Originally Posted by
tom12.7
Maybe it would be better to ask your opinion as to what over gassing actually is, perhaps my view is flawed?
A span of function for use has many timing events that we could look into. Some of these can induce additional stresses and strains, some of these can induce reliability issues. If we take the total span in range of function, then look into a cap on stresses/strains and a limit on timing for some events, we can end up in a narrower range than what we consider for function for a a more desired combination.
There is a given that is known, that porting for the carbine H2 action and the base rifle action systems can be an overall standard to compare these. Not saying that all carbine actions require an H2 for proper function, or a rifle like action, they just happen to be in a place that can suit the span width well within the confines of reduced stresses and more optimal timing for reliability.
So is the carbine action H1 and H3 bad when looking at this? No, they aren't necessarily that way, both have an operational overlap that is just offset compared to the H2. Either could be looked at deeper, much of this operation does overlap, their prefered operation may be a little lower in span, but nothing dramatic for most unless you end up in either extreme of the margin, that's not the best place to be in.
In looking at rifle actions, or the rifle like actions, you can end up with finer increments for a buffer mass alternative and a better span when looking at the timing events. Basically, a base with a carbine action with a H2 is a more course adjustment to a H1 or H3 than a A5H2 to a A5H1 or A5H3.
I would tend to prefer a porting that aligns with the carbine H2 or more so with the A5H2. While this may seem unpopular here for some, remember that I'm looking at the span of function and further limiting that to a reduced range that maintains reliability and durability.
Components consume and wear with use, throats, ports, tubes, keys, etc.. Sometimes wear can be a compliment, sometimes to a detriment, depending on specific situations that we can look at further.
For a base 5.56 AR, I would tend to prefer a fixed proper gas port for that application than an adjustable one for non suppressed use only with the A5H2. I'm not sure what gains that most would get by using a larger barrel's base port with an added adjustable gas block. I can really only see negatives, mostly with the erosive gasses.
For a base 5.56 AR, I would tend to prefer a fixed proper gas port for that application than an adjustable one for suppressed only with the A5H2. Still not sure what you would gain with erosion at a higher level than a dedicated port.
For a base 5.56 AR, I may find something that could be suppressed for only half the time. As I may have decided that the can needs to be there or not for whatever reasons. Either application does not need a dedicated gas adjustment on top of an oversized port. There are circumstances that could be had with a single sized port, this size may overlap either for function for either usage. For that scenario, a dedicated port can be used with a reduced overall span of function for both combined, but not ideal for either. A pair of buffer masses may be required to widen the span of desired use for either pretty well. Larger increments are not really needed for most, but when one step up or down maybe needed, it's not much overall.
There are ways to suit a combination's action mass with confidence with the porting. When will the adjustable gas block get the micrometer indications for repeatability?
There's a lot more that could be brought up, from the base combinations to changes.
Bookmarks