Redesigned by lessons learned in combat since 9/11, the BCM MK2 Upper Receiver is built with up to 30% more rigidity than the current Mil-Spec M4 upper receiver without sacrificing interoperability for a mere additional 1/3 ounce of weight.
MEET THE NEW WAR – SAME AS THE OLD WAR
Upper receivers with baked in carry handles and iron sights have been relegated to history. Optics are now synonymous with forward deployed combat carbines, featuring modular “optics ready” flat top upper receivers. Driven by a sense of urgency to improve lethality and save American lives in real-time, this innovation has inadvertently introduced a degradation in the rigidity of the upper receiver, with the weakest point being the area around the ejection port.
Shifting mass from non-critical to critical areas; the BCM Mk2 Upper Receiver reduces barrel deflection and enhances bore tolerances improving barrel alignment, consistency and accuracy. This enhanced rigidity aids accuracy by limiting barrel deflection from external loads such as a bipod or vertical grip. Also prevents unwanted deflection of moving components, reducing the chance for premature damage and wear of the bolt and barrel lugs which results from misalignment.
POSITIVE EFFECT ON TARGET
In addition to weapon optics, suppressors have also become standard in modern combat operations. With added gas expansion areas and new channels added around the charging handle opening, vent gas away from the end user’s face, reducing distractions when employing the weapon system with a can.
LETHALITY IN THE DETAILS
Fine tuning the positioning of the forward assist creates additional clearance for right hand sided charging handle manipulation and clearance for end plate mounted slings.
USGI
The MK2 Upper Receiver also retains all USGI components in assembly and works with all USGI bolt carriers, charging handles and barrel assemblies.
BUILT TO EXCEED
Forged from 7075T6, the BCM MK2 Upper Receivers retain a form following grain structure which maximizes achievable strength. All of these improvements come without affecting the manual of arms employed in manipulating a Mil-Spec upper receiver.
MADE IN AMERICA
All BCM components and accessories unite state of the art manufacturing with lightweight and durable materials to ensure components that last a lifetime, performing far beyond performance requirements established nearly six decades ago.
www.bravocompanymfg.com/mk2upper
Gas venting ok for left handed shooters?
Ummm, but the possible deformation of uppers around the ejection port is from torsion around the front of the upper. I am yet to see evidence with my own eyes that mounted optics, or anything mounted at the 12, will create enough sheer force to bend the upper adversely.
Do not doubt Buffoni’s RIGIDITY
That’s not what they are saying. They are saying that by taking off the “baked” on carry handle in order to make room for optics, the design of the weapon inherently lost some of its structural integrity. I’m no engineer and I’ve never seen it as a problem… but I’ve seen m4’s do some weird shit, if they wanna improve upon the M4, that sounds good to me.
I am all for improving existing stuff, but I dont know about any of the issues they claim to improve to have ever been an issue at all.
Interesting take; honestly feels like they tried to bring something new and not just another “innovative” upper that doesn’t really do anything different.
Just my personal observations:
1. Big fan of the re-positioned forward assist. The area where the old FA is positioned can definitely get busy once optics and extended ambi-CH get involved. Moving the FA forward makes it easier to get at the CH, especially with gloves.
2. More structural rigidity (given the same weight) is almost always a good thing, so I’m favorable even if it isn’t something I consider a pressing issue for Ar upper receivers.
3. Don’t know how well the gas vent would work. Should be effective given that gas moves in the path of least resistance, but I am curious if the new gas ports are going to be detrimental for left-handed shooters.
These aren’t upgrades I consider vital; I wouldn’t go out of my way to swap my existing uppers for these. But I’d strongly consider it if I were starting a fresh build.
This is interesting and I like it but you got a see-through a lot of marketing hype to look at what they really did which seems like they ran an M4 upper receiver through a full spectrum Finite element analysis, and in doing so they tried to address the areas most prone to deformation with reinforced geometry, and added some space for gas expansion when using suppressor, and move the forward assist forward so you don’t wrack your knuckles on it, all of which seems good.