AR Sponsor
BCM's $59 commercial spec BCG (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 4/17/2026 8:45:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: the-answer-is-42][Edited]
|
Theres a bunch of topics on these on the internet but with zero photos somehow from anyone who has bought one. They used to be $79 but now they are $59 so I figured I'd grab one. Everything on the BCG looks good and spec's out and it does not look to be a blem or rejected BCM bolt - but if it is it was rejected WAY before the rest of the customization process. No markings at all No unique markings on the carrier or bolt to denote who may have made it It is NOT made by Manufacturing Partners Inc (MPI) who makes the $50 BCA nitride bolts - so thats a plus. Carrier key is stakes properly, is chrome lined, and is NOT MIM - looks to be a regular machined and CL key Only issue I can find with the carrier is tool marks/chatter on the flat above the bolt race There is no roughness/chatter inside the bolt race even at the tail-end and its machined very well. Such issues is typical of cheap BCGs where the use the reaming tool until it fails (MPI/BCA BCGs) Bolt race is in fact chrome lined (the web page doesnt denote this, but the listing for carrier-only does and no one confirmed in any topics) Parkerization is done properly and evenly Bolt has an upgraded extractor spring and plunger kit thingy No markings for HPT/MPI but tbh everyone does these by default these days, so who knows Does NOT look like the same bolt as an old non-MPI Del-Ton I have in a spare parts bin Bolt is slightly diff finish than carrier BCG came heat-sealed in a clear plastic bag BCG came with white lithium grease on the cam pin which I have never seen before from a brand new or OEM BCG and is really the only unique thing about it (Edited with proper link finally) Link: https://bravocompanyusa.com/commercial-bolt-carrier-group-auto/  
|
| For the sake of conversation, what makes this more appealing than offerings from other sources? BCM specifically says those are not their products, so what's the advantage in getting those? For $10 more, AIM has BCGs with an 8620 carrier and a 9310 bolt (heat treated, peened, MPI'd), plus the whole thing is nitrided. I have a few AIM BCGs in a couple of my ARs and no funeral for me yet. |
USAF-retired, GOA, FPC
|
Originally Posted By CarlosC: For the sake of conversation, what makes this more appealing than offerings from other sources? BCM specifically says those are not their products, so what's the advantage in getting those? For $10 more, AIM has BCGs with an 8620 carrier and a 9310 bolt (heat treated, peened, MPI'd), plus the whole thing is nitrided. I have a few AIM BCGs in a couple of my ARs and no funeral for me yet. A lot of people still prefer parkerized bolts and park/chrome-lined carriers & keys over nitrided, as well as C158 bolt material over 9310. Getting that for $60, it's a great deal. And, with liability being what it is today, BCM has to at least look at these before they let them out the door. |
Joined:
Nov 2022
Posts:
4568
EE: 100% (4)
SC, USA
|
Originally Posted By CarlosC: For the sake of conversation, what makes this more appealing than offerings from other sources? BCM specifically says those are not their products, so what's the advantage in getting those? For $10 more, AIM has BCGs with an 8620 carrier and a 9310 bolt (heat treated, peened, MPI'd), plus the whole thing is nitrided. I have a few AIM BCGs in a couple of my ARs and no funeral for me yet. Cheap nitrided 9310 bolts have a tendency to fail. |
Joined:
Dec 2022
Posts:
1457
EE: 100% (42)
SC, USA
|
Good stuff. Link is to a carrier only for $40. My experience with budget grade BCGs is somewhat limited, but has definitely been hit or miss and made me understand that if you want to be as sure as you can be that it will work out of the box, spend the $180 on a milspec unit from a known good brand. I'm sure some really are "off the same line as the ones going to mispec brand X, just without the logo", but the trick seems to be finding them. BCM doesn't normally sell junk, so if these are actually good for $60, I'd bet they are swamped with orders as the reputation develops. |
|
Originally Posted By CarlosC: For the sake of conversation, what makes this more appealing than offerings from other sources? BCM specifically says those are not their products, so what's the advantage in getting those? For $10 more, AIM has BCGs with an 8620 carrier and a 9310 bolt (heat treated, peened, MPI'd), plus the whole thing is nitrided. I have a few AIM BCGs in a couple of my ARs and no funeral for me yet. I have an aim slic nitride Bcg from the first run they did back in like 2013 and it’s still going strong with only new gas rings. I figure BCM wouldn’t sell something that’s garbage and they have to know behind the scenes where these came from and they have to be satisfied with the pedigree or they wouldn’t risk it but you never know I guess |
|
Originally Posted By CarlosC: For the sake of conversation, what makes this more appealing than offerings from other sources? BCM specifically says those are not their products, so what's the advantage in getting those? For $10 more, AIM has BCGs with an 8620 carrier and a 9310 bolt (heat treated, peened, MPI'd), plus the whole thing is nitrided. I have a few AIM BCGs in a couple of my ARs and no funeral for me yet. Because 9310 bolts and nitrided bcg suck |
Do Good
Be Dangerous
Live Free
Be Dangerous
Live Free
|
Originally Posted By 03RN: Because 9310 bolts and nitrided bcg suck What are you basing that on? 9310 steel is stronger -if properly heat treated- than C158. Among the makers of 9310 bolts are obscure companies like Toolcraft, Faxon Firearms, Aero Precision, Bushmaster, and CMMG. I wonder if they realize their bolts suck. Nitride treats the steel itself, protecting both the bore and exterior while phosphate is a porous finish that relies on oil to prevent rust. Nitride offers better corrosion resistance, higher surface hardness, and a slicker surface, which makes cleaning easier. Phosphate lends itself to cheaper, mass-produced parts. So, why again does nitride suck? |
USAF-retired, GOA, FPC
|
Originally Posted By CarlosC: What are you basing that on? 9310 steel is stronger -if properly heat treated- than C158. Among the makers of 9310 bolts are obscure companies like Toolcraft, Faxon Firearms, Aero Precision, Bushmaster, and CMMG. I wonder if they realize their bolts suck. Nitride treats the steel itself, protecting both the bore and exterior while phosphate is a porous finish that relies on oil to prevent rust. Nitride offers better corrosion resistance, higher surface hardness, and a slicker surface, which makes cleaning easier. Phosphate lends itself to cheaper, mass-produced parts. So, why again does nitride suck? Originally Posted By CarlosC: Originally Posted By 03RN: Because 9310 bolts and nitrided bcg suck What are you basing that on? 9310 steel is stronger -if properly heat treated- than C158. Among the makers of 9310 bolts are obscure companies like Toolcraft, Faxon Firearms, Aero Precision, Bushmaster, and CMMG. I wonder if they realize their bolts suck. Nitride treats the steel itself, protecting both the bore and exterior while phosphate is a porous finish that relies on oil to prevent rust. Nitride offers better corrosion resistance, higher surface hardness, and a slicker surface, which makes cleaning easier. Phosphate lends itself to cheaper, mass-produced parts. So, why again does nitride suck? Ive seen more 9130 bolts break. Pretty low round counts too while working at a range. What does the government use for bolts? What does Geissele? Colt? FN? DD? LMT? If 9130 was better why dont they use it? |
Do Good
Be Dangerous
Live Free
Be Dangerous
Live Free
|
Originally Posted By 03RN: Ive seen more 9130 bolts break. Pretty low round counts too while working at a range. What does the government use for bolts? What does Geissele? Colt? FN? DD? LMT? If 9130 was better why dont they use it? Your first point is anecdotal, not data. The second is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. There are many reasons a government supplier wouldn’t use a particular material, and quite a few of them would have nothing to do with “better.” If we’re going to have productive conversations, they have to be based on facts and our interpretation of them. |
|
Originally Posted By 03RN: Didnt psa have a similar deal and they were meant for Ukrainian rifles or something? Yes…. I snagged one of those when they were in stock! https://palmettostatearmory.com/psa-true-mil-spec-c158-hpt-mpi-bolt-carrier-group.html |
Suck it blankskins, your pink flesh is an invite to hot burning metal rape - RustedAce
I <3 Essex Girls!
I <3 Essex Girls!
|
Originally Posted By Kilroytheknifesnob: Your first point is anecdotal, not data. The second is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. There are many reasons a government supplier wouldn’t use a particular material, and quite a few of them would have nothing to do with “better.” If we’re going to have productive conversations, they have to be based on facts and our interpretation of them. Is there a test to see if a 9130 bolt was properly heat treated? |
|
Originally Posted By Kilroytheknifesnob: Your first point is anecdotal, not data. The second is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. There are many reasons a government supplier wouldn’t use a particular material, and quite a few of them would have nothing to do with “better.” If we’re going to have productive conversations, they have to be based on facts and our interpretation of them. Originally Posted By Kilroytheknifesnob: Originally Posted By 03RN: Ive seen more 9130 bolts break. Pretty low round counts too while working at a range. What does the government use for bolts? What does Geissele? Colt? FN? DD? LMT? If 9130 was better why dont they use it? Your first point is anecdotal, not data. The second is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. There are many reasons a government supplier wouldn’t use a particular material, and quite a few of them would have nothing to do with “better.” If we’re going to have productive conversations, they have to be based on facts and our interpretation of them. I wasnt asked to present data. I was asked what I based my opinion on. Number 1 is my experience. Please present your facts. |
Do Good
Be Dangerous
Live Free
Be Dangerous
Live Free
|
Originally Posted By Dru: Yes…. I snagged one of those when they were in stock! https://palmettostatearmory.com/psa-true-mil-spec-c158-hpt-mpi-bolt-carrier-group.html Originally Posted By Dru: Originally Posted By 03RN: Didnt psa have a similar deal and they were meant for Ukrainian rifles or something? Yes…. I snagged one of those when they were in stock! https://palmettostatearmory.com/psa-true-mil-spec-c158-hpt-mpi-bolt-carrier-group.html Apparently I did too 
|
Do Good
Be Dangerous
Live Free
Be Dangerous
Live Free
|
Originally Posted By Marksman14: Is there a test to see if a 9130 bolt was properly heat treated? Not that I'm aware of. The biggest issue with the earlier 9310 bolt failures came about due to the nitriding processing. The nitriding process temps being too high and basically negating the original heat treating benefits. |
|
Originally Posted By CarlosC: What are you basing that on? 9310 steel is stronger -if properly heat treated- than C158. Among the makers of 9310 bolts are obscure companies like Toolcraft, Faxon Firearms, Aero Precision, Bushmaster, and CMMG. I wonder if they realize their bolts suck. Nitride treats the steel itself, protecting both the bore and exterior while phosphate is a porous finish that relies on oil to prevent rust. Nitride offers better corrosion resistance, higher surface hardness, and a slicker surface, which makes cleaning easier. Phosphate lends itself to cheaper, mass-produced parts. So, why again does nitride suck? Citing Faxon, Aero, Bushmaster, and CMMG -- all of which are mediocre brands at best-- makes 03RN's argument for him. 
|
|
Originally Posted By 03RN: I wasnt asked to present data. I was asked what I based my opinion on. Number 1 is my experience. Please present your facts. Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By Kilroytheknifesnob: Originally Posted By 03RN: Ive seen more 9130 bolts break. Pretty low round counts too while working at a range. What does the government use for bolts? What does Geissele? Colt? FN? DD? LMT? If 9130 was better why dont they use it? Your first point is anecdotal, not data. The second is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. There are many reasons a government supplier wouldn’t use a particular material, and quite a few of them would have nothing to do with “better.” If we’re going to have productive conversations, they have to be based on facts and our interpretation of them. I wasnt asked to present data. I was asked what I based my opinion on. Number 1 is my experience. Please present your facts. You made the claims first, and “working at a range” isn’t good enough nor does it make you an expert or qualified to makes claims. Please present facts to back up your statements. |
Your painted rifle is ugly, but I’m uglier, so send it to me and I’ll make it look good!
If it weren’t for double standards, we’d have no standards at all.
If it weren’t for double standards, we’d have no standards at all.
|
Originally Posted By Claytonhoneyberry: You made the claims first, and “working at a range” isn’t good enough nor does it make you an expert or qualified to makes claims. Please present facts to back up your statements. Originally Posted By Claytonhoneyberry: Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By Kilroytheknifesnob: Originally Posted By 03RN: Ive seen more 9130 bolts break. Pretty low round counts too while working at a range. What does the government use for bolts? What does Geissele? Colt? FN? DD? LMT? If 9130 was better why dont they use it? Your first point is anecdotal, not data. The second is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. There are many reasons a government supplier wouldn’t use a particular material, and quite a few of them would have nothing to do with “better.” If we’re going to have productive conversations, they have to be based on facts and our interpretation of them. I wasnt asked to present data. I was asked what I based my opinion on. Number 1 is my experience. Please present your facts. You made the claims first, and “working at a range” isn’t good enough nor does it make you an expert or qualified to makes claims. Please present facts to back up your statements. I dont need to. Im just a guy. Im not an expert. Im going off my experience and what the industries uses in the best bolts. If you dont like my opinion ignore me. Or prove me wrong by posting your facts that show nitrided 9310 bolts are better. Id love to be proven wrong. Id rather buy cheaper things if they're better. |
Do Good
Be Dangerous
Live Free
Be Dangerous
Live Free
|
I bought two. They both had poor coating of chrome in the carrier. The areas missing chrome parkerized. Bought a couple of the stripped BCM uppers with the order. They were not any tighter on the barrel extension then other uppers I have. They were just a slip fit. |
|
Originally Posted By pepe-lepew: I bought two. They both had poor coating of chrome in the carrier. The areas missing chrome parkerized. Bought a couple of the stripped BCM uppers with the order. They were not any tighter on the barrel extension then other uppers I have. They were just a slip fit. That’s surprising. I’ve used half a dozen of those uppers and they all required substantial heat to seat the extension. |
|
I've used dozens of the upper receivers building service rifles over many years. They have always been extremely tight. We're talking have to heat it for a significant time with a heat gun to get the thing expanded enough to allow the entire length of the extension to slide in. The first time I tried it way back when they started making the tight extensions, I learned the hard way. I saw one of their commercial spec BCGs in passing and I didn't see any glaring issues, but I didn't take any measurements. It looked like a run of the mill parked and chromed BCG, and I wondered what the story was on them. You just don't see too many non-nitrided BCGs that aren't a little pricier these days. |
|
Originally Posted By a390st: I've used dozens of the upper receivers building service rifles over many years. They have always been extremely tight. We're talking have to heat it for a significant time with a heat gun to get the thing expanded enough to allow the entire length of the extension to slide in. The first time I tried it way back when they started making the tight extensions, I learned the hard way. I saw one of their commercial spec BCGs in passing and I didn't see any glaring issues, but I didn't take any measurements. It looked like a run of the mill parked and chromed BCG, and I wondered what the story was on them. You just don't see too many non-nitrided BCGs that aren't a little pricier these days. I grabbed a blem upper as well with the commercial spec BCG, and it took a propane torch a solid 30 seconds to open it up to fit the barrel. And the part in bold is what intrigued me as well. 'Cheap' BCGs are all nitride. To see an overrun/contract BCG be parkerized and chrome lined IMO means to me it was meant to be a good BCG. Oh and I finally put some rounds through the build the BCG from the OP is in - a 10.5 upper - and it ran flawlessly. |
Joined:
Mar 2022
Posts:
1175
EE: 100% (71)
KS, USA
| I didn't get a complete BCG, but I did buy one of the carriers to go with a JP bolt completion kit for the 6arc I'm building. Gun isn't finished yet so no functional report to give yet. It looks like every other chrome-lined phosphated carrier I have and assembled fine, though. |
|
Originally Posted By Strikefirst: Out of 7 bcm blem uppers I've had 2 that were not thermal fit and would slip over barrel extensions. I purchased 4 BCM blems this past year, all were a snug fit at room temp, none required a propane torch. Two looked okay, two were definitely blems. |
|
Originally Posted By Ursus_Americanus: Because 9130 didn't exist when "military spec" was written. And it's a minimum standard. Originally Posted By Ursus_Americanus: Originally Posted By 03RN: If 9130 was better why dont they use it? Because 9130 didn't exist when "military spec" was written. And it's a minimum standard. ASSESSMENT OF 9310 FOR USE IN M14 RIFLES -1962 |
|
Originally Posted By Ursus_Americanus: Because 9130 didn't exist when "military spec" was written. And it's a minimum standard. I don't think a 9130 even exist today, does it? Maybe 9310 that a search says has been around since the early 1900's? If you look at the prints for the bolt and the material and manufacturing methods including the heat treatment notes, it is pretty obvious they tried to choose the best material and methods for the purpose. Not sure where you get the minimum idea from. To me it looks like you meet the requirements they developed as necessary for satisfactory performance, or you don't. |
|
Originally Posted By theguymontag: I purchased 4 BCM blems this past year, all were a snug fit at room temp, none required a propane torch. Two looked okay, two were definitely blems. Originally Posted By theguymontag: Originally Posted By Strikefirst: Out of 7 bcm blem uppers I've had 2 that were not thermal fit and would slip over barrel extensions. I purchased 4 BCM blems this past year, all were a snug fit at room temp, none required a propane torch. Two looked okay, two were definitely blems.  . The one before was like 30 seconds on the stove and the barrel slipped right in.
|
|
Originally Posted By Ursus_Americanus: Because 9130 didn't exist when "military spec" was written. And it's a minimum standard. Originally Posted By Ursus_Americanus: Originally Posted By 03RN: If 9130 was better why dont they use it? Because 9130 didn't exist when "military spec" was written. And it's a minimum standard. That's a bit disingenuous, given all "standards" are minimums. Everything in the fabled TDP is either a specific or minimum. That means good enough for what it's for. |
|
Originally Posted By ScoutH57: I bought one of the bolts when I ordered some other parts from BCM this week. Looks pretty good, gas key stakes look functional. Chrome and phosphate look good. Mine was not greased up like OPs . Haven’t shot it but looks like a heck of deal Thats an intriguing comment in bold. I wonder why - if they are all the same - why some would have grease on the cam pin/bolt area and some not. Did yours come in a sealed/heatsealed plastic OEM clear sleeve and assembled as well? I guess its possible this "contract overrun" or whatever it is specified only a % of the shipment have pre-applied grease in case some less-than-educated people in the field put them directly into rifles without lube and those ones were destined for a different logistical path. Only thing I can think of - if they are all the same. |
|
Originally Posted By aftac: I am wondering if these were the old CMT BCGs they use to sell when I bought 2 and they were good to go. I’m going to buy one today because I have other parts I need to get to compare them too. If you can compare them and post pics with any findings that would be great! It looks like CMT only offers nitride currently. |
|
Originally Posted By the-answer-is-42: Thats an intriguing comment in bold. I wonder why - if they are all the same - why some would have grease on the cam pin/bolt area and some not. Did yours come in a sealed/heatsealed plastic OEM clear sleeve and assembled as well? I guess its possible this "contract overrun" or whatever it is specified only a % of the shipment have pre-applied grease in case some less-than-educated people in the field put them directly into rifles without lube and those ones were destined for a different logistical path. Only thing I can think of - if they are all the same. Yes same packaging assembled etc. |
|
Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File |
Do Good
Be Dangerous
Live Free
Be Dangerous
Live Free
BCM's $59 commercial spec BCG (Page 1 of 2)
AR Sponsor