User Panel
Posted: 8/19/2013 6:13:37 PM EDT
|
|
these will still require a BHOA adapter right? Any idea on price?
|
|
Do these replace both the older style plastic mags as well as the Evolution mags? Or just the older mags? Or will these be a 3rd type of magazine available from CMMG?
-bob |
|
Well this looks interesting. Appears to be a one piece body. Looks like maybe metal feed lips. Good on both counts. .22 AR stuff has really progressed the past few years. I hope these are the ticket.
|
|
The original grey mags were one piece.
Could have hidden screws on the other side I suppose. Are the feed towers replaceable? Will the supplied spring operate the BHOA reliably? When will they be released? |
|
|
Quoted:
The original grey mags were one piece. Could have hidden screws on the other side I suppose. Are the feed towers replaceable? Will the supplied spring operate the BHOA reliably? When will they be released? View Quote The original grey mags where 2 pieces held together with 6 screws. This magazine is functionally one-piece, they work well with a BHOA out of the box. A pinned 10 round version will be available. |
|
Quoted:
The original grey mags where 2 pieces held together with 6 screws. This magazine is functionally one-piece, they work well with a BHOA out of the box. A pinned 10 round version will be available. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
The original grey mags were one piece. Could have hidden screws on the other side I suppose. Are the feed towers replaceable? Will the supplied spring operate the BHOA reliably? When will they be released? The original grey mags where 2 pieces held together with 6 screws. This magazine is functionally one-piece, they work well with a BHOA out of the box. A pinned 10 round version will be available. need ten rounders |
|
Quoted:
The original grey mags where 2 pieces held together with 6 screws. Correct. This magazine is functionally one-piece, they work well with a BHOA out of the box. Is the feed tower replaceable? A pinned 10 round version will be available. Definitely needed. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
The original grey mags were one piece. Could have hidden screws on the other side I suppose. Are the feed towers replaceable? Will the supplied spring operate the BHOA reliably? When will they be released? The original grey mags where 2 pieces held together with 6 screws. Correct. This magazine is functionally one-piece, they work well with a BHOA out of the box. Is the feed tower replaceable? A pinned 10 round version will be available. Definitely needed. Looks good guys. Looking forward to trying a couple out. Dave N |
|
These magazines are in a prototype, development, testing stage right now.
They aren't available to the general public currently so don't rush to get your orders in... I received several to do some further testing with. They look really, Really Nice. I was a fan of their predecessor but CMMG is continually improving their product line. These mags are much less complex than the past model and the durability factor should far out do the original nylon mags. Although I have a number of the nylon mags that are still going after cycling between 10 and 15 thousand rounds each. I have worn a few out. I'll give an update when I can get to the range. Right now I'm having a few Medical Issues tested, Eye Upgrades are healing well and several of my lifelong Brothers in Arms have currently passed. Dave in Florida |
|
Quoted:
These magazines are in a prototype, development, testing stage right now. They aren't available to the general public currently so don't rush to get your orders in... I received several to do some further testing with. They look really, Really Nice. I was a fan of their predecessor but CMMG is continually improving their product line. These mags are much less complex than the past model and the durability factor should far out do the original nylon mags. Although I have a number of the nylon mags that are still going after cycling between 10 and 15 thousand rounds each. I have worn a few out. I'll give an update when I can get to the range. Right now I'm having a few Medical Issues tested, Eye Upgrades are healing well and several of my lifelong Brothers in Arms have currently passed. Dave in Florida View Quote Feed towers don't look renewable, but sometimes simple is better if the material is capable of going the distance. Dave, glad the cataract surgery is on the mend and hope you continue to improve. Sorry to hear of your friends' passing. Ted |
|
Feed Towers on these are part of the mag body once again.
Depends on how tough the material is but they feel and appear to be very rugged. Ted: I can see details on the moon that I haven't seen in 30 years or more, Frigging Amazing and 2 more months before they're considered completely healed in place. Ya never find out who someone really is until they're gone. Funerals Everyone, Take Care...... Dave |
|
Why did they replace the evolution magazines? They were billed as the cats meow.
|
|
Quoted:
Why did they replace the evolution magazines? They were billed as the cats meow. View Quote I have some of the Evolution mags and mine work just great. BUT they were more complex with a lot more pieces. Here I can just go by Dave's description as I don't have a set of these to report on so Dave S. will have to fill us in. Simple is better. BTW: Over the years I have used some of Black Dog's latest and greatest and have managed to wear out or have cracks in even their best. .22 Mags just take a beating due to how we use them, often seeing them feed many thousands of rounds in their lifetime.....hard on any magazine. The .22 AR continues to evolve. |
|
The EVO mags were fantastic but the complexity and probably the cost to assemble were likely very high.
This new magazine appears to be made of an extremely tough plastic. I'll know a lot more once my eye Dr. gives me the OK to do some extensive shooting. The new design is Simple which could please everyone. I'm not sure when the availability to the public will be but they are Not at the present time... Dave S |
|
Dave, if you get in a bind just send one up to me and I will take on the heavy work for you.....
|
|
I'm trying to go today. Dr. delayed my appointment so Wizz on him.
I'll be taking The TANGO Rifle and the new magazines and about 1,000 rounds. Neither is currently available to the public but I think it will be a great test setup. I will be limited to 25 yards but I've never tried groups from the TANGO at that short of range. Thanks for the offer Brother.. Dave in Florida |
|
Dave, any time. What I found with the Tango was at 25 yards there was just this one hole...... |
|
Great work, Dave, and thank you for your efforts. Your experience
with the tight match chamber is fairly typical of that design. I would like to make a suggestion? That would be to try some of the European ammo designed for use in semi-auto pistols. In competition I've had good success using the new Eley Tenex Pistol, Eley Match OSP, Eley Match Pistol and SK Pistol Match SPC. These cartridges were designed to run reliably in semi-auto actions having tight chambers like the Bentz and Modified Bentz. Special bullet nose, lead is harder, and brass is consistent dimensionally - all contribute to reliable function. Your tests are a joy to read and, typical of your impeccable ethics, you tell it like it is. Ted |
|
AL good point to get here is that when you make tight chambers to maximize accuracy you set yourself up for other problems. I have heard people be critical of certain .22 rifles for not being more accurate due to their "sloppy" chambers. They would ask why the maker didn't just make the chamber "better". You have to define "better". In firearms you have to find a compromise between reliability on a daily basis or maximum accuracy. That loose chamber makes that rifle able to shoot most any ammo you throw at it and to tolerate dirt much better.
On the other hand I have one of the test Tango's. It is one fine shooting rifle......if you feed it what it likes. That is the compromise on this type firearm., and I have no problem with that at all. You have to put the work into finding the best ammo for it and then stick with that. As a result for your efforts you will have one superior firearm. For general range work I have a standard CMMG production upper. It is stone reliable with just about anything I have put through it and is very accurate with some of the common ammo available in local shops, like CCI. However, the Tango will out shoot it if I feed it what it likes. The Tango is not for everyone. You have to understand the rifle, what it is about and respect its wishes. The standard CMMG upper is a much better choice for a range play gun due to its ability to shoot whatever you have in your bag. Plenty accurate enough for those tin cans or squirrels and forgiving of your ammo choices. |
|
|
Quoted:
