can anyone explain why BCM is good?

[rockcreek]

When it comes to AR parts, you would be amazed at how many parts are exactly the same between mfg's. If one company has a feature you like, than by all means buy it. For an identical part, many times you are only paying for a name. Sometimes the same manufacturer will outsource the same part from 4 or more vendors, especially with the current demand.

[cobb]

I put one of the BMC large mod 3 on my .308 to clear the scope and give me something solid to manually cycle. It takes a lot more pull and stress on the charging handle with a .308 compared to a .223. I didn't want to save $25 on a part that may fail on a hunt that I have vacation time several $$$ invested in. I also put one on my .458 SOCOM for the same reason. I have checked out just adding an oversize latch to the handle, but it seems just too flimsy for my taste and the BMC seems a lot more solid.

[jshuberg]

well i'm not sold that i have to drop $45 on a charging handle. is it steel?! that's news to me, i thought they were aluminum like most every other AR part.

Why do they charge $45? Because there are enough people out there willing to pay that much that they would be stupid to charge any less. Demand dictates value, so yes, they are worth $45 each.

The question should really be does their charging handle genuinely deserve the market share and popularity they are currently enjoying?

[gunforhire]

My scope is situated as such that my rear backup sight gets in the way of using the charging handle. that's why I have a BCM on mine.

[Maximus]

Most of the parts that cost more are tested against abuse and are made to withstand abuse that you have never even thought of. There are some parts that cost more just based on the name or origin of manufacture. Different states have different business taxes and different areas have different labor pools. So it is probably cheaper to do business out of Texas than it is out of Wisconsin, where BCM is HQ'd. I bet the property taxes are higher too. According to one list Texas was ranked #2 and Wisconsin #25 for best place to do business. If it was made in Texas and only cost $35 would that change your mind. Or do you just hate giving money to Packer backers as much as I do?

Luke

[xracer390]

DPMS is sourcing parts from china. Do you want china quality or US made?

This isn't a made up claim - See where it says made in USA? Oops, it doesn't.
Cheap aluminum one:
http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/pid=1751 ... ING-HANDLE
Expensive steel one:
http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/pid=1838 ... ING-HANDLE

Neither is made here. Brownells is keen on promoting things which are made here as such.

Double Star's cheap one is made here, but 6061 aluminum is not milspec as they claim:
http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/pid=3193 ... E-ASSEMBLY

Then we'll go to the BCM listing, which is made in USA and 7075 (a more expensive, and superior material to 6061):
http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/pid=3207 ... ING-HANDLE

True milspec is forged 7075. You'll see in the customer reviews, those who bought the cheaper ones complain about them being flimsy.

Just because it doesn't say made in the USA doesn't mean it isn't. I know 2 companies local to the Mpls area that make Charging handles for DPMS. Do they import some ? Possible but I doubt it. Did someone say Charging Handle Latches ? Or are they bunnies ?

[FJ540]

Ok, so show me the pic of your hand in the part that fails - the handle.

DPMS has always sourced parts from the lowest bidder - it's how the company started, why would they change?

[rukwikenuf]

I'll try one, Screw it. I'll give an opinion on the product after it comes

[xracer390]

Ok, so show me the pic of your hand in the part that fails - the handle.

DPMS has always sourced parts from the lowest bidder - it's how the company started, why would they change?

I cant speak for how they started but I know the parts we make for them are not the cheapest . Consistent quality and on time delivery got us in the door with them and they keep handing us more work. We do not do any high volume machining so we don't do the charging handles. Like I said, do some get imported ?? Maybe but I doubt it.

[MnHornet]

Ok, so show me the pic of your hand in the part that fails - the handle.

DPMS has always sourced parts from the lowest bidder - it's how the company started, why would they change?

How often do charging handles fail?

[Hmac]

Ok, so show me the pic of your hand in the part that fails - the handle.

DPMS has always sourced parts from the lowest bidder - it's how the company started, why would they change?

How often do charging handles fail?

I've broken a couple over the last 15 years, and have seen a few others break on the Tac Team. Usually it breaks at the roll pin on the latch, but I also had one that broke mid-shaft from the off-axis one-finger pull I use. One was an extended Badger latch...I suspect it provided more pressure on the pin. The BCM charging handles are designed to minimize the pressure on the roll pin, even with the longer latch on the Mod 3 version. They also have a sort of web at the back which seems to provide more stability or rigidity. I haven't broken one on any of the rifles I shoot but as you suggest, it's not a common occurrence anyway. I prefer a larger latch, but I'm not that fond of the Badger latch. The BCM handle has a nice configuration for a one-finger pull. It appears, and various reviews tend to support, that they are more robust.

[FJ540]

When it comes to AR parts, you would be amazed at how many parts are exactly the same between mfg's.

That's the whole intent behind "mil spec." They're all pretty much exactly the same: the regulations stipulate every last detail on how that part is to be made or it doesn't meet the regulation and is non-compliant and not usable in service weapons. Period. Some stuff is merely stamped out of a given gauge material and phosphate coated to a certain thickness - others it tells you what the quench has to be for the heat treat cycles and what not. Totally part dependent. The intention is to be able to source parts from any manufacturer when demand exceeds contracted supply and not have problems with interchangability or performance.

The problem comes when mfg's deviate by using inferior materials and processes, but keep the surface finish and dimensions the same. Now you have a clone of the real deal that doesn't hold up to the same level of performance. To the guy without a gas spectrum analyser - they're the same, but they're clearly not. In the private sector, no one's going to know until the component fails prematurely.

Take the "commercial" vs "mil spec" buffer tubes for instance. The mil spec states forged 7075, and the smaller diameter is fine for butt-stroking bad guys all day long (so I'm told: I trained on an A2 - which does have the same buffer tube wall thickness, IIRC), but when you start trying to work that wall thickness in 6061, it has problems with cracking off at the minor diameter of the threads. Oops! They also changed the dimensions to prevent cross contamination of the mil spec vs the consumer grade - I'm pretty sure the DPMS dude told me that himself back in the mid 90's. Some might assume the thickness difference is due to the inferior strength of the 6061, but the failure area is the minor diameter of the threads where it screws into the lower - if you actually use the rifle as it was intended: as a club!

[Erik_Pakieser]

Ok, so show me the pic of your hand in the part that fails - the handle.

DPMS has always sourced parts from the lowest bidder - it's how the company started, why would they change?

How often do charging handles fail?

I've seen it happen a few times. As the others have said, the failure point is the roll pin.

Personally, all of my AR15s have the BCM charging handles. It's not very expensive as a gun accessory goes and I feel it's far superior to the OEM.

[rukwikenuf]

When it comes to AR parts, you would be amazed at how many parts are exactly the same between mfg's.

That's the whole intent behind "mil spec." They're all pretty much exactly the same: the regulations stipulate every last detail on how that part is to be made or it doesn't meet the regulation and is non-compliant and not usable in service weapons. Period. Some stuff is merely stamped out of a given gauge material and phosphate coated to a certain thickness - others it tells you what the quench has to be for the heat treat cycles and what not. Totally part dependent. The intention is to be able to source parts from any manufacturer when demand exceeds contracted supply and not have problems with interchangability or performance.

The problem comes when mfg's deviate by using inferior materials and processes, but keep the surface finish and dimensions the same. Now you have a clone of the real deal that doesn't hold up to the same level of performance. To the guy without a gas spectrum analyser - they're the same, but they're clearly not. In the private sector, no one's going to know until the component fails prematurely.

Take the "commercial" vs "mil spec" buffer tubes for instance. The mil spec states forged 7075, and the smaller diameter is fine for butt-stroking bad guys all day long (so I'm told: I trained on an A2 - which does have the same buffer tube wall thickness, IIRC), but when you start trying to work that wall thickness in 6061, it has problems with cracking off at the minor diameter of the threads. Oops! They also changed the dimensions to prevent cross contamination of the mil spec vs the consumer grade - I'm pretty sure the DPMS dude told me that himself back in the mid 90's. Some might assume the thickness difference is due to the inferior strength of the 6061, but the failure area is the minor diameter of the threads where it screws into the lower - if you actually use the rifle as it was intended: as a club!

the problem, as i've understood it, is that the only companies that know what is TRULY Mil-Spec are the companies that have the contract. it's kinda hush-hush. otherwise, everyone else is just reverse engineering the parts. i'd be pretty surprised if BCM has any sort of contracts, which i suppose is why the BCM CH's are of a proprietary design. Colt has a military contract (and that's their apparant primary focus) so they know what the TRUE Mil-Spec is. when CMMG or Palmetto makes something, they are making it as close as they can to the Mil-Std that's specified for the Colt part. or Armalite, or whoever might have a contract.

and re my original post, i did not realise that BCM had reworked it. i was under the belief that they were just regurgitating the same parts, but engraving their name on it.

[FJ540]

My understanding is that the spec is determined by the qualification and adoption process of the bidders when a requisition is ordered (not sure the exact terms they use for these). So the SOCOM guys want a new service pistol, Sig, WC, Springfield, Colt, etc all step up and apply based on the preliminary requirements (has to be .45 cal, 5" barrel, blah blah blah), then SOCOM do their tests and determine which platform gets the go, then they turn around and make the specs and offer that up for competitive bid, or they have the option to simply award the contract based on the weapons submitted and they'll order XX of them. Mil spec is published once it's determined. Whether you can access that online or not, I have no idea. One of the "joys" I got tasked with in AIT was an inventory of the aviation life support office for the airfield on base. The specs were all listed in a bound book for everything that was to be supplied with an aircraft. "Meets or exceeds" was the big thing there, because the Army didn't order their own bandages - we used what we could get. Other things were explicitly labeled with the mil spec number, and the direct order number for the govt supply chain.

Now since I've never applied for a contract, I could be way off on this. That's based on various sources, both with people fulfilling contracts and supply Sgt's and other Active personnel, and the fictitious stuff we read online clouding my memory of my time in grade.

My service rifle was a FN lower, some guys had Colts, some had Armalites. My Drill Sgt said we were basically using the clapped out remains of the Viet Nam era guns, and they were all bastards with no matching anything anymore. That was back in '00. FN had the current contract for the m-16 IIRC.