Vltor A5 vs. Geissele Super 42, which is better?

[WS6]

[WS6]

As one notes, for whatever reason, the A5 setup HATES 75gr Gold Dot. I have to run an A5H4 buffer to get it to run correctly/well.

[tom12.7]

What are your conclusions from this? What do you base this on?
Not a bash or anything like that, just wondering what you based this on.

[WS6]

What are your conclusions from this? What do you base this on?
Not a bash or anything like that, just wondering what you based this on.

The heavier bullet and special powder causes the weapon to cycle faster. This leads to weak ejection with some springs. Colt milspec ejector springs work best. Slowing things down helps, and heavier buffers do better with gold dot 75gr. Specifically, maybe the rebound is the issue, as the bcg hits the case on the return stroke if it ejects weakly, based on some of my videos. Of note, the weakest spring, the milspec, did fine. That said, the gun out runs troy cbr mags using h and colt milspec action spring. Over all of it, I prefer the sprinco blue and an h. Good function, lighter recoil and more controlled than the Vltor a5. Add an H2 buffer for primarily suppressed use, and g2g. I've come full circle on the a5. The weight of an a5h4 plus the stiffer green spring just over complicates cycling and recoil is significantly worse with no functional improvement.

[tom12.7]

While I appreciate your reply, I do not come to the same conclusions. Within the confines of the base system as it is now, we are limited as to what our options actually are. Timing and the balance of stresses and strains are what come to light here.
You can help "felt recoil" in ways that really induce more stresses/strains. You can help the same "felt recoil" that is not optimal for the timing of mechanical events that occur in the system. Same could be said for ejection patterns, distance, etc.
To help the base system operate at a higher capacity, we need to look at reducing stresses and strains, we need to look towards the appropriate timing of events to improve the base system.
Time has shown us that an improved based system is not feasible now, how many of us would be okay with a receiver length more similar to a M110 length for 5.56 than the shorter 5.56 M-16 FOW?

[WS6]

While I appreciate your reply, I do not come to the same conclusions. Within the confines of the base system as it is now, we are limited as to what our options actually are. Timing and the balance of stresses and strains are what come to light here.
You can help "felt recoil" in ways that really induce more stresses/strains. You can help the same "felt recoil" that is not optimal for the timing of mechanical events that occur in the system. Same could be said for ejection patterns, distance, etc.
To help the base system operate at a higher capacity, we need to look at reducing stresses and strains, we need to look towards the appropriate timing of events to improve the base system.
Time has shown us that an improved based system is not feasible now, how many of us would be okay with a receiver length more similar to a M110 length for 5.56 than the shorter 5.56 M-16 FOW?

So, what conclusions have you come to, and why? The 50,000 round test of the A5 system by the military seemed rather inconclusive to me, so I simply use the system with less felt recoil, as they failed to demonstrate superiority one way or another regarding reliability, etc.

[tom12.7]

The system that induces the lesser of stresses and strains with reliability, that would not be the carbine type action over the rifle or rifle like A5 type of action system for function. Sure, some sand tests show otherwise, and I still protest them in the way they prove, or attempt to prove function overall.
You can skin a cat many ways, concentrating on a minor concerns with a focus on those is a small slice of the pie to a broader visual to the operation of the system as a whole.
Without looking into the life cycle of the components as a merit and focusing more on felt recoil is not a net positive in my book. Sure, less felt recoil is good, but not with dramatic effects on operation due to those variables.

[WS6]

The system that induces the lesser of stresses and strains with reliability, that would not be the carbine type action over the rifle or rifle like A5 type of action system for function. Sure, some sand tests show otherwise, and I still protest them in the way they prove, or attempt to prove function overall.
You can skin a cat many ways, concentrating on a minor concerns with a focus on those is a small slice of the pie to a broader visual to the operation of the system as a whole.
Without looking into the life cycle of the components as a merit and focusing more on felt recoil is not a net positive in my book. Sure, less felt recoil is good, but not with dramatic effects on operation due to those variables.

How, exactly, is the carbine system not as good as the rifle system? They are so close to each other that the differences are insignificant, mechanically. Computer models for each spring length/construction show that they are WELL within accepted mechanical tolerances for a very long life.

As to the dynamics of the system, it is simply conjecture until proven otherwise, one way or the other, IMO.

[WS6]

Another point is that neither the military and the commercial market have not embraced the Vltor system. All of the R&D is focused on the carbine RE, and the military concluded that the H6 buffer would be fine vs. the A5 RE.

[tom12.7]

If you currently agree with that, continue to do so.