Sunday, February 18, 2018

BCL102 project...the guinea pig really. Magpul PRS, Christiansen Arms, Ballistic Advantage

OK, so this isn't my 102, it's my buddy's.  I haven't even ordered one yet, but I probably will.  Him and his wife just had his third kid and he won't be shooting it anytime soon so he left a bunch of his stuff at my place to mess around with.  I'll be using his his as a guinea pig, lol!


He's collected a few parts here and there, and though these aftermarket mods wouldn't be my first choice, it's nice to have to play around with, see how things work, how certain things fit.  

It should be noted that he already installed a Trigger Tech trigger, so I have no idea how the original trigger felt.  My buddy typically shoots his bolt guns and isn't really an AR guy, so he's pretty particular about having a smooth light trigger that breaks nicely.  He said he hated the factory trigger on the 102.  I'll have to bug him about the details next time.  The Trigger Tech feels pretty awesome though, nice clean break.  Sorry, I didn't check to see how many pounds it breaks at, but it is definitely lighter than any of the mil-spec triggers I have.



So, the mag release appears to be non-ambi on this one.  It's supposed to be a Gen II, and you can tell because it doesn't have the integrated trigger guard.  It's just a standard style one that you can swap out to whatever you want.  Plain A2 grip.  

The factor selector is pretty crappy.  It almost feels sticky, but I'm not sure if that has to do with his trigger swap.  I didn't get a chance to feel it before he swapped it out, but he said it was always like that.


The factory BCL butt stock is pretty hideous.  It looks like it took some design cues from Magpul, but didn't get it quite right.  


My pal ended up picking up two barrels, a Ballistic Advantage 18" in 6.5cm barrel and Christiansen Arms Carbon Fibre in .308.  I suggested he shoot the factory barrel first, see if it's any good, but as he already bought the aftermarket ones, he didn't want to bother.  


For glass, he ended up with this Trijicon unit.  To be honest, I haven't even looked through it or know which model it is.  Will have to get more details on this later.


He decided to go with a Gen3 Magpul PRS stock.  I had the Gen 1 and really liked it, so I can see how this would be a good pic.  This model fits both regular carbine and rifle length receiver extensions.


Raptor charging handle.  Looks pretty, works fine, just not my cup of tea.


Again, looks pretty, but would not be my first choice in aftermarket selector switches.



The first thing I noticed about the hand guard was the shape of it appears proprietary to the BCL upper receiver.  Any aftermarket one not shaped not specifically made for the 102 will likely leave some sort of gap and might not look right.  The screws are countersunk, but are not countersunk deep enough, but honestly it's hard to expect much when you have a round surface and flat top screw.



The barrel nut assembly appears to be proprietary to BCL, however as many here have stated before, it is an Armalite AR-10 thread pattern, so if you are going to order an aftermarket hand guard for your 102, make sure it has an Armalite pattern barrel nut.  The height and profile of the hand guard will be another matter that needs to be figured out.  I think I read somewhere to order a "high" profile hand guard, but I'll have to figure this out when the time comes.


The gas block came of easily enough, just two simple Allen screws.


As I understand it, previous NEAs had this design where the rear take down detent spring was not behind the rear plate, but captured by the grip.  I'm not sure if this is typical of AR-10/AR308s or just an NEA/BCL thing.  Anyway, the A2 grip came off in favour of an Ergo grip, plus we had to get that selector switch in anyway.


A comparison of a standard AR-15 carbine receiver extension with the BCL unit.  The BCL one is longer, and the receiver extension locking ring on the 102 appears taller and possibly had a wider outside diameter.


As mentioned the PRS stock is supposed to be able to install onto both carbine and rifle length receiver extensions.  The adapter for the carbine stock fit one of my ARs (though not completely seated in the picture) just fine.


It did not fit the 102 in any way we could figure out.  I suppose we could have removed material from the Magpul adapter, but we had a 308 rifle length receiver extension anyway, so off came the BCL tube.


The nut came off with a standard AR tool, pretty straight forward.


The receiver extension was made for an LR-308, and though it should have fit a standard A2 butt stock, we never tried it.  I have no idea if there is any difference between an Armalite pattern and DPMS pattern receiver extension, buffer and spring, but since it fit and it was all we had, on it went. 


After that, it was just a matter of slipping on the PRS stock.




The Raptor charging handle was not a simple fit, and I think this has been addressed.  The profile of the little tabs on the factory BCL unit are smaller, and rounder, so the tabs on the Raptor had to be filed down to fit.  I understand that BCL may have addressed this issue and future uppers should fit aftermarket charging handles better?



The Ballistic Advantage barrel on the left, the Christiansen Arms carbon fibre barrel in the middle and the factory BCL barrel on the right.







Thanks to FMJ's advice, we picked up a Brownells barrel extension torque tool.  I don't even have one of these for my ARs, but I'm thinking about getting one.  Definitely handy to have.  It locks down the barrel (with the aid of a breaker bar or socket wrench) so you don't put any unnecessary strain on the receiver itself.


I think FMJ read somewhere the size of the BCL nut was 1 3/16, but we just ended up getting the biggest adjustable wrench we could find. I think I would have preferred the right size wrench, but Crappy Tire was sold out and all they had was the big adjustable wrench.  



The sleeve for the BCL hand guard came off with the nut, but once the nut was loose, the sleeve spun freely.


We decided to throw the carbon fibre barrel on, and we should have weighed them, but to be honest, the weight saves really felt negligible.  


The ledge where the gas block sits on the Christiansen Arms barrel sat further back slightly.  




As a result, the gas tube would sit deeper in the upper receiver.  I'm not sure if this is going to be an issue later on.



The factory BCL gas block fit around the Ballistic Advantage barrel perfectly, but would not fit the Christiansen Arms cf barrel, but it came with their own gas block and gas tube anyway.  At least if we decide to try the 6.5 barrel later on, we can use the BCL gas block and tube.


Fit like a glove.




We had no idea what torque specs are called for the barrel nut, and we had to struggle a bit to time the hand guard sleeve while cranking on the barrel nut.  Anyway, it's all coming off again when my buddy orders an aftermarket hand guard.

Both of us are looking for quad rails for that old school look like on the M11 Mod 0



or the Armalite SASS:



I've heard the KAC unit will not fit (DPMS pattern barrel nut?) but I'm hoping the rail from the Armalite will.  Either way, I'll have to do more research.








Anyway, that's all to report for now, it will probably be a while before we have time to shoot this thing.  More likely than not more mods will be done before we take it out for a test drive.  Stay tuned :)



Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10x40mm LR/T M3-FF TMR 60035 for the Mk12 Clone and comparison to VX-R Patrol

There were two things glaringly wrong with my interpretation of the Mk12.  First, the barrel is completely wrong.  It should be an 18” Douglas barrel, but I’ve decided to keep the 20” Colt HBAR because it’s an excellent barrel and produces decent groups. 

The second is the glass.  I’ve mentioned this before, that I can’t in good conscience pay $1,900 for obsolete glass in the form of a second focal plane Leupold Mark 4 with a mildot reticle and MOA adjustments.  I’ve been using a Leupold VX-R Patrol 3-9x40mm for a while, which has a mil TMR reticle with .1 mil adjustments, but is in the second focal plane.  The reason I got it was because it was less than half the price of a Mark 4, and though it’s SFP, it’s mil/mil, it has a similar profile to the Mark 4, and has a 30mm main tube.  And since it had mil adjustments, I could dial instead of using TMR reticle at a one magnification.

But as the folks on AR15.com have been quick to point out, it is not even close to being clone correct.  The turrets and markings appear quite different from a Mark 4, but for the uninformed like myself, it was good enough.  I was happy with my VX-R Patrol, but it had always been gnawing at the back of my head that it wasn’t clone correct and I should get another Mark 4 so I decided to start looking.  I figured ok, if I find one for cheap, as cheap as my Patrol, I could justify it in the name of clone correctness, but that was not to be.  Lever Arms had a Mark 4 2.5-8x36mm illuminated TMR with M3 turrets, but they wanted $1,900.  Apparently Leupold ceased production of the Mark 4 for civilian sales so I’ve heard that they will be even harder to find in the future.

But luck was with me and I stumbled on a deal for a Mark 4 3.5-10x40mm.  It had the TMR reticle, M3 turrets with MOA adjustments, but interestingly enough, the reticle was in the first focal plane.  I didn’t even know the Mark 4 had an FFP option, though when I started searching for these, it seemed a bit rare.  The price was decent and the scope was brand new so I grabbed it and hoped it wasn’t a misprint.  I wasn’t worried about the adjustments because I could always send it back to Leupold to replace the turrets to be in mil adjustments.  




Anyway, this isn’t my first Mark 4, I had one years ago for another rifle, but ended up replacing it with the Bushnell Elite Tactical DMR 3.5-21x50 first focal plane scope with the TReMoR2 reticle.  The scope came packaged like my first Mark 4, reinforced with foam, instructions, an Allen key, a Leupold sticker and flip caps that appear to look the same as Butler Creek, except are marked Leupold. 






The adjustments are in 1 moa increments, but I’ll look into getting the turrets converted to mils.  I contacted Korth Group and they quoted $124 per turret and I think I’ll probably do that one day.  I noticed the turret was also marked 308 win 168gr.  Around the turret itself, there are secondary markings indicating where to dial for 100 yrds, 200 yrds and so forth.  After seeing this, I was almost tempted to through this onto my 700p. 




I’ve edited out the serial number, but I also noticed the scope wasn’t stamped made in the USA either.  I guess I can always verify with Leupold the authenticity of this scope, but I’m pretty sure it’s real. 


Marked in black lettering are the words Front Focal 


A side by side comparison with the VX-R Patrol on the left and the Mark 4 on the right.  The Mark 4 is slightly longer. 


Although both scopes share similar overall profiles, the turrets is what really gives it away, and to the clone builder, this was easy to spot.


I found it interesting that the magnification was printed on the adjustment knob on the Mark 4, where it was opposite on the Patrol







After mounting the scope in the ARMS 22 rings, there was still something off and I couldn't quite place it.  I know there was no illumination dial as this model did not come with illumination, but apparently that's acceptable according to the folks on ARF.  I couldn't quite place what was wrong until I looked at the rifle from the side.  Then it hit me, the scope was longer than what I was used to looking at.  Then I realized that almost all of the pics of the Mk12 Mod 1 that I had showed the 2.5-8x36mm on the Mod 1, where it was mostly the Mod 0 that used the 3.5-10x40mm.  I have a bad feeling that I will be scanning the interwebz for a cheap 2.5-8x36mm sometime in the future....







Apologies for the crappy pics of the glass itself.  I haven't had the chance to get the scope outside for some clear shots.  Anyway, the FFP Mark 4 at 3.5x mag from about 10m


The SFP VX-R Patrol from the same distance.


The FFP Mark 4 at 3.5x mag, the fire hydrant is about 100m away.  Note that because it is FFP, the reticle is tiny at 3.5x mag.


The SFP VX-R Patrol at 3x mag.  


The FFP Mark 4 at 10x mag.  


The SFP VX-R Patrol at 9x Mag.  I'm sure most people reading this will already know the difference between FFP and SFP, but  ou can clearly see that with the SFP scope, the reticle does not change size no matter the magnification.  The reticle is also a lot finer on the FFP scope, but this might have something to do with the the cost of the Mark 4 versus the VX-R Patrol.

Anyway, it's still not perfect, but at least it sort of looks right compared to when I had the VX-R Patrol on there.  I still haven't even shot this rifle in it's current configuration.  I've only shot the barrel when it was in the PWS form, so I'll have to get out one of these days and test her out.  As far as appearance of the rifle is concerned, it's definitely getting there.  Lets see if my OCD will allow me to keep this Mark 4, lol!

Specifications
Item Condition New
Scope Weight: 19.5 oz.
Scope Length: 13.5"
Magnification Range: 3.5-10x
Scope Objective Diameter: 40 mm
Scope Tube Size / Mount: 30 mm
Scope Turret Adjustment: 1/2 MOA - windage / 1 MOA - elevation
Reticle Position: First
Field of View: 29.9' - 11' @ 100 yds.
Eye Relief: 4.7" - 3.4"
Illuminated Reticle: no
Scope Finish: matte black
UPC 030317600358
MPN 60035

Some info on the clone correct scope for the Mk12 I found on AR15.com:

Have been trying to gather a little information from a contact at Leupold with regards the scopes, the marked TS-30, TS-30 A2 and subsequent models supplied to the military under contract which ther has been 11 or 12. 

Obviously the TS-30 is a vari-x scope which was a 3-9x36 mil-dot scope with a M3 turret (non-illuminated). At this time, I don't have any nsn number for this scope or know if it was even assigned one or the number that Leupold actually manufactured and sold. 

The TS-30 A2 was made and sold in the 2002, 2003 timeframe, again no nsn number or numbers sold. Nearly all pictured have a k serial number for 2002. 

These were the only scopes that were actually marked in this way and sold to the military, basically pre-mark 4 for these models. 

The TS-30 became model 57075, the Mark 4 3-9x36 MR/T M3 non-illuminated mil-dot reticle (but with significant design changes) 

The TS-30 A2 became model # 57055 the Mark 4 3-9x36 MR/T M3 illuminated mil-dot reticle (no change in design) 

Leupold primarily supplied model number 57055 in the 2003-2006 timeframe for military contracts 

In 2006, Leupold redesigned the previous years models and introduced the Mark 4 2.5-8x36 and the TMR reticle 

The following scope model was supplied by Leupold under contract in the following years 
Model # 60150 the Mark 4 2.5-8x36 M2 illuminated mil-dot 

Leupold continued to supply this scope model in contracts until approximately 2010 at which time it was redesigned/small changes were made and it became 
Model # 67920 the Mark 4 2.5-8x36 MR/T M2 illuminated mil-dot. 

Once again in 2012, the scope was redesigned/small changes made and it became 
Model #112633 the Mark 4 2.5-8x36 MR/T M2 illuminated TMR. 

Model numbers 60150, 67920 and 112633 have all at one time or another been NSN 1005-01-562-0953 which was created in 03/08. 
So I suppose at this stage if you have either model #'s 57055, 60150, 67920 or 112633 you would be clone correct. I did get a few contract numbers to look up, if I gather anything more I will put it out there.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/-/118-520524/&page=792&anc=7401682#i7401682


Exercise Salish Rifle 2026

  A little smoky out in Chilliwack. Ex Salish Rifle 2026 #caf #canadianarmedforces #exsalishrifle #army #canada🇨🇦