haha kinda like a scouts badge) but I chose this rifle for a specific purpose. If I wanted "practical accuracy" (despite lacking actual accuracy), there are many other options out there for half the price. Ones that have been proven reliable and durable over time.
I think its important for those considering this rifle to have that knowledge before purchasing something being marketed as a DMR rifle. You and I may know that it is not, its good for others t know as well.
It will be a fun shooter, no doubt. But dont put much magnification on it and use it as a gong banger, and dont even think of competing unless its just for fun.
Last edited:
What do you consider the "limitations of the cartridge itself" to be in the case of 7.62X39 as far as accuracy potential at less then 250 yards?
It might not be the best long range cartridge but I don't see why decent commercial ammo in a decent gun can't approach 1 MOA?
It seems like most of the groups shot so far have been using modern production commercial ammo and not the typical inexpensive surplus fodder that most find appealing with 7.62X39.
Has anyone tried cheap surplus?
I think we can all agree with your assertion that accuracy is not more important then basic mechanical functioning.
The thing is, most people expect both today.
I doubt anyono was expecting 1 MOA with 30 year old surplus ammo, but maybe hoping for a reliable 2-3MOA with typical surplus which is perfect for offhand plinking at steel.
Last edited:
To give you an idea of what I wanted out of this rifle, I sold off all my surplus. I wanted to feed it only brass cased hand loads or commercial ammo.
Makes sense given the cost of the rifle. Many people also won't run corrosive ammo through their bolt action 7.62X39's but I've never seen the issue as long as the guns are cleaned properly to deal with the primer residue.
Hopefully people will see the group sizes settle down a bit as the barrels break in.
Travis Bickle
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Upper Lower Middle Alberta
Thanks for the reply.
I agree with you though strongly. For $2K? Meh. Will stick with my $800 used 583 Mini14. Sounds like it shoots the same if not quite a bit better.
For half that price you could buy the new 180C. For $2K you could buy the 180C and damn near 1500 rounds of bulk ammo.
Was it reliable though? I hold reliability far higher than MOA accuracy. I can love an 8 MOA gun as long as it shoots every single time, is not picky with ammo, feeding problems etc etc
I will not have a firearm in my locker that does not meet reliability expectations (another reason I love the Mini14 for a semi auto blaster)
Last edited:
If we are going to consider NR 5.56mm/.223 Rem rifles in addition to 7.62x39mm, then we are opening the floodgates regarding what is possible for inherent accuracy. As far as I am concerned, the conversation thus far has focused exclusively on 7,62x39mm IOT exploit the (comparatively) cheap cost of surplus ammo. Bringing 5.56mmm into the discussion is mixing apples and oranges so far as this conversation is concerned.....
But thank-you for perfectly highlighting my point about the differing values that various shooters place on practical accuracy versus grouping size, not to mention accuracy in general versus the importance of reliability, durability and ergonomics. Perfection in all aspects is the ultimate goal, but there is to date, no "perfect" firearm with the ultimate balance of simultaneous excellence in all attributes. The M10X is far from perfect, accuracy appears to be its Achilles heel, and as such it was never worthy of a "DMR" title. That was simply stupid and misleading marketing from a manufacturer who does not understand its core client base and their wants/needs in a reasonably accurate 7.62x39mm "utility" rifle.
The fundamental question is what constitutes reasonable accuracy with surplus 7.62x39mm ammo?!? What about commercial loads? Match loads? FWIW, as I stated earlier, we averaged 4" for 5-shot groups of surplus ammo st 100m, and 3" for commercial hunting loads during over 200 rounds of accuracy testing conducted on 29 June. Reliability was 100%, less one mag-attributed double-feed stoppage. Durability based on visible wear seemed good, with some marring of the finish around the ejection port from steel casings bouncing off the softer aluminum of the Action Cover/Handguard.. The ergonomics of the rifle equipped with optics and a Magpul High Cheek-Riser were excellent. Taken together, that is the current mix of attribute performance thus far from my M10X. That is plenty good enough for what I wanted the rifle for in the first place, which is an alternative to the CZ 858 for plinking with surplus 7.62x39mm ammo. That's it, that's all. My expectations for the M10X were never that high, and certainly had nothing to do with "DMR-like" performance! Different strokes for different folks, eh?
