PSA premium BCG same as BCM BCG?

[Slasher]

http://palmettostatearmory.com/index.php/ar-15-05/upper-parts/bolt-carrier-groups/palmetto-state-armory-5-56-bolt-carrier-group.html

 

Has anyone checked this out?  The specs on the PSA read almost exactly the same as the specs for the BCM minus the BCM logo.

Is it possible that PSA are getting these from BCM unmarked and putting their logo on it?

 

How does the quality of the BCM BCG match up to the quality of the CMT bolt being offered in the group buy?

[TripleDigitRide]

There are a relatively small number of companies who make the bolts and carriers for a much larger number of companies/retailers. Depending on the retailers specs, different metals are used. Dolomite did a great job explaining the difference to me, but I'm still confused.

[Luke E.]

 Say you have a company ( we'll call it company "A") who makes bolt carriers and you have companies that need BCG's to assemble their rifles or to resale we'll call them company 1 and 2. Company 1 calls company A and tells them that they want x number of top of the line coated, treated bolt carriers made of space age steel and be within .001" tolerance, so company A goes to the drawing board and gets back with them with a price of $100 per part. Now company A  gets a call from company 2 wanting bolt carriers and needs them to be at a $75 price point. Company A can't sell the ones created for company 1 at the $75 price point but if they use a cheaper coating and go with a bit cheaper steel and loosen tolerances they can provide company 2 with the part wanted at the price wanted... So, while  company 1 and 2 both get their bolt carriers from the same manufacturer, you will not get the same quality of part from company 2 as you would from company 1.

 

 Now I don't know that this is the case with the PSA and BCM BCG's but I do know from other experiences, this is how these types of things typically go. I would be interested to know what you end up finding out to be the case. 

[Oh Shoot]

Herter's, Monarch, Wolf, Brown/Silver Bear ammo might all be same load from the same Russian ammo factory, depending on current contract. Like that.

 

- OS

Edited October 21, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Djay3]

Good to see items like this staying in stock for more than a few minutes.

Bravo Company bolts & bcgs sell out quickly simply due to the excellent reputation BCM has garnered. PSA is building a good reputation so I'd venture that their description fits the product along with a very good price! Their photo shows an excellent staking of the bolt carrier key!

CMTs are good bolts but I haven't kept up with their current specs.

[mikegideon]

The BCM bolt carrier is actually test fired before they ship it. Other that that, they look to be of equal quality

[Byedan]

Psa is ok, BCM top notch stuff, PSA sells cheap because the buy cheap and spec cheap, but Luke is on the right path, I am not saying psa is junk but they buy and sell at a low price point, they also sell some very good stuff at a higher price point. Is it possible there bcg's are made by the same machine shop yes but they are spec'd different. And really all F/A bcg's in spec should look the same other than coatings

[Slasher]

PSA's regular price is in line with what BCM is charging for theirs so it would seem they should be the same quality. If all of the specs are the same how do you tell by looking at them if one is a better quality than another?

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[mikegideon]

PSA's regular price is in line with what BCM is charging for theirs so it would seem they should be the same quality. If all of the specs are the same how do you tell by looking at them if one is a better quality than another?

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

One more time... BCM puts their BCG in a gun and tests it. That should, and I'm sure does add to the cost. It ain't just about specs. I'm sure they're both fine. BCG's are limping in a semi-auto gun to begin with. 

[Luke E.]

One more time... BCM puts their BCG in a gun and tests it. That should, and I'm sure does add to the cost. It ain't just about specs. I'm sure they're both fine. BCG's are limping in a semi-auto gun to begin with. 

 

 If I were a betting man i'd say that BCM's practice of installing and test firing has just as much if not more to do with cutting down on returns due to "faulty" BCG's and the costs involved as it does anything else and I definitely have nothing wrong with that and even think it's a great idea. There are several reasons for a rifle that an individual builds, not to cycle but for the 1st time builder the BCG will be the likely suspect to them a very high percentage of the time at which time they will call BCM and cry about their "faulty" BCG and send it back as well as expect a new one to arrive in the mail only to install it and the gun still not cycle. My theory could be completely wrong but i'd say with them being a smart and successful company they like test firing each one that way they have a leg to stand on when they explain to the customer that the problem must be somewhere else because we test fired yours and it is good to go. It doesn't hurt that by making sure they don't let a dud slip through by test firing them 1st gives nets them a strong name. I completely agree with you though, if they are paying a man to install each one, fire it, uninstall and clean it up as well as the ammo cost, they aren't going to let that money come out of their end, they are going to pass it on to the consumer with the end result being as Mike said... Higher price.

 

PSA's regular price is in line with what BCM is charging for theirs so it would seem they should be the same quality. If all of the specs are the same how do you tell by looking at them if one is a better quality than another?

