A5 Annecdotes backed up with something other than "Feel"?

[Noodles]

Hey, so I'm looking into the A5 system and it's intended use on an SPR and a 12.5", both suppressed and not.

Does anyone have an reports that have some basis in proof or fact. I see a LOT of people writing "Oh, it definitely feels better" or "Oh, it's much more reliable".

I'm specifically interested in reportable metrics, like suppressed and unsuppressed my brass is landing 3 and 2 o'clock respectively. Or if anyone can comment on the amount of gas they are getting back on them (please mention what silencer you use). Or if anyone has cyclic rates suppressed and non, etc.

I'm not sold on the system by a long shot, I have a "feeling" a lot of the overwhelming reviews could be that the guy just paid $100+ to switch the RE out and really does want to "feel" a difference. Happens every single day with performance automotive parts, so I suspect it's possible with firearms as well. I'm also not discounting it or saying it's shit, quite the opposite, I just want to see real data. I find it interesting Vltor has put none forward on a DI gun.

Anyone?

[rob_s]

I have some ideas about how to do this, but need to get the parts moved around and try out my idea.

[Noodles]

I have some ideas about how to do this, but need to get the parts moved around and try out my idea.

Rob that would be really great!!! I already take your word higher than most so I'd be all about seeing what you have knocking around.

I'd also be interested to see a military Mk12 or Mk18 with the A5 kit, I'll start googling for that.

[Snake Plissken]

http://youtu.be/m7IoXcLm_2g

[Noodles]

http://youtu.be/m7IoXcLm_2g

That's not a bad one, thanks. The only interesting part was the high speed of the 16" carbine with a .1" gas port. That's awesome it didn't bounce, but without knowing cyclic rate doesn't really mean anything. Still good to see though.

[rob_s]

That's not a bad one, thanks. The only interesting part was the high speed of the 16" carbine with a .1" gas port. That's awesome it didn't bounce, but without knowing cyclic rate doesn't really mean anything. Still good to see though.

I agree. That seemed to be the only real "data point" in the video. I don't know how one defines "more reliable" when starting at 100%.

[JohnnyC]

I'd be interested to see a MTBF chart of an A5, standard carbine RE and buffer, standard carbine RE and H/H2 buffers. I have a feeling it would be pretty expensive to test.

[Failure2Stop]

USMC did a test comparing A2, A5, and carbine recoil systems.
The data indicated that the A5 was the most reliable of all tested systems. As the data has not been publicly released it is hard to determine the exact testing parameters or data relevance.

http://www.vltor.com/emod-a5.html

[Iraqgunz]

Did it ever occur to you to read the A5 thread that is probably over 30 pages? Though I suppose that everyone who had something good to say was probably full of shit in your eyes.

[Noodles]

Did it ever occur to you to read the A5 thread that is probably over 30 pages? Though I suppose that everyone who had something good to say was probably full of shit in your eyes.

I looked over that thread, then started this one. Do you have any metrics or interesting annecdotes that are objective and on topic?

[Iraqgunz]

I base my opinions on the system after actual usage not some scientific data that says xxx should equal y2.

The others who have used the A5 are probably doing the same thing.

When I take an A5 lower and run it with 4 different uppers of various length and it runs using the same ammo and mags I call that a success.

No more changing springs, buffers, etc...When I did my brief full auto test again I could FEEL the difference. That is more important to me. YMMV


I looked over that thread, then started this one. Do you have any metrics or interesting annecdotes that are objective and on topic?

[interfan]

There was a report done by Crane on the A5 system called "Detailed Test Report For Reliability Comparison of M16A4, M16A4 with H6 Buffer, and M16A4 with Vltor Stock Assembly"

NSW Crane found it to be more reliable, documented the results, and published a report. If you're looking for scientific data, google the report. The PDF is probably still floating around somewhere.

[rob_s]

USMC did a test comparing A2, A5, and carbine recoil systems.
The data indicated that the A5 was the most reliable of all tested systems. As the data has not been publicly released it is hard to determine the exact testing parameters or data relevance.

http://www.vltor.com/emod-a5.html


There was a report done by Crane on the A5 system called "Detailed Test Report For Reliability Comparison of M16A4, M16A4 with H6 Buffer, and M16A4 with Vltor Stock Assembly"

NSW Crane found it to be more reliable, documented the results, and published a report. If you're looking for scientific data, google the report. The PDF is probably still floating around somewhere.

When I google that title all I get is this thread, and if it's the same report F2S seems to indicate that it's not public anyway.

and, perhaps pointing out the obvious, but what works on a 20" M16 for the USMC may or may not be relevant to what works on a 10.5-16" commercial AR in the hands of an average Joe.

I'm NOT dismissing the A5, although those who have used their mk1mod0 shoulder to test it like to think I am, but like the OP and unlike some of those "testers" I'd like to have actual data. While I don't think just the eggheads should be designing things (that's how you wind up with 300 wtf) and should have shooter input, you can't rely on what someone tells you they "feel" either.

[Iraqgunz]

Is it totally necessary to understand everything in life? I am just curious because it seems like lots of people accept things at face value all the time.

Have you ever tried an A5? The point that was being made in regards to the 20" M16 is that the system works across the board.

I have used it on 16", 14.5", 11.5", 12.5" and 10.5" uppers and they have all functioned 100 percent.


When I google that title all I get is this thread, and if it's the same report F2S seems to indicate that it's not public anyway.

and, perhaps pointing out the obvious, but what works on a 20" M16 for the USMC may or may not be relevant to what works on a 10.5-16" commercial AR in the hands of an average Joe.

I'm NOT dismissing the A5, although those who have used their mk1mod0 shoulder to test it like to think I am, but like the OP and unlike some of those "testers" I'd like to have actual data. While I don't think just the eggheads should be designing things (that's how you wind up with 300 wtf) and should have shooter input, you can't rely on what someone tells you they "feel" either.

