I recently bought a gen 2 ks-47 10.5” pistol. It has the ks47 tc-e bcg. I noticed it will not pick up rounds out of any magazines but the magpul mag that came with it, is this a common issue? Also my cousin has the gen 1 7.5” barrel pistol version and it has the ks47 hybrid bcg, and it will pick up rounds out of mags that mine will not. Is there a way to get the hybrid bcg? A way to fix why my tc-e will not pick up on other mags?
You may need to file the mags to make sure they seat properly.
1 Like
I’ve notice that basically they all set in there the same, the only difference in pro mags have no play in them when locked in. But for the most part all the mags I’ve tried have seared the same as the magpul for what I can tell. It’s like the pro mags and us palm doesn’t have enough of the round exposed for my bcg… it just doesn’t make sense to me because my cousin has the same pistol just shorter barrel, that has the gen 1 bcg (ks hybrid) and it picks them up. When you look at the two bcg’s, his has bigger teeth on the bolt where mine are more thin and miss the round.
Although the bolt “Carrier’s” look similar. The KS-47 Hybrid Carrier and a regular Bolt Carrier have enough difference that cause precisely what you are experiencing.
The KS-47 Hybrid Carrier is “Proprietary” to the KS-47. In almost all cases it WORKS reliably in the KS-47 upper & lower.
I have seen and heard of others mixing parts from “Gibbs” and having success……but for the most part those who are piecing together a KS-47 without the Hybrid carrier, upper and lower have experienced the same frustration that you are experiencing.
If you are able to modify something to get it to work,……please post some pictures and a description of the modification so we can learn what to do.
Good luck.
1 Like
Okay. Thanks. I didn’t piece it together this is the way it shipped to me from Psa. Do you know where you can buy a ks47 hybrid bcg? I don’t see them for sale in Psa
This issue comes up often enough…that we should have an answer….that is better than……”it’s Proprietary”.
To better explain it….or to satisfy my insatiable curiosity…… I took to measuring three different bolt carriers so we could compare their different characteristics.
The results confirm what we already knew and it will help understand the tiny difference it makes between the bolt stripping off the next round of ammunition’s from the magazine……or….passing over it, failing to chamber.
This is not Scientific…I don’t have laser measuring devices. Just a dial caliper, and a flat true block to base the measurements from.
What we see is the three carriers measure almost identically (within a margin of error)……except for the height/depth of the bearing surface. The height/depth of the bearing surface is EVERY THING when it relates reliably stripping off that next round in the magazine.
The AR carrier is our baseline.
The KS-47 hybrid carrier is original without any modification.
The PCC is an AR carrier that has been machined to work over a Glock magazine
Measurements in column E are the tell-tale difference in the height/depth of how the carrier rides in the upper receiver and it’s relationship to the magazine.
Our three Test subjects:
A view of the business end of the three carriers:
The measurements I recorded for each carrier:
1 Like
Okay I’m with you now. Solid info. I appreciate it. Do you know why Psa would send me a gen 2 ks47 10.5” pistol with a ks47 tc-e bcg, instead of the ks47 hybrid bcg?
I have no idea….hopefully someone else will chime in here with an answer.
It’s a big business….with a lot if inventory moving constantly. It’s an easy mistake to make……hopefully you can get it resolved with PSA. I would reach out to their customer service first.
Good luck
I appreciate your info and the study you did. I have decided I need the hybrid bcg and just put the tc-e parts on, like the firing pin and extractor. Since that’s the only difference in the two modes
Caught me by surprise……this is the first time that I have heard of Tool Craft KS-47 bolt carrier.
It could very well be the same as the Hybrid carrier……only with different markings……news to me.
If that is a PSA bolt carrier that came from PSA with your KS-47….and it works with the magazine that came with the KS-47……
I would suspect the culprit is the “other” magazines that you are trying to use.
What magazines are they and can you post a picture of them.
It came with a magpul Ak/akm moe 30 round. I’ve tried us palm, and pro mag of the same style and they will not feed. The bolt hit the top of the round. I’ve done some research. The hybrid is the gen 1 bcg, the tc-e is the gen 2, and one of the teeth has been reprofiled because people were complaining about the hybrid tearing out the side of their mags.
The guys that would normally reply are at the PSA “gun show” today and this weekend 
– wish I could be there too, but it’s a long way from Nevada!
I am not an expert, but here is what I think.
1st, the TC-E bolt carrier is on all KS-47s now because the old one had a couple issues (I think, but am pretty sure). The TC-E is supposed to last a lot longer.
2nd, the Magpul PMags work pretty well, but most other mags could have issues – some requiring more work than others. Below is a link to some instructions to fitting AK mags (47 or 74) that worked for me, but be sure to read all the descriptions on the pictures before filing! (unlike me):
If I’m not mistaken, ProMags are not in the compatibility list for the KS-47. I saw that too late and spent a couple hour working on one of them without any luck. Had to file a lot just to get it to fit in the magwell, and, when it did fit, it fed the first cartridge but not the second.
There are a couple other threads in the KS-47 group you could read too by either searching or scrolling back. Keep us up-dated.
Edit: Forgot to mention that I had to do some minor work on 2 new magpul mags. They “fit” out of the box, but you could pull/wiggle the mags out of the magwell. After minor surgery they seem to work very well now.
I was under the impression that the only difference between the Gen 2 hybrid BCG and the current TC-E branded BCG was the inclusion of the Tool Craft enhanced extractor used on the bolt. I have, however, noticed a mark increase in reported cases (on various social media platforms) of failure of magazines failing to sit “properly” in the magwell and not picking up rounds. I have also seen several reports of magazines simply falling out while firing. I have also noted that these reports all came from the new TC-E KS-47s. I am wondering if these firearms were made with old stock KS-47 lowers or if they are being made with new stock lowers that may have some slight differences concerning the mag release areas. The reason I have is that prior to the BCM upgrade there were not nearly the number of mags not fitting properly.
More than likely it is because of mag companies attempts to make universal mags. I love magpul, but they have been having a problem with fit on ar10, glock, and ak mags. One size simply doeant fit all due to tolerance stacking.
1 Like
I was doing some research last night, what I found was any magazine that works on firearms in the AKM family, should work on the ks47 with the tc-e bcg
“Should”. Ar10 pmags should work in my ar10, but i have to mod them.
Having worked for global manufacturers and run many a NC and CNC machines, if “tolerance stacking” is a companies’ excuse for things not working properly, they need to reevaluate their manufacturing process, because that doesn’t fly. I checked every third part 100%.
Every manufacturer has a tolerance, plus or minus, and if you stay within those accepted tolerances for every part in an assembly, then stacking simply doesn’t happen. Engineering sees to that. If they don’t, a new engineering department should be implemented. Engineering is supposed to plan for that, and if every part is at the plus limit for the assembly, then the finished assembly still works as intended. Same for minus tolerances. It still works as intended. That’s how it SHOULD work. Anything inside of the tolerances will work as intended.
Tolerance stacking can happen when you run parts outside of the “accepted” tolerances, yet engineering still approves the part for use in an assembly. Normally this only happens on extremely expensive small batch parts, or a large batch of inexpensive parts that QC overlooked. And the tolerance stacking excuse requires this specific scenario to happen on many parts of an assembly, for the finished assembly to not function as intended.
In the end, “tolerance stacking” is an excuse for poor manufacturing methods. Because anything within tolerance, even at the extreme end of the acceptable limits, will still function as intended.
Or the engineering department sucks.
The problem with tolerance stacking is no defined universal standard (mil-spec). For example, Ar15s have a universal stabdard. Ar10s and ak’s do not. Even glock, due to their trademarks, does not mean a glock clone will work. When looking at manufacturing that now uses computerized CNC for precision, that leads to issues because of how these firearms were first made. So eavh company may do things with a slightly different measurement. PSA may use tighter tolerances than Century. Therefore some mags will work, others wont. With Magpul, they tried a universal fit. Although it works with ar15s, it runs into lots of problems elsewhere.
For the money……the PSA Waffle mags are about the best you can buy.
You might have to file a little on the underside of the rear lug for a perfect fit……but it is worth it ! That is exactly what you want……a perfect fit !
1 Like
That’s not tolerance stacking.
I’m not arguing that mag cycling is in fact an issue. I know it is.
But to say that it’s a result of tolerance stacking on the firearm manufacturers part, is incorrect. It’s a terminology thing is all.
That’s a magazine design defect, because they want a “one size fits all” application, that doesn’t always work. But again, to say that’s “tolerance stacking” is incorrect.