AR Sponsor
BCA bolt action upper for $350? (Page 7 of 21)
| I'm not overly concerned because you can manually check your bolt position before firing. It's not like I'm trying to speed run a PRS stage or whatever. Shooting steel on our flat range at 600 yards is just fine, IMHO. |
Scepticism is an exercise, not a life; it is a discipline fit to purify the mind of prejudice and render it all the more apt, when the time comes, to believe and to act wisely. -- George Santayana
Never mistake a clear view for a short distance.
Never mistake a clear view for a short distance.
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
341
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
It's the left handed shooter hunting with one of these and has a touch of buck fever. They take their first shot, and hopped up on adrenaline at seeing a big rack, they work that action FAST lest they miss a follow up shot, only to inadvertently pull the trigger with the left hand just as the carrier hits its forward most position but before rotating the handle to lock the bolt. I don't think I'd want that to own that right hand or wrist after that event, never mind the gun. And that scenario is realistic. What is it, like 5%, 10% of the population is lefties? Presumably, hunters have the same breakdown. All susceptible to this in a predictable and common scenario. I can see other probable mishaps for all shooters, including a branch grabbing the trigger while hunting in dense underbrush / forest and causing this. I'm sure they'll come out with a left handed version, but even then, it's not the only potentially unsafe occurrence. On a bench, probably fairly safe if you are careful about it, but it's an accident waiting to happen. At the very least, I'd advise no lefty to use a right handed bolt upper of this variety for safety (and visa versa, if/when a left handed version comes out). I had also hoped to make a compact right-handed bolt pistol build (no brace or buffer), if they came out with a left handed version of this. This, too would create the common scenario of right hand on/near trigger while left hand working action. I'm not gonna refuse to use what I built already, but, oh, boy ... I am disappointed. |
|
Yes, lots of scenarios that would be challenging with this bolt action upper. But not everyone uses it in any of those scenarios. For bench shooting, which is what I use it for, all good. Some guns are just for fun, you know? |
Scepticism is an exercise, not a life; it is a discipline fit to purify the mind of prejudice and render it all the more apt, when the time comes, to believe and to act wisely. -- George Santayana
Never mistake a clear view for a short distance.
Never mistake a clear view for a short distance.
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
343
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
Originally Posted By vmpglenn: But not everyone uses it in any of those scenarios. Most of their customers who might encounter those scenarios aren't reading this, and wouldn't be aware of the safety issue. This has been out a couple weeks, and only a day ago this collective figured it out? Without a warning included, I fear most users wouldn't be aware of this possibility. It's not gonna stop me from using mine, and shouldn't stop anyone else who knows of this potential from using the platform. I'm not yelling RED LIGHT to stop people, but rather a YELLOW LIGHT of caution. I really hope everyone in this thread that's bought one sees these last few posts just so they are informed. |
|
So I posted the original pics and concern over the issue. I just emailed BCA the following: I recently received a BOLT ACTION AR15 upper from you. I assembled it and have a major safety concern. The upper will allow dry firing with the bolt unlocked (pushed forward) and partially locked. This has been replicated with primed brass confirming that loaded rounds would fire. This could cause a completely uncontrolled release of pressure, in the case of an unlocked bolt. Or bolt failure and pressure release, in a partially locked bolt. Has BCA considered this? Is there any preventative measure available to avoid this? Thanks for any info and follow up. I have attached photos showing the partially locked bolt. It will readily stay in this position, and fire. I'll share any response I get |
|
Originally Posted By PreacherOfGadget: Most of their customers who might encounter those scenarios aren't reading this, and wouldn't be aware of the safety issue. This has been out a couple weeks, and only a day ago this collective figured it out? Without a warning included, I fear most users wouldn't be aware of this possibility. It's not gonna stop me from using mine, and shouldn't stop anyone else who knows of this potential from using the platform. I'm not yelling RED LIGHT to stop people, but rather a YELLOW LIGHT of caution. I really hope everyone in this thread that's bought one sees these last few posts just so they are informed. Originally Posted By PreacherOfGadget: Originally Posted By vmpglenn: But not everyone uses it in any of those scenarios. Most of their customers who might encounter those scenarios aren't reading this, and wouldn't be aware of the safety issue. This has been out a couple weeks, and only a day ago this collective figured it out? Without a warning included, I fear most users wouldn't be aware of this possibility. It's not gonna stop me from using mine, and shouldn't stop anyone else who knows of this potential from using the platform. I'm not yelling RED LIGHT to stop people, but rather a YELLOW LIGHT of caution. I really hope everyone in this thread that's bought one sees these last few posts just so they are informed. Just a thought, I have no clue who has modified their bolt and who hasn't, but I saw pictures a few pages back, of a bolt with cut down "wings" so that it won't contact the buffer. For those that are saying this will fire out of battery did they modify their bolt or cut it down? Do the wings stop the hammer if the bolt is not rotated to the correct position? I have a stock 556 upper and reload, but don't currently reload 223 or I would try some primed cases. I wouldn't want to test on a live round. After reading this info I will take a closer look at mine, I just won't have time to do it today. |
Originally Posted By ar-jedi:
SO MUCH WIN IN ONE POST IT COULD CRASH ARFCOM !!!
SO MUCH WIN IN ONE POST IT COULD CRASH ARFCOM !!!
|
Originally Posted By thederrick106: Just a thought, I have no clue who has modified their bolt and who hasn't, but I saw pictures a few pages back, of a bolt with cut down "wings" so that it won't contact the buffer. For those that are saying this will fire out of battery did they modify their bolt or cut it down? Do the wings stop the hammer if the bolt is not rotated to the correct position? I have a stock 556 upper and reload, but don't currently reload 223 or I would try some primed cases. I wouldn't want to test on a live round. After reading this info I will take a closer look at mine, I just won't have time to do it today. |
|
Originally Posted By thederrick106: Just a thought, I have no clue who has modified their bolt and who hasn't, but I saw pictures a few pages back, of a bolt with cut down "wings" so that it won't contact the buffer. For those that are saying this will fire out of battery did they modify their bolt or cut it down? Do the wings stop the hammer if the bolt is not rotated to the correct position? I have a stock 556 upper and reload, but don't currently reload 223 or I would try some primed cases. I wouldn't want to test on a live round. After reading this info I will take a closer look at mine, I just won't have time to do it today. Mine is not cut. Completely unmodified. |
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
345
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
Originally Posted By thederrick106: Just a thought, I have no clue who has modified their bolt and who hasn't, but I saw pictures a few pages back, of a bolt with cut down "wings" so that it won't contact the buffer. For those that are saying this will fire out of battery did they modify their bolt or cut it down? Do the wings stop the hammer if the bolt is not rotated to the correct position? I have a stock 556 upper and reload, but don't currently reload 223 or I would try some primed cases. I wouldn't want to test on a live round. After reading this info I will take a closer look at mine, I just won't have time to do it today. I cut mine down, but the wings have identical "interior" geometry the entire length behind where I cut them down as in front. There is no material that would be in the path of the hammer to stop it. The cut down I made is about 1/2"" behind the rear of the firing pin, give or take -- just past where the diameter is reduced. Pliers, pull bullet, dump out powder. Primed brass. I'd have done it, but .375 SOCOM ammo is around $2/round on sale and I don't reload either. I would not like to see a rifle caliber upper unintentionally function as a blowback. I mean, I guess I kinda would like to see it actually, but not with anyone I like shooting it. |
|
Originally Posted By TNRonin: I can't help but wonder if a standard length carrier with a buffer/spring would effectively be a blowback and be a non issue? Nope. At the very least it would damage the upper. The bolt handle hits the rear of the upper well before the buffer would "bottom out" as on a normal AR. The BCA bolt action carrier is much shorter than a standard AR BCG. Also blowback ARs use low pressure cartridges like 9mm. This is designed for standard AR cartridges like 5.56. Max chamber pressure on a 9mm is 35kPSI, max on a 5.56 is 62kPSI. Even blowback pistol cartridge ARs require very heavy BCGs and buffers to contain the pressure. I expect that if this was fired completely out of battery it would result in a complete destruction of the upper and probably some dangerous shrapnel. |
|
Originally Posted By CORDrew: So I posted the original pics and concern over the issue. I just emailed BCA the following: I recently received a BOLT ACTION AR15 upper from you. I assembled it and have a major safety concern. The upper will allow dry firing with the bolt unlocked (pushed forward) and partially locked. This has been replicated with primed brass confirming that loaded rounds would fire. This could cause a completely uncontrolled release of pressure, in the case of an unlocked bolt. Or bolt failure and pressure release, in a partially locked bolt. Has BCA considered this? Is there any preventative measure available to avoid this? Thanks for any info and follow up. I have attached photos showing the partially locked bolt. It will readily stay in this position, and fire. I'll share any response I get I heard back from BCA and got a nonsense response. Here it is: Re: Safety concern with BOLT ACTION AR15 uppers Our products are made to exact specifications with very tight tolerance. We recommend completing a break-in process. 1. Clean the upper prior to shooting. Take the bolt apart and make sure that the extractor and ejections ports are clean 2. Polish both the feed ramp and chamber to a nice shine with Flitz Metal Polish. This will get rid of any micro-spurs that may cause friction during feeding 3. Really cover up the BCG and chamber with heavy gun oil leave the excess (CLP / Rem Oil). 4. Make sure that the firearm is unloaded, cycle the BCG 35-50 times. 5. Cover the moving parts once again, leave the excess. Take to the range and shoot 25-50 rounds. 6. Be sure to clean the firearm thoroughly before firing again I doubt they even read my email. I think I'll return mine, since I had planned to use it as a hunting rifle for my wife. I think it can be used safely, if the user is careful and aware of the possible issue. |
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
1306
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
I have to say, I knew about this potential safety issue before I bought my 3 uppers (the third of which arrived today), and I believe it was addressed around page 3. I don't find it an unacceptable safety risk, any more than my cock on close Swedish Mauser and Lee Enfields are. Though now that I think about it, the Swede has a safety slot that doesn't allow the trigger to be pulled until fully in battery. I don't recall if the Enfield action has that feature. I'll continue to use mine. |
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
346
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
Yeah, someone didn't really read/understand what you wrote. I wish I had saved a copy of what I wrote, but I know I included a link to page 6 of this discussion. If it looks like they're still not understanding it when I get a response to my inquiry, I might call them. |
Joined:
Mar 2025
Posts:
1
EE: 0% (0)
AK, USA
|
Originally Posted By CORDrew: I have a safety concern with these. I hope someone can tell me why my concern is wrong. I received a stripped BCA bolt upper and started putting it together today. Everything went together great. It cycles pretty nicely as it is. My safety concern is that is is pretty easy to have the bolt lugs partially engaged with the bolt fully forward. It will dry fire in this condition. If it were to be fired with the lugs only partially (50%?) engaged wouldn't the strength of the lugs and containment of pressure be compromised? This post was just linked on page 168 in a long thread about Ultralight-Ultralight straight-pull ARs. https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/ultralight-ultralight-rifles.329402/ Possible firing out of battery with these was a question I had before I had one of these in hand. I saw pictures of the straight cam pin cut and realized that unless they had some kind of geometry cut into the carrier in order to block the hammer before carrier rotation, firing with the bolt pushed forward but not rotated and locked would be possible. The problem with designing that geometry is that once the hammer has dropped, that same geometry would now run into the hammer upon carrier rotation back up. After receiving a couple of these I see that this could be an issue, especially for a left handed shooter as noted. As a right handed shooter, I'm not particularly concerned, but can definitely see the potential. BTW, I really like the nylon washer idea posted here. Great idea as these do seem to come out of battery with very little effort. Was thinking about ways to address it and think I'll give that a try. All my straight-pulls are built on Solo 300 uppers, but the BCA does open things up for Grendel and SPC based cartridges. The Solo has less extraction force so is limited to 223 case based cartridges, but works really well with those. |
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: I have to say, I knew about this potential safety issue before I bought my 3 uppers (the third of which arrived today), and I believe it was addressed around page 3. I don't find it an unacceptable safety risk, any more than my cock on close Swedish Mauser and Lee Enfields are. Though now that I think about it, the Swede has a safety slot that doesn't allow the trigger to be pulled until fully in battery. I don't recall if the Enfield action has that feature. I'll continue to use mine. |
|
Originally Posted By PreacherOfGadget: I cut mine down, but the wings have identical "interior" geometry the entire length behind where I cut them down as in front. There is no material that would be in the path of the hammer to stop it. The cut down I made is about 1/2"" behind the rear of the firing pin, give or take -- just past where the diameter is reduced. Pliers, pull bullet, dump out powder. Primed brass. I'd have done it, but .375 SOCOM ammo is around $2/round on sale and I don't reload either. I would not like to see a rifle caliber upper unintentionally function as a blowback. I mean, I guess I kinda would like to see it actually, but not with anyone I like shooting it. Originally Posted By PreacherOfGadget: Originally Posted By thederrick106: Just a thought, I have no clue who has modified their bolt and who hasn't, but I saw pictures a few pages back, of a bolt with cut down "wings" so that it won't contact the buffer. For those that are saying this will fire out of battery did they modify their bolt or cut it down? Do the wings stop the hammer if the bolt is not rotated to the correct position? I have a stock 556 upper and reload, but don't currently reload 223 or I would try some primed cases. I wouldn't want to test on a live round. After reading this info I will take a closer look at mine, I just won't have time to do it today. I cut mine down, but the wings have identical "interior" geometry the entire length behind where I cut them down as in front. There is no material that would be in the path of the hammer to stop it. The cut down I made is about 1/2"" behind the rear of the firing pin, give or take -- just past where the diameter is reduced. Pliers, pull bullet, dump out powder. Primed brass. I'd have done it, but .375 SOCOM ammo is around $2/round on sale and I don't reload either. I would not like to see a rifle caliber upper unintentionally function as a blowback. I mean, I guess I kinda would like to see it actually, but not with anyone I like shooting it. As I lead with, it was just a thought as I wasn't in front of my rifle. I also thank you for the very specific instructions on how to disassemble a bullet.  I had no idea thats how you do it!  Before hitting reply I decided to go mess with the 556 upper and mine doesn't really want to stay closed unless the bolt is all the way in the forward and down position. It won't stay pushed forward and in battery because of the spring pressure on the bolt face. I guess I could hold it forward and touch one off  If I start to lift the bolt, and it gets to the part where the bolt rotates mine will pop open and release. With that being said it is something to take note of and be aware of. I would not hunt with one of these because of that (ok I might  .) Anyways I much prefer a ~6-pound rifle for the backcountry (Howa super lite 308 w/ Leupold 3-9.) This is just a paper hole puncher tinker toy for me and perfect because I am in a ban state.
|
Originally Posted By ar-jedi:
SO MUCH WIN IN ONE POST IT COULD CRASH ARFCOM !!!
SO MUCH WIN IN ONE POST IT COULD CRASH ARFCOM !!!
|
Originally Posted By VTD: This is about where I'm at. Originally Posted By VTD: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: I have to say, I knew about this potential safety issue before I bought my 3 uppers (the third of which arrived today), and I believe it was addressed around page 3. I don't find it an unacceptable safety risk, any more than my cock on close Swedish Mauser and Lee Enfields are. Though now that I think about it, the Swede has a safety slot that doesn't allow the trigger to be pulled until fully in battery. I don't recall if the Enfield action has that feature. I'll continue to use mine. No worse than an SKS with negative seer engagement Ok, Ok, that drove me nuts and I learned how to do my own trigger job on one now it's as crisp as an SKS can be... Crisp in this context is like 2-day old chicken wings warmed up in a microwave.
|
Originally Posted By ar-jedi:
SO MUCH WIN IN ONE POST IT COULD CRASH ARFCOM !!!
SO MUCH WIN IN ONE POST IT COULD CRASH ARFCOM !!!
|
I had my rifle at the range Wednesday, and another shooter was testing .223 loads. I asked him if he wanted to try my gun with my resonator r2. Of course he did! 1st it's hearing safe with the 18" bbl (I was happy to hear that). Then I was watching how he did with the manual of arms while shooting because of the throw. I never saw a bobble. Naturally it was as much of a function of the shooter as the gun. What I'm trying to say, I'm confident that the gun works as it should. If anyone will have an issue it's going to be me. I had a stroke 5yrs ago as of today, as a matter of fact, and my strength and movement is quite limited on the right side. Is the OOB an issue? Yes. It's it a show stopper? No. |
Shoot straight and tell the truth!
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
1316
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
I did some testing with my Lee Enfields, 1917 Enfield, and cock on close Swedish Mauser. As I stated above, the Mauser has a safety slot that does not allow the trigger to be pulled until the bolt is in battery. HOWEVER, both the Lee Enfield and 1917 Enfield WILL FIRE when the bolt is pressed forward against the cocking spring, not locked, and the trigger is pulled. Millions upon millions of those rifles were built and deployed in the worst possible conditions across Europe and the world. I have never heard a single incident of a cock on close rifle firing out of battery in this manner. I am not in the least bit concerned that this upper will fire out of battery as long as basic firearm safety is observed. |
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: I did some testing with my Lee Enfields, 1917 Enfield, and cock on close Swedish Mauser. As I stated above, the Mauser has a safety slot that does not allow the trigger to be pulled until the bolt is in battery. HOWEVER, both the Lee Enfield and 1917 Enfield WILL FIRE when the bolt is pressed forward against the cocking spring, not locked, and the trigger is pulled. Millions upon millions of those rifles were built and deployed in the worst possible conditions across Europe and the world. I have never heard a single incident of a cock on close rifle firing out of battery in this manner. I am not in the least bit concerned that this upper will fire out of battery as long as basic firearm safety is observed. THANK YOU! So many people expect 1000% performance, and safety from a device (not limited to guns) that when you don't get it, they're done. It's obviously a piece of junk. And in no way am I saying, that we shouldn't strive for that perfection, but at some point the operator, or end user, is responsible for their device and it's use. |
Shoot straight and tell the truth!
Joined:
Mar 2025
Posts:
2
EE: 0% (0)
AK, USA
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: I did some testing with my Lee Enfields, 1917 Enfield, and cock on close Swedish Mauser. As I stated above, the Mauser has a safety slot that does not allow the trigger to be pulled until the bolt is in battery. HOWEVER, both the Lee Enfield and 1917 Enfield WILL FIRE when the bolt is pressed forward against the cocking spring, not locked, and the trigger is pulled. Millions upon millions of those rifles were built and deployed in the worst possible conditions across Europe and the world. I have never heard a single incident of a cock on close rifle firing out of battery in this manner. I am not in the least bit concerned that this upper will fire out of battery as long as basic firearm safety is observed. Just curious, but did you confirm that with a primed empty case? I'm not sure how else to test that there aren't mechanisms in place that block the fp until in battery. E.g., a normal AR can release the hammer in an out of battery condition, but the bolt carrier itself is blocking the hammer from hitting the fp in that case. This guy is illustrating these mechanisms on an Enfield, but I'm not very familiar with them, yours may be different. https://www.bitchute.com/video/FE9IzjaTq3o/ |
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
347
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
At this point, after mulling it over, my real issue is that BCA doesn't inform the customer: 1) No manual of arms indicating that bolt unlocked/partial lock firing is possible. 2) No warning tag or notice included indicating this. 3) Working on a platform where the default expectation is incorrect: a forward carrier in an AR equates to a locked bolt. The last one is key. The AR-15 has 60+ years of developing basic expectations for operation/manual of arms. That's 3 generations of shooters using the same manual of arms for the same platform. Until someone pointed it out, I hadn't even considered firing while unlocked because of my mistaken assumption based on the AR platform: forward carrier=locked bolt. I spent days tinkering with this, and didn't notice as I repeatedly observed its operation, including hammer falling. I can be a bit absent-minded and get tunnel vision, but that's a prime example of how mistaken familiarity leads to mistaken assumptions. The Enfields mentioned had this design aspect from their inception, right? There was no default assumption for that platform. I'm thinking business and liability here. I could see someone getting injured (which on its own would suck) and possibly having a legal case against BCA because of the above. I feel like this would be selling a car where if you hit the gas in neutral, it'll still propel the car forward if the brake isn't also held... and not notifying the purchasers. At the very least, IMO, including the information is the right thing to do. And no, putting a video online isn't good enough. There's nothing wrong with some printed material in with a product -- it doesn't need to be excessive. Instructions, especially safety instructions are important. |
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
348
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
Originally Posted By Theg_man_: BTW, I really like the nylon washer idea posted here. Great idea as these do seem to come out of battery with very little effort. Was thinking about ways to address it and think I'll give that a try. All my straight-pulls are built on Solo 300 uppers, but the BCA does open things up for Grendel and SPC based cartridges. The Solo has less extraction force so is limited to 223 case based cartridges, but works really well with those. Hey, I hope it works well for you. Just avoid the thin ones. Read some of your posts on Rokslide. Noticeably, I noticed you noticed much stuff I notice. |
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
1320
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Theg_man_: Just curious, but did you confirm that with a primed empty case? I'm not sure how else to test that there aren't mechanisms in place that block the fp until in battery. E.g., a normal AR can release the trigger on an out of battery condition, but the bolt carrier itself is blocking the hammer from hitting the fp in that case. This guy is illustrating these mechanisms on an Enfield, but I'm not very familiar with them, yours may be different. https://www.bitchute.com/video/FE9IzjaTq3o/ Originally Posted By Theg_man_: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: I did some testing with my Lee Enfields, 1917 Enfield, and cock on close Swedish Mauser. As I stated above, the Mauser has a safety slot that does not allow the trigger to be pulled until the bolt is in battery. HOWEVER, both the Lee Enfield and 1917 Enfield WILL FIRE when the bolt is pressed forward against the cocking spring, not locked, and the trigger is pulled. Millions upon millions of those rifles were built and deployed in the worst possible conditions across Europe and the world. I have never heard a single incident of a cock on close rifle firing out of battery in this manner. I am not in the least bit concerned that this upper will fire out of battery as long as basic firearm safety is observed. Just curious, but did you confirm that with a primed empty case? I'm not sure how else to test that there aren't mechanisms in place that block the fp until in battery. E.g., a normal AR can release the trigger on an out of battery condition, but the bolt carrier itself is blocking the hammer from hitting the fp in that case. This guy is illustrating these mechanisms on an Enfield, but I'm not very familiar with them, yours may be different. https://www.bitchute.com/video/FE9IzjaTq3o/ I did not use a primed case. Now I'm doubting myself again. |
Joined:
Mar 2025
Posts:
3
EE: 0% (0)
AK, USA
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: I did not use a primed case. Now I'm doubting myself again. That would be interesting to verify. I'm betting it won't actually ignite the primer, but that wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong! I just don't think there have been any centerfire rifle designs in wide circulation that can fire out of battery. It seems like the cases where they could, they were redesigned to where they couldn't or just faded away pretty quickly...but I really don't know...??? All that said, I also don't know what would actually happen in the (unlikely) scenario where the BCA was fired out of battery. Seems like it would be bad situation, but since it's generally not possible with most centerfire rifles, most of us probably have zero actual experience with a rifle firing out of battery. |
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
350
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
Originally Posted By Theg_man_: All that said, I also don't know what would actually happen in the (unlikely) scenario where the BCA was fired out of battery. Seems like it would be bad situation, but since it's generally not possible with most centerfire rifles, most of us probably have zero actual experience with a rifle firing out of battery. What would it be like for a rifle round to fire in this without the bolt locked at all? Well, it would operate like a massively over-powered blowback rifle, if it were fully out of battery. If the bolt were partially locked, the bigger potential issue is lug failure and breaking. This could be catastrophic, and lead to the above scenario. Or it could happen slowly, deform the lugs over time, bend/crack them, possibly blow the extractor apart, possibly break lugs off. If it operated like a blowback rifle, as 9mm & .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and 10mm often are -- .45 and 10mm can be done as and are better as DI, IMO -- the bolt would directly have the full force of the pressure in the cartridge applied directly rearward. It would transfer this via the cam pin and spring into into the carrier, likely damaging the cam pin and internal spring. The carrier would absorb that force and the BCG would accelerate rearward insanely fast as a single unit at that point. If your hand were on the handle, your hand would be broken in a manner affected greatly by where your hand was placed and your body's physical properties -- e.g. a small person would get it worse, or if only your thumb were holding it, your thumb would be great for hitchhiking. The pressure, unlike a pistol cal operating in blowback, would likely still be high enough during extraction that it could blow apart the cartridge during extraction. This is going to vary largely with different calibers and cartridge designs. You'd get a fireball out the port door regardless of how the case bulges/breaks. (This occurs in blowback PCCs quite frequently, and there it isn't indicative of malfunction.) The ejector will fail to work as there's too much force pushing it, and the extractor will be likely damaged or destroyed by the brass and explosion. The bolt handle would strike the upper receiver. With the inset nature of the handle on the carrier, the handle would hold. (The next contact point is 3/4" further back and would be the key striking the front of the buffer tube+lower receiver tower.) When the handle strikes the receiver, some damage will be done to the receiver at that point of contact, but the sudden stop will also cause the bolt carrier to twist suddenly like panning on bipod, as nothing stops the left side of the carrier at the time when the handle strikes receiver. At this point the upper receiver either will hold up to those twisting forces, or it will bulge, possibly crack/break/blow apart. At a minimum, there'll be some dents and scraping on the inside of the receiver. There could also be damage inside the buffer tube. The damage of the the cartridge exploding gasses case as it extracts is going to cause additional damage to the walls of the upper and lower receiver, and the magazine below. Depending on the round, this could be minor or blow the receiver apart. |
Joined:
Mar 2025
Posts:
4
EE: 0% (0)
AK, USA
|
Originally Posted By PreacherOfGadget: What would it be like for a rifle round to fire in this without the bolt locked at all? Well, it would operate like a massively over-powered blowback rifle, if it were fully out of battery. If the bolt were partially locked, the bigger potential issue is lug failure and breaking. This could be catastrophic, and lead to the above scenario. Or it could happen slowly, deform the lugs over time, bend/crack them, possibly blow the extractor apart, possibly break lugs off. If it operated like a blowback rifle, as 9mm & .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and 10mm often are -- .45 and 10mm can be done as and are better as DI, IMO -- the bolt would directly have the full force of the pressure in the cartridge applied directly rearward. It would transfer this via the cam pin and spring into into the carrier, likely damaging the cam pin and internal spring. The carrier would absorb that force and the BCG would accelerate rearward insanely fast as a single unit at that point. .... The damage of the the cartridge exploding gasses case as it extracts is going to cause additional damage to the walls of the upper and lower receiver, and the magazine below. Depending on the round, this could be minor or blow the receiver apart. That's what I'd be afraid of. OTOH, I've read about the experiments P. O. Ackley supposedly did with an old model 94 Winchester with a 30-30 AI chamber, removing the breech locking mechanism and remotely firing it to test the bolt thrust of that AI cartridge. Supposedly the cartridge remained in the chamber and nothing came back. Certainly not something I'd bet on though. I imagine the results would be somewhere between that and what you described above. This one would be really easy for some Youtuber (or BCA) to test by simply removing the spring from the back of the bolt and pushing the carrier forward...and remotely firing from behind a concrete wall. |
| Since an unlocked discharge can mechanically happen, what can be done at the operator level to prevent it from happening? Electricians work of live power lines safely because of proper training and special precautions. I suspect proper steps can be taken by the operator to prevent it from firing from the unlocked position. |
|
Originally Posted By Moondog: Since an unlocked discharge can mechanically happen, what can be done at the operator level to prevent it from happening? Electricians work of live power lines safely because of proper training and special precautions. I suspect proper steps can be taken by the operator to prevent it from firing from the unlocked position. I examined mine for risk of firing out of battery when I first got the upper. The spring on the bolt should prevent discharge if completely unlocked. It pushes the carrier back so that the hammer won't hit the firing pin. The only risk is for a discharge on a partially closed bolt, which would likely cause bolt damage or the action to unlock and the bolt to fly back but from my tinkering, I think the risk is minimal. On mine, I can't get the bolt to stay in a partially closed state without REALLY trying. It has a tendancy to want unlock and spring back if nudged. At the end of the day, I'm not worried about it. Side note: the factory bolt doesn't have gas rings. If you use a different bolt, be sure to remove the gas rings as the friction won't allow the carrier to spring back when the bolt unlocks. |
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
354
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
Originally Posted By ninja99: The spring on the bolt should prevent discharge if completely unlocked. What the spring prevents is the bolt + carrier staying in forward unlocked position if and only if no sufficient outside forward force is applied to the carrier to counteract the spring. During cycling there is a sufficient forward force. This is a time -- a short time -- during which the spring is fully compressed and the bolt unlocked. Though a short time, it's long enough for the hammer to fall. The greater possibility is the partially locked bolt and damaging lugs over time. You could probably do that several times before noticing any damage. As to inadvertent firing while cycling, it is avoidable with extra focus on safety while cycling, but that only happens if the user is aware of this possibility. Left handed shooters on a right handed upper rig should be extra careful to practice trigger discipline while cycling. But to do these things, they need to be aware BCA should be tossing in a basic safety notice with information on the change in manual of arms, and how it affects system operation. That'd be sufficient, in my opinion. Like 1/3 of a sheet of paper. Bright yellow triangle with exclamation. Caution notice and instructions. It's the newbie, the idiot, the absentminded, the desensitized AR owner who doesn't even notice the issue because of assumptions, and the inexperienced youth I'm most worried about here. Heck, even just the people who don't have these conversations with their peers about these new products. I know compassion for the disadvantaged, vulnerable, and stupid isn't popular these days, but I still feel it. Awareness and extra care while cycling, combined checking your bolt for damage in case of unnoticed partially-locked firing should be sufficient safety precautions. Also double checking the bolt is fully locked before firing if coming from a carry position where the handle may have been jostled. And again, extra care suggested for left handed shooter trigger discipline during cycling. Once you know to show extra caution in those areas because you know the thing could happen, you're unlikely to suffer this issue. ------- On alterations for a gen II design that could alleviate this issue, I have contemplated several approaches. Consider an internal lever or a decently sized ball detent placed on the left side of the receiver's body along the carrier key raceway, situated so that it starts pressing against the left side of gas key as the carrier reaches fully forward. This force would start the rotation and help push the bolt partly into battery, decreasing: 1) the time in which the carrier dwells in the "open but unlocked" position while closing, and 2) prevents the bolt from rotating out of battery through jostling, bumping, or light forces encountered while carrying. Given that the mechanical advantage to rotating the carrier with the large handle, this should be able to be tuned to not create challenges to extraction/cycling. |
| Gotcha. So it must be partially locked or locked in order to fire? What can be done at the operator level to prevent firing while partially locked? When I worked in secure environments, policy was to tug on a door handle to ensure the latch engaged properly. Otherwise a partially closed door could result in unauthorized access. Before firing the operator could reach over and verify the bolt handle is in the full lock position. I'm curious if an external catch or nub can be added to provide tactile verification the bolt is engaged, or a bit of force is required to jar the bolt into a partially locked position? |
|
Originally Posted By PreacherOfGadget: During cycling there is a sufficient forward force. This is a time -- a short time -- during which the spring is fully compressed and the bolt unlocked. Though a short time, it's long enough for the hammer to fall. Yeah, I mean that's possible, but not very probable and falls into the realm of what ifs. Even if pulling on the trigger with the safety disengaged while charging the bolt, 1) the hammer will not drop if it is being reset by bolt (e.g. cycling after firing a shot). The disconnector holds the hammer back if you're pulling on the trigger. 2) if the hammer is cocked and safety is off and you pull the trigger while cycling the bolt, you'll get hammer follow while cycling the bolt. There's not going to be sufficient force to hit the pin. Realistically, the bolt firing unlocked is a non-issue. Originally Posted By PreacherOfGadget: The greater possibility is the partially locked bolt and damaging lugs over time. You could probably do that several times before noticing any damage. As to inadvertent firing while cycling, it is avoidable with extra focus on safety while cycling, but that only happens if the user is aware of this possibility. Left handed shooters on a right handed upper rig should be extra careful to practice trigger discipline while cycling. But to do these things, they need to be aware Agree. This is the main concern |
|
I saw a video of someone that took his dremel and made a small recess where the bolt is fully down in the locked position, which made the bolt handle slightly go rearward. But to cycle the action, it would require a slight forward push, then up for extraction/feeding. Once the bolt is pushed down into the locked position, it would travel rearward slightly and not be able to just be bumped upwards without forward pressure. I just do not know how far the bolt carrier could go rearward without causing the bolt to be further uncompressed and cause lightened primer strikes. Grind too much off and oops… I’m good with how it is. Firearms take discipline…in every facet. I’m not in ***** anymore having to run and gun, cycling a bolt action as quick as possible. If a deer gets away, then it gets away for another day. |
|
Here's the video I shared this to my friend in MD 2/27 The description of the issue of the bolt handle springing up receiver modification LEO made to his upper Starts at 2:20 on  Bear Creek Arsenal Bolt Action.. The Guts |
Joined:
Mar 2025
Posts:
5
EE: 0% (0)
AK, USA
|
The interesting difference, as already pointed out, is that it's possible at all which is why this discussion is occurring in the first place. For not only the AR-15, but essentially all other centerfire rifles, the possibility of an out of battery firing is essentially zero, due to the firearm's design. That the possibility is greater than zero makes an out of battery firing infinitely more likely than zero. Even though the likelihood is still extremely small, in this particular case, it's not zero. This likelihood gets a lot smaller for people like those here that understand how this rifle functions and IMO is not an issue at all. But one thing to remember is that probably at least 90% of shooters don't have very in depth knowledge of exactly how any particular firearm functions and it's a 100% certainty that this will be the case with some shooters with this rifle. Even if it came with a notice of the possibility, many people will handle and shoot the rifle without ever seeing such a notice. It won't be anyone here, but if there are enough of them being shot enough, I'd think at some point the very unlikely could/will happen. E.g., a left handed shooter with zero knowledge of the potential, testing how fast they can run the rifle or racing to take a shot for whatever reason. I really have no actual idea what would happen in the case where this occurred, but the point is that it could occur. That in itself an interesting difference compared to all other rifles I know of. |
Joined:
Mar 2025
Posts:
6
EE: 0% (0)
AK, USA
|
Originally Posted By Laserjock: Here's the video I shared this to my friend in MD 2/27 The description of the issue of the bolt handle springing up receiver modification LEO made to his upper Starts at 2:20 on  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgaene4LlnUThis mod might work really well with PreacherOfGadget's nylon washer solution...??? FWIW, this review is one of three I saw that clearly show the straight cam pin cut that made me think about the possible out-of-battery potential. That none of the three note that is kind of my point that 90% of people really aren't paying attention to these details that potentially affect firearm function. |
|
Originally Posted By Laserjock: Here's the video I shared this to my friend in MD 2/27 The description of the issue of the bolt handle springing up receiver modification LEO made to his upper Starts at 2:20 on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgaene4LlnUI hope BCA is paying attention. |
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
361
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
Not only would it work well with the nylon washers, it will work ideally with it. The dremel cut out allows the carrier to move slightly further back, and the nylon washers, with diameters expanding beyond the steel base, would actually keep it positioned closer to where it was manufactured to be while still locking. The sizing might be slightly different. The reviewer saying he put some "M A N" on the handle after his mod -- he's putting that into the friction eroding the lip of the pocket he just dremeled. Using the nylon washers will move the contact to nylon-aluminum, and will wear the nylon. He also said he put in a stronger spring. All these heavier forces are going to erode the lip on on the pocket much faster. Dollars to donuts his modification (pocket lip) wears out before his barrel does if he doesn't change something. I believe the reason BCA did not pursue this, and one of two reasons I hadn't yet, is the steel handle wearing down the lip of the pocket. Having used a dremel, his receiver is no longer a hard anodized surface. It's going to wear down even faster than steel on anodized aluminum. IF BCA does something like a cut pocket, they'd need to add a steel piece the receiver on the rear face of the pocket for the handle interface, or have a softer interface (like nylon washers) on the handle to interface with the aluminum receiver. On a related note, I got some black washers in and replaced the white ones. They came in a pack of 50, so now I've got plenty of spares, lol.  I'll reconsider modding the pocket. Probably would work well with current washer setup. It would also mean storing in the "closed" position wouldn't stress the nylon washers as much. The two mods should each benefit the functionality of the other. ETA: With nylon washers, a pocket could be cut not for the base of the handle, but a much smaller pocket, not full depth, just for the washer to slide into. This would remove steel contacting aluminum at anything other than parallel, while preserving the locking effect. The wear would nearly exclusively be on the nylon washers, a reasonable maintenance item every however many k rounds in exchange for better locking. I'll document it if I do this... .... ... |
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
362
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
To figure out where to pocket for washers, first install the handle with your nylon washers in the receiver. Then, color in the base of the pocket with a sharpie. Only the base of the pocket. Close the bolt handle firmly, press down, then slide it up and rearward. You'll be left with marks indicating the point of contact at the base, like the marks in the yellow boxes:  Those should be where you start taking out material. IF your washers are rounded you might need to cut out slightly further inward and outward. Start small and don't try and take a lot at once. Cut outs for the washers should NOT reach edges of the pocket. Cut outs should be shallow rounded, ideally with a cut radius, or simulating a cut radius, approximately equal to the washer diameter. Cutting out the bottom BEFORE the rear will ensure the handle is not being denied any rotation by the washers. While this small amount of rotation is negligible as far as lug contact is concerned, it will translate into an appreciable difference in where the cutout on the rear of the handle pocket should go. AFTER doing the bottom cutouts, clean up the receiver, reassemble, and mark the back of the pocket. Push the receiver firmly closed. Unlike the bottom of the receiver, this mark will be 3 sided, as the washer slides up and down. You have to find the lowest point that the washer got to and treat that as the center of your pocket. Your mark should be slightly lower than this one. Picture taken to demonstrate method of identifying center of cutout only -- lower cutouts not previously done. (Sorry this picture isn't quite as good. If I get a better one later, I'll swap it out.)  Hope that helps anyone considering the pocketing approach. ETA: To cut out the bottom, begin small. Then put sharpie on the undersides of the washers before pressing the handle down firmly.  Then remove material by the marked parts, and repeat.  At some point the handle will bottom out, and efforts can move to the back of the pocket for the handle. ETA 2: I'm not sure exactly how much material Utube guy removed, but if the whole pocket's bottom was lowered, it's possible now his bolt may be over-rotating and moving past 100% lug engagement. |
Joined:
Mar 2025
Posts:
7
EE: 0% (0)
AK, USA
|
Nice work on the modification! You addressed all the reservations I had about his modification, like the bolts grinding away on the aluminum and over rotation of the bolt by cutting down the bottom of the bolt handle pocket. Let us know what you think of how much better it stays closed after you finish. I didn’t want to do what he did due to wear concerns, but with the nylon washer I'd be more likely to try it. I was thinking just a single, slight relief pocket cut just behind and just below the rear washer for it to "squeeze" into would work, but I haven't messed with any of this yet, so maybe not. |
|
I worked the range today and my friend brought his GS. The young man rocked it. He's about 9yoa, very very smart. Non recoil averse (watching him shoot the shotgun and getting rocked around was a hoot). I put him on the rifle (5.56) with a resonator r2 attached. I should have got a pic. I have a luth-ar MBA4 on it which I shortened all the way. He rocked it! We ran into issues closing the bolt occasionally BUT, they are reducing with use. I'm going to stone the bolt very lightly tomorrow and check it Friday. Once he sorted the scope he was nailing whatever he wanted. I'm sure Papa was happy (evil face here) when I exposed him to suppressors and thermal. 
