AR Sponsor
BCA bolt action upper for $350? (Page 8 of 21)
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
375
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
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. Same experience for me. Been waiting a month for a missing bolt handle for my kit. Sent the wrong parts 3 weeks ago. Called and they said they'd send the right parts out. They didnt. Called again this week and said they'd send the missing bolt handle. Still waiting..... |
|
Glad i found this thread, I was about to order a 6.5 Grendel upper but now I think I'll wait for Gen-2... A thought came to mind on a method to enhance bolt lock-down... what about using a small spring+ball detent like used in the takedown pins? the spring & ball could be part of the receiver and the steel bolt boss could have the ball lock indent... but maybe not something easily made at home. |
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
377
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
Detents to help locking There's certainly more than one way to skin this cat. There's several places where a detent could work, as a billet receiver has plenty of material to drill into. Alternatively, a ball-detent set-screw could function in a similar manner and would be easily adjusted. The key is positioning. BCA wanted to make extraction and cycling easy compared to a straight pull bolt upper. Any such detent would have to be positioned and tuned such that any forces it applies don't push the carrier out of alignment during cycling -- earlier in this thread there's reported issues with the bolt lugs catching during cycling/extraction. Positioned wrong, a detent could make this worse. Additionally, the handle is fairly far forward, and resistance at the wrong point during cycling combined with that less-than-ideal ergonomic can quickly make something easy to cycle much harder. I see those as the primary considerations if they were to implement this idea... but almost any locking mechanism presents one or both of those issues. Read through the above and a few of us have tossed out some various ideas. BCA F-ups Regarding their f-ups, I feel like BCA shoots themselves in the foot a lot. When things like this happen over and over, it's hard not to think the root cause lies somewhere in management. I'd rather see things out of stock slightly more often and be sure they come with all the right parts. My continuing mods ETA: my Al sleeves got delayed by a day in delivery. I bought several to experiment with. I'm planning on first expanding out the ID of the sleeve to allow it to be press fit over a more flexible "inner sleeve". Similarly, I'll reduce the OD of the inner sleeve before press fitting them. The idea is to reduce wear to the surface while still allowing flexibility that creates a dynamic pressure profile while the carrier rotates, the functional mechanism of "locking". In all of these, approaches, filing down the threads of the screw under the spacer will reduce wear to the soft sleeve and give more room for expansion/contractinon of the soft sleeve. This also allows sleeve rotation without resistance from the screw threads.. I plan on trying: - threaded nylon with the Al sleeve press-fit over it. - thick rubber spacer with the Al sleeve press fit over it. Same concept, but more flex. - rubber o-rings underneath the Al sleeve. - anything else that pops into my mind based on what I see and consider while or after trying the above. |
|
Originally Posted By PreacherOfGadget: A set screw. 10-24, I think. i thought it was 1/4x28 or the same as an AR15 grip screw. i may be wrong, cause i just grabbed a bolt that was laying on my work bench and it threaded right in. only problem is that its about 1" too long lol. looks like i'll be cutting one down to secure the gas journal collar. |
|
I finished my 300 BO build a couple of weeks ago, and fired it last week. I turned two washers from Delrin for the bolt handle screws. I used a couple of 1/2 cap head screws from Lowes that with the .14" washer thickness were the perfect length. Action isn't butter smooth, but it is serviceable. All in all, it's worth it. My girlfriend has claimed it as her own..... |
| I just converted my 5.56 to 300 blackout with a 16-in barrel. Holy cow! I am absolutely sold on the 300 blackout. Also changing out the barrel put it on a weight loss program that was extremely significant. That's pretty important as well. I'm suppressing it with a resonator r2. |
Shoot straight and tell the truth!
