Review: KynSHOT hydraulic recoil buffer RB5000

[Butch]

To answer some of the questions:

Price varies depending on model so here is the website link: http://kynshot.com/eshop/

There is a 1 million cycle or 10 year guarantee with the KynShot. Comparing decade old colt or enidine buffer to this is futile.

Hard to capture "felt recoil" in a video, which is why the physics and explanation of how this product works, makes more sense.


Cheers

You took it beyond "felt recoil": "...and want faster follow up shots"..."spring twang"..."reduces muzzle raise"..."range shooters practicing quick target acquisition and rapid successive follow up shots"..." significantly reduce wear and tear saving your AR15 as the moving parts are slowed down by the transfer of energy"..." but the benefits of this buffer far outweigh the additional weight in this low weigh build".

...and benefits this buffer provides there is no reason why every AR should not come with this device.

Tens of thousands of AR's in use firing millions of rounds to include burst and full auto without this miracle device. You have also not addressed bolt bounce and how this buffer counteracts that. Having the bolt stay locked is more important than "spring twang".

This buffer has been tested and proven by professional competitive shooters, military and law enforcement

Who?

... and I felt less fatigued

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.2673201

[Adrenaline_6]

The "dissipating energy in the form of heat" is what I question. The review mentions this as the difference between the other methods which just use time as the primary varying factor. If it is going to make a difference, it better be absorbing a bunch of heat, and if so, how much? If it is a bunch, how does it dissipate said heat. If it doesn't get hot, then it isn't absorbing much energy in the form of heat to make a perceived difference and is primarily using time like the A5 and the new AD buffer.

Nothing wrong with doing that, but saying it is doing something else is not cool.

[lysander]

Interesting that the Enidine buffer should be brought up. A legal battle was waged between 2014-2016 over Enidine's Patent Number 7,131,367, claims by Kyntec (makers of the KynSHOT RB5000) that Enidine's patent was invalid, and counter claims that the KynSHOT infringed on Enidine's patent.

Someone versed in legalese might be able to tell what went on:

Kyntec Corporation v. ITT Enidine, Inc. et al.,, No. 1:2014cv00271 - Document 81 (W.D.N.Y. 2016)

Kyntech holds at least one patent on a "Shock absorber with variable damping profile" which appears to be a minor variation on the internal valving mechanism.

[Koshinn]

This is a parody video, right?

[BufordTJustice]

Interesting that the Enidine buffer should be brought up. A legal battle was waged between 2014-2016 over Enidine's Patent Number 7,131,367, claims by Kyntec (makers of the KynSHOT RB5000) that Enidine's patent was invalid, and counter claims that the KynSHOT infringed on Enidine's patent.

Someone versed in legalese might be able to tell what went on:

Kyntec Corporation v. ITT Enidine, Inc. et al.,, No. 1:2014cv00271 - Document 81 (W.D.N.Y. 2016)

Kyntech holds at least one patent on a "Shock absorber with variable damping profile" which appears to be a minor variation on the internal valving mechanism.

Lysander, thank you for researching this.

I think this is the pertinent issue that needs to be addressed regarding this product.

I cannot necessarily blame them for not wanting to owe patent royalties to a competitor entity, in the case that the designs are substantially similar.... Or for wanting to draw an important potential distinction between their current design and the original Enidine.

However, clarification is mandatory. I know two buds who had failures with Enidine carbine buffers..... Both had the seals fail and fluid leak out.

[Jmacken37]

Kyle Lamb tends to have his stuff together...

[FlyingChipmunk]

Kyle Lamb tends to have his stuff together...

That's what surprised me about Kynshot. There have been hydraulic buffers, but never one endorsed by a highly reputed instructor.

[TomMcC]

$140 golden dinards.....that's a lot of dinards for a buffer.

[Stickman]

I don't think it's futile - I think it's reasonable based on the fact that they look identical in design externally. Unless information is made available to the contrary, it's logical to assume that failure modes would be similar.

Is the guarantee against failure (guaranteed that it will not fail within 1 mil cycles or 10 years), or REPLACEMENT is guaranteed within 1 mil cycles or 10 years?
Enidine replaced my failed buffer without any hassles, but it still failed.

When you review a product that looks EXACTLY like one that was released more than a decade ago, you must expect folks to ask how they differ and why this one is better. I'm not surprised by their similarity, given that the VP of Engineering at KynShot (Jerry Spyche) worked at ITT Enidine until 2012. So, a little history behind the KynShot buffer and its heritage and design differences (for those of us who had experience with the Enidine) would be relevant (and IMHO, necessary) for your review.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that if it's 'patent pending', it's not patented yet. If a patent application has been filed, anyone should be able to look at the 'proprietary design' if they were interested in understanding how it works.

I think this is worth reading twice.

[lysander]

The "dissipating energy in the form of heat" is what I question. The review mentions this as the difference between the other methods which just use time as the primary varying factor. If it is going to make a difference, it better be absorbing a bunch of heat, and if so, how much? If it is a bunch, how does it dissipate said heat. If it doesn't get hot, then it isn't absorbing much energy in the form of heat to make a perceived difference and is primarily using time like the A5 and the new AD buffer.

Nothing wrong with doing that, but saying it is doing something else is not cool.

From a straight engineering point of view, yes, hydraulic dampers do absorb energy from the system they are damping in the form of heat. It is exactly like your shock absorbers on your car.

I am not going to go into a long explanation of how a shock absorber works, you can look that up a dozen places. I will state that when the oil is forced through the orifices between the two chambers, there is friction between the fluid and the walls of the orifice, and both are heated to a measurable degree. Typical car shocks with a four inch stroke will see a temperature increase of about 1.5 degrees C in one thousands cycles.

Depending on the viscosity of the working fluid, the size of the orifices, you might get a similar temperature rise in this little buffer. But, all said and done, that isn’t an appreciable amount of energy removed from the system.

By the way, the temperature of the plastic tip on a regular buffer also increases due to the effects of being deformed and relaxing over and over; it is probably a lot less that the temperature rise of the hydraulic fluid, but it is there. So, to say that a regular buffer does not remove energy from the system is technically incorrect.