|
Shoot straight and tell the truth!
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
364
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
First, thanks for the compliments. I am thinking U-tube guy may have seriously downplayed the importance of his stronger spring in the resistance to rotation his modification exhibited. I wish I started with the spring, not with the pocketing. I should have figured out the behavior with the original pocket, nylon washers, and a heavier spring before the receiver modifications. But, even given that, I think this may have benefits. I'm working this real slowly because of my own reservations with the approach. I have a small cutout in the back of the pocket now, in addition to the bottom cutouts for the washers. It still needs some more contouring -- I'm not done yet -- but, even with the pocket as I have it now, it's not yet the level of resistance to rotation that the utuber had. I believe that extra strength spring might be more important to this approach than he let on, and I think I'm gonna visit my hardware store before deepening the pocket modifications much more. A "slight" pocket for only the rear nylon washer didn't really provide much extra relief to sliding out of the pocket. As that cutout expanded, the benefit started to increase, but again, I am starting to think that stronger spring might be what makes the pocket approach work at a reasonable depth. ETA: If you installed nylon washers, you also have different screws. Larger screw heads may need to be reduced in diameter so they don't become the limiting contact points with the bottom or rear of the handle pocket in the upper receiver. |
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
371
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
Here's several images of how I progressed with shaping the handle pocket in the receiver for the nylon washers, then creating a rearward pocket to help lock the handle in battery. I ground a little, marked washers with red sharpie, then mark the receiver, then grind those marks, etc. Make sure to keep modifying the bottom as you start moving backward with your cut, or else the handle may not be fully down in the rear most position. If you want to see all of my images related to this in one place, look at my .375 SOCOM build gallery on imgur with notes on most images.   With the front washer larger, the front grinding needed to go deeper.    By the end there's a proper pocket. I've progressed a bit further than this last picture. I'm going to try an unthreaded aluminum sleeve on the rear screw instead of nylon. I have one, but the OD is a little too small, so I'm waiting for delivery on a larger diameter one. I have not yet found an appropriate stiffer bolt spring, but am still looking into that. My current progress with the cutouts with nylon washers locks fairly well (better than without modification), but that much force does eat up the nylon washers. The larger the washers, the better it locks, but the better it locks, the more it gouges the nylon washers; so currently this approach has serious trade-offs. The heavier spring could change this. I also think the unthreaded aluminum spacer/sleeve with an appropriate OD will do better in a modified receiver. Based on my experience so far, I can see the benefits of this modification for rugged field use, heavy underbrush, and long treks. For everything else, IMO, nylon washers add enough tension+friction to sufficiently hold the handle down / bolt locked and require far less work (overall and on the receiver itself). For a range gun this mod is completely unnecessary. Using just modified thick nylon washers is a fraction of the work, and in that configuration they'll still last a very long time. We'll see what I think of the aluminum sleeve approach once that comes in. |
|
BCA must still be employing engrish speaking illegals, cause their shipping dept sucks. i emailed them about getting a gas journal sleeve since mine did not come with one. they sent me a pair of split rings for the bolt handle not only once but twice. then sent me the gas journal sleeve but did not send the hardware to install it lol. i have yet to hear back on the missing hardware. the guy i am dealing with at BCA has been good so far and apologetic, but whoever is handling the actual shipping aspect must be mentally missing a few screws. pun intended lol. |
|
Originally Posted By Slyce: BCA must still be employing engrish speaking illegals, cause their shipping dept sucks. i emailed them about getting a gas journal sleeve since mine did not come with one. they sent me a pair of split rings for the bolt handle not only once but twice. then sent me the gas journal sleeve but did not send the hardware to install it lol. i have yet to hear back on the missing hardware. the guy i am dealing with at BCA has been good so far and apologetic, but whoever is handling the actual shipping aspect must be mentally missing a few screws. pun intended lol. |
Shoot straight and tell the truth!
BCA bolt action upper for $350? (Page 7 of 21)
AR Sponsor
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter