vltor a5 system or jp silent captured spring?

[tom12.7]

That's quite a statement to say guns with a carbine receiver extension don't have the time available to function properly. You should tell the Army, they'll be shocked to know their M4s don't function properly. The A5 presents some improvements, as the Super 42 does, but there's millions of guns that work absolutely fine with carbine receiver extensions.

You misread, and I am very well aware of the changes for the M4 types of systems. I only cited above one example out of many issues.
For the cited example above, "Would you prefer the 30 round magazine with the traditional black follower for an M4?" It worked well enough for the M16/M16A1, what changed to make that a priority? Or look at why we have M4 feed ramps to begin with? The transition of a round from the magazine to the chamber is a more bumpy ride with the M4 ramps. "Why would we choose M4 feed ramps then?"
There are many more examples to look at beyond what was posted, that was just one issue.

[GeneralPurpose]

You misread, and I am very well aware of the changes for the M4 types of systems. I only cited above one example out of many issues.
For the cited example above, "Would you prefer the 30 round magazine with the traditional black follower for an M4?" It worked well enough for the M16/M16A1, what changed to make that a priority? Or look at why we have M4 feed ramps to begin with? The transition of a round from the magazine to the chamber is a more bumpy ride with the M4 ramps. "Why would we choose M4 feed ramps then?"
There are many more examples to look at beyond what was posted, that was just one issue.

Understood. The A5 appears to be an improvement over the standard carbine receiver extension, but I think there's a tendency for people to overlook the fact that the carbine receiver extension and collapsible stock have been around for over 50 years and were working fantastically before the A5 showed up. It would be one thing if carbines were plagued with issues and the A5 fixed them.

[tom12.7]

Understood. The A5 appears to be an improvement over the standard carbine receiver extension, but I think there's a tendency for people to overlook the fact that the carbine receiver extension and collapsible stock have been around for over 50 years and were working fantastically before the A5 showed up. It would be one thing if carbines were plagued with issues and the A5 fixed them.

You are lost. When has the rifle like lower been a dis-advantage in function of the base system compared to the carbine one as a base system overall?
There's more than a few things going on here.
I'd rather enjoy dinner with my wife, educate yourself, goodbye.

[GeneralPurpose]

You are lost. When has the rifle like lower been a dis-advantage in function of the base system compared to the carbine one as a base system overall?
There's more than a few things going on here.
I'd rather enjoy dinner with my wife, educate yourself, goodbye.

Aaand you prove my point. The A5 zealots never cease to amaze me, reading things into statements that were never there. Where did I say anything that's incorrect? Educate yourself, your reading skills and your personal skills leave a lot to be desired.

ETA: You're too busy arguing to realize that I agreed with you. The A5 is an improvement. Woo-hoo, after about 10,000 rounds the only failures I've had are from using non-USGI magazines and a firing pin whose tip chipped off after several thousand rounds. People act like if you don't have an A5, you're going to die an unglorious death on the two-way range on your way to Taco Bell.

[opngrnd]

Aaand you prove my point. The A5 zealots never cease to amaze me, reading things into statements that were never there. Where did I say anything that's incorrect? Educate yourself, your reading skills and your personal skills leave a lot to be desired.

ETA: You're too busy arguing to realize that I agreed with you.

You're missing his point. He never stated the regular ol' carbine length RE set up isn't functional. Just that (to sum it up) the A5 is a better system for a variety of reasons, timing being one of them.
It took quite some time, huge money, and plenty of research to get the carbine RE setup/buffer/gas porting/ammo combo set up optimally in what became the M4, but the rifle length set up began with those things, and the A5 is an improved version of the rifle length system. There's nothing wrong with the carbine RE when set up properly with the rest of the components of the overall weapon (gas system, gas port size, etc). But the A5 does it all and for the most part, does it better. As far as timing, especially in the configurations we're issued them, the M4/M4A1 would only benefit from the A5 system and the appropriate A5 buffer, and empirical data backs this claim, as does advice from high level trainers (Mike Pannone, in my case).

[tom12.7]

Ha! ,i've done that.

[GeneralPurpose]

You're missing his point. He never stated the regular ol' carbine length RE set up isn't functional. Just that (to sum it up) the A5 is a better system for a variety of reasons, timing being one of them.
It took quite some time, huge money, and plenty of research to get the carbine RE setup/buffer/gas porting/ammo combo set up optimally in what became the M4, but the rifle length set up began with those things, and the A5 is an improved version of the rifle length system. There's nothing wrong with the carbine RE when set up properly with the rest of the components of the overall weapon (gas system, gas port size, etc). But the A5 does it all and for the most part, does it better. As far as timing, especially in the configurations we're issued them, the M4/M4A1 would only benefit from the A5 system and the appropriate A5 buffer, and empirical data backs this claim, as does advice from high level trainers (Mike Pannone, in my case).

Yes, I know. And I agree. But you're missing my point: If everyone was having problems with carbine RE equipped guns for the last 50 years, nobody would be using them. Everyone would using rifle RE setups.

Improvements are great. I love 'em. But if you can shoot 10,000 rounds without a failure on a suppressed 10.5" AR, including a lot of full auto, and never have a failure...it's tough to have a strong desire for improvements that, frankly, will go unnoticed. For the military, of course that incremental improvement is worth it. For everyone else, probably not going to make a tangible difference.

I'd like Geissele to make a Super 42 for the A5 so I could have both. I shoot with my stock out one position anyway.

The OP's chief complaint is spring noise. The A5 does not address this. The Super 42 does, and it's drop-in. For the OP's priorities, the Super 42 is the clear winner over the A5.

[99HMC4]

https://armamentusa.com

[Shiz]

I have a VLTOR a5 in 3 of mine with Damage Industries chrome silicon rifle spring. No noticeable spring noise, softer recoil, and slows the action down.

[HKGuns]

Aaand you prove my point. The A5 zealots never cease to amaze me, reading things into statements that were never there. Where did I say anything that's incorrect? Educate yourself, your reading skills and your personal skills leave a lot to be desired.

ETA: You're too busy arguing to realize that I agreed with you. The A5 is an improvement. Woo-hoo, after about 10,000 rounds the only failures I've had are from using non-USGI magazines and a firing pin whose tip chipped off after several thousand rounds. People act like if you don't have an A5, you're going to die an unglorious death on the two-way range on your way to Taco Bell.

What exactly is an A5 Zealot? Is it different than a Carbine Zealot?