So has anyone had a problem with using the Aero M5 bolt catch in the M5 receivers where the upper when fit onto the lower it hits the bolt catch and engages it about halfway? Any fixes to this? Aero is there something i need to do with you guys involving sending one of the receivers back or a new bolt catch? thanks yall for any info.

Edit: i have tried to upload some photos for yall to see what im talking about but im still new to this so please bear with me.

</a>" />

I did around 0930 central time just waiting for a reply now. thanks.

No but on shot # 20 out of my new aero build my bolt catch shattered.

Oh damn, well that ain't good. You get a new catch? or what did you do?

disturbing! pics? :X

In for this.

ETA:  OP is it rubbing on on outside or inside of the upper???

Please update us!  I have an M5 build planned and am cataloging the "dos and dont's."

I just got my Aero bolt catch tonight and assembled. It does the same thing. I don't have my BCG yet (should be here tomorrow) so I don't know if the upper pushes on the back of the bolt catch enough to cause it to engage the bolt and hold it open. We'll see tomorrow...

Alright i have figured out this mystery. AERO PLEASE PAY ATTENTION!!! This should be taken into consideration. below is pictured an Aero M5 bolt catch and a DPMS .308 Bolt catch bought from brownells my buddy had in his inventory of parts (he's a retired Air Force MSGT Armor now gunsmith). Notice the thickness difference on the pad where you would push to release the bolt, on the left is the Aero M5 and the right is the DPMS. The Aero is thicker than the DPMS one and that's what was causing my problem. Aero I beg yall to please make that button skinnier, i' am what you would call an Aero fan boy want to see yall have great success with these .308 receivers and parts. I also have posted some pictures where you can also see the DPMS catch installed in my lower and that it sets flush and is not "engaged" compared to my picture of the Aero catch installed from my OP. So there yall have it.

its the pad thickness in the catch that the upper is pushing on as you can see in the pictures i posted above. before i changed out the bolt catch to the DPMS one i put my BCG and charging handle in my upper to see what would happen with the Aero catch in and the upper would go on the lower with BCG in but once i pull the BCG back to the rear it automatically locked and when i tried to disengage the catch it wouldn't. so i had to take the Catch out just for BCG to slide forward so i could pull the upper off. with the DPMS catch on everything worked as it should with no issues. Now just got to get the rest of the parts to complete my build.

This kind of shit pisses me off...

Thanks for the info. No thanks to Aero for letting us poor schmucks QC your shit for you. I'll also point out that the ejection port cover that I recieved from Aero doesn't work properly either...it won't close.

That happens when you don't QC MIM'd parts.

Part of the TDP for M16/M4 and M110 is certain inspection procedures for the small parts, in addition to the stress-bearing parts.

AR10's are much harder on bolt catches than AR15's due to the BCG mass and impact on lock.  IIRC, one of the competitors for the Army's SASS broke their bolt catch in the trials, after they had a very strong showing with overall performance of the entrants.

Check out the Strike Industries Ultimate dust cover for 308. works perfectly.

the strike industries port door does require some minor fitment on the Aero M5, but is a good piece of kit and I'm running one as well. I also have one installed on a 5.56 with no issues.

twinsies.

Doesn't do any of us any good. We order shit straight from the people that make the recievers in hopes that they will deliver the correct parts that work with their shit and this is what we get. Same as the pivot/takedown pin fiasco.

For fucks sake...

So if I order an LPK today, will it ship with the correct part? Or is AP stopping shipment on that product until the situation can be remedied?

I really hope AP get's this issue squared away ASAP. There is no reason for this to be happening.

When they released the first BCG,  I bought one. And come to find out, it was out of spec inside, which prevented the bolt from going fully into battery. When I called about it, I was told all DPMS pattern parts should work. And there was no know issues with the BCG. They did offer me a discount price for a NIB BCG. which works. But, I now have a $125 paper weight.

I got my LPK yesterday and have the same issue.

