Finally I'm ahead of the group for once. I've been avoiding the NiB since the beginning. Mainly because of the price.
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Why you should avoid NiB AR BCG’s
- Thread starter cmshoot
- Start date
I never told anyone here to replace their BCG because it was coated with NiB. I recommended that if they have the means, check the headspace. I then said that if the headspace checks out good, to continue to shoot it. If the headspace checks out bad, replace the bolt. This is the exact same advice I give to anyone using a bolt made by anyone out of any substance. It is simple common sense.
I also told the guy with the LWRC that if he couldn’t get headspace gauges, and the gun shoots, to continue to shoot it. I also said to inspect the BCG for cracks and chips during maintenance, which is the exact same advice I give to anyone using a bolt made by anyone out of any substance. It is in my inspection list that I posted here on ODT over a month ago, and makes no mention of NiB.
Please point out where I told someone to replace their bolt because, and only because, it is coated in NiB?
I was hoping that my post would make folks a bit leery of purchasing NiB coated BCG’s in the future, but if they chose to buy them, to show them what to look for so that their gun can be kept in good, functioning condition.
Every one of us is a “guy on the internet”. I’m on the internet right now.
Chad Albrecht of SOTAR is also a vehement hater of all things NiB. He has come to his professional conclusions due to years of diagnosing issues with AR’s and gauging countless NiB BCG’s from various manufacturers.
One of my builds uses a standard Daniel Defense BCG, not sure the coating but it isn't NiB... the pistol I just built uses an Anderson BCG for it looks like a hard chrome coating, not NiB
On the DD BCG, that’s hard chrome and it’s good to go. On the Anderson I’m not sure, never seen theirs. Regardless, if the headspace checks out fine on it, you already own it, I’d use it and inspect it as I go along.
Exactly right!
There are so many variables involved, i.e. - manufacturer, raw materials used, coating facility, coating quality, tooling quality, defect rates, batch numbers, etc... Compound that by actual sound scientific testing which involves various manufacturers, and statistically sound groups (control, group A, group B, group C) Let's be honest, there is a huge difference between quality bolt carriers (NIB include) when compare to something along the lines of a PSA "Deal of the Day" NIB special. My guess it that gunsmiths will see much more PSA or Anderson BCGs (regardless of coating) than BCM, LWRC, or other quality BCG.
One man's opinion and experience on the internet is just that. I chalk it up to nothing more than speculation without sound testing. Then again, I'm a numbers guy!
I'm not trying to argue with you or say that you 're wrong (or that the other source is wrong) about NiB. I appreciate the info and will check my few NiB BCGs based on what you shared. But when you have people asking what they should do about a newly purchased $2,000 rifle, it does seem like you've got some people alarmed over what could be a non-issue for many.
As for pointing out "where you told someone to replace their bold because, and only because ,it is coated in NiB", I would refer you to Post #3 in which you said the article was summarized as: "Don’t use NiB-coated BCG’s in your AR’s."
I (as well as many here) respect your knowledge and recognize that you shoot way more than most of us. I was simply saying that the premise that all NiB on BCGs is an opinion and many of us are running it with zero issues.
For testing, follow School Of The American Rifle and look at the videos he does where he tears down BCG’s (NiB and otherwise), and gauges all the critical aspects.
I did not read one guy’s take on NiB and form an opinion. I came to my own opinion over years of my own testing and observation, as well as following guys that know what they’re talking about and have the tools and know-how to do more testing than I can. I posted this particular guy’s stance on NiB because it mirrored my own, I know that he knows what he’s talking about, and it was pretty well-written. Rather than write my own, I was lazy and stole his words.
This is not one guy’s stance. This is the tip of a large section of a huge industry’s stance on why not to use NiB.
When companies like KAC, Sionics, FCD, LMT, and more were looking for better coatings than the milspec phosphate, they looked at NiB, hard chrome, and NP3. None of these companies, all with enviable reputations and major contracts, chose NiB. Instead, they went with hard chrome, or NiB, or a combo of the two. Why? They found too many negatives with NiB and felt that it outweighed the positives. They came to this conclusion through a lot of research and testing.
