Looking for a new lower to mate with my new BCM upper. I’ve narrowed it down to either the BCM4 lower or the LMT Defender lower.
I realize both are top shelf. My BCM upper is superlative, as is an older LMT lower I’ve used. If it matters, I’ll be mounting a 16" middy to it.
Pro’s and con’s (if any) to each? Thanks.
I went with a BCM lower to go with my 16" BCM midlength. Standard handguards and a carryhandle/A2 irons at this point, but an Aimpoint T1 is what will go on it when I get the $$$.
unless you like SOPMODs, nope.
Anyone know what kind of grip comes with the BCM4? I love the feel of the Ergo on the LMT.
The BCM4 comes with an H buffer, the LMT with a carbine buffer. Any reason to prefer one over the other when using a middy?
for a mid, it doesn’t really matter… some mids have problems with Hs, most mids just aren’t noticeably effected by them.
Don’t mean to hijack but rather then start a new thread.
I was thinking of gong with the LMT Sopmod lower for the BCM ML upper are there issues with that?
nope.
I hate to open up a can of worms, but here goes.
I notice the BCM4 lower has a low shelf for a RDIAS, and I believe the LMT does not. As I have absolutely no intention or desire for full auto, is this low shelf a feature I still want? If yes, why?
I’ve got a FA BCG from Bravo Co. If I also had the ability for a RDIAS, am I standing by the edge of the slippery slope?
nope.
“Nope” it’s not a feature I want, or “nope” I’m not near the edge of the slippery slope.
I’m guessing your reference is to the latter, but is this a feature that can aid reliability (such as a FA carrier vs a SA carrier) or is it desirable because liberals don’t like it (like the bayonet lug).
nope to slippery slope… FA BCGs have been declared good to go by the ATF. i dont have a copy of the publication, but if you want confirmation (and when it comes to legal matters, you should NOT take the word of some asshole named “bkb0000” on the internet!), you can most definitely find it via google.
as far as it being a feature you want- absolutely. the platform was designed that that weight carrier influencing action speed… since the platform is really action-speed sensitive, you’ll get better reliability with the proper amount of mass.
also, it should be noted, there are some carriers out there that only remove a little material at the autosear location… these carriers give you basically the same amount of mass but cannot time an autosear- problem is, none of the TDP compliant manfers make them this way.
Thank you, but we are getting off track here. I’m not questioning the need or legality of the FA carrier vs the SA carrier. I was using this as an example of a necessary feature, as opposed to the bayonet lug, which for most of us, is not really used at all, and if it was missing, wouldn’t effect the function or reliability of the rifle.
My original question was why do I want a low shelf if I have absolutely no interest or intention of ever converting my rifle to full auto? Does the low shelf perform any other feature other than allow for the installation of a RDIAS?
The other part of my question is more subjective. Just as having various FA parts, even uninstalled, can be construed as intent to convert or assemble a FA rifle, might the addition of a low shelf fall into this same category?
I don’t know, I’m just asking.
shelf height isn’t addressed by the ATF… i’m not even sure having autosear pinholes is enough to cause problems, by themselves. high shelfs and filled shelves and blocks and so forth are all manufacturer decisions, and have nothing to do with any federal laws.
if you don’t have any intention of having an RDIAS, shelf height is inconsequential
Thanks. This is the kind of info I was looking for. If I get the BCM4, it should be for reasons other than the presence of the low shelf.
Which brings me back to my opening question. Are there features which make either the BCM4 or LMT a “better” lower? I don’t care about having, or not having the ability to mount a RDIAS. I only care about reliability and durability, particularly when mated to my middy.
BCM has not been producing lowers nearly as long as LMT… so far they have, as far as i can tell, a pretty flawless record. easily as good as LMTs.
keep in mind, however, that there are actually relatively few lowers out there that have anything like an “established” record of problems… DPMS seems to, and then there are some obscure (but apparently popular in other realms) manfers that produce horrible shit… but pretty much any big name is going to make an OK lower.
all that into account- the decision between LMT and BCM is gonna have to rely on a flip of the coin, or a preference for furniture.
All things considered, I think I’ll go with the LMT. Running a middy with .223 ammo, the carbine buffer makes more sense to me than the H buffer. If I’m wrong, it is easily replaced.
Don’t care about the RDIAS feature. In fact, I think I prefer to avoid the option all together.
I wish the LMT had the Magpul enhanced trigger guard, but it’s an inexpensive and easily installed mod.
Everything else, including reputation for quality, seems to be equal on both lowers.
Thanks for all the help and info.
my BCM uppers are on CMMG or DPMS lowers, got them for a good deal. I dont sweat lowers