PDA

View Full Version : NiB BCG running suppressed



gatordev
29 July 2013, 16:10
UWone77 recommended I start a new thread, so here it goes... Below was my initial question:


I'm curious to hear your thoughts. I've got several NiB BCGs (mostly Spike's/FZ but one WMD that only has a few rounds through it) and for me personally, it was worth the extra (pre-panic) price when cleaning [shooting unsuppressed].

While I was back home during Xmas, I got to play with my new suppressor and ran it on a 10.3 Colt with the WMD BCG. It was only ~60 rounds, but I was surprised how it wasn't really that much easier to clean [when run suppressed]. Plus it seemed like the coating made it much easier/faster for the lube to burn off. Again, limited experience, so I may be mistaken. In anticipation of moving back to the NFA legal world, I grabbed a Centurian Arms BCG and 12.5" barrel for a build that I plan to run suppressed a lot. I figured I'd roll with the phosphate finish on that one.

I'm going home in a couple of weeks so I hope to have a chance to play around with both a phosphate and the NiB BCGs and the can, but I'm curious what the thoughts are on NiB and suppressed guns.

So the question(s) aren't how well NiB BCGs work UNSUPPRESSED (I've found them to work as good as a phosphate one, just easier to clean), but whether the coating makes them "as good" as a phosphate setup when running SUPPRESSED, or if they're worse.

Thoughts?

UWone77
30 July 2013, 04:22
UWone77 recommended I start a new thread, so here it goes... Below was my initial question:



So the question(s) aren't how well NiB BCGs work UNSUPPRESSED (I've found them to work as good as a phosphate one, just easier to clean), but whether the coating makes them "as good" as a phosphate setup when running SUPPRESSED, or if they're worse.

Thoughts?

I'm a big fan of Nickel Boron coatings. However, they cost more. If you're running an unsuppressed gun, I don't think it's worth the easier cleaning alone.

A few years ago when Fail Zero was the only game in town, I would have said no way to running it on an unsuppressed gun. At $250, they were twice the cost for not twice the benefit in my opinion. Now that Nickel Boron Carriers are sub $200, I'm hymning and hawing, but still on the it's not worth it side.

If money is no object, I prefer using Chrome BCG's for easier cleaning... *IF* that's what you're looking for. I know there will be some disagreements, but in my experience, since Nickel Boron gets darker with use, it's hard to tell if your carrier and bolt are actually clean. On a Chrome BCG, it's obvious. I also find that Chrome BCG's seem to retain lube better than Nickel Boron. I know you can run them without lube, but I still coat mine with a light coat.

I run a Young Manufacturing Chrome BCG in my duty gun, as easy maintenence was my number #2 most important item under reliability.

gatordev
30 July 2013, 15:55
I've been fortunate and never paid more than $200 (but usually less) for a NiB BCG, but I also have had the benefit of a .mil discount (or finding a good deal). I can completely understand not wanting to pay for it, generally, although I've found it to be a welcome addition to my Spike's 5.45 upper, since I shoot nothing but corrosive ammo out of it.

That said, it sounds like my (very limited) experience isn't abnormal and that the NiB BCG doesn't hold the lube as well when suppressed. I haven't had issues in classes (running unsuppressed), but I've noticed that the few rounds I've shot suppressed have made the whole BCG much less "fluid" in its movement with out lube, when I've taken it out to clean it. And yeah, it was definitely "burned" more than when shooting unsuppressed.

The only chrome experience I've had was with my SR-25, which isn't really "chromed," but a slicker finish than phosphate, and that thing cleans right up and would be just fine for me across the board if I had all my BCGs with that finish.

Stickman
30 July 2013, 20:19
UWone77 recommended I start a new thread, so here it goes... Below was my initial question:



So the question(s) aren't how well NiB BCGs work UNSUPPRESSED (I've found them to work as good as a phosphate one, just easier to clean), but whether the coating makes them "as good" as a phosphate setup when running SUPPRESSED, or if they're worse.

Thoughts?

Are you running suppressed guns? What kind of suppressor? How as he Nickel Boron BCG worked for you so far?

gatordev
30 July 2013, 21:57
Are you running suppressed guns? What kind of suppressor? How as he Nickel Boron BCG worked for you so far?

That's what I was getting at in my first post/question, and specifically directed at running suppressed. I've only put about 60 rounds through my suppressor (Surefire legacy -212). I'm not allowed to have such an item where I currently live (to be remedied "soon"), so my sample/data size is very small. That's why I was curious if others had noticed the lube burning off faster with NiB BCGs than with phosphate. It was more a data call question for my own education that UWone77 recommended I ask in a separate thread.

UWone77
30 July 2013, 23:52
That's what I was getting at in my first post/question, and specifically directed at running suppressed. I've only put about 60 rounds through my suppressor (Surefire legacy -212). I'm not allowed to have such an item where I currently live (to be remedied "soon"), so my sample/data size is very small. That's why I was curious if others had noticed the lube burning off faster with NiB BCGs than with phosphate. It was more a data call question for my own education that UWone77 recommended I ask in a separate thread.

Gator, I also have a Surefire 212 can, and nickel boron carriers do burn off lube faster in my opinion, but I also find they keep running after the lube burns off. How much better than phosphate? I can't quantify, but I plan to find out in my other thread.

Are you moving?

gatordev
31 July 2013, 13:33
Fair enough. I'm looking forward to "testing" this, too.

Yes, I'm PCS'ing out of CA (and supposedly back to FL) in a few months. For now, the toys stay with my parents back in FL.

UWone77
31 July 2013, 15:23
Fair enough. I'm looking forward to "testing" this, too.

Yes, I'm PCS'ing out of CA (and supposedly back to FL) in a few months. For now, the toys stay with my parents back in FL.

I counted today and I run more coated carriers vs. Phosphate. I think this is the lazy LEO in me that doesn't like to clean carbon off bolts whether they were suppressed or not. :)

MoxyDave
31 July 2013, 16:52
I've been running a FailZero BCG with a Noveske 12.5 and Gemtech M402 for a while now. I ran it dry for quite some time. It goes about 500 rounds before it starts to really gum up. I haven't run it to failure yet. It just starts to really slow down and become hard to charge; it feels very "sticky" at that point, and felt recoil is significantly increased. I'm using a high-end Chrome Silicon action spring from LaRue which seems to help a lot when it gets all gunked up.

In my experience the BCG coating makes little difference with how quickly lube disappears; the suppressor sends so much gas & gunk back into the action that it burns out the lube pretty quickly regardless.

The NIB BCG cleans off easily with just a rag, even when it's filthy. Anything caked on is easily removed with a pocket knife or a fingernail. The finish does start to turn black in some areas but it doesn't appear to affect function.

I also have a NIB-coated Glock 19 that goes thousands of rounds between cleanings. Same thing with that one, cleans right up with just a quick wipe and a snake down the bore.

Nickel Boron has worked very well for me suppressed or otherwise.

Stickman
19 August 2013, 20:25
We used a Fail Zero on the Test gun and it just ran and ran without lube time after time.