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