View Full Version : Tango Five Tactical Extended Bolt Release for right hand operation

24 March 2009, 23:42
I just received an extended bolt release from Tango 5 over on calguns.net and thought I'd share it with anyone here that might be interested.

I saw the prototype SDI piece on the web some time ago and have been looking for something like this ever since Magpul teased us with it in the dvd.

I liked the idea of being able to lock the bolt back without removing my right hand from the pistol grip. It was just a side benefit to be able to release the bolt without slapping the side.

I have modified mine to angle down at 45į outside of the trigger guard. I have also wrapped a little electrical tape on the end until I can apply a rubber coating to it, so please don't think that the one in the pictures I have posted are representative of the exact product that Tango 5 has produced.

I should also note that the EBR has some angle and height adjustment due to its mounting design. I have adjusted mine to sit more forward of the trigger since taking these pictures.




25 March 2009, 01:44
Hmmmm, off the cuff I want to say I donít like it. I would however have to take one for a ride before passing my final judgment. Seems like youíre giving your trigger finger yet another responsibility. Trigger, mag release, usually the charging handle and now the bolt release. The left hand is only left with putting the mag in the well. The traditional bolt release kind of keeps things balanced. I could also see the bolt release getting bumped while wrestling the mag in the well. Maybe Iím just becoming one of those guys that fears change.

25 March 2009, 04:53
Did they produce this with permission? Are they selling them? It seems to me they could get in some trouble with Magpul/Travis over this.

I have one of the original SDI BAD levers and definitely prefer that version to the one pictured above.

103m 95g
25 March 2009, 05:54

Army Chief
25 March 2009, 06:03
Did they produce this with permission?

Rob is right: we may be headed down a slippery slope here, and caution is warranted.

I've not followed the debate elsewhere, but I do know that this is a potentially volatile situation, given the obvious patent/infingement implications. I've no experience with Tango Five Tactical, and it is not my purpose to criticize the product, but I'm understandably concerned about the intellectual property issues. Clearly, this release shares considerable DNA with the earlier SDI and more recent Magpul Dynamics units.


25 March 2009, 06:43
Although it is difficult to judge a piece of gear on photos alone, the position on that is far too close to the trigger for my liking. It looks to me like it would create more problems than it solves. How much live-fire have you done with it?

25 March 2009, 07:06
I am trying to visualize the concept of the functionality of the "EBR". One problem that comes to my mind is that you have just eliminated the ability to use any type of glove that has any thickness. Maybe not, I would have to play around with it to fully determine whether or not it actually does.

You said...

I liked the idea of being able to lock the bolt back without removing my right hand from the pistol grip. It was just a side benefit to be able to release the bolt without slapping the side.

I'm trying to visualize how you are locking the bolt to the rear with your right hand on the pistol grip. Are you pointing the muzzle down to the ground to pull the charging handle with your left hand? Are you doing this just to lock the bolt back to ensure that the weapon is clear? Are you doing this while you are performing a malfunction drill? I can see some problems in using different techniques for the same function.

Lets take a look at a "SPORTS" drill.

Slap the bottom of the magazine with your left hand and tug on the magazine to ensure it is seated properly.
Pull the charging handle back with your right hand.
Observe the chamber to see if you have any obstructions.
Release the charging handle (still with your right hand).
Tap the forward assist.
Squeeze the trigger, once you have reassessed if the threat still exists.

I can see some issues with muzzle discipline when you keep your right hand on the pistol grip the entire time.

A typical soldier / LEO has developed "muscle memory" over time when performing "second nature" drills, i.e. malfunction drills. Yes, "muscle memory" can be changed with persistent training, but trying to complete different but similar tasks in different manners, IMO, will probably cause problems when a real life situation arises and adrenaline is pumping.

I am not discrediting this product, especially since I have never used it. However, IMO I personally do not think that the functionality of this piece would be beneficial to me and my mission.

Keep in mind that I have my style of shooting and the way I handle my weapon. There are many styles of shooting and many different reasons an individual would be throwing lead down range. This may be great for some, but not for me.

25 March 2009, 08:45
FWIW, this type of product comes from a school of thought that has long left "SPORTS" in the dust for malfunction clearance.

Believe it or not, the BAD's best utility is actually malfunction clearance BECAUSE the firing hand doesn't leave the grip. Regardless of your method of assessment, clearing a double feed is always going to begin with locking the bolt to the rear, and the BAD makes this very easy.

Pull bolt back with the left hand, lock open with the right index finger, insert left hand into magwell to knock the rounds loose, insert fresh magazine, drop the bolt with the right index finger.

Obviously there are variations on the above. Some people with "rack rack rack" after the doublefeed falls out, but even then the BAD just cements itself as a useful tool in that you're going to want to lock open again on the last "rack" before inserting the new magazine.

What most people want a BAD for is to theoretically speed up their reload times, which is an ancillary function and still requires a lot of training and practice to show any real improvement.

SDI version



25 March 2009, 09:05

Anyone factually aware of if Magpul is Patent Pending on their B.A.D.?

If there is a PP in effect, we will lock the thread, if not, its a copy of a product, and will stay open.

I'll check around a bit.

Army Chief
25 March 2009, 09:15
Negative knowledge. We may need to go direct to the source on this one, as the e-rhetoric is apparently in full contact elsewhere.


25 March 2009, 09:39
Wow, I wasn't expecting so much discussion to happen so quickly!

I am not involved in the production or availability of this piece, so it's not my place to comment on any possible patent issues. If Magpul has a patent pending on the BAD and the design of this device is close enough to warrant a patent issue, then I understand and concur with the idea of locking this thread.

I can say that if/when Travis/Magpul eventually gets around to producing the BAD, it will be perfect and Travis/Magpul will get my money. If I had the choice between the BAD and the piece that I have installed in the pictures, I would opt for the BAD. In the meantime, I haven't heard any news or developements regarding the BAD with the exception of its appearance at Shot Show 2009.

As far as glove use is concerned, I have not tried it yet, but as I mentioned in my original post, I have adjusted it forward (away from the trigger) more that the pictures show.

I haven't used it with live ammo yet, my experience with it has been limited to practicing with dummy rounds.

As for the rest, I think the last post from rob_s addresses SPORTS concerns.

Army Chief
25 March 2009, 15:22
Have heard from Travis directly on this, and think he may be in the best position to provide a no-BS, low-drama response; that said, I'll address it later if he doesn't get the chance to.

Bottom line: There is a valid IP issue in play here. Independent experimentation with the concept is 100% good to go -- taking this a step further toward active commerce (resale) is not.


Army Chief
25 March 2009, 23:55
Just a quick follow-up/re-statement here for clarification -- we don't want any of our members to inadvertently find themselves walking into a minefield, nor do we want to facilitate any activity that violates an Intellectual Property claim, whether that happens to be deliberate or not.

Travis' approach to all of this is fairly forward-thinking and pragmatic; he understands that people will inevitably want to try their hand at adapting the concept for their own needs, and that they may be engaged in constructing prototypes, experimenting with variations on the design, or improvising BAD-like devices for their own personal use. All of that is within the scope of the law, and inasmuch as it spurs new thinking and potentially leads to further refinements, it is probably a good thing.

What is not a good thing is when a BAD-like device makes its way to market, and someone begins charging (and presumably making money) for a component that remains the Intellectual Property of another. We have now confirmed that Magpul does indeed own IP on this concept, and a reasonable man must conclude that they will move to protect their business interests if forced to do so. To paraphrase JFK, it would be a mistake to confuse civility with weakness here.

For this reason, any future discussion on BAD-like components on this board needs to clearly take place within one of two frameworks: (1) discussion relating to the original SDI/Magpul unit(s) which remain the IP of Travis Haley and Magpul Industries Corporation, whether of past or contemporary design, or (2) discussion of individual variations, mockups and improvisations which are not (and will not be) made commercially available for sale.


Army Chief
26 March 2009, 01:50

Since you didn't really specify whether Tango 5 shared this component with you for private R&D purposes for no material gain, or sold it to you as a commercially-viable product, I will leave it up to you to detemine whether this item meets our second stated criteria for discussion (above).

If it does, then please state that openly, and we can continue our conceptual discussion.

If it does not, please let me know via PM, so I can lock the thread per Stick's earlier guidance.


Army Chief
26 March 2009, 10:14
Posted with the author's permission:

My understanding of the situation is that [Tango 5] was doing some R&D for himself and since he was going to have this part fabricated, that he asked if anyone else would be interested. I did pay a nominal sum of money for this part, but I'm not under the impression that Tango 5 was making a profit or trying to mass market this as a product. Tango 5 has indicated on the Calguns forum that he will not produce anymore.

I would characterize this as something of a gray area in that we appear to be looking at an experimental one-time venture that was not intended to resut in overt commercial gain. With respect to some of the larger issues involved, however, we have certainly established a more instructive "cut line" than we had before.

So long as we stay within the confines of the previously-issued guidance, I do not see an immediate need to quell further discussion. I do, however, see some wisdom in focusing more upon the principle than the product, since it seems clear that the Magpul unit will rightfully take its place as the industry standard device.

On that front, I have to admit that much is this is largely academic to me, since I'm a left-handed/shouldered firer. :)


27 March 2009, 16:22
i'm left handed and at first i didn't see the usefulness of the bad for lefties... after some thought though, it's at least a bolt release on the right side of the gun. this makes it an ambi bolt release on a non billet lower.