Travis Bickle
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Upper Lower Middle Alberta
I tend to lump semi auto blasters together regarldess of caliber as long as it's an intermediate round.
Effective range with irons for me is 300 meters (of which I am decently capable of holding about 8 to 10 MOA kneeling, standing etc) so it matters not to me whether it's 5.56mm or 7.62x39mm etc Both of those calibers out of 90% of every semi auto gun out there are good enough for my practical accuracy expectations of hitting an 18" plate at 300 meters with stock iron sights.
There is no definition true of "practical accuracy" as it is too broad a term. My practical accuracy was stated. Others expect it to be A LOT tighter. It's a vague term.
I don't have a lot of money to spend on firearms as a hobby so to me price is a big factor. It's price, reliability and then accuracy for me in that specific order.
If I find a rifle that can knock the Mini14 off my alter which trumps it in those 3 aspects then I would be excited.
The M10X sounds like a pretty solid rifle to be honest. It just doesn't hit the price mark for me when I have a rifle that can do all that for less than half the price.
I'm still anxiously awaiting actual release and user feedback on the 180C's however, could be a strong contender to knock the Ruger out of the safe!
Effective range with irons for me is 300 meters (of which I am decently capable of holding about 8 to 10 MOA kneeling, standing etc) so it matters not to me whether it's 5.56mm or 7.62x39mm etc Both of those calibers out of 90% of every semi auto gun out there are good enough for my practical accuracy expectations of hitting an 18" plate at 300 meters with stock iron sights.
There is no definition true of "practical accuracy" as it is too broad a term. My practical accuracy was stated. Others expect it to be A LOT tighter. It's a vague term.
I don't have a lot of money to spend on firearms as a hobby so to me price is a big factor. It's price, reliability and then accuracy for me in that specific order.
If I find a rifle that can knock the Mini14 off my alter which trumps it in those 3 aspects then I would be excited.
The M10X sounds like a pretty solid rifle to be honest. It just doesn't hit the price mark for me when I have a rifle that can do all that for less than half the price.
I'm still anxiously awaiting actual release and user feedback on the 180C's however, could be a strong contender to knock the Ruger out of the safe!
This seems perfectly legit, I'd be pissed too if I where u!
My CSA with Czech surplus is easily a 5 shot 2-3 MOA gun.
It never been a DMR. It was supposed to be an alternative to boutique AK market in US (~1500 USD).
Imagine this one with 16" barrel and red dot in typical USA AK use and it is a winner. Now switch to our typical bench rest "for group" shooting and it looks like a loser.
As I owned and shot both VZ and t81 and only finger-banged M10x. IMO M10x is too heavy to carry around and too inaccurate for bench shooting.
If I had to live with a rifle in wilderness for months, t81 would been the one due to its design's ruggedness, reliability and lighter weight. Although in this case SKS will do the same job for 1/4 the price.
Imagine this one with 16" barrel and red dot in typical USA AK use and it is a winner. Now switch to our typical bench rest "for group" shooting and it looks like a loser.
As I owned and shot both VZ and t81 and only finger-banged M10x. IMO M10x is too heavy to carry around and too inaccurate for bench shooting.
If I had to live with a rifle in wilderness for months, t81 would been the one due to its design's ruggedness, reliability and lighter weight. Although in this case SKS will do the same job for 1/4 the price.
Sure it is. I sense some overly optimistic speculation is shrinking your group sizes with surplus 7.62x39mm....
Are you in Edmonton? I'd be game to go head to head with you at Gennessee Range - my M10X versus your CSA for grouping sizes and/or gong hits. What say you? A little friendly competition just for the fun of it?
Last edited:
Lol the hell I'm driving to Edmonton. But I will upload a video later this summer.
Haven't been following this thread but just read thru the last 15 pages, I do gotta say that if this was happening to my rifle after 300 rounds it would be sent back to where i bought it from for full money back refund, or at least in store credit, imagine what is going to look like after 3000 rounds? 10 times the damage pictured. I'd get out before this rifle literally eats itself and your pocketbook up completely
