Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: A controversial statement..discuss

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    N. Alabama
    Posts
    2,048
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)

    A controversial statement..discuss

    My belief is that the AR-15 buffer should functionally be considered part of the Upper Receiver Assembly, and NOT the Lower Receiver Assembly. Although structurally, that is where it is located, the appropriate buffer to be used is directly based on barrel length, gas system length, gas port size, bolt/carrier configuration etc. ie, everything about the upper.

    I've notice a tendency over the years of people thinking that the buffer is just there to smooth out the recoil impulse. As if they pick the upper they want then choose the buffer that gives them the mildest felt recoil. You choose the buffer that provides reliability under your needed environmental conditions, with your given upper and given ammo (or varieties of ammo).

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,799
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    I agree that the buffer is part of the whole system, gas flow, spring rate and reciprocating mass. To your point, I see people asking what buffer they should use with a carbine, or middy, or rifle gas system, without taking into account gas port diameter.

    I recently viewed a Chris Bartocci (sp?) video about buffers. He talked about how buffers are important to controlling carrier bounce. In that video, he claimed that during testing, Colt found that heavier barrels gave more bolt bounce. Buffers are clearly an integral part of the system, not just a means to softer recoil.
    The number of folks on my Full Of Shit list grows everyday

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Free State of Nebraska
    Posts
    5,441
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM Engineer View Post
    My belief is that the AR-15 buffer should functionally be considered part of the Upper Receiver Assembly, and NOT the Lower Receiver Assembly. Although structurally, that is where it is located, the appropriate buffer to be used is directly based on barrel length, gas system length, gas port size, bolt/carrier configuration etc. ie, everything about the upper.

    I've notice a tendency over the years of people thinking that the buffer is just there to smooth out the recoil impulse. As if they pick the upper they want then choose the buffer that gives them the mildest felt recoil. You choose the buffer that provides reliability under your needed environmental conditions, with your given upper and given ammo (or varieties of ammo).


    Correct assessment.
    "Not every thing on Earth requires an aftermarket upgrade." demigod/markm

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    799
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Who knows, who cares. The buffer impacts multiple functions of the rifle. To a small extent some influence of felt recoil can be introduced into the system with the buffer without negatively impacting overall function and operation, thus some folks take advantage of swapping buffers to their liking. You're an actual engineer up in Huntsville or Madison County aren't you?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    AZ-Waging jihad against crappy AR's.
    Posts
    24,900
    Feedback Score
    104 (100%)
    In my course, I basically teach students that the buffer choice (which in some cases has already been established for us) is based upon the gas system type, barrel length and gas port size. One must also factor in the type of ammo. BCG is more or less moot unless you are using something non standard.



    Owner/Instructor at Semper Paratus Arms

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SemperParatusArms/

    Semper Paratus Arms AR15 Armorer Course http://www.semperparatusarms.com/cou...-registration/

    M4C Misc. Training and Course Announcements- http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=141

    Master Armorer/R&D at SIONICS Weapon Systems- http://sionicsweaponsystems.com

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    364
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MistWolf View Post
    I agree that the buffer is part of the whole system, gas flow, spring rate and reciprocating mass. To your point, I see people asking what buffer they should use with a carbine, or middy, or rifle gas system, without taking into account gas port diameter.

    I recently viewed a Chris Bartocci (sp?) video about buffers. He talked about how buffers are important to controlling carrier bounce. In that video, he claimed that during testing, Colt found that heavier barrels gave more bolt bounce. Buffers are clearly an integral part of the system, not just a means to softer recoil.
    Colt started using H2 with the SOCOM barrel IIRC.
    As others stated ammo, gas port and weather conditions (i.e. low temps) play a significant roll in the selection process for weapon reliability reasons. Civilian end users more tailor their selection to less felt recoil.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    8,703
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by LMT/556 View Post
    Colt started using H2 with the SOCOM barrel IIRC.
    As others stated ammo, gas port and weather conditions (i.e. low temps) play a significant roll in the selection process for weapon reliability reasons. Civilian end users more tailor their selection to less felt recoil.
    That's interesting. I never even paid any attention to the buffer type on my Colt 6721. I was happy with its better accuracy than the 6920 and never stopped to think about the barrel weight maybe affecting ammo reliability, bolt carrier bounce, etc.

    Any idea what year they started using the H2 buffer with the SOCOM barrel?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    364
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    No idea, my understanding is an H2 was standard with Colt 921HB.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    317
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Glockster View Post
    That's interesting. I never even paid any attention to the buffer type on my Colt 6721. I was happy with its better accuracy than the 6920 and never stopped to think about the barrel weight maybe affecting ammo reliability, bolt carrier bounce, etc.

    Any idea what year they started using the H2 buffer with the SOCOM barrel?
    BCG bounce is only an issue on full auto. They used H2's with the SOCOM barrel because the barrel is heavier, which makes the BCG bounce more, the H1 doesn't have enough mass to stop the increased bounce with the SOCOM barrel. If they didn't use H2's the issue of hammer follow would arise (the sole reason for free-moving weights in the buffer, actually), which isn't a good thing when you're shooting full auto.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    512
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Artiz View Post
    BCG bounce is only an issue on full auto. They used H2's with the SOCOM barrel because the barrel is heavier, which makes the BCG bounce more, the H1 doesn't have enough mass to stop the increased bounce with the SOCOM barrel. If they didn't use H2's the issue of hammer follow would arise (the sole reason for free-moving weights in the buffer, actually), which isn't a good thing when you're shooting full auto.

    This^

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •