Let me first say I'm not currently in the market for a BCG i was just poking around slickguns.com and saw this Spike's Lightweight BCG. It looked so werid to me that I wanted to see if anyone had ever used one or have heard any info about it. Looks very odd to me hah

 

http://www.righttobear.com/product-p/st5bg05.htm

I don't see How "Mil-Spec" & "lightweight" can be used in the same product.

 

I would think that the mil spec on a BCG would (besides the material, build spec

and construction) include a specific weight - no?

i agree. Its interesting because Spike's put their name on it.

The only application I can see this being in any way useful is in super lightweight builds for sh*ts and giggles. Other than that, why does this need to exist?

Lightweight BCGs are for tuned gas systems. Used with adjustible gas systems, they can allow for faster and smoother cycling.

They might say the bolt spec is milspec tested, because the finish is not milspec.

 

As to the why, light weight carriers make for softer* shooting guns with adjustable gas blocks and so on.

 software shooting guns

 

Damn you, autocorrect!

seriously.

just another gimmick that countless uninformed people will buy because they don't know any better. sure it has a specific purpose but very few people need a lightweight BCG to make their gun run better. and if you do run it with a regular gas block you will probably just have to compensate with a heavier buffer so there really is no gain here. ill pass

Isn't modifying the buffer weight a much more sensible way to achieve the same result?

Isn't modifying the buffer weight a much more sensible way to achieve the same result?

 

Well if you want the softest shooting gun and reciprocating mass you can remove is a good thing.

How much of a weight savings vs. a std. BCG is there?

reminds me of swiss cheese...

This:  

It's only .75oz lighter?

 

Isn't modifying the buffer weight a much more sensible way to achieve the same result?

 

Not really. If you want it to work, yeah you can fix the problem easier and cheaper by modifying the buffer mass. However, you are better off fixing the source of the problem if your buffer and carrier are in spec. I can compensate for a bad gas block seal by lightening the carrier or buffer, but the reality is I should fix the leaky gas block. 

 

THe reality is that the only REAL point for lightening the carrier is to minimize inertia in recoil and return to battery thus reducing sight movement. To do this you lighten BOTH the carrier and buffer. Hence things like the JP low mass carrier and buffer.

 

There are a lot of sketch low mass carriers out there IMO. One of the things a good low mass carrier will have is a similar distribution of mass to a stock carrier so as to avoid carrier tilt. Lighten it asymmetrically, and you can wind up wiht problems jsut like the early revision of the piston uppers.

 

IMO the spikes one is done cheaply and poorly, which is common when you see a light carrier that tries to retain forward assist capability.

 

Examples of ones that do it right are the young's lightened carrier ( http://www.rainierarms.com/?page=shop/detail&product_id=1010 ), the seekins ( https://www.primaryarms.com/Seekins-Precision-Low-Mass-M16-Bolt-Carrier-Group-p/0011570005.htm ) and for the piston guys, the adams arms lightweight carrier (http://www.adamsarms.net/adams-arms-low-mass-bolt-carrier). 

 

Or you can really commit and go with the JP low mass carrier (http://www.jprifles.com/1.4.7_bc.php ) combined with their lightened buffer or their spring based buffer replacement. 

 

FOr a light buffer, you can either go JP, or you can take out weights from a stock buffer and replace them with a spacer or nothing at all. 

 

Then match it with a  good adjustable gas block and get ready to spend some money on ammo tuning it. 

 

would I like a nice setup like that? sure, but definitely not as my only gun. 

Not really. If you want it to work, yeah you can fix the problem easier and cheaper by modifying the buffer mass. However, you are better off fixing the source of the problem if your buffer and carrier are in spec. I can compensate for a bad gas block seal by lightening the carrier or buffer, but the reality is I should fix the leaky gas block. 

 

THe reality is that the only REAL point for lightening the carrier is to minimize inertia in recoil and return to battery thus reducing sight movement. To do this you lighten BOTH the carrier and buffer. Hence things like the JP low mass carrier and buffer.

 

There are a lot of sketch low mass carriers out there IMO. One of the things a good low mass carrier will have is a similar distribution of mass to a stock carrier so as to avoid carrier tilt. Lighten it asymmetrically, and you can wind up wiht problems jsut like the early revision of the piston uppers.

 

IMO the spikes one is done cheaply and poorly, which is common when you see a light carrier that tries to retain forward assist capability.

 

Examples of ones that do it right are the young's lightened carrier ( http://www.rainierarms.com/?page=shop/detail&product_id=1010 ), the seekins ( https://www.primaryarms.com/Seekins-Precision-Low-Mass-M16-Bolt-Carrier-Group-p/0011570005.htm ) and for the piston guys, the adams arms lightweight carrier (http://www.adamsarms.net/adams-arms-low-mass-bolt-carrier). 

 

Or you can really commit and go with the JP low mass carrier (http://www.jprifles.com/1.4.7_bc.php ) combined with their lightened buffer or their spring based buffer replacement. 

 

FOr a light buffer, you can either go JP, or you can take out weights from a stock buffer and replace them with a spacer or nothing at all. 

 

Then match it with a  good adjustable gas block and get ready to spend some money on ammo tuning it. 

 

would I like a nice setup like that? sure, but definitely not as my only gun. 

i just see all that as a waste. the gains are minimal and the money and time spent is huge. for a competition gun i could see spending that amount because when you have sponsors, who cares. for the average run of the mill range toy/HD gun there is no need. its just trying to fix something that already works fine

These are really meant for competition guns where every tenth of a second matters. I wouldn't use them for anything else, and I don't even use them in my competition gun.

i just see all that as a waste. the gains are minimal and the money and time spent is huge. for a competition gun i could see spending that amount because when you have sponsors, who cares. for the average run of the mill range toy/HD gun there is no need. its just trying to fix something that already works fine

I don't disagree. My lightweight build has a semi auto carrier. That's my nod to weight reduction.