A5 does not mean "heavy" stocks. The same stock bodies that fit a normal mil-spec receiver extension will also fit the A5 extension.Originally Posted by dpaqu
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Member
A5 does not mean "heavy" stocks. The same stock bodies that fit a normal mil-spec receiver extension will also fit the A5 extension.
Senior Member
The stock does not impact the cyclic mass or the spring.
Former Member
No, but the overall weight of the gun will make for less felt recoil.
When I get around to testing the A5 to get quantifiable numbers I'll be eliminating that aspect.
Senior Member
Yeah, your testing will be good.
In this instance though most points of comparison are between a CAR RE and the A5 RE with the same stock. The difference in weight is close to moot and I think a full mag vs a half empty mag presents more of a concern at that point.
Former Member
Slightly off topic...
One of the things we see over and over again, on this site and others, is people tainting their comparisons.
"I was faster with this optic"
"were the guns identical"
"no, one was my buddy's gun"
"how was it different"
"it had a brake on it and..."
or
"I was more accurate with this barrel"
"were the guns identical"
"no, one was my buddy's gun"
"how was it different"
"his had a 4x optic on it and mine had an ML3"
I don't know if people don't know, or don't care, that these kinds of "tests" are virtually useless. At the very least it would be nice if they disclosed them when they offered up their one-line opinions. The excuse of "I don't have time to type all of that" is not valid. Hold your tongue (fingers?) until you do have time and post a complete, useful, opinion.
("you" used in the generic, not directed at YOU)
So with this buffer system it may well matter if the shooter has a CAR stock or an Emod on the receiver extension.
Senior Member
The system has been tested "a la Madre" by the Marines already.
More so than any of our ammo budgets would allow. What are we missing???
"What would a $2,000 Geissele Super Duty do that a $500 PSA door buster on Black Friday couldn't do?" - Stopsign32v
Senior Member
Prime example of this is triggers. People run a bunch of drills when the start and establish a baseline performance with a stock carbine and few gizmos. They take piles of training and then buy a bunch of useless shit. They then run the old drills and smoke them. Instantly it is the gear that made them faster and more accurate, not the fact that they trained away most of their flaws.
Muzzle break test with an accelerometer, will also be able to compare felt recoil of different buffers/springs.
And in regards to the Marines testing... Often times their testing is not set up to test stuff you or I might be concerned with, just what they are concerned with. I am unaware if the details and thought processes are outlined anywhere for public consumption.
I do know that when people get wild ideas they overlook too many important details in favor of minutia, I don't expect different here.
Last edited by orionz06; 01-06-12 at 08:34.
Senior Member
Oh snap! You're going all mythbusters on it!
I've thought about changing the spring that came with my A5. It bothers me that it doesn't look like the USGI SS spring.
"What would a $2,000 Geissele Super Duty do that a $500 PSA door buster on Black Friday couldn't do?" - Stopsign32v
Senior Member
Rob is the one doing the testing. I would love the budget to do some of the testing and tinkering people have been doing as of late. Too much stuff is being missed and skipped when they dive into stuff and try to prove/disprove things.
Senior Member
I'm pretty sure you don't need the spacer, the extra length of the a5 buffer shouldn't matter much regarding spring compression or buffer travel, while a spacer will change spring compression compared to a real a5.The true genius in the A5 system is in the concept, not necessarily the execution. I have duplicated the performance of A5 parts using readily available pieces, with the exception of a home-made spacer.
You see, the A5 buffer tube is nothing more than a slightly modified AR-10 carbine tube. The internal and external dimensions are comparable. In fact, you have choices using other than Vltor tubes. An Armalite tube can be used with mil-spec stocks and a RR LAR-8 tube will work with commercial stocks. I have used both.
My current iteration consists of an Armailte AR-10 buffer tube, an H3 carbine buffer, a rifle spring, and a spacer made from UHMW plastic. Since the AR-10 tubes have the same approximate internal dimension as the A5, the spacer(make sure the spacer fits inside the spring so it doesn't compress the spring) only has to be made long enough to make up the difference in the internal measurement of an AR-15 carbine tube and either 7.62 carbine tube. Voila, an A5 comparable system using some of the parts you may already have.
Now, some are going to scream to the heavens about the use of a spacer in the buffer tube. Well, I screwed mine to the bottom of the tube via the vent hole and then drilled new vent holes in the bottom of the tube. All I ended up doing was shortening the depth of the tube, which Vltor did with a longer buffer. Oh, the spacer could be made from almost any kind of round stock, Delrin, UHMW, aluminum, or even steel.
The one advantage the A5 system has over what I did, is the availability of buffers heavier than the H3, which for me is a non-problem, since I don't require anything heavier.
I know some of you are going to decry this idea, but it's working on two different carbines of mine, and in the end, that's all I care about. That, and the money I saved.
ETA: You see, the entire reasoning behind the A5 system was to be able to use the rifle spring in a carbine stock setup, nothing more.
Although if your spacer is slim enough that the buffer spring fits in the tube around the spacer, I imagine all you did by adding it was add some mass to the back of your weapon.
Or maybe I'm going crazy from all the meds I'm on.
"I never learned from a man who agreed with me." Robert A. Heinlein
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks