SWT Magazines, dont buy them!

Usually, when I do a review, it is based on a product that I like that is lesser known, that there isn't much information on out there. I want to spread the word about quality products at bargain prices. I'm not the guy who is going to buy the expensive version of everything and I don't believe in the "buy once cry once" mentality. A lot of the time, this turns out well for me (like with my trigger, I still can't believe that was only $50 total reviewed HERE). Sometimes, it does not turn out well for me and this review is one of those times I wish it would have worked out.

I frequently check out the deals on slickguns, its a great website if you shoot, it does a lot of the bargain-hunting work for you. I have been aware of the sportsman's guide for about forever, I remember in the 90's they used to sell military surplus stuff from over in Europe and had a lot of cool camping type stuff. I happened to be looking over slickguns and saw a deal on polymer 30 round AR-15 mags, 3 for $20 with free shipping. I was pretty blown away because I figured even if they weren't sturdy, a $7 30 round AR mag is about the best price you are going to find anywhere.

Other than the spiffy window, they look pretty similar

Out of the package, the magazines look pretty similar. Both sturdy black plastic, both have texturing for gripping, both have slightly larger basesplates, both have a slick to the touch follower.

However, there is a huge difference between them, and I'm not talking about the window. One of the magazines will actually lock up in the magwell, the other one will not. Since the title of this post isn't "Don't buy pmag gen2," its probably easy to tell which one had the issue. I tried all three of the magazines I got, none of them would lock up in the magwell with the bolt closed.

That is all kinds of not good. . .

When I tried to lock the bolt back, insert the mag and drop the bolt, I was in for another surprise. As you see in the picture to the left, the bolt comes about halfway, catches on part of the magazine & locks up. Even if it could use momentum to push a round into the chamber, its not going to be able to ignite it (which is a good thing).

So, at this point I have 3 options: return them for a refund (in which I'll probably have to eat return shipping), return them as defective and hope they send me replacements which actually work, or try to do a little gunsmithing with the dremel tool and see if I can make them work.
I really haven't decided what I'm going to do, but apparently I'm not alone and this is not a one off thing affecting my specific rifle. There is a guy HERE on youtube which has a not as bad version of the same issue. . .

An explanation of Nitride/Melonite/Tennifer etc

A couple posts ago, this one specifically, I wrote about different finishes for bolt carrier groups. I had come to the conclusion that a nickel teflon finish was the best of the current options for a bolt carrier group so that was my decision for what I would run in my AR-15.

I still consider nickel teflon to be superior to the more common nickel boron due to wear characteristics of the finish and there have been a number of other coatings which I have discovered in my research (I am especially intrigued by DLC or diamond like coating, more on that later,possibly). However, I have discovered that the information I presented in that post was incomplete, and nitriding really requires a post all its own.

First of all, nitriding is not new. Basically nitriding is a process of ferric nitrocarburization which infuses an iron base metal with a layer of nitrogen and pulls some of the carbon, inherent to the metal, to the surface. In it's basic form, this case hardens the metal and gives it increased wear & corrosion resistance. This is commonly referred to as Q, nitriding, Melonite (although sometimes Melonite refers to the QPQ version, more on that in a bit).

There are three main methods of doing this base level of nitriding: salt bath, gaseous & plasma. Not being a metallurgist, I am not really qualified to common on the pros & cons of each method, I assume the differences come down to trademarks & cost. I have not, through research, been able to discern a functional difference at the base level of this finish. However, the advantage of the salt bath process is that it leads to two additional finishing options: QP (Quench-Polish) & QPQ (Quench-Polish-Quench). It is important to understand that at the base level (Q only or use of the other two methods), although the hardness and corrosion resistance of the metal has been improved, the lubricity has not (if it has, it has been improved only marginally). More info is available at the wikipedia page here.

QPQ is the most common improvement of this process and is in my opinion the best an a very worthy competitor for other "premium" finishes. The QPQ process gives all the advantages of the regular process along with a much better coefficient of friction. It is not going to have as good a dry (unlubed) coefficient of friction as NiB or Nickel Teflon, but lubed it will be very competitive as we see in the chart to the right.

So, coming back to bolt carrier groups, how does this information help us and does it change my opinion?

Looking around, we actually see the cost of nitride bolt carrier groups to be equal to or less than that of regular phosphate. Most Mil-spec bcg's are chrome lined in the gas key & bolt channel & nitriding is a better solution in both of those areas for both lubricity & wear resistance. Also, the debate between carpenter-158 vs 9310 steel for the bolt is less important when the surface has been hardened to the 60-70 rockwell level. Basically, this process is an improvement on the mil-spec in every way (properly staked gas key is still really important as this process does nothing to help keep the key on the carrier).

The coefficient of friction is something that is very important and people seem to understand the least. The bolt carrier group is just like a piston in a car engine in that it moves back & forth in a channel under heat and with the introduction of soot and carbon into the system. Oil is a great solution to help lubricity but heat can cause it to evaporate & the soot and carbon can render it to turn into sludge and become counter-productive (this is particularly an issue running suppressed). The traditional solution of "run it wet & clean after x rounds" is completely fine, but less friction will always be better and allow the weapon to fire more rounds with easier cleaning in between. Going back to the car analogy, think of it like being able to go 10,000 miles between oil changes instead of 3,000.

In summary, is nitride better than phosphate? Yes, no contest. Is it better than any of the other coating options out there? It depends.

 I actually purchased a bolt carrier group from Apoc Armory to review(this one), and at $90 it should perform as well or better than any phosphate BCG (detailed review coming). In my opinion, if money were no object, I'd still prefer nickel teflon as I think you can get excellent performance dry from them, I'd also like to try out the diamond like coating. However, neither of those options come in close to the price of a nitride BCG and for the price, I think nitride is still very competitive.

Stay tuned for a detailed review, and I can be reached here with any questions, comments & for product reviews. . .

Tactical Practical Adaptable glock

When thinking about handgun selection is there a "one gun to rule them all?" There are a TON of options out there, makes, calibers, finishes, etc. Some are made up to be super tacti-cool, some are shiny, some are just square black slabs of metal and sometimes plastic. How is a person supposed to choose between these in an analytical fashion? With lists and criteria of course!

So, I set about thinking what I wanted my handgun to do and which ones would be best at doing that. I wanted something more oriented towards target shooting with a longer barrel. It absolutely had to have the ability to easily convert to .22lr so I could practice cheaper (there is .22lr out there to be found, more on that in a later post). I am a huge fan of flat dark earth, so if I could get that finish from the factory, that would be a bonus.

Xdm 5.25 threaded. Sexy. 

As I started to think about guns which might meet my needs, I started with offerings from Smith & Wesson, Springfield & Glock. I shot the M&P 9mm and it was ok, but it can't convert to .22lr (Glock, CZ, Sig & XDM all have conversion slides) and the pro series doesn't come in dark earth. I really liked the looks of the XDM threaded but I will not be running a suppressor anytime in the near future (if I do, it will be a 300 blackout AR upper, not a pistol), so it lost some points.

Admittedly, I could have tried the CZ and the Sig, and I have read good things about both, but the obvious answer was staring me in the face. In the words of Tommy Lee Jones "Get yourself a Glock, lose that nickel plated sissy pistol." Hm. Can shoot .22lr with a slide change. Modular and easy to tinker with. But the 9mm Glock 34 doesn't come in flat dark earth. However, the Glock 35 does and there are conversion barrels which let this normally 40 S&W chambered pistol shoot 9mm (I know, conversion barrels aren't legal in USPSA, more on that later).

looking forward to testing this out. 

I did a lot of research into conversion barrels, how they work and which one to go with. As is generally the case with forum posts, some people thought brand x was awesome, some swore allegiance to brand y. There were videos on Youtube, but nothing to suggest one was better than the other or one was a big steaming turd. I chose the lone wolf based on price and the fact they could do a black oxide treatment on the barrel so my conversion barrel looked close to stock. The only downside is 4-6 weeks so I haven't had a chance to test it. That will definitely be a post. I'm less concerned about the letter of the law under USPSA because if push comes to shove, I can buy a glock 34 upper slide and just put it on the 35 lower (I have fallen in love with the flat dark earth).

So here it is. There are many like it, this one is mine.

Wearing the Advantage Arms 17-22 gen 4

I'm not one of those people who is an eternal Glock fan boy. I shot a gen 3 Glock 17 thoroughly before I decided to pick up the 35. However, it feels good in my hand, points well and as I said, I've fallen in love with the flat dark earth. I look at guns as a tool to accomplish a specific task and you just pick the one that checks the most boxes with what you're looking for.

There are a few modifications I want to do to it. I would like to polish the trigger surfaces & add a heavier trigger spring to try to get the pull weight down to 4ish pounds (its about 5 lbs now). I'm also going to add the extended slide lock because the little nubs are killing my fingers when I strip it. Along with the conversion barrel, I ordered a 9mm spring and ejector so if I need to change those out for reliability, it is a relatively minor procedure. I anticipate the majority of my shooting will be done in .22 and 9mm and I'll save the 40S&W for home defense & training for USPSA limited.

Why I chose to go with a nickel teflon BCG

When I was deciding what parts to go with in my AR-15 build, one of the first areas where I had a real choice was with the bolt carrier group. Sure, there are a lot of companies which make upper and lower combinations and you can choose forged or billet, but most of them will be relatively similar (as a side note, I am very pleased with the Aero Precision combo I picked out, more on that in a later post).

With bolt carrier groups there is a lot of variation in materials & coatings. I want to try to explain (based on my research) the various options and why I picked the one that I did (mild spoiler, I haven't actually picked one yet).

First of all there are a lot of different metals out of which the bcg can be made. I am not a metallurgist nor an engineer, so I can't really explain why one is better than the other. What I do understand is that there are certain areas that are prone to failure in the bcg and what a difference the coating makes in certain areas.

First of all, my understanding of bolt carrier groups is that the majority of failures involve lugs being sheared off in the extractor or issues with the staking of the gas key. This takes into account actual equipment error and not manufacturing error or issues in building the weapon. Most weapons, even in highly corrosive environments, shooting corrosive ammunition will not experience an issue on the actual bolt carrier itself. Additionally, although carrier tilt may have been an issue with early conversions from direct impingement to piston, it is less of an issue now and in regular DI rifles can be mostly ignored. Basically, any bcg that is milspec or better will perform adequately for even the most hardcore of AR-15 user.

So, if that is the case, why are there so many different types of bcg's out there and what purpose do they serve? All of the benefits of "enhanced" bolt carrier groups can be summarized in three points: ease of maintenance, frequency of maintenance & cosmetic appeal. Enhanced bolt carrier groups can run with less lubrication (some claim none and this has been tested. My upper and lower are cerakoted so theoretically I could attempt this but I'm not going to), are easier to clean (more on this later), and some of the various options look way cooler than a standard phosphate mil-spec bcg.

Nickel boron vs Nickel teflon/NP3 vs Nitride vs Microslick vs Phosphate

Again, not an engineer or metallurgist but this is my attempt to breakdown the advantages & disadvantages of the 5 categories of coatings most commonly available:

Phosphate
Advantages: Cheap, easily replaceable
Disadvantages: Hardest to clean, requires most lubrication
A lot of people will say "just buy a mil-spec phosphate bcg and be done with it." To a degree, they are right. A good mil-spec phosphate bcg can run $65 or less and the weapon will function. However, the phosphate finish attracts carbon, can be the hardest to clean and has no inherent lubricity which means that it will need oiled to run at peak efficiency.

Nitride/Melonite/Tennifer
Advantages: Very durable, some lubricity, can be cheap, matte finish
Disadvantages: Not as much lubricity, potential for metal wear, not as easy to clean
Nitride is a newer option for bolt carrier groups. It has been applied to pistol slides for a while and barrels are using it to replace chrome plating. Since it is a surface treatment, it ends up more evenly and is very durable. It has the second highest rockwell hardness of the options (generally around rockwell hardness of 64). This could lead to issues as the bcg is harder than the upper receiver but doesn't have the lubricity of some of the other options which could cause wear. If I were looking for this type of bcg, it would be hard pressed to beat this one from AIM Surplus for value ($100).

Micro Slick
Advantages: Very high lubricity, very high temperature resistance
Disadvantages: Not a good option for gas key, generally aftermarket, not as durable
Micro slick is a form of cerakote that can be applied after the fact to the bolt carrier group. The best version of this (the one they say is used in nascar) is sprayed on and then heat cured, there is also an air cure version. This coating will have the highest lubricity and will be very easy to clean. It is relatively inexpensive as multiple places only can apply it. However, cerakote can be scratched off relatively easy and the coating is unlikely to last the life of the bcg. Also, it is hard to apply films like this in the gas key which is one of the areas which needs the highest level of corrosion resistance. At $30-$50 it is not a bad option if you already have a phosphate bcg and want to enhance its performance but I personally would not choose it over one of the other coating options.


Nickel Boron
Advantages: Highest rockwell hardness, excellent corrosion resistance
Disadvantages: can stain, may lose lubricity over time
Nickel boron is a very good coating for a bolt carrier group. Like Nitride it is very hard but unlike nitride it also has a very high lubricity which means its less likely to cause wear. It will operate with very little lube and mostly wipes clean. However, it can stain due to being very light colored & having spots in the finish that carbon can fill in (see pic). Another side effect of the finish is that the raised areas can wear down over time which will cause it to lose its lubricity and make it effectively chrome. Still, even at that point it would be no worse than nitride. Another possible downside for people who don't like "blinged out" weapons is that it is generally a relatively shiny finish. From a cost standpoint, it has come down a lot from the $200 range, quality nickel boron bcgs can be had for much less.

Nickel Teflon/NP3/Obsidian
Advantages: Great combo of lubricity, durability & cleaning
Disadvantages: Cost, not as many options
Finally, we come to nickel teflon/NP3/Obsidian. These are all a nickel base coating infused with teflon for lubricity. This coating will have a high initial lubricity like nickel boron, but retain it over time. It usually comes in a greyish tone although TR Enabling has an obsidian finish that is darker and very attractive. In my opinion it is not as attractive as the AIM  Surplus bcg I mentioned above, but from a performance and cleaning standpoint, nickel teflon based coatings blow away nitride. Sharps and TR Enabling offer bcgs in the $200 range with this coating.

So which one should you get? That depends on what kind of AR you are trying to build and what you will use it for. In a budget build, you would probably be fine with a nitride or phosphate bcg. I am building my AR for 3 gun and I am willing to pay a little more to spend less time cleaning so I am going to go with one of the nickel teflon options. I was initially going to go with the Sharps, but I read about some people having reliability issues with them (un-relia-bolt?) so I was thinking about potentially the option from TR Enabling. However, Right to Bear offered to let me try out their nickel teflon bcg once it is back in stock, so I'm going to take that option.

Any questions, comment below and I will try to answer them as best I can.

Right to Bear Nickel Teflon fire control group

When I set about building my AR-15, I originally purchased a Palmetto State Armory lower parts kit. I wanted to set the lower up as basically stock mil-spec before I made decisions on what parts to replace. I tested the trigger which came with the lower parts kit and came up with an average of 7.5 lbs. Not horrible but "average" within the bounds of mil-spec.

I was trained on a mil-spec m-16, and I found it satisfactory but for my personal AR which I intend to use for 3 gun, I wanted something reliable but also crisp and lighter weight, which led me towards the many improved mil-spec offerings.

I was tempted by the ALG QMS & ACT and also by the TR enabling offerings. In all honesty had TR enabling had the obsidian fire control group in stock, that is likely the option I would have gone with. However, I saw a deal on slickguns for a nickel teflon fire control group which seemed to have identical stats to the ACT but at significantly reduced price (currently $39.99). I pulled the trigger and installed it in my lower.

The fire control group comes with trigger, sear, hammer, pins & springs, so it is a full fire control group. The pins looked like regular mil-spec pins but seemed to go into the receiver easier than the ones from the Palmetto State Armory kit. The trigger, hammer & sear all appeared to be nickel teflon coated. The parts have decent lubricity even being devoid of oil or other lubricant. I will oil them when the gun is run but all parts were tested dry (the PSA kit came with a bit of oil applied but no additional oil was added prior to testing).

One caveat to my review. I did not install it with the supplied trigger & hammer springs. I had previously purchased a set of JP industries enhanced reliability springs (red & yellow). I did not test the mil-spec trigger with these springs and only tested the nickel teflon trigger with them installed, so I can't say what the performance would be with just the supplied springs. I would guess a 5 to 5.5 lb break is completely reasonable.

In my testing, the trigger was improved IMMENSELY. It is impossible to measure "grit" and things people normally talk about with mil-spec triggers but I can say that the break averaged 4.25lbs. I tested the trigger with a trigger scale bought on amazon from the middle of the bow as you would pull when firing and obtained measurements from 4lbs to 4.5lbs. The takeup & reset also seemed improved over the trigger it replaced but that is also a more subjective measure.

I would like to make a statement on reliability. As this is basically a mil-spec trigger, I assume it will be at least as reliable, but I can't really rate its reliability in a vacuum. Since I did not use the supplied springs, the trigger will be lighter than standard, but even with the JP industries red hammer spring, there is the possibility of light hammer strikes. This fire control group does come with what look like mil-spec springs but they appear to be stainless and should be just as reliable as the Palmetto State Armory trigger.

In summary, I am EXTREMELY pleased with this trigger. The build in total will end up around $1000 and although I would love to be able to test out a Geissele or Timney trigger, this trigger performs excellently and blows them away in terms of price (trigger and springs together were around $50). I believe that this was money well spent and is so far perhaps one of my favorite parts of the build. If I had it to do over again, I would definitely purchase this fire control group again and may even do so to throw in an AR-10 build.

AR build lower with Right to Bear trigger installed

Agent Fish Reviews is born

The purpose of this blog is to do a review of various items that I use. Some of these items have been reviewed elsewhere on the internet, some have not. While I am accepting items for review from companies, I have always provided unbiased reviews and the majority of things reviewed will be purchased with my own funds.

On deck for review:

AR-15 build project (.223, 6.5 grendel, & 300 blackout uppers)
Individual components of said project
Glock 35 FDE
Advantage arms 17-22 glock conversion

Any questions or to request an item be reviewed, you can contact me at Agentfishreviews@gmail.com