I was already set to convert my carbine systems to A5, but then I saw the Geissele Super 42 braided spring and buffer. Does anyone have any opinions on which is the better system?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Member
I was already set to convert my carbine systems to A5, but then I saw the Geissele Super 42 braided spring and buffer. Does anyone have any opinions on which is the better system?
Banned
I say Geissele. I've never seen one, or even heard of anyone using one, and don't even really know what it's for.
It's better because you can go back to your proper Colt spring and H2 buffer with no tools. You don't even have to take the whole upper off if you don't want to....
Member
um...
anyhow, the geissele buffer is a standard buffer. The wire braid spring is a way to differentiate Geissele's solution for the market address compressed spring weight variation, longevity, and harmonics. Similar to Flatwire, CS springs, etc. Different solution, but none bring the same performance changes an A5 buffer system will, the reasons for which have been dealt with ad nauseum.
Member
Bored today?Originally Posted by samuse
I would almost guess that it would have less travel relative to the Tubbs flat wire (something I had not thought of until I watched the Tubbs video). That and the increase in strength could mean faster cyclic rate? The description does not address these performance aspects.
Happy with the Vltor A5 and stock spring. I may try the Tubbs AR10 down the road vice Sprinco Green, just not a high priority.
Member
Buford's epic saga of posts led me to try it on SBRs with different bbls/gas ports... changed my life. The operational range is wider. Whether the range is relevant to most people... up for debate.
Member
Stick with the Vltor A5. I don't think you'll be sorry you did. The extra spring length should give you the reliability you're looking for.
Member
Yea, I was a little disappointed that Geissele's description didn't really offer any data or demonstration of performance over the standard springs. Everything they claim seems to be in the hypothetical category, whereas the A5 has been proven to get rid of all the problems associated with carbine length buffer systems. However, if Geissele's claims are true, then their setup might offer the same performance and still work with a standard buffer tube. Not to mention it's about half the price of the A5 system.
Last edited by HansTheHobbit; 06-24-16 at 16:56.
Banned
The A5 is a proven system.
Just do it.
Senior Member
Until the Geissele's spring offering shows a tangible benefit over the rifle or rifle like A5 based systems, how could that product be preferred over the A5 based system at this time?
I'm not saying that a braided style spring doesn't have potential, because it does. The execution to make that product with advantages over the other isn't so simple. I'm not a spring guy really, but I have spoken to a few who are more knowledgable than myself on this subject. There's a lot of ways that this could end up less than preferably, I do plan on looking deeper into what they offer in production samples. I would be more curious to see an approach that may include a braided spring offering for rifle like actions over the carbine type action.
Senior Member
Here is slow-motion footage of my Vltor A5 w/"Green" spring and A5H2 buffer, as well as the Geissele Super 42 and included H buffer. I used 4 rounds of .223 PMC Bronze, followed by 4 rounds of 55gr PMC XTAC M193, followed by 4 rounds of 75gr Gold Dot .223. The rifle is a 16.1" DDM4 with a Surefire 556-212 suppressor. Rounds are fed by a Gen 3 PMAG.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks