Testing BF-10 and MA Loader

[drkphibr]

Tested the BF-10 and MA Loader with dummy rounds to get a feel of which loader I like better and which loader performs better.

My results were not what I thought they'd be in all honesty.

I'll start with a few measurement categories followed by my testing results.

1. Pre-order to shipping experience: BF-10 HANDS DOWN!
   
2. Build Quality: BF-10. Also feels a bit more solid in the hand (heavier as well)
   
3. Ease of loading rounds into loader: Very close, but MA Loader edges out BF-10 IMO.
   
4. Ease of loading round into AR magazine: MA Loader. Easier to get more leverage (this was a surprise to me).
   
5. Loading a full magazine (10 rounds): MA Loader. Could not get the BF-10 (on my setup - picatinny mounts, etc.) to load a full 10 rounds. Average was 8, best was 9 over 4 attempts. MA Loader loaded 10 each of the 4 times.
   
6. Jams: BF-10. Every single load left one round "floating" above the magazine, but since the bolt doesn't release, it's technically not a jam...but still something that had to be dealt with. Even with bolt releasing on MA Loader, no jams (I think that has to do with how one "slaps" back the empty loader to remove it from the ejection port).
   
7. Longevity expectation: BF-10. Nothing is "chewed" like on the MA Loader when you "slap" out the loader and the bolt chews on the polymer. Already looks worn and it's never seen the range.
   
8. Cost: A wash IMO.
   
9. BCG: BF-10. Not a fan of the bolt releasing upon loader removal
   

So after receiving the BF-10 and opening it up, I thought, without a doubt, this would be better than the MA Loader.
Felt better in the hands and thought that using the slides on each side versus the thumb ring on the MA Loader would be easier.
However, the reality was I (on my setup) could not get the BF-10 to consistently load a full 10 round magazine. Always had 1 or 2 rounds either still in the loader or floating around in the chamber area. The reality of the side handles didn't feel as good or work as well as I thought they would. MA Loader pleasantly surprised me in that regard and was consistent every time (the MA Loader was almost as new as the BF-10. Neither have been to the range yet and the MA has probably "loaded" 5-7 magazines more than the BF-10, so neither is "broken" in yet).

Bottom line: I'll take both to the range for the real comparison/experience using live ammo.

[LEAD LAUNCHER]

Thanks for the info.

I have neither so far but plan on the BFD one.

I have not seen anyone but you post up issues getting 10 in with either loader.

Anyone else have this problem?

..

[SSOUNN]

I’ve been having loading issues into mag with the MA Loader.. But with BF-10, 10rds every single time with no hiccups.. Might I add, I’m doing the under-hand load with the BF if that matters..

[someoneeasy]

I have both loaders and found the MA Loader easier to begin with. The BFD is getting easier as it gets broken in. Being left handed, I initially had to flip my rifle upside down to use my left hand to load, but as the BFD started to wear in, it's getting easier to use my right hand.

I had the same issue with only 9 rounds going into the magazine and one floating around after removing the BFD. Fixed this by loading it faster. If you go slow, not all rounds will load into the magazine. At least that was the case for me.

[dwinters14]

Interested to see long term testing. I.E. 500 - 1000 rounds with each loader, to see how they hold up and ease of use over time. The BF10 could be just breaking in, and I've found that dummy rounds may not necessarily be as smooth as actual brass.

But interesting report anyway.

[jimbo74]

I have both, and bench tested both, no issues with either doing 10 rds

[JeffSD]

I have two BF-10s and using snap caps I had jams every time I tried it. Finally I tried with real rounds and I never had a single failure. No jams, no failures to load all rounds. It was 100%.

You can't sissy slap it though, you have to work it like you're the boss. If you do that, it'll load all rounds perfectly every time.

[drkphibr]

Interested to see long term testing. I.E. 500 - 1000 rounds with each loader, to see how they hold up and ease of use over time. The BF10 could be just breaking in, and I've found that dummy rounds may not necessarily be as smooth as actual brass.

But interesting report anyway.

My dummy rounds are reloads (55gr bullet with correctly sized brass, no powder or primers...maybe they are too light by ~25gr).

The BF-10 being new and I'm not quite used to it may be an issue. I'm definitely trying to use as much might as I can, under hand approach, in using the BF-10. Still can't get a full 10 in.

In any case, the real test will be loading at the range...for both loaders.

[SSOUNN]

Okay guys.. just got done messing around giving the MA Loader another go around.. I tried the loading with no spring in the mag, like the members above had mentioned, loaded pretty good, BUT once I installed the spring back in just like I would at the Range, it’s stiff as heck.. same thing Loading issue, and I’m pushing it with authority here lmao.. so I just applied a tad of oil on the Front/Back of the follower, gave it a last try.. and what do ya know.. it loaded with no issue lol.. I was using a MagPul G3 10/20 round mag..

[KevinBearFlag]

Tested the BF-10 and MA Loader with dummy rounds to get a feel of which loader I like better and which loader performs better.

My results were not what I thought they'd be in all honesty.

I'll start with a few measurement categories followed by my testing results.

1. Pre-order to shipping experience: BF-10 HANDS DOWN!
   
2. Build Quality: BF-10. Also feels a bit more solid in the hand (heavier as well)
   
3. Ease of loading rounds into loader: Very close, but MA Loader edges out BF-10 IMO.
   
4. Ease of loading round into AR magazine: MA Loader. Easier to get more leverage (this was a surprise to me).
   
5. Loading a full magazine (10 rounds): MA Loader. Could not get the BF-10 (on my setup - picatinny mounts, etc.) to load a full 10 rounds. Average was 8, best was 9 over 4 attempts. MA Loader loaded 10 each of the 4 times.
   
6. Jams: BF-10. Every single load left one round "floating" above the magazine, but since the bolt doesn't release, it's technically not a jam...but still something that had to be dealt with. Even with bolt releasing on MA Loader, no jams (I think that has to do with how one "slaps" back the empty loader to remove it from the ejection port).
   
7. Longevity expectation: BF-10. Nothing is "chewed" like on the MA Loader when you "slap" out the loader and the bolt chews on the polymer. Already looks worn and it's never seen the range.
   
8. Cost: A wash IMO.
   
9. BCG: BF-10. Not a fan of the bolt releasing upon loader removal
   

So after receiving the BF-10 and opening it up, I thought, without a doubt, this would be better than the MA Loader.
Felt better in the hands and thought that using the slides on each side versus the thumb ring on the MA Loader would be easier.
However, the reality was I (on my setup) could not get the BF-10 to consistently load a full 10 round magazine. Always had 1 or 2 rounds either still in the loader or floating around in the chamber area. The reality of the side handles didn't feel as good or work as well as I thought they would. MA Loader pleasantly surprised me in that regard and was consistent every time (the MA Loader was almost as new as the BF-10. Neither have been to the range yet and the MA has probably "loaded" 5-7 magazines more than the BF-10, so neither is "broken" in yet).

Bottom line: I'll take both to the range for the real comparison/experience using live ammo.

We appreciate your honest assessment!

What is your setup? Upper/Lower make and model, and what magazine are you using?

This info could really help us if there is an issue we need to address.

Thank you!

[drkphibr]

looks like it's a non mil spec lower issue with not being able to load the full 10 rounds with the BF-10. So, just like we own/drive Chevys and Fords in the family, we'll own/use MA Loaders and BF-10's ;-)

Multiple solutions for multiple situations. Bases covered.

[KevinBearFlag]

looks like it's a non mil spec lower issue with not being able to load the full 10 rounds with the BF-10. So, just like we own/drive Chevys and Fords in the family, we'll own/use MA Loaders and BF-10's ;-)

Multiple solutions for multiple situations. Bases covered.

*upper

If you put a Mil-Spec upper on your lower, it would work fine.

[drkphibr]

*upper

If you put a Mil-Spec upper on your lower, it would work fine.

oops, looks like I haven't had enough caffeine this morning ;-)

[Urban Legend]

I have 11 BF-10's and there are no issues at all. They require a little amount of muscle to load the rounds but the manufacture recommends "hard and fast" when loading and they get easier/smooth out as they are used. They are built very solid. I anticipate them lasting a very long time.

[MEAN Arms]

Tested the BF-10 and MA Loader with dummy rounds to get a feel of which loader I like better and which loader performs better.

My results were not what I thought they'd be in all honesty.

I'll start with a few measurement categories followed by my testing results.

1. Pre-order to shipping experience: BF-10 HANDS DOWN!
   
2. Build Quality: BF-10. Also feels a bit more solid in the hand (heavier as well)
   
3. Ease of loading rounds into loader: Very close, but MA Loader edges out BF-10 IMO.
   
4. Ease of loading round into AR magazine: MA Loader. Easier to get more leverage (this was a surprise to me).
   
5. Loading a full magazine (10 rounds): MA Loader. Could not get the BF-10 (on my setup - picatinny mounts, etc.) to load a full 10 rounds. Average was 8, best was 9 over 4 attempts. MA Loader loaded 10 each of the 4 times.
   
6. Jams: BF-10. Every single load left one round "floating" above the magazine, but since the bolt doesn't release, it's technically not a jam...but still something that had to be dealt with. Even with bolt releasing on MA Loader, no jams (I think that has to do with how one "slaps" back the empty loader to remove it from the ejection port).
   
7. Longevity expectation: BF-10. Nothing is "chewed" like on the MA Loader when you "slap" out the loader and the bolt chews on the polymer. Already looks worn and it's never seen the range.
   
8. Cost: A wash IMO.
   
9. BCG: BF-10. Not a fan of the bolt releasing upon loader removal
   

So after receiving the BF-10 and opening it up, I thought, without a doubt, this would be better than the MA Loader.
Felt better in the hands and thought that using the slides on each side versus the thumb ring on the MA Loader would be easier.
However, the reality was I (on my setup) could not get the BF-10 to consistently load a full 10 round magazine. Always had 1 or 2 rounds either still in the loader or floating around in the chamber area. The reality of the side handles didn't feel as good or work as well as I thought they would. MA Loader pleasantly surprised me in that regard and was consistent every time (the MA Loader was almost as new as the BF-10. Neither have been to the range yet and the MA has probably "loaded" 5-7 magazines more than the BF-10, so neither is "broken" in yet).

Bottom line: I'll take both to the range for the real comparison/experience using live ammo.

Greetings from MEAN Arms:I would like to offer to send you our newest, improved MA-Loader design for your testing. While we are thrilled with our current production MA-Loader, our newest re-design is more efficient, especially with certain firearm manufactures (and we just started production this week!) You will notice a significant change in the design. If you are interested, please email us at support@meanarms.com and we will immediately send you our newest build for evaluation.

In regard to your post, we wanted to add in a few of our comments and look forward to your follow-up after you have gone to the range:

Pre-Order Experience: We agree with your assessment. We were frustrated with our pre-order delays due to changes. We have a policy to not releasing products until they absolutely work the way they were intended and refused to rush to market. Due to design improvements, we incurred multiple, unanticipated delays, which set us back and cost us a significate hit to our reputation with both customers and dealers. However, our path allowed us to deliver a far superior product from our initial design. In the process, we learned a few valuable lessons and assure you that our customers always come first.

Ease of Loading / Bolt Release:
Build Quality / Longevity Expectation:MEAN Arms