[rob_s]

Is it totally necessary to understand everything in life? I am just curious because it seems like lots of people accept things at face value all the time.
So because everyone else is content to simply "accept", we all should dumb ourselves down to that level? Idiocracy here we come!

I find it odd that we're being expected to simply "accept" and that the request for more data is being shouted down. Is there some kind of concern that the numbers won't match the shoulders? If the shoulder guys are so certain of their results I imagine that no amount of data is going to sway them anyway, or they'll simply snipe the results, so what's the harm in asking for, and producing, that data for those that may find it interesting?

If you're happy with the A5 and a true believer, why do you care what the rest of us do or want? If I tell you I tried it and didn't notice any improvement to justify the added cost, does that somehow reduce the "facts" of your own experience? Or is it just that asshole rob being an asshole again? Seems to be the standard method of dismissing whatever I say when people don't like it.


Have you ever tried an A5? The point that was being made in regards to the 20" M16 is that the system works across the board.
Yes, I have. I know that goes against the whole "anyone who tries one will be instantly converted" sort of "face value" we're all supposed to just "accept". I have 1019 rounds on one, which I understand is not a lot however I bet it's more than 90% of the people in the picture thread combined.


I have used it on 16", 14.5", 11.5", 12.5" and 10.5" uppers and they have all functioned 100 percent.

and I assume they were all choking and puking all over right up until then?

[Scoby]

Rob that would be really great!!! I already take your word higher than most so I'd be all about seeing what you have knocking around.

I'd also be interested to see a military Mk12 or Mk18 with the A5 kit, I'll start googling for that.


You seem to readily take one persons word for something and not the other. Why is that when rob and gunz both offer lots of real experience concerning ARs?

If someone is using this system and it functions 100% for them and the recoil impulse "feels" right in their mind, why should that opinion be discounted just because there is no hard "data" along with it. Especially when it is coming from someone "in the know".

Why don't you just spend the $100 on a A5 and try it for yourself instead of arguing over something that is subjective in nature?

[jonconsiglio]

I've been an advocate of the A5 since it was first released and I put a few hundred rounds through one. It's not just about "FEEL". It's about what one has experienced. I think many are missing the point of the A5, it's not about softer recoil, it's about reliability and consistency.

I have probably well over 20,000 rounds through rifles with the A5, both suppressed and not as well as cheap steel cased ammo to OTM. Most of those rounds were through an LMT 10.5", KAC SR15, Colt 16" and BCM 14.5" mid length. Other than the 14.5" mid length, I noticed a difference in performance.

I have seen the difference it makes with certain rifles. I have seen the consistency from upper to upper, with and without a suppressor. This is all I need to know there's an advantage in using the A5.

The people that understand the difference between a rifle RE and carbine RE will understand the A5's benefits a little easier. I can tell you that I saw a more noticeable difference in consistency on my 10.5" with and without a suppressor and with different ammo than I did on the SR15's. At the same time, I saw some things I didn't like with the standard A5 buffer when using it on my 14.5" mid length. It slowed the carrier a bit too much. Lightening the buffer by one tungsten did the trick, but running a carbine RE and H buffer did it even better… which happens to be the recommended setup by BCM.

For most, I don't think it'll make much difference. For some though, it might be a benefit, especially if you have multiple uppers, shoot al different types of ammo, run suppressors occasionally but only use one or two different lowers. I know when I travel out of state, I'll take a couple uppers and a suppressor, but occasionally take only one lower. Sure, it'll likely run fine with a carbine RE, but it feels more consistent with the A5.

Now, I'd like to see some data just to see how it compares to what I've experienced, but I don't need that data to know it works for me on my rifles. If Rob did some testing, I'd really like to see how consistent carrier velocities are with different variables compared to a carbine RE.

At the same time, I will not discount the opinions and experiences of educated shooters. There are certain people on this forum, and other forums, that when they post, I listen. I don't immediately take everything as fact, but when you get experienced shooters posting the same experiences, then maybe they're on to something.

EDIT - Rob, my Yahoo has been having problems for a few weeks or so. If you email me, it's the same address, just gmail instead of Yahoo for now until I get it fixed.

[Todd.K]

A5 and rifle had a lower cyclic rate change with different power ammo vs carbine in some testing I did.

[Scoby]

Good post jon

I recently installed the A5 on a lower and have only run it on a 14.5" midlength. It is intended for a 11.5" SBR I have in the works.

Only have about 100 rds through it including some suppressed. Don't have enough time or rounds on it to offer any kind of opinion. Ran fine.
What I did notice was a spring "sprong" kinda noise when shooting suppressed. Anyone else experience this? Why would it be doing this?

[Noodles]

A5 and rifle had a lower cyclic rate change with different power ammo vs carbine in some testing I did.

Thank you for your input. I take yours a little higher than most knowing you have the tools to test such things.

Did it lower the cyclic rate enough to reduce or negate the benifits of an adjustable gas system in your test or in your opinion any given scenario? Knowing full well the answer to that could be a conflict of interest for you. If you don't want to answer that, instead, do you see a scenario where the A5 could come stock on Noveske weapons?

[Noodles]

You seem to readily take one persons word for something and not the other. Why is that when rob and gunz both offer lots of real experience concerning ARs?


Because in this case Rob_s seems to understand that overwhelming opinion does not make for an unquestionable product. Gunz says data doesn't matter and it's "feels" better. I would rather see some data. The whole idea above that "it's just better, you dot need data" is insane to me. I am a researcher, it does not compute to me. I see that rob is also a researcher, after seeing his posts throughout the years and his site, I know he puts in the due dillegence.

And I am taking issue with anyone saying this is "more reliable" WITHOUT also saying how. 99% of M4C posters here are on the Colt, DD, BCM, Noveske, etc are "100% reliable" train. Well... Either they are and adding the A5 will make no difference at all, or they are not in which case isn't it curious none of those mfgs offer the A5 setup? (afaik)

The A5 could be great, but I would like something better than someone's subjective opinion of feel. Do you want to see proof or listen to fanboys and haters?