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

 Again, I don't know for a fact nor have I done enough research to even suspect that PSA's BCG is any less quality than BCM's. What I do know from experience with contracting out parts manufacturing is that just because multiple companies contract the same manufacturer to make the "same" product for them does NOT mean that you are going to get the exact same quality from each company. PSA may be selling the identical part that BCM is and If their prices are pretty well in line then i'd say there is a good chance that is so but if BCM is charging $200 for theirs and PSA is charging $100 then there is a really good chance they are not all created equal. I have no idea what either of them charges so I just pulled those number out of my backside.

 But to answer your question, All BCG's should be built to the same dimensions since they all have to work in the same upper receivers but if one company were to go with a cheaper treating process or cheaper coating or coating process, there is no way you could tell by holding them and looking them over much less looking at a website's stock photos. The rule I play by personally is, if the difference in processes is potentially a deal breaker for me buying the cheaper of two items then I go with the one from the company I am sure about.

 But like Mike said, we are all running semi auto rifles and are not in situations that require us to run through thousands of rounds between cleanings so I wouldn't think the corners that could possibly be cut on a BCG we be anything that we as civilians should be all that worried about. The cyclic rates on semi autos being more dependent on the speed of our trigger fingers than the heat or coating on the bolt carrier I'd say go with the cheaper quality part. If there is a large price difference, ask yourself why that could be and if you think you can live with the worst of those reasons then go with the cheaper but if it is unacceptable then go with the pricier.

[mikegideon]

It's really not a big deal. If I was going to shoot full auto, I would get the BCM. Other than that, any of the milspec BCG's shout be fine. I'm glad Palmetto bug is offering one..

[Luke E.]

It's really not a big deal. If I was going to shoot full auto, I would get the BCM. Other than that, any of the milspec BCG's shout be fine

 

Exactly. I'm not gonna lie though, I've been looking at the Nickel Boron coated carriers for this build just because that little extra slickness (if there is any) could make a difference once the bullets gets some distance between the rifle and itself bolt i'm still not sure that it's worth the money.

[mikegideon]

Exactly. I'm not gonna lie though, I've been looking at the Nickel Boron coated carriers for this build just because that little extra slickness (if there is any) could make a difference once the bullets gets some distance between the rifle and itself bolt i'm still not sure that it's worth the money.

 

I looked at nickel boron as well. Won't impact accuracy, though. The bolt doesn't even start unlocking until after the bullet passes the gas port. I ordered a plain ole phosphate Spike's BCG.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I looked at nickel boron as well. Won't impact accuracy, though. The bolt doesn't even start unlocking until after the bullet passes the gas port. I ordered a plain ole phosphate Spike's BCG.

I prefer the phosphated BCG's as well because they hold protectants and oils better than anything else.

 

http://palmettostatearmory.com/index.php/ar-15-05/upper-parts/bolt-carrier-groups/palmetto-state-armory-5-56-bolt-carrier-group.html
 
Has anyone checked this out?  The specs on the PSA read almost exactly the same as the specs for the BCM minus the BCM logo.

Is it possible that PSA are getting these from BCM unmarked and putting their logo on it?
 
How does the quality of the BCM BCG match up to the quality of the CMT bolt being offered in the group buy?

 
The CMT bolt carrier is the best I have seen on the market in a long time. The BCM/PSA BCG is milspec, which is a minimum standard, while the CMT goes above it by using a 9310 bolt.
 
8620 IS Milspec for the CARRIER. Carpenter 158 IS Milspec for the bolt. But that does not mean that the Carpenter 158 is better than the 9310 bolt because it isn't. The Carpenter 158 bolts are probably the cheapest way to meet the Milspec standards so that is what most manufacturers use when they must meet the standard. But do not assume that because the 9310 bolts are not Milspec that they are junk because it is just the opposite, the 9310 bolts are better than the Carpenter 158 bolts. But Carpenter 158 bolts are not junk either, just that the 9310 is a better bolt even if it isn't Milspec.
 
Milspec is a minimum standard, it is not a standard to imply that the part is the best but rather that it met the minimum to meet the standard. Milspec is like a passing grade on a school test not acing it. A "D" may be passing but it is not as good as a "A". Milspec standards are also there to ensure compatibility between parts. But just because something isn't Milspec doesn't automatically mean it is junk because there are tons of parts out there that do not meet the Milspec standard that are very good.
 
There are plenty of great stuff out there that is not milspec. Take ANY billet lower or upper receiver for example. They are often better dimensionally than most forged uppers but because the Milspec standard says they must be forged a billet setup does not meet the milspec standard. Or take a melonited barrel, they are far better than any chrome lined barrel but it does not meet the Milspec standard because the standard says the barrel must be chrome lined and phosphated. Or how about Noveske's polygon barrels, they are way better than any milspec barrel but they do not meet the Milspec standard. Or the fact that most Magpul products are not Milspec but in most cases they are better than the Milspec equivalent. The list goes on and on with items that do not meet the Milspec standard but are better than the Milspec equal.
 