My M5 based rifle will finally be done when the rail gets here in a week or so. We'll see how it all works when I finally get it all assembled and start load development and such. As it stands right now, I wouldn't recommend assembling a rifle based on the Aero M5 reciever set. Way to much incompatibility within Aero itself. I could understand other manufacturers items not working with these recievers, but Items for sale on Aero's website should be trusted to work with their stuff. I thought Aero was squared away, this M5 project has shown me otherwise.

The most puzzling thing for me about this issue is that AP sells complete M5/E1 rifles, and they function. I haven't read about bolt catch/mag release/take down pins on the fully assembled rifles? Has anybody else? Does AP have two separate piles of parts in the factory, one with components that are functional and one without? Do the rejects get tossed in the LPK's? Obviously AP is on this forum, and they know there are issues, fix this stuff guys, and don't let anything out of the effing factory if its not right! QC, customer service, etc... It's basic stuff. Go back to your roots. These M5's should not be having these issues. Now I'm sitting on an M5E1 set I just got this week and I want to use as much Aero stuff as possible, but geez man I don't want to buy AP stuff that may or may not fit and then get brushed aside and offered a discount if I buy more stuff that may or may not work. What I read above about the BCG is complete crap customer service if its the whole story, AP should've taken back that whole BCG and sent out an in-spec one on their dime.

I didn't have any troubles with the SI Dust cover on mine.

Was just about to pull the trigger on a receiver set but after a bit of reading I'm going to pass for now , I'd be a pissed of MFer if I bought a bcg and it was a paper weight , mighty white of them to offer a discount on another BCG

with the combination of the pad being thicker as well as the hole placement being off, it is even more of a bad part.

pad thickness + hole placement. together make shitty part.

AP,

That is what I did, when I fInally figured out the issue (and it took several complete tear downs and range trips to do it). And that is exactly what I was told, there was no known issue's. I said ok, now what? That's when the CS offered me a discounted NIB carrier which I bought and it works just fine with the Black Hole Weaponry barrel. That has been the only barrel on the rifle. And I was able to use the new BCG to confirm my findings further, because I had a like BCG to compare to.

And just to be clear I love AP stuff. I have two, small frame receiver sets and one large frame set that I built into complete rifles. And I just recently bought a Gen II M5 lower receiver for a future build. I was only stating the experience I had with the part.

As for calling CS Monday and shipping back the BCG. That is what I expected, when I initially called about it. Would have saved me some money. I now have though, an AP NIB BCG, that works flawlessly in the rifle. In addition to a spare cam pin, firing pin and bolt. Oh yeah, and a pretty cool paper weight (unfortunately, it was a little spendy). So I am way past the returning thing. And it's not like it was a recent thing, it's been several month's since I bought the 2nd BCG.

But here lies a big part of the problem the user has if they don't buy a complete large frame rifle from a manufacture. And franken build's a rifle instead. There is no warranty on the rifle and very little support, if any. And if a issue arises, we're left to our own, figuring things out. And then there is a risk of the blame game to start. It's not our part causing the problem, it's their part.

Nothing is always perfect in this world. Things happen, especially when there are a lot of variables involved. The majority of people understand that. Its how things are addressed afterwards that tend to piss people off.

I hope those who were having issues with the bolt catch, have been able to get a positive resolution.

After my post bellow, Aero reached out to me with a private message. I now have a replacement carrier on its way. That is some bad ass customer service. And was total unexpected. And makes me feel good about the NW company that it is.

Meh , been impressed if you hadn't had to take it public on a forum to get taken care of correctly , after selling you 2 they can afford to toss a bone for some good press .

ETA: Glad they finally stepped up and took care of you

I have 2 sets of 308 receivers. And they both have the bolt catch pad rubbing/interfering with/on the upper receiver. I was just going to grind down the inside of the pad but maybe I'll call AP and see what they can do for me. They are only 3 hours north of me. Maybe a little PNW friendliness will be extended my way too??

Me too!

It's worth giving them a call. They know there is an issue with them. I'm sure they will replace. Aero really isn't a bad company. And they do try. My BCG experience wasn't great. And I wasn't happy. The young man I spoke with about it did what he could at the time. And I get it (use to be a tech support manager in a past life). In the end, it did work out, which is cool.