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
378
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
Ok ... weight loss ideas? Why is the carrier even steel? It experiences none of extremities of speed and force that a semi-auto carrier does. How light could you get this build: say 8"-9" .300 blk BBL with a pencil profile, no buffer tube (just a plug), and an an aluminum carrier (trimmed wings) in this upper? Get a Ti gas collar (or weld port shut), Ti muzzle device, and I'm pretty sure you could get down around 3 lbs. (I'm comparing this to a .458 SOCOM pistol I have that's just over 4.25 lbs. A .300 blk bbl instead of the .458 S alone would take it under 3.6 lbs.) Obviously the steel charging handle on this upper is heavy, but: 1) you could trim/contour that for weight loss, or 2) it is possible to use a single, straight handle like most straight pull charging handles. Use the rear screw hole for the handle, and use appropriate washers or spacers to ensure the carrier is pressed forward when rotated. There's 0 mechanical need for the additional strength of steel. Weight loss if the carrier were aluminum or titanium.... big. (Titanium would drop the carrier to between 4.5 and 5.5 oz (ballpark estimate), based on my shortened titanium carrier.) Even with the rotation and extraction forces, I don't think this carrier even comes lose to needing to be made out of steel, and certainly not completely steel. Additionally, there's no internal friction from gas rings. Weight drops are pretty amazing when the carrier doesn't have to be full length anymore. Downside is it moves the center of balance further forward, but on a light gun, no big deal. I already have a couple really light weight builds (not with this), but after you mentioned the weight-loss, the lack of mechanical necessity for a steel carrier immediately entered my mind. Huh, didn't expect to go down that mental rabbit hole with these uppers. BTW, not impressed with aluminum sleeve with nylon interior for the rear handle screw. My preference, at this point, is a 1/8" nylon spacer/washer on the front, and the rear a 1/4" nylon spacer. |
|
Attached File Attached File 7.62x39 16" left. 556 20" right. I got some range time with the 7.62x39 recently and it exceeded my expectations. No issues with the action and decently accurate with steel cased Russian ammo. Not amazing accuracy wise but I was pleasantly surprised (for what it is and the ammo I was using.) I have about $600 into the 7.62x39 including the low-end Vortex 1-4...  With all that being said pound for pound / dollar for dollar I feel that my RAR 7.62x39 is a better bolt action rifle overall and while very different guns, I think price point and caliber make them somewhat comparable. |
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 !!!
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
379
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
Nice builds! I feel like a straight comparison with a bolt gun isn't actually a proper comparison. Each one has advantages the other truly lacks. You simply can't get the platform stability & associate precision in an AR that a bolt gun has with a single piece stock or chassis. Likewise, you simply can't get the breakdown capability or customization available in an AR in a standard bolt gun. One platform dominates in customizability & versatility, the other in simplicity and precision. Presuming the collar on the barrel is properly sealing the gas port, one thing both a bolt gun and a BCA upper do is suppress well. Also, if one already has an AR and wanted to add a BCA upper, they don't need a new lower. That can change the price comparison a lot. It's not unfair to compare the products or prices, but it bears acknowledging key differences. IMO, etc. |
|
Originally Posted By PreacherOfGadget: Nice builds! I feel like a straight comparison with a bolt gun isn't actually a proper comparison. Each one has advantages the other truly lacks. You simply can't get the platform stability & associate precision in an AR that a bolt gun has with a single piece stock or chassis. Likewise, you simply can't get the breakdown capability or customization available in an AR in a standard bolt gun. One platform dominates in customizability & versatility, the other in simplicity and precision. Presuming the collar on the barrel is properly sealing the gas port, one thing both a bolt gun and a BCA upper do is suppress well. Also, if one already has an AR and wanted to add a BCA upper, they don't need a new lower. That can change the price comparison a lot. It's not unfair to compare the products or prices, but it bears acknowledging key differences. IMO, etc. Well said. |
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: He just emailed me that he received everything, I sent some design clarifications and it sounds like he's going to start working on it! Thank you! I'm partially paralyzed on the right side. This will help! |
Shoot straight and tell the truth!
|
Finally got my parts to complete my build. Took about 45 days but at least I got them, less the lock washers for the two bolt screws that hold the bolt handle on. Found a couple in my stash and put it together. Put a 223/556 10.5 inch SS barrel on it and my 30 caliber suppressor. Very lightweight upper for sure. Fired a couple of rounds out of it to ensure it works and it did. Cycling is rough for sure. Placed a POF rolling bolt cam pin in it and it didnt improve it much. Maybe a little but not much. I guess it needs some cycling and breaking in to smooth it out, not sure....probably need to re-read all the info provided by so many above in this thread and see if I can try something to help smooth it out some. The bolt closing and opening isnt rough, its the backward travel to extract and pushing forward the next round. It feels like the bolt isnt quite unlocking from the barrel...kinda... Will slap a scope on it and check accuracy this weekend Very pleased overall for the low cost even considering the cycling issue It's much quieter than a semi auto upper If accurate enough, it will become my dedicated night hunting coyote gun with a thermal on top. It's typically one-shot and done in my application so not really worried about follow up shots. |
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
380
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
Originally Posted By Burnsome-: Cycling is rough for sure. Placed a POF rolling bolt cam pin in it and it didnt improve it much. Maybe a little but not much. I guess it needs some cycling and breaking in to smooth it out, not sure....probably need to re-read all the info provided by so many above in this thread and see if I can try something to help smooth it out some. The bolt closing and opening isnt rough, its the backward travel to extract and pushing forward the next round. It feels like the bolt isnt quite unlocking from the barrel...kinda... Check previous posts for that info. The cam pin does reduce the issues at one point in cycling, but not all. If the issue is occurring when the bolt should be unlocking from the barrel extension, it may well be solved with nylon washer on the rear bolt handle screw. Any inadvertent downward force on the charging handle when retraction of the bolt begins can cause the bolt lugs to still have a slight overlap in some positions. The nylon washer limits the amount of rotation that can occur as a result of a downward force applied during retraction. Read above for details on that. If that's not where it is, exactly where in cycling is the roughness? As specific as possible. |
|
Originally Posted By PreacherOfGadget: Check previous posts for that info. The cam pin does reduce the issues at one point in cycling, but not all. If the issue is occurring when the bolt should be unlocking from the barrel extension, it may well be solved with nylon washer on the rear bolt handle screw. Any inadvertent downward force on the charging handle when retraction of the bolt begins can cause the bolt lugs to still have a slight overlap in some positions. The nylon washer limits the amount of rotation that can occur as a result of a downward force applied during retraction. Read above for details on that. If that's not where it is, exactly where in cycling is the roughness? As specific as possible. Thanks Preacher. I will play with it some more and see if I can describe better what its doing. Might pick up some nylon washers as you mentioned and try again |
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
382
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
This is a very rough draft, but I'm consolidating my advice and other advice that's been given on these. I have work to do on formatting and description, and probably splitting off an "information" section apart from the "how-to" section, but the basic info and images are all here: BCA Bolt Action Upper Guide |
|
Originally Posted By AL1EN: Looks like BCA is paying attention to this thread, my upper without barrel and hand guard showed up with a gas port cover. However the cover is missing the set screws to affix it to the barrel. at least the set screws are the easiest parts to source at your local hardware store.   |
|
Originally Posted By AL1EN: Looks like BCA is paying attention to this thread, my upper without barrel and hand guard showed up with a gas port cover. However the cover is missing the set screws to affix it to the barrel. yea i never heard back from BCA. they didnt ship a set screw with mine either. guess ill just continue to use my chopped FSB ring i made. |
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: I'll just add that both of my uppers are still cycling very smoothly if I apply pressure to the left as I run the bolt. This technique worked for me as well after playing around with mine. It's not like a "regular" bolt action for sure but I'm ok with it Nice job on the tutorial Preacher |
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
383
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
Thanks for the compliment. It makes me happy if it's useful to anyone. Anyone that has feedback or suggestions on the BCA Bolt-Action Upper Guide, please let me know. I am very open to constructive criticism, whether it's the info, the phrasing, typos, the order info is presented, what pictures I chose, etc. My big to-do list includes improving the details (e.g.: specify screw specs, other measurements including weights), getting a few better pictures/diagrams, and adding a section explaining the unlocked-firing safety concern. |
|
I don’t think I’ll be using the gas port sleeve just going to stick with a gas block turned around. I did buy these off Amazon today after trying to source nylon washers at my local hardware store with no luck. I’ll report back if these are good to go. I suspect I’ll have to open the ID up a bit. Amazon |
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
385
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
Having to open up the ID shouldn't be a big deal. I've now tried two approaches with the nylon washers. One is what I've described in previous posts: undersized washer, use a self-tapping screw to thread it (and use same when shaping/reducing OD). The other approach I've tried is a threaded nylon washer with 10-32 threads, shape the washer, then, on the new screw, file down the threads for where the washer will sit. This allows for a little more deformation of the entire washer when it is under pressure. I did this on the rear washer when I modified the ejection port handle locking pocket so the handle catches into a rearward recess. The concept is that flexibility increases washer lifespan in that setup. |
|
Originally Posted By AL1EN: I don’t think I’ll be using the gas port sleeve just going to stick with a gas block turned around. I did buy these off Amazon today after trying to source nylon washers at my local hardware store with no luck. I’ll report back if these are good to go. I suspect I’ll have to open the ID up a bit. Amazon Cool Are you going to use the original bolt handle screws or something different? |
|
Using some longer ones I sources from the hardware store. But I made a spacer today out of some scrap plastic with some files. Works great very happy with fit and function. Looking to 3d print them with a buddy. I’ll let you guys know how that goes. 
|
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
388
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
Originally Posted By AL1EN: Using some longer ones I sources from the hardware store. But I made a spacer today out of some scrap plastic with some files. Works great very happy with fit and function. Looking to 3d print them with a buddy. I’ll let you guys know how that goes. That's neat, and I am interested. With the geometry on your spacer, what are the benefits you see the most of, and the least of? What type of plastic? Handle ergonomics, smoother cycling, quieter cycling, reduced wear, improved hold when in pocket... which of those is affected by this style spacer the most? I haven't tried any mod that moved the handle itself outward... yet. |
|
Very cool. Seems like a great idea on the plastic "shoe" I got mine out to shoot today. Probably 100 rounds down the tube for testing. 3 different factory loads produced 5 shot groups of about an inch at 50 yards. After shooting I realized my suppressor wasnt on tight so I think I can shrink those groups with everything tightened down. Cycling and extraction became smoother the more rounds fired. I'm pretty happy with it. |
|
Originally Posted By PreacherOfGadget: That's neat, and I am interested. With the geometry on your spacer, what are the benefits you see the most of, and the least of? What type of plastic? Handle ergonomics, smoother cycling, quieter cycling, reduced wear, improved hold when in pocket... which of those is affected by this style spacer the most? I haven't tried any mod that moved the handle itself outward... yet. The plastic is just some scrap I had laying around not sure what it is exactly. The spacer prohibits any metal to receiver contact from the bolt handle or screws. In the lockup area and down the slide charging channel. In the locking area it locks up nice and tight. I almost want a weaker spring behind the BCG bolt head to release some of the pressure. Nice and quiet as well. Geometry feels great but to be honest I never tried to operate the upper without the spacer behind the bolt handle. All being said I have not fired the upper yet, mine is a 300 blackout build with a 7.5” barrel. I do for see needing to keep multiple spacers on hand to replace over time. I’m hoping to try out a 3d printed one and if I can achieve that I’ll make as many as I can for spares and to share. |
|
Looks like VTD is going to test print some spacers so that awesome colaberation from dem boyz. Was going to point out other mods I have done to the BCG as well. I stoned then polished the gas key and gave it a coat of dry moly lube. Replaced the bolt pin with a POF pin and sourced a NiB bolt from aimsurplus. Really thinking about cutting the wings or just removing the buffer because it a terrible feeling forcing the bolt back under the buffer tension and then forward for lock up. 
|
|
Originally Posted By AL1EN: Looks like VTD is going to test print some spacers so that awesome colaberation from dem boyz. Was going to point out other mods I have done to the BCG as well. I stoned then polished the gas key and gave it a coat of dry moly lube. Replaced the bolt pin with a POF pin and sourced a NiB bolt from aimsurplus. Really thinking about cutting the wings or just removing the buffer because it a terrible feeling forcing the bolt back under the buffer tension and then forward for lock up. https://i.imgur.com/49E8I7p.jpeg I didn't even put a buffer in the lowers for my bolt action builds. |
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: I didn't even put a buffer in the lowers for my bolt action builds. |
Shoot straight and tell the truth!
|
Originally Posted By TNRonin: Ya no buffer and spring. Not even a buffer detent, or bolt release. Tho that release might be handy you tell you when you are dry. Originally Posted By TNRonin: Originally Posted By thederrick106: I didn't even put a buffer in the lowers for my bolt action builds. I did put the bolt release on the lower. It looked empty without it
|
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 !!!
Joined:
May 2023
Posts:
389
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
I guess the only reason not to ditch the buffer system in a dedicated lower is if the weight loss creates a balance issue for you. I'd leave the buffer retaining pin in, personally. If you are looking for as much weight savings as possible, you could trim only the left (shooter perspective) wing (behind the full diameter bearing surface), and leave the right wing on to protect the entire ejection port. So, I'm a little tired and I've never put an upper on a lower without a bolt catch, so maybe I'll wake up in the morning and realize this was a stupid question, but if you don't have the bolt catch assembly, doesn't the magazine follower rise high enough to contact the bolt and carrier? If that is the case, I'd say the bolt catch assembly should generally be left in for 2 reasons: 1) it protects magazines, and 2) presuming you start with a mil-spec (or relatively so) receiver and buffer tube, it retains compatibility with semi-auto uppers. (A buffer system takes seconds to add to a buffer tube and no tools, and bufferless uppers still need the bolt catch.) Decisions like this are the place where I let a little prepper mentality slip into my decision making process. I may not go nuts stockpiling or anything, but I like robustness and versatility in my builds, just in case I need to use that lower for something else in the future, I prefer it relatively be ready. I am just overall impressed and intrigued with the approaches people are taking to putting their own touches and fine tuning on these uppers. I like these pics and descriptions I'm seeing. 
|
|
Originally Posted By PreacherOfGadget: I guess the only reason not to ditch the buffer system in a dedicated lower is if the weight loss creates a balance issue for you. I'd leave the buffer retaining pin in, personally. If you are looking for as much weight savings as possible, you could trim only the left (shooter perspective) wing (behind the full diameter bearing surface), and leave the right wing on to protect the entire ejection port. So, I'm a little tired and I've never put an upper on a lower without a bolt catch, so maybe I'll wake up in the morning and realize this was a stupid question, but if you don't have the bolt catch assembly, doesn't the magazine follower rise high enough to contact the bolt and carrier? If that is the case, I'd say the bolt catch assembly should generally be left in for 2 reasons: 1) it protects magazines, and 2) presuming you start with a mil-spec (or relatively so) receiver and buffer tube, it retains compatibility with semi-auto uppers. (A buffer system takes seconds to add to a buffer tube and no tools, and bufferless uppers still need the bolt catch.) Decisions like this are the place where I let a little prepper mentality slip into my decision making process. I may not go nuts stockpiling or anything, but I like robustness and versatility in my builds, just in case I need to use that lower for something else in the future, I prefer it relatively be ready. I am just overall impressed and intrigued with the approaches people are taking to putting their own touches and fine tuning on these uppers. I like these pics and descriptions I'm seeing. I've had no issues not having a bolt release on my lower with the bolt upper. |
Shoot straight and tell the truth!
Joined:
Nov 2022
Posts:
144
EE: 0% (0)
WA, USA
|
Originally Posted By HK_DUDE: Not being a dick or anything....but why is this better than a semi AR .300BLK with an adjustable gas block with a "closed" option for suppressor use? Need to see if I should change my tentative plan. And you're not being a dick, it's a valid question. |
Shoot straight and tell the truth!
|
Originally Posted By TNRonin: That should be the same. I converted to a 300 blackout bolt and it was like shooting a loud pellet rifle. If you can get that kind of sound then yeah no need to change. And mine was a 16-in barrel with a resonator r2. And you're not being a dick, it's a valid question. Originally Posted By TNRonin: Originally Posted By HK_DUDE: Not being a dick or anything....but why is this better than a semi AR .300BLK with an adjustable gas block with a "closed" option for suppressor use? Need to see if I should change my tentative plan. And you're not being a dick, it's a valid question. I will be installing the GB and giving it a try very soon. Thanks Man. |
O.K....I sold all my HKs, but I have to keep my Identity!
|
Originally Posted By HK_DUDE: Not being a dick or anything....but why is this better than a semi AR .300BLK with an adjustable gas block with a "closed" option for suppressor use? Need to see if I should change my tentative plan. Because primary extraction is much harder when trying to use a rear mounted charging handle or a straight pull side mounted charger. The bolt handle helps with all that. |
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.
|
Originally Posted By vmpglenn: Because primary extraction is much harder when trying to use a rear mounted charging handle or a straight pull side mounted charger. The bolt handle helps with all that. Originally Posted By vmpglenn: Originally Posted By HK_DUDE: Not being a dick or anything....but why is this better than a semi AR .300BLK with an adjustable gas block with a "closed" option for suppressor use? Need to see if I should change my tentative plan. Because primary extraction is much harder when trying to use a rear mounted charging handle or a straight pull side mounted charger. The bolt handle helps with all that. That's a good point. |
O.K....I sold all my HKs, but I have to keep my Identity!
|
Originally Posted By vmpglenn: Because primary extraction is much harder when trying to use a rear mounted charging handle or a straight pull side mounted charger. The bolt handle helps with all that. Originally Posted By vmpglenn: Originally Posted By HK_DUDE: Not being a dick or anything....but why is this better than a semi AR .300BLK with an adjustable gas block with a "closed" option for suppressor use? Need to see if I should change my tentative plan. Because primary extraction is much harder when trying to use a rear mounted charging handle or a straight pull side mounted charger. The bolt handle helps with all that. That being said, maybe their semi auto side charger upper and a gas block with a "closed" setting? I will have to play with what I have and see how good or bad it is, running it as a repeater. |
O.K....I sold all my HKs, but I have to keep my Identity!
BCA bolt action upper for $350? (Page 8 of 21)
AR Sponsor