In the end I think the bolt carrier being 8620 and the bolt being 9310 makes the CMT BCG as good as any bolt carrier out there and better than those BCG's made to the Milspec standard. At $116 it is a great deal and even at $169 it is a fair price. You will not be able to find the same bolt anywhere else for the same price. CMT was selling these for a lot less as a favor to the members of TGO.

[mcordell]

I personally run BCM bcg's ... Superior quality control

 

Here is one article on a BCM rifle... They ran 16,400 rounds through the rifle before the bolt needed replacing (never even cleaned it)

 

"2400 rounds with no lube"

 

" The gun is being shot approximately 8 hours a day in a tactical training class environment at the rate of approximately 1,250 rounds every 3 days"

 

http://www.slip2000.com/blog/s-w-a-t-magazine-filthy-14/

 

A few guys over on ARF.com that actually maintain and clean there rifles are claiming 20k+ rounds on the BCM bolts

 

so for most people myself including... I doubt I would ever need to replace a BCM bolt in any of my AR's

Edited November 6, 2013 by mcordell

[mikegideon]

I prefer the phosphated BCG's as well because they hold protectants and oils better than anything else.

 

 
The CMT bolt carrier is the best I have seen on the market in a long time. The BCM/PSA BCG is milspec, which is a minimum standard, while the CMT goes above it by using a 9310 bolt.
 
8620 IS Milspec for the CARRIER. Carpenter 158 IS Milspec for the bolt. But that does not mean that the Carpenter 158 is better than the 9310 bolt because it isn't. The Carpenter 158 bolts are probably the cheapest way to meet the Milspec standards so that is what most manufacturers use when they must meet the standard. But do not assume that because the 9310 bolts are not Milspec that they are junk because it is just the opposite, the 9310 bolts are better than the Carpenter 158 bolts. But Carpenter 158 bolts are not junk either, just that the 9310 is a better bolt even if it isn't Milspec.
 
Milspec is a minimum standard, it is not a standard to imply that the part is the best but rather that it met the minimum to meet the standard. Milspec is like a passing grade on a school test not acing it. A "D" may be passing but it is not as good as a "A". Milspec standards are also there to ensure compatibility between parts. But just because something isn't Milspec doesn't automatically mean it is junk because there are tons of parts out there that do not meet the Milspec standard that are very good.
 
There are plenty of great stuff out there that is not milspec. Take ANY billet lower or upper receiver for example. They are often better dimensionally than most forged uppers but because the Milspec standard says they must be forged a billet setup does not meet the milspec standard. Or take a melonited barrel, they are far better than any chrome lined barrel but it does not meet the Milspec standard because the standard says the barrel must be chrome lined and phosphated. Or how about Noveske's polygon barrels, they are way better than any milspec barrel but they do not meet the Milspec standard. Or the fact that most Magpul products are not Milspec but in most cases they are better than the Milspec equivalent. The list goes on and on with items that do not meet the Milspec standard but are better than the Milspec equal.
 
In the end I think the bolt carrier being 8620 and the bolt being 9310 makes the CMT BCG as good as any bolt carrier out there and better than those BCG's made to the Milspec standard. At $116 it is a great deal and even at $169 it is a fair price. You will not be able to find the same bolt anywhere else for the same price. CMT was selling these for a lot less as a favor to the members of TGO.

 

I missed the boat on the CMT BCG, mainly because my bolt is coming with my barrel. When it came down to it, I wound up not being able to find a stand alone M16 bolt carrier, and wound up with a Spike's BCG. Not all bad... I like me some spider logo showing thru the ejection port.

[mcordell]

I missed the boat on the CMT BCG, mainly because my bolt is coming with my barrel. When it came down to it, I wound up not being able to find a stand alone M16 bolt carrier, and wound up with a Spike's BCG. Not all bad... I like me some spider logo showing thru the ejection port.

Nothing wrong with the spikes BCG at all ... I have ran several of them GTG... I just prefer BCM ... Maybe I'm a fan boy ;-)... But you can get the spikes BCG for $123 @ DSG arms which makes them pretty appealing

[mikegideon]

Nothing wrong with the spikes BCG at all ... I have ran several of them GTG... I just prefer BCM ... Maybe I'm a fan boy ;-)... But you can get the spikes BCG for $123 @ DSG arms which makes them pretty appealing

 

I'm a fan of the BCM as well. In fact, not just their BCG. Again, since I won't be using the bolt, which is the real business end of things, I didn't figure it was that critical. I'm a fan of Spikes too. I have 3 or 4 of their lowers.