Nyx Bolt Carrier Group

**militarymoron** · 04-27-17, 20:42

Originally Posted by vicious_cb

Yes, ar-15/M16 family of weapons. Ive never seen a ferfrans bolt carrier in person so Im unsure how it actually works. Does it use a counter weight system? I know the Sullivan bolt carrier uses a duel spring design.

The link to the animation of the Ferfrans RRS is pretty good. There's a reciprocating weight inside the rear of the bolt carrier. The weight has a spring loaded detent ball, which engages two depressions; one at each end of the weight's travel inside the carrier. When the carrier moves forward, the weight is in its rearward position. When the carrier comes to a stop, the detent unlocks and the weight moves forward and trips the auto sear. That slight delay is what slows the rate of fire.

**MegademiC** · 04-27-17, 21:53

At the end of the day, we should focus on the parts, not analogies (even though I love them).

It's not a wheel,it's a gas key. Why is it staked? Probably because it's easy, cheap, and requires no extra parts. Will something else work? Sure, but if I never remove it, is it a benefit?

Staking a lug nut is detrimental, but I know you know that.

**JC5188** · 04-28-17, 07:16

Originally Posted by Kdubya

This is a point that I was trying to get at. Even if it works just as well, or better, it's not an easy sell to the die-hard TDP and mil-spec crowd. Just look at something like loctited over staked castle nuts. I've seen in one breath someone say that they're are a royal PITA to get off; that it can be even more difficult to remove than a staked version. Then in another breath the same person suggest that the lack of staking is reason to not trust a particular rifle; inferring unstaked castle nuts will frequently come loose.

We could debate what the "right" or "best" method will be for a particular application. With the Castle Nut example, staked is the method most would allege as "correct". Having seen that assertion, it's typically more because of the difficulty in removing a loctited CN. The point of a CN is to ensure the RE remains adequately mated to the upper. Loctite seems to do that pretty well, so it's kind of ridiculous to get all up in arms over an unstaked CN. Whether Loctite or Staking, the RE stays engaged, and it can be taken off if necessary. Both accomplish the end goal.

While not an absolute 1:1 comparison to the BCG in question, the sentiment is pretty much the same. If the gas key stays attached, the method for achieving that result is fairly insignificant. Still, no matter how much evidence, some will be unwilling to accept a viable alternative.

Frankly, if these fasteners truly act as advertised, I'd probably say it's an improvement. It's more efficient, eliminates an element of the production, and may mitigate user error. As I stated in an earlier post, I don't think the complete BCG will do all that well. But, they might be on to something with the fasteners.

It's not an improvement if the result is the same, while adding parts to the supply chain and inventory. Also adding cost to the assembly (BCG).

This is something that is often overlooked...products (well engineered ones anyway) are designed with manufacturing capabilities in mind.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**militarymoron** · 04-28-17, 16:18

I was wondering to myself what value this type of carrier might add, as when it's installed in a rifle, the carrier and buffer are essentially one reciprocating unit, so any 'tuning' can be done with the buffer weights and spring. However, I think that this design might have a niche application for non-standard PDW buffer system with shortened buffers. The PDW shortened buffers don't have the same internal space or travel for the weights inside to reciprocate, so utilizing the empty space at the rear of the carrier to house a reciprocating weight might help supplement the shorter/lighter buffer. This might also help address carrier bounce issues on full auto with PDW-type buffer systems. Just a thought.