AL good point to get here is that when you make tight chambers to maximize accuracy you set yourself up for other problems. I have heard people be critical of certain .22 rifles for not being more accurate due to their "sloppy" chambers. They would ask why the maker didn't just make the chamber "better". You have to define "better". In firearms you have to find a compromise between reliability on a daily basis or maximum accuracy. That loose chamber makes that rifle able to shoot most any ammo you throw at it and to tolerate dirt much better. On the other hand I have one of the test Tango's. It is one fine shooting rifle......if you feed it what it likes. That is the compromise on this type firearm., and I have no problem with that at all. You have to put the work into finding the best ammo for it and then stick with that. As a result for your efforts you will have one superior firearm. For general range work I have a standard CMMG production upper. It is stone reliable with just about anything I have put through it and is very accurate with some of the common ammo available in local shops, like CCI. However, the Tango will out shoot it if I feed it what it likes. The Tango is not for everyone. You have to understand the rifle, what it is about and respect its wishes. The standard CMMG upper is a much better choice for a range play gun due to its ability to shoot whatever you have in your bag. Plenty accurate enough for those tin cans or squirrels and forgiving of your ammo choices. View Quote Here, John, what you are saying goes to the very core of selecting a firearm. In particular, the AR in .22LR is arguably the most difficult to get to function reliably due to its semi- automatic design. How many times do we see asked in the "rimfire" and "CMMG" forums; "...what should I buy?" Most rimfire shooters have poorly formed ideas about what role their new purchase is supposed to fill. Many have a low regard for the .22LR while an equal number have unrealistic expectations. My advice for the new buyer is get it clear in your head what it is they want the gun to do. Then armed with that knowledge, seek the purchase that best fulfills that goal. The semi-auto has three overlapping areas of functional problems that bedevil designers: 1) Design/dimensional tolerance issues 2) Ammunition Selection - use of wrong ammunition, most frequently bullet lubrication/design 3) Fouling (because there is no such thing as "clean" .22 ammo) Mix and match any of the three and you'll have a miserable time, most of the time. Yep, the "Tango" is not for everyone just as a plinker isn't for someone who is chasing the X-Ring seriously. YET IN ALMOST EVERY INSTANCE OF FUNCTIONAL PROBLEMS THE GUN GETS THE BLAME AND THE AMMO IS NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED. Ted |
|
Ted....you are a wise man when it comes to firearms. As we know there are many people here who are new to the sport/hobby and as you have stated, their expectations are sometimes unrealistic. There is a reason I own a broad assortment of rifles of the same caliber. Each has its place in what job it is optimized to perform. I can't think of one single rifle that "does it all". Some do a lot while some are very narrowly focused. It makes life more interesting. Owning just one gun would be boring.
|
|
|
they work well with a BHOA out of the box. View Quote That's what y'all said about the evolution mags. No offense but mine are junk. I'ver tried two different BHOA's and wasted THOUSANDS of rounds of now uber-rare .22lr ammo to get 'em to run right and finally gave up. If these do actuallly work as advertised....unlike the EVOS, any chance of trading 7 EVOS for these? |
|
Quoted:
That's what y'all said about the evolution mags. No offense but mine are junk. I'ver tried two different BHOA's and wasted THOUSANDS of rounds of now uber-rare .22lr ammo to get 'em to run right and finally gave up. If these do actuallly work as advertised....unlike the EVOS, any chance of trading 7 EVOS for these? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
they work well with a BHOA out of the box. That's what y'all said about the evolution mags. No offense but mine are junk. I'ver tried two different BHOA's and wasted THOUSANDS of rounds of now uber-rare .22lr ammo to get 'em to run right and finally gave up. If these do actuallly work as advertised....unlike the EVOS, any chance of trading 7 EVOS for these? Must have been spotty supplier quality. I tested over a dozen Evo's and only had difficulty with the ones that had too weak a spring early on. That was during the test phase. The heavier springs worked the BHOA but I could only get 22 rounds loaded, even after the springs had been loaded for weeks. CMMG is always striving for perfection. Considering other products in their line, They are doing very well. Mags are a tough thing to make and have mass produced with non varying quality from lot to lot. Even BDM has their own set of problems. Dave in Florida |
|
Quoted:
Must have been spotty supplier quality. I tested over a dozen Evo's and only had difficulty with the ones that had too weak a spring early on. That was during the test phase. The heavier springs worked the BHOA but I could only get 22 rounds loaded, even after the springs had been loaded for weeks. CMMG is always striving for perfection. Considering other products in their line, They are doing very well. Mags are a tough thing to make and have mass produced with non varying quality from lot to lot. Even BDM has their own set of problems. Dave in Florida View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
they work well with a BHOA out of the box. That's what y'all said about the evolution mags. No offense but mine are junk. I'ver tried two different BHOA's and wasted THOUSANDS of rounds of now uber-rare .22lr ammo to get 'em to run right and finally gave up. If these do actuallly work as advertised....unlike the EVOS, any chance of trading 7 EVOS for these? Must have been spotty supplier quality. I tested over a dozen Evo's and only had difficulty with the ones that had too weak a spring early on. That was during the test phase. The heavier springs worked the BHOA but I could only get 22 rounds loaded, even after the springs had been loaded for weeks. CMMG is always striving for perfection. Considering other products in their line, They are doing very well. Mags are a tough thing to make and have mass produced with non varying quality from lot to lot. Even BDM has their own set of problems. Dave in Florida Oh I'm crystal clear, and I like the direction CMMG has and is going. What really chaps my arse is that I did TONS of research to build a dedicated .22lr AR with a functioning BHOA. CMMG was very clear that their then new Evolution mags were the cat's arse and the only ones that would operate the BHOA. I ordered 7 of them and they SUCK and I'm not the only one who's noticed. Then I find out through posts on ARF.com (NOT under the CMMG forum) that they've discontinued the EVO's. I checked their website, sure enough EVOs no longer listed. I call them and they were very elusive but finally admitted pulling them. The bottom line is CMMG KNEW there were problems with the EVO's (as evidenced by them discontinuing them and coming out with a brand new mag) and did NOTHING to let us know about it. As for the 7 mags I have, the springs are very weak but the problem is that the bolt locks to the rear with rounds still in the mag no matter how you adjust the lil' set screw thingy. The only thing I can figure is that there is so little spring pressure pushing the rounds up against the feed lips that the rounds bounce around under recoil and flick the BHOA up locking the bolt to the rear. |
|
What you have experienced, Bulldog, is in no way unique. It happens all the time and, while
that is reality, it nevertheless is disappointing, wasteful, and an expensive way to learn. I experienced dismal and excellent results with the Evo mags, the product worked great in one build and poorly in another. This is also a reality of the .22lr AR; while MilSpec components are claimed to be compatible, my experience has been that that is pretty much a daydream. Then take into consideration the many different proprietary systems from various manufacturers and sometimes getting one maker's product to work with another is impossible. All of which makes it even more frustrating when all of the components are from one maker and things still don't work. Now add into the mix posts from well meaning shooters who have done little testing to gain experience with their newly acquired gun/components. These kinds of reports do nothing for the potential buyer and, if anything, hurt the maker's reputation by filling the web with bogus, glowing results that can't be duplicated. We are fortunate to have a handful of dedicated Beta-Testers who do a great and unbiased service to all of us. Dave is one of those guys and he has always presented the facts as he found them. We also enjoy great, honest feedback from shooters who have compiled data based on real life experience. Yet, I suspect, many fail to report their experiences because of the seemingly endless cadre of "loyalists" who pounce on a poster and claim the poster is wrong or a liar. These fools do nothing for us and live in entirely different worlds from us. Where does this leave you - and others? Well I'm sorry to say I have no answer. I do not represent CMMG so I can't speak for them. If I did I would offer you an apology at the very least. I can't speak for you, however I will speak for myself (as I also had bad experiences with the product) and I look at it as a learning experience. I recovered by selling my BHOA units and mags to buyers at gun shows who, despite my warnings that they could have problems, were happy to get them. Then I moved on, understanding that even great manufacturers can make products that fail to please all of us. I fail to recall CMMG ever having said their Evo mags were "the cat's arse" but I do recall their warnings that they were compatible only with CMMG's BHOA. I also remember John Overstreets' post saying, and I paraphrase, "...come on guys, I'm doing the best I can with the BHOA but you've got to realize we're trying to make something work with a system that was never intended to have that function." He went on to say that CMMG tried to get it all to work because "...so many were asking for that feature." I'm glad they did. I respect and admire the Overstreet family and their efforts to give us products that few, if any, gun makers would even attempt to make. I continue to buy their products, but do so knowing we live in an imperfect world. Bulldog, I am sorry the product failed you. Now it is up to you to open a dialog with CMMG and see if you can reach some sort of satisfaction. Good luck and let us know what happens. Ted |
|
Ted,
I am clear on the incosistencies of "mil-spec" parts as well as the inherent reliability problems associated with the .22lr round. I am also familiar with supplier/subcontractor problem phenomenom. I never meant to slam CMMG or the Overstreet family. I have in fact called them and told them how much I for one appreciated the direction they were going with their .22 AR's. I did not mean that CMMG literally stated, "Our mags are the cat's arse." What I was attempting to convey in my mid-western, fly-over country ass way was that it seems to me that CMMG put A LOT of effort into promoting the reliability of their EVO mags. Specifically the many youtube videos (not sure if CMMG was behind those or not) as well as the videos on CMMG's website that were no doubt produced by CMMG. The bottom line is the mags were promoted to work and they don't. I am not whining about it. I've had stuff like this happen before. I'll survive. This is the only thread I've ever written on any forum about it and the only reason I did was because I just found this thread announcing the release of a new CMMG mag that's supposed to work this time...really....really....it is. I was just trying to find out whether or not this mag will fix my as well as countless others' problems. (I'm sure the vast majority of whom have no doubt switched to the boonie packer/S&W mag. set up, which I really do not wish to do.) I was also trying to let CMMG know that I/we are aware of the problem and if CMMG had not discontinued the EVOs and released these new mags, the uninitiated would not even think there was ever a problem with the EVOs. Believe it or not I am on CMMG's side even after this setback. I would just be a little less suspicious if they'd have been more up front about it. Troy |
|
Quoted:
Ted, I am clear on the incosistencies of "mil-spec" parts as well as the inherent reliability problems associated with the .22lr round. I am also familiar with supplier/subcontractor problem phenomenom. I never meant to slam CMMG or the Overstreet family. I have in fact called them and told them how much I for one appreciated the direction they were going with their .22 AR's. I did not mean that CMMG literally stated, "Our mags are the cat's arse." What I was attempting to convey in my mid-western, fly-over country ass way was that it seems to me that CMMG put A LOT of effort into promoting the reliability of their EVO mags. Specifically the many youtube videos (not sure if CMMG was behind those or not) as well as the videos on CMMG's website that were no doubt produced by CMMG. The bottom line is the mags were promoted to work and they don't. I am not whining about it. I've had stuff like this happen before. I'll survive. This is the only thread I've ever written on any forum about it and the only reason I did was because I just found this thread announcing the release of a new CMMG mag that's supposed to work this time...really....really....it is. I was just trying to find out whether or not this mag will fix my as well as countless others' problems. (I'm sure the vast majority of whom have no doubt switched to the boonie packer/S&W mag. set up, which I really do not wish to do.) I was also trying to let CMMG know that I/we are aware of the problem and if CMMG had not discontinued the EVOs and released these new mags, the uninitiated would not even think there was ever a problem with the EVOs. Believe it or not I am on CMMG's side even after this setback. I would just be a little less suspicious if they'd have been more up front about it. Troy View Quote Yes, it is disappointing and I'm not sure that even the new mags will solve the issue. To me the BHOA is just a bad idea. Thank you Troy for clearing the air and for alerting others to the potential for disappointment. For me, as much as I respect and like the CMMG folks, having been twice burned on that particular product I will never buy the system again. I still place my trust in their other products and recently bought their WASP 20" .22lr barrel. It was going to be delivered today but with this epic ice storm here in the Ozarks I think it will be awhile longer. You write clearly and directly, Troy, and I appreciate that quality. Thanks for the followup. Ted |
|
I am sorry to hear of the problems that some have experienced. I tested the evo magazines in my rifles and had great luck for them. I still use them all the time without issue. I had one where the casting on the feed lips was slightly rough. Five minutes with a little Dremel wheel (in my hand, not a power tool) and I smoothed it right up solving that problem.
If I recall one of the problems had to do with the feeding of various types of ammo. Seems that when I did a test sample the ammo types I happened to have used all worked fine. BUT, sadly I could not test every possible brand or bullet type. As for the BHOA......I hate to say it but mine works pretty good. Now, what I did was to shorten the spring by one coil and then adjust the BHOA to match up with the lower and bolt I was using. After that I have very good luck with the operation of these parts. BUT again, that is not to say it will work right with you lower. Something I discussed with CMMG early on was the wide variation in AR lowers. While every company brags how they are "Mil-Spec" it seems that some are more or less "Mil-Spec" than others. We have so many different companies cranking out all these parts its a wonder to me that any of them actually work correctly. Over the years I have just sort of learned what to look for and I just do little tweaks here and there to make things work together. I don't even think about it much any more. Some demand things work 100% out of the box, some will compromise and do some adjustments, some will make anything work. We are all different. One of the real problems with the Evo mags was that they were just so expensive to manufacture. The idea was great, building it not so much. I have a pile of those mags and I use them rather than the BDM's that I have. The BDM just keep cracking...somewhere. If they have nylon or metal lips those hold up but then the bodies crack. I have just quit using them due to their constant failure. Some will last longer but in the end they fail. One of my favorite magazines is a bit of a home made thing. I order up some BDM flowers and springs and put them in my "old style" CMMG magazines. They work great! Never had one crack or fail either. They feed perfectly in all my .22 ARs, including the Tango. But then I am lucky. I have built up a pile of "spare parts" and I can mix and match parts to learn what works best. I know many do not have this advantage. All I can do is write about it so maybe someone else out there can be spared some head aches or woe. The same can be said of Ted and Dave and Dave. We just try to share what we have learned. Its a hobby for me and I like to tinker. My life-long occupation was making others "great ideas" actually work in the real world and then teaching others how to fix the problems. If you have some Evo's that are terrible let me know....I could always use some more of them. I love those things. If you lived close by I would say bring everything over and lets see if we can work out what is happening and fix it. |
|
I tested prototypes of these new magazines and had fit and function issues.
Spoke with CMMG about those issues and now have been told that modifications have been made. CMMG has traveled into uncharted territory with a few of their ideas. Considering the variations that I've seen in all brands of uppers and lowers sometimes this causes unforeseen difficulties. CMMG can test their accessory parts with all the rifles they have on hand and all is well. As soon as we get our hands on those parts it's possible with the millions of possible variations in what we have, it will create problems. This is true with most weapons from all manufacturers. CMMG has advanced the AR-22 to a whole new level and is very supportive of customer problems and has always been willing to give assistance to correct our problems. We who test for CMMG try to run the crap out of the prototypes but we don't always find problems. That doesn't always happen so I share in any blame too. CMMG tries hard and we testers do too. Without being custom shop built and tested as complete units, there will always be some products that just aren't capable of working in all combinations. I've seen this with all the manufacturers I've tested for. Dave in Florida |
|
Dave lays it out. We say about the same thing. We have so many variations on our firearms its hard to fathom. Think about it. How many companies make the lowers. (More than 20?). Then the parts kits.....they are outsourced all over. Same goes for the upper receivers. Even if you stay with one brand you get some big variations. I have some Rock River lowers. They have different sources for them, even have different serial number strings depending on who made them. I built a 9mm using Rock River parts (the mag block and their upper) and it wouldn't function properly with their lower but I put it on a Cav Arms lower and it worked like a champ. Same for some of my .22 AR stuff. I had a Spikes that refused to work with some of my lowers no matter what I did. Others had Spikes and swore they ran great.
CMMG as a whole has done a most wonderful job of making stuff work. Yes, they can miss on a part here or there, anyone can. But if you look at the big picture CMMG has done more for the .22 AR market than any other company. They also do a great job of working with customers to make things function properly. John in Kentucky |
|
In 1968 USAF put me to work in the Armorer's Shack at Lackland. It was the 1st time I
had seen let alone touched an M16. We were trained by a civilian contractor from Colt in Hartford, CT. We were amazed at how close the tolerances and measurements matched from gun to gun. The A1 was a greatly improved gun over the 1st issue. Fast forward to 1978 and we started seeing non-Colt parts/components from "approved" contractors who under bid Colt. Yes the parts passed QA but there were wide variations in dimensions. So much so that malfunctions were becoming commonplace. MilSpec is just a suggestion these days when it comes to the civilian market. We need to always keep that in mind. Ted |
|
How are the mags coming?
You posted a sneak preview 4 months ago. Dave N |
|
They have actually been shipping for some time now with rifles and conversion kits. They will start shipping as individual magazines first thing 2014.
|
|
Quoted:
I am sorry to hear of the problems that some have experienced. I tested the evo magazines in my rifles and had great luck for them. I still use them all the time without issue. I had one where the casting on the feed lips was slightly rough. Five minutes with a little Dremel wheel (in my hand, not a power tool) and I smoothed it right up solving that problem. One of my favorite magazines is a bit of a home made thing. I order up some BDM flowers and springs and put them in my "old style" CMMG magazines. They work great! Never had one crack or fail either. They feed perfectly in all my .22 ARs, including the Tango. But then I am lucky. I have built up a pile of "spare parts" and I can mix and match parts to learn what works best. I know many do not have this advantage. All I can do is write about it so maybe someone else out there can be spared some head aches or woe. The same can be said of Ted and Dave and Dave. We just try to share what we have learned. Its a hobby for me and I like to tinker. My life-long occupation was making others "great ideas" actually work in the real world and then teaching others how to fix the problems. If you have some Evo's that are terrible let me know....I could always use some more of them. I love those things. If you lived close by I would say bring everything over and lets see if we can work out what is happening and fix it. View Quote One of the first things I noticed with mine was how weak the springs were and since CMMG even supplies you with a reduced power bolt catch spring, I fully expected the BHOA would need some tweaking to overcome the bolt catch spring tension. What is really frustrating with mine is that it CONSISTENTLY locks the bolt back with rounds in the mag. The only thing I can figure out without the benefit of high speed photography is that the stock springs have so little up force that the rounds bounce around under recoil and kick up the BHOA. I called CMMG about it and they said they'd never heard of that happening...just failures to lock the bolt back. I don't know if a stronger BDM spring would work or not. If these new ones work, I have 7 of the EVO's I'd be HAPPY, HAPPY, HAPPY to part with. |
|
|
I too gave up on the BHOA some time ago using GEN1 mags. They worked fine plinking but cost me a couple steal matches due to malfunctions.
I actually switched to Blackdog steel-lip magazines because they wear better and were MUCH easier to load due to lighter springs. I would love for CMMG to release a magazine which functioned with the BHOA, and was easy to load. A follower accessible similar t the Blackdog Gen3 mags seems ideal, though I haven't personalty used any of those mags. |
|
Any closer to a release day? I'm almost done with my decatied 22. I'm gonna need mags!!!
|
|
|
Sounds like it is time to dig out the BHOA, put it back in and give it another try.
|
|
WooHoo! I was at the NRA convention in Indy yesterday and explained my problem to the guys at the CMMG booth. They told me that if I sent my EVO mags back that they would replace 'em with the new ones. I picked up 3 and so far they run great and operate the BHOA properly. Thank You so much CMMG! Big time kudos.
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.