[Noodles]

Jon, those are good annecdotes and helpful. I'd like to see what you find for brass locations (which has been a fairly reliable indicator for me in the past), and what you think about gassing on SBRs when suppressed. But overall a helpful review, thanks.

[wahoo95]

Why don't you just try it. If you dint like it you can sell it and get your money back. I tried it and didn't like it so I sold it....no scientific test needed.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[Scoby]

Because in this case Rob_s seems to understand that overwhelming opinion does not make for an unquestionable product.

I don't recall anyone saying the A5 was a "unquestionable product" Noodles.

What has been stated by many is that it worked well for them and was reliable. I am sure there are some that don't see any benifit from the system. Who knows....I may be one of them when it is all said and done.

Data is fine and in some instances necessary to make an evaluation of a product. I don't see this as one of them.

You and rob go crunch some numbers. I'll go shoot the thing, see if it functions, see how good it "feels", make a determination on whether I like it or not and then go clean my gun while you guys scratch your heads wondering what all that data shit really means.

[Failure2Stop]

Jon, those are good annecdotes and helpful. I'd like to see what you find for brass locations (which has been a fairly reliable indicator for me in the past), and what you think about gassing on SBRs when suppressed. But overall a helpful review, thanks.

All data indicates that brass ejection pattern is only useful in diagnosing issues when the numerous other indicators will tell you just as much.


Why don't you just try it. If you dint like it you can sell it and get your money back. I tried it and didn't like it so I sold it....no scientific test needed.


Can you talk on this a bit more?
Curious as to what didn't work for you.
Not trying to poke holes, just looking for information.

I see no problem with backing up physical perception and observation with real data, or vice versa.
I got an A5 to try out for functional reasons and found that I liked the shootability of the system as well.
Considering that I didn't have any issues with function before I put it on, I can't really say that it has improved anything, but it doesn't seem to have hurt, though that is hardly a compelling reason for anyone else to buy one.

[Iraqgunz]

rob,

I don't care if you like it or not, nor am I asking you to "dumb yourself down" as you put it.

I also sold all of my stock in Vltor so there is no financial incentive for me either. :rolleyes:. I am simply sharing my experience with the A5 which is probably over 4K rounds maybe closer to 5. Suppressed and unsuppressed with multiple ammunition types.

Maybe you and Noodles can join forces on your anti-300BLK/A5 crusade.

As I stated before. I don't care for scientific BS. What I care about is what is it doing for me. For me it does the following;

1. Allows me to use various uppers on the same lower.

2. It smoothes out the cycling and recoil of the weapon.

3. Allows me stay on target and (IMO) allows for faster follow up shots.

JM2CWYMMV

I also put a lot of stock in the opinions of Robb Jensen because I know how much he puts down range.


So because everyone else is content to simply "accept", we all should dumb ourselves down to that level? Idiocracy here we come!

I find it odd that we're being expected to simply "accept" and that the request for more data is being shouted down. Is there some kind of concern that the numbers won't match the shoulders? If the shoulder guys are so certain of their results I imagine that no amount of data is going to sway them anyway, or they'll simply snipe the results, so what's the harm in asking for, and producing, that data for those that may find it interesting?

If you're happy with the A5 and a true believer, why do you care what the rest of us do or want? If I tell you I tried it and didn't notice any improvement to justify the added cost, does that somehow reduce the "facts" of your own experience? Or is it just that asshole rob being an asshole again? Seems to be the standard method of dismissing whatever I say when people don't like it.


Yes, I have. I know that goes against the whole "anyone who tries one will be instantly converted" sort of "face value" we're all supposed to just "accept". I have 1019 rounds on one, which I understand is not a lot however I bet it's more than 90% of the people in the picture thread combined.



and I assume they were all choking and puking all over right up until then?

[Noodles]

Why don't you just try it. If you dint like it you can sell it and get your money back. I tried it and didn't like it so I sold it....no scientific test needed.


You started a post asking about an AR Gold Trigger... Why didn't you just buy one and if you didn't like it, sell it? Crowd sourcing opinions, stories, and proof is why these forums are here.

[wahoo95]

You started a post asking about an AR Gold Trigger... Why didn't you just buy one and if you didn't like it, sell it? Crowd sourcing opinions, stories, and proof is why these forums are here.

I started that thread to see if the trigger proved reliable with 223, 9mm, and. 22 since I shoot all three calibers from ones lower. Wasn't looking for nothing more than opinions which aren't good enough for you based on this thread. I did buy an AR Gold trigger to try......I liked it but I didn't work with my 9mm so I sold it and got all of my money back.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[justin_247]

I do not dispute the users of the A5 system that it works well for their purposes.

However, I second Rob's call for more data. Does anybody have a copy of the cited Crane report?

For those with BCM 14.5" mid-length uppers and KAC SR-15 intermediate uppers, I can understand why the A5 might not work so well for them. Those uppers were specifically designed and tuned with a carbine buffer system in mind.

[Scoby]

Kinda...sorta back on topic.

In a previous post I had mentioned a "sprong" noise when shooting the A5 suppressed.

Anybody experience this? Gunz? jon?

[Hmac]

I believe in the scientific method. In the case of my A5, however, I bought in based on a preponderance of subjective evidence. The money was relatively trivial. The installation was completely trivial. In my subjective opinion, it helped my shooting with no downside or compromise. It would be mildly interesting to see objective data and I acknowledge that might be useful or comforting to some people, but given my subjective experience with the system, that has passed over into the realm of mental masturbation for me.

[Noodles]

Maybe you and Noodles can join forces on your anti-300BLK/A5 crusade.


No, I like 300blk. And I haven't made up my mind on the A5 system. My gripe is that no mfgs are using it, and Vltor has put forward shit for actual data on it. Right now, it's the same as those hydrolic buffers until I can see some proof otherwise. Not writing it off, but I'm not going to just take popular opinion for it.



As I stated before. I don't care for scientific BS.


That figuratively kills me a little, literally makes me face palm. Do what you like, but I try to have an understanding of what I'm doing, using, how it works, if it was worth the money, and what my other options are. I treat buying guns, parts, TVs, cars, and food all scientifically, it works for me.



1. Allows me to use various uppers on the same lower.
2. It smoothes out the cycling and recoil of the weapon.
3. Allows me stay on target and (IMO) allows for faster follow up shots.
JM2CWYMMV


How can you prove those are not completely psychological, all in your head? (big question, please answer)

I'd like some data because it removes "feel" from the story.

[jonconsiglio]

Jon, those are good annecdotes and helpful. I'd like to see what you find for brass locations (which has been a fairly reliable indicator for me in the past), and what you think about gassing on SBRs when suppressed. But overall a helpful review, thanks.

Like F2S, the location of the brass means little to me, so it's not something I pay attention to unless there's more going on.

On the other hand, the distance the brass travels does give me some idea if I'm working with the right combination, like if the brass is dribbling out or is flung 20 feet.

What I have found with the ejection using the A5 is the consistency again. The ejection is strong regardless of the combination.

I've used the A5 with my 10.5" LMT quite a bit, as well as a few others ranging from 7.5" to 12.5". What I've noticed with my 10.5" is that using the A5, it shoots very smooth. When I shoot suppressed, it makes little difference in terms of the feel and performance. If I'm using an H2 in a carbine RE, there's a noticeable difference when I add the suppressor.

Where I've noticed the most difference is with carbine gas systems that might be overgassed to begin with. Adding one to my SR15's did little in terms of the way it felt, but it did feel more consistent with different ammo types and with a suppressor.

With a 16" Colt 6720, I can instantly feel a difference in how snappy the gun feels. I don't care so much about the recoil and that's not really what I mean. What I'm referring to is the action. With the A5 there's less muzzle flip. I don't know, I guess I'm having a hard time explaining it.

If you have a rifle that is gassed right to begin with and handles well with the ammo you shoot most, you might not see much difference. In my 14.5" mid length I use an H buffer. It handles all types of ammo well and runs strong suppressed. It works so I'm not going to use the A5 like I did at first.

I hope that's making sense. Over the past year and so many months with the A5, I've put a lot of rounds through those rifles and know them very well. I've seen the subtle differences the A5 makes. I might not run out and buy more, but I'm glad I have the ones I do.

[kartoffel]

I could FEEL the difference. That is more important to me. YMMV

As I stated before. I don't care for scientific BS.

If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

[Noodles]

I believe in the scientific method. In the case of my A5, however, I bought in based on a preponderance of subjective evidence. The money was relatively trivial. The installation was completely trivial. In my subjective opinion, it helped my shooting with no downside or compromise. It would be mildly interesting to see objective data and I acknowledge that might be useful or comforting to some people, but given my subjective experience with the system, that has passed over into the realm of mental masturbation for me.

I get that.

My issue with it is that this SHOULD be a complete marketing failure on Vltor's part. They have one sentence saying how Crane found it more reliable on their site but offer zero supporting claims. They have extremely limited info, relatively high prices (Come on, $60 for a buffer!?), and it's adding part uncommonality between your A5 and non-A5 weapons... but... They seem to be doing very well with it.

So why is that? How have they convinced this many people to get on board? Have they paid for word of mouth? Is it really just an obviously much better system? Is it because their name is good? Would the A5 system be doing well if Spikes made it? Or would Spikes have to go out of their way to prove it?

I see what should be a failure given the actual supporting reasons to buy it, but instead is a success. I want to make sure I do not become a sheep following the herd, and that there is an actual benefit to switching to this. For that, I'd like to see some proof.

[Noodles]

Like F2S, the location of the brass means little to me, so it's not something I pay attention to unless there's more going on.

When I shoot suppressed, it makes little difference in terms of the feel and performance. If I'm using an H2 in a carbine RE, there's a noticeable difference when I add the suppressor.


I like brass location, because it's objective. No amount of of buyers remorse or excited unscientific new toy giddiness forcing me to "feel" a difference can fake where the brass is landing. It's either all over the place, in the same place, or in two completely different places suppressed or not. It's not a great indicator, but it's one that everyone has the tools to record in an unbiased fashion if they choose to look at it.

Adding the suppressor makes little difference is actually a helpful statement. It's still feel, but I know that adding a silencer to an SBR can make a big and truly noticeable change. It's a better comment than something like softer shooting, because really, we're talking 556 here. The difference in already soft recoil to softer recoil can only be subtle at best.

[MrSmitty]

Kinda...sorta back on topic.

In a previous post I had mentioned a "sprong" noise when shooting the A5 suppressed.

Anybody experience this? Gunz? jon?

Mine is sprongy as hell. I've been running it with a Noveske 10.5" upper w/ switchblock for about 1000 rounds of M193. I have no scientific data but it has been very reliable and recoil is more manageable than I had expected it to be. Again, no data, just my .02

[Iraqgunz]

I like flirting with disaster in case that wasn't obvious.


If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

[MrSmitty]

I like brass location, because it's objective.

The combo above ejects at 2 o'clock very consistently. PMC Bronze and the handful of Tula that I've fired had no difference in ejection.

[orionz06]

I like to pair *good* testing data with actual use. The problem is we see so much bad testing or bad tests that it is often useless to bother with many of the threads.

[Failure2Stop]

I like brass location, because it's objective. No amount of of buyers remorse or excited unscientific new toy giddiness forcing me to "feel" a difference can fake where the brass is landing. It's either all over the place, in the same place, or in two completely different places suppressed or not. It's not a great indicator, but it's one that everyone has the tools to record in an unbiased fashion if they choose to look at it.


If you are looking at erratic ejection then I am more inclined to agree with you. My issue with the ejection pattern thing is when people try to diagnose by departure/pile direction.


I like to pair *good* testing data with actual use. The problem is we see so much bad testing or bad tests that it is often useless to bother with many of the threads.

Preach it brother.

[John_Burns]

Did it ever occur to you to read the A5 thread that is probably over 30 pages? Though I suppose that everyone who had something good to say was probably full of shit in your eyes.


I looked over that thread, then started this one. Do you have any metrics or interesting annecdotes that are objective and on topic?


I would rather see some data. The whole idea above that "it's just better, you dot need data" is insane to me. I am a researcher, it does not compute to me.

The A5 could be great, but I would like something better than someone's subjective opinion of feel. Do you want to see proof or listen to fanboys and haters?


Well it took me all of 58 seconds (I timed it) to go back to that A-5 thread and find real cyclic rate data. I copied the post to the bottom of this post. You might want to practice up on your researching abilities or maybe you could actually read the thread instead of just look it over.

I have a little over 10K on my A-5 and there are a few other things I like beyond lack of bolt bounce and consistency between full power 5.56 and cheaper .223 practice ammo.

I like that the extension is slightly longer. This means you have more extension in the stock when you extend the stock to shooting LOP. This adds strength to the joint and reduces the wobble at the joint.

Another point is that Vltor unquestionably makes good stuff. If you have to buy a receiver extension you know that they have not skimped on material selection and it will be properly manufactured. Having seen a receiver extension break at the thread relief from a fellow trying to mortar a stuck case out of the chamber I like to know my personal extensions are top of the line.

Not sure I would replace a carbine extension on a gun that was running great but with all the data out there I will always choose the A-5 if I need to buy an extension. The difference in cost between a good quality carbine extension, spring, H2 buffer and the A-5 setup is pretty minimal.



I have had good success with the A5 in reducing failure to feeds from recent producion over-gassed hk416's and mk262mod1 & optimized. I have noticed a bit less dot jump as well.

Do note you get increased recoil impulse, at some point, with the 416 by going to a heavier buffer.

I think VLTOR makes a few more choices in weighted buffers now & would like to try the full range available.



My results, on cyclic rate, roughly correspond with the below info I was forwarded.

H&K 416/Vltor A5 Stock System Test / Observations

Test Rifle:
H&K 416, 10.5-inch barrel
H&K 416, 14.5-inch barrel

Test Suppressor:
Gem Tech HALO

Test Ammunition:
Lake City M855, Mfg Date 2008

Test Conditions:
Clear, 75 degrees F, 5% humidity

Buffer Types/Weights:
Model Weight Construction
A5 5.3 oz (standard weight with two steel and two tungsten weights)
A5H3 6.1 oz (heavy weight with one steel and three tungsten weights)
A5A4 6.8 oz (heavy weight with four tungsten weights)

Test Data H&K 416 (10.5-inch barrel)
Below are the cycle rates as Rounds Per Minute (RPM) measured on a shot timer for the H&K 416 10.5 inch barrel configuration:

H&K 416 stock spring & buffer (unsuppressed) = 923 RPM
H&K 416 stock spring & buffer (suppressed) = 1106 RPM
H&K 416 A5 Kit (standard weight buffer) (unsuppressed) = 850 RPM
H&K 416 A5 Kit (standard weight buffer) (suppressed) = 1026 RPM
H&K 416 A5H3 Kit (specialty buffer) (unsuppressed) = 801 RPM
H&K 416 A5H3 Kit (specialty buffer) (suppressed) = 1004 RPM
H&K 416 A5H4 Kit (specialty buffer) (unsuppressed) = 774 RPM
H&K 416 A5H4 Kit (specialty buffer) (suppressed) = 973 RPM

Test Conclusions H&K 416 (10.5-inch barrel)
The test data indicates the following:

• The H&K 416 10.5-inch barrel with the stock spring & buffer exhibits a high cycle rate increase when suppressed from 923 RPM to 1106 RPM (+ 179 RPM).

• The A5 Kit (standard weight buffer) decreases the cycle time of the H&K 416 from 923 RPM to 850 RPM (- 73 RPM) unsuppressed and from 1106 RPM to 1026RPM suppressed (- 80 RPM).

• The A5H3 decreases the cycle time of the H&K 416 from 923 RPM to 801 RPM (- 122 RPM) unsuppressed and from 1106 RPM to 10046RPM suppressed (- 102 RPM).

• The A5H4 decreases the cycle time of the H&K 416 from 923 RPM to 774 RPM (- 149 RPM) unsuppressed and from 1106 RPM to 973 RPM suppressed (- 133 RPM).

Test Data H&K 416 (14.5-inch barrel)
Below are the Cycle rates as Rounds Per Minute (RPM) as measured on a shot timer for the H&K 416 14.5 inch barrel configuration:

H&K 416 stock spring & buffer (unsuppressed) = 941 RPM
H&K 416 stock spring & buffer (suppressed) = 1101 RPM
H&K 416 A5 Kit (standard weight buffer) (unsuppressed) = 819 RPM
H&K 416 A5 Kit (standard weight buffer) (suppressed) = 970 RPM
H&K 416 A5H3 Kit (specialty buffer) (unsuppressed) = 801 RPM
H&K 416 A5H3 Kit (specialty buffer) (suppressed) = 939 RPM
H&K 416 A5H4 Kit (specialty buffer) (unsuppressed) = 788 RPM
H&K 416 A5H4 Kit (specialty buffer) (suppressed) = 914 RPM

Test Conclusions H&K 416 (14.5-inch barrel)
The test data indicates the following:

• The H&K 416 14.5-inch barrel with the stock spring & buffer exhibits a high cycle rate increase when suppressed from 941 RPM to 1101 RPM (+ 160 RPM).

• The A5 Kit (standard weight buffer) decreases the cycle time of the H&K 416 from 941 RPM to 819 RPM (- 122 RPM) unsuppressed and from 1101 RPM to 970 RPM suppressed (- 131 RPM).

• The A5H3 specialty buffer decreases the cycle time of the H&K 416 from 941RPM to 801 RPM (- 140 RPM) unsuppressed and from 1101 RPM to 939 RPM suppressed (- 162 RPM).

• The A5H4 specialty buffer decreases the cycle time of the H&K 416 from 941 RPM to 788 RPM (- 153 RPM) unsuppressed and from 1101 RPM to

[jonconsiglio]

I like brass location, because it's objective. No amount of of buyers remorse or excited unscientific new toy giddiness forcing me to "feel" a difference can fake where the brass is landing. It's either all over the place, in the same place, or in two completely different places suppressed or not. It's not a great indicator, but it's one that everyone has the tools to record in an unbiased fashion if they choose to look at it.

Adding the suppressor makes little difference is actually a helpful statement. It's still feel, but I know that adding a silencer to an SBR can make a big and truly noticeable change. It's a better comment than something like softer shooting, because really, we're talking 556 here. The difference in already soft recoil to softer recoil can only be subtle at best.

The location in terms of distance like I mentioned in my last post, yes. The clock location means very little on its own. If its ejecting to 1 o'clock then 4 o'clock on the next round, then I can see that as an indicator that you may need to look into. But, two identical rifles both ejecting consistent piles at 7 feet, but one at 2 o'clock and one at 4 o'clock would mean little on its own.

I noticed with my 14.5" using a lighter A5 that the empty case never contacted the shell deflector, but switching to the H and carbine RE, it did. Both were consistent in their ejection, so it's not a concern.

[armatac]

the data would back up the shooting feel, it would also support the fact that you can achieve the same kinematics in the normal tube length with matched mass and spring.

I really think that some people might mis-understand the differences in the full length rifle vs carbine and by some wierd association think this is somehow a step in that direction, kind of like a mid-length gas system except that is a step in the right direction because it is actually changing a parameter of the system. If this was a magic step, why is rifle length with same buffer mass and spring constant not an even better one? It is either the mass, the spring rate, that extra length on the tube I would bet doesn't do that much except extend spring life.

The data collection on the test will have to be good, because if it is changing the spring rates near the end of the stroke only that will have to be sampled at a high frequency by maybe video to pick up acc/vel changes.

accuracy increase is also claimed, but again I think that may be how it seems, and if it is so, then that would truly shock me. (must also test against heavy buffer and its correlation with increase in accuracy due to......)

[armatac]

I consider my guns slightly underpowered when not hitting the deflector, they shoot awesome and soft, the brass goes back like and M60, it is the best when its good. But over lots of shooting, maybe just in ammo variation, but in extended full auto you will "hear" a slight change in the cadence, and sometimes I am sitting with a bolt just sitting behind a cartridge that didn't have the energy to get the round all the way in(because it had a slightly short stroke). If you're shooting until you're lube is gone you'll have more and more problems it seems to me if you're not atleast using the little piece on the buffer as a spring to rebound some energy(not too much obviously).

Very Very tight line, I think most are not like me and don't have issues with that area of ejection. But I named it "DEAD MAN'S LAND". I need to post a video but I compiled some shooting with every type of thing and you get to see the ejections and how the dead man's land can get into an issue.




The location in terms of distance like I mentioned in my last post, yes. The clock location means very little on its own. If its ejecting to 1 o'clock then 4 o'clock on the next round, then I can see that as an indicator that you may need to look into. But, two identical rifles both ejecting consistent piles at 7 feet, but one at 2 o'clock and one at 4 o'clock would mean little on its own.

I noticed with my 14.5" using a lighter A5 that the empty case never contacted the shell deflector, but switching to the H and carbine RE, it did. Both were consistent in their ejection, so it's not a concern.

[Noodles]

Well it took me all of 58 seconds (I timed it) to go back to that A-5 thread and find real cyclic rate data.

Yea, thanks I've seen that plenty. And when I talked about it in another thread was accused of cherry picking data. And then how a 10.5" 416 is a completely different weapon than a 10.5 AR (yea... Ar pattern, 556, 10.5"... completely different alright).

If you read my original post, I'm looking for info on how it effects DI guns in SBR and SPR styles. I am sold that it lowers the cyclic rate on the 416. I am looking to see if it reduces rpm and increases dwell time enough that there is an obvious advantage to using the A5 system suppressed.

It's very like to follow the 416 numbers since they aren't "completely different weapons" but I'd like to see that test run with the Mk18 and Mk12 before I jump all over the A5-bandwagon.

[M90A1]

[QUOTE=armatac;1258306]the data would back up the shooting feel, it would also support the fact that you can achieve the same kinematics in the normal tube length with matched mass and spring./[quote}

Are you stating that it is possible to make a carbine length spring that would absolutely duplicate the operating characteristics of a rifle length spring? If so, why hasn't someone done so, paired it with an H3 carbine buffer, undersold Vltor's A5, and made a fortune?

[QUOTE=armatac;1258306]If this was a magic step, why is rifle length with same buffer mass and spring constant not an even better one? It is either the mass, the spring rate, that extra length on the tube I would bet doesn't do that much except extend spring life./[QUOTE]

I guess I'm dense, but exactly what are you trying to say here?

[John_Burns]

It's very like to follow the 416 numbers since they aren't "completely different weapons" but I'd like to see that test run with the Mk18 and Mk12 before I jump all over the A5-bandwagon.

You want someone else to run an independent test involving 10 of thousands if not 100s of thousands of rounds in enough guns to have a valid sample before you “jump on the bandwagon” for a $100 buffer system.

Does that seem realistic?

Let’s look at this another way, if the $100 for a high quality extension/spring/buffer seems expensive put it in the context of ammo. $100 is 20 boxes of 20 rounds or 400 rnds. Pretty easy to use that up in a good day of practice.

If you are on a budget then I suggest the 400 rounds.

If you do not own a shooting timer then spending the $100 on a timer will do way more for your split times than switching a carbine extension for the A-5 in a gun that is running.

[sinlessorrow]

Yea, thanks I've seen that plenty. And when I talked about it in another thread was accused of cherry picking data. And then how a 10.5" 416 is a completely different weapon than a 10.5 AR (yea... Ar pattern, 556, 10.5"... completely different alright).

If you read my original post, I'm looking for info on how it effects DI guns in SBR and SPR styles. I am sold that it lowers the cyclic rate on the 416. I am looking to see if it reduces rpm and increases dwell time enough that there is an obvious advantage to using the A5 system suppressed.

It's very like to follow the 416 numbers since they aren't "completely different weapons" but I'd like to see that test run with the Mk18 and Mk12 before I jump all over the A5-bandwagon.

Di or piston, it makes no difference.

The A5 reduces the cyclic rate and increases dwell time of both pistons and DI rifles.

[armatac]

[QUOTE=armatac;1258306]the data would back up the shooting feel, it would also support the fact that you can achieve the same kinematics in the normal tube length with matched mass and spring./[quote}

Are you stating that it is possible to make a carbine length spring that would absolutely duplicate the operating characteristics of a rifle length spring? If so, why hasn't someone done so, paired it with an H3 carbine buffer, undersold Vltor's A5, and made a fortune?

[QUOTE=armatac;1258306]If this was a magic step, why is rifle length with same buffer mass and spring constant not an even better one? It is either the mass, the spring rate, that extra length on the tube I would bet doesn't do that much except extend spring life./[QUOTE]

I guess I'm dense, but exactly what are you trying to say here?

what I am saying is what I said, you can take anything that involves a mass and a spring that only returns said mass over the stroke of 3 3/4 of the AR and match it with another identical mass(both static and dynamic in the case of a buffer with internal weights) called something else, and with identical spring rates you are going to have the same response to excitation. If the H3 matched the A5 buffer in its body and internal weight mass, then your spring would have to match the A5 in preload and spring constant. Then you have identical systems-identical. Who cares if the stock tube is longer, you can run that baby out to China becuase it doesn't do much of anything except help the life of the spring.

If extending the spring tube did something truly profound, the full length kit would do it better, so if you wanted to create the ultimate configuration based on this logic you would find a spring that is as long as the rifle spring but much stronger and preloads to the condition of the A5 carbine, and run a buffer close to the A5 mass. The bolt carrier doesn't know anything besides the mass its moving and the spring resistance and since its only effected by those 2 things for the given stroke distance there is really no point in extending it.


Max Atchisson and others have tried true attempts but spring and mass change in the distance allowed has been certainly been done in nearly every imaginable shape.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=eAQZAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA6&dq=max+atchisson&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UEFiT_b1DaXg0QHV9NTLCA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[SomeOtherGuy]

I think the HK416 cyclic data quoted above is quite good, and while it's not on a DI there's absolutely no reason to think that the results would differ in trend on a DI setup.

Two ideas for relatively low cost, relatively objective testing:

1) High-speed video an experienced shooter using the same upper on otherwise identical lowers, one with a carbine setup and one with the A5. Analyze the muzzle rise and visible recoil and determine any difference.

2) Have an experienced shooter run several standardized drills using the same upper on otherwise identical lowers, one with a carbine setup and one with the A5. Compare the split times when using the two different setups. (This doesn't directly measure mechanical effectiveness, but is an excellent indicator of real-world usefulness.)

As for me? I tried the A5 system on a lower build, since it cost only about $30 more than the quality carbine parts I would otherwise use. I have video of me shooting it in which the muzzle basically stays flat, using a lightweight upper with a non-compensating device (a phantom). In fact it stays about as flat as when running a comp on a carbine-buffer-equipped lower. Felt recoil is different - not necessarily less, but different. I was skeptical but for a trivial cost increase on a new assembly I think it's worthwhile. Of course I would also like some objective data.

[wahoo95]

Can you talk on this a bit more?
Curious as to what didn't work for you.
Not trying to poke holes, just looking for information.

I see no problem with backing up physical perception and observation with real data, or vice versa.
I got an A5 to try out for functional reasons and found that I liked the shootability of the system as well.
Considering that I didn't have any issues with function before I put it on, I can't really say that it has improved anything, but it doesn't seem to have hurt, though that is hardly a compelling reason for anyone else to buy one.

I tried it on mt 11.5" BCM with BC 1.0 and H buffer. I chose to run some drills and compare times/splits to make a decision. For me I noticed my dot had slightly mire movement with the A5 system than my standard set up leading to slower times. Since my AR was already reliable I saw no benefits to the increased reliability the A5 offers.

I may try it again with an upcoming 16-18" build I am working on.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[militarymoron]

My issue with it is that this SHOULD be a complete marketing failure on Vltor's part. They have one sentence saying how Crane found it more reliable on their site but offer zero supporting claims.

i don't see how that's much different from most other components you build your rifle out of. which manufacturers provide test data for everything they sell, that do with performance? barrels, for example. do you buy your barrels based on the availability of test data supplied by the manufacturer, or mostly based on manufacturer reputation? aimpoint advertised the battery life of the T-1 as over 5 years of continuous use when it came out. was a T-1 prototype tested for over 5 years or is that life an estimate based on calculations?

these arguments come up all the time. one side says 'i want manufacturer test data'. the other says 'i don't trust manufacturer test data, only independent test data'. another will disagree with the test method used to obtain the data. no matter what info or data is out there, there's always someone arguing against the validity of the data, and how it was obtained and conducted. and, given test data, is it applicable to your use? can you extrapolate it as such? and, we'll always see anomalies where personal experience is opposite that of supplied data.
i don't discount anecdotal data, but i look at it knowing that it's mostly subjective, across the board in variables (ammo, etc). but if enough people get similar results over time, chances are that something is working as claimed, up to that time.

i like data myself, but ultimately rely on my own subjective experience, and how something performs for me. actual testing costs money, instrumentation etc that is cost prohibitive for the regular individual like myself. my personal experience with the A5 is a very small statistic, but it's important to me because it's mine, with my rifles. I have a couple of uppers that were finicky with non milspec ammo, and i'd have to use lighter buffers in a carbine tube to get them to run reliably. on an A5-equipped lower, they ran reliably. that's why i've gone to the A5 system, because it's proved the most reliable with all my uppers. that's the only variable that was changed, and it works for me.

MARCORSYSCOM and USSOCOM have the A5 test data, so it's up to them to release it publicly. so, it's not that there's no data to back up vltor's statements on the A5, it's just that the testing wasn't done by vltor and it's not public.

[BAC]

1. Allows me to use various uppers on the same lower.

This is the sole point of the A5 system that interests me. If this can be supported by enough people then the system is, to me, a worthwhile investment; it means I only have to own a couple lowers versus a lower setup for each upper.


-B

[Noodles]

i don't see how that's much different from most other components you build your rifle out of. which manufacturers provide test data for everything they sell, that do with performance? barrels, for example. do you buy your barrels based on the availability of test data supplied by the manufacturer, or mostly based on manufacturer reputation?


Well, I guess the difference is, I can see that nothing sticks to nickel boron well, I can see test targets from rifles with Noveske barrels, I can touch magpul stocks to see if I like the feel, same with hanguards, scopes and etc. It's when it comes to less apparent feature claims that the mfg should step up. Vltor says "more reliable", but like Rob says, if I'm already running 100%...

I am most interested in the A5 as it pertains to SBR over-gassing. The issue isn't really over-gassing as far as the tube or port is concerned. More in the shortened dwell time and blowback coming down the barrel. A few people here argue that it's better than using an adjustable regulator which I can not get on board with. However if the A5 is enough of a band-aid to remove the symptoms of SBR suppressed (gassy face), that's probably fine enough with me. Lowering the suppressed cyclic rate significantly is going to be a possible solution, that's what I'd like data on.



I have a couple of uppers that were finicky with non milspec ammo, and i'd have to use lighter buffers in a carbine tube to get them to run reliably. on an A5-equipped lower, they ran reliably. that's why i've gone to the A5 system, because it's proved the most reliable with all my uppers. that's the only variable that was changed, and it works for me.


Comments like that go a lot longer for me than "I like how it feels" and "It's just better". It would be great to know more specifics, but as the title says, I am looking for anecdotes here. Real testing would be the shit, but I'm willing to take internet people's word for it if they are specific enough about what is really going on.

I don't want to buy into hype if it is only justified as being a Vltor product. I just really am certain the general attitude of the A5 here would be radically different if it had a little spider on it instead of a sword thing.

[M90A1]

[QUOTE=armatac;1258306]If the H3 matched the A5 buffer in its body and internal weight mass, then your spring would have to match the A5 in preload and spring constant. Then you have identical systems-identical.

Ergo, my question. Is it possible to design a spring to match the operating characteristics of the A5/rifle spring, but in the length of a carbine spring? If so, why didn't Vltor's engineers, or any of the other myriad of engineers who have worked with the carbine design, do just that instead of going the A5 route?

(the H3 and A5 are close enough in mass to be deemed identical)

[Iraqgunz]

A piece of advice. Stay away from the A5 and get an adjustable gas block since you seem to default back to them.


Well, I guess the difference is, I can see that nothing sticks to nickel boron well, I can see test targets from rifles with Noveske barrels, I can touch magpul stocks to see if I like the feel, same with hanguards, scopes and etc.

It's when it comes to less apparent feature claims that the mfg should step up. Vltor says "more reliable", but like Rob says, if I'm already running 100%...

I am most interested in the A5 as it pertains to SBR over-gassing. The issue isn't really over-gassing as far as the tube or port is concerned. More in the shortened dwell time and blowback coming down the barrel. A few people here argue that it's better than using an adjustable regulator which I can not get on board with. However if the A5 is enough of a band-aid to remove the symptoms of SBR suppressed (gassy face), that's probably fine enough with me.



Comments like that go a lot longer for me than "I like how it feels" and "It's just better". It would be great to know more specifics, but as the title says, I am looking for anecdotes here. Real testing would be the shit, but I'm willing to take internet people's word for it if they are specific enough about what is really going on.

I don't want to buy into hype if it is only justified as being a Vltor product. I just really am certain the general attitude of the A5 here would be radically different if it had a little spider on it instead of a sword thing.

[MistWolf]

Why are we burning up baud rate over whether or not an A5 has any hard data to prove it's worth and whether or not "feel" is a good enough reason to justify it's existence?

If there is no hard data and that's not good enough, move along. Nothing here for you to see. If you don't want to take a chance on buying and testing the A5 for yourself, move along, there's nothing here for you to see. Man up or shut up

[Noodles]

Why are we burning up baud rate over whether or not an A5 has any hard data to prove it's worth and whether or not "feel" is a good enough reason to justify it's existence?

If there is no hard data and that's not good enough, move along. Nothing here for you to see. If you don't want to take a chance on buying and testing the A5 for yourself, move along, there's nothing here for you to see. Man up or shut up

Why did you start a topic on Suppressors in July? Why didn't you just go man up and buy one? Why do any sort of research or due diligence at all?

I love how if the topic displeases someone, the response is "don't talk about that, that's not worth talking about".

[MistWolf]

The question has been answered. Not enough hard data for some, feel is good enough for others. At this point there is only the decision to be made and that is whether to buy the A5 and try it, or not

Now it's just covering the same ground over and over again. As for the suppressor thing, I chose to shut up and not bother others by demanding they justify their hard data or feelings on the subject

[Iraqgunz]

Seriously? Someone wants info about a suppressor (considerably higher cost than a 90.00 A5 system) and you want to compare the two. Really?


Why did you start a topic on Suppressors in July? Why didn't you just go man up and buy one? Why do any sort of research or due diligence at all?

I love how if the topic displeases someone, the response is "don't talk about that, that's not worth talking about".

[Noodles]

Seriously? Someone wants info about a suppressor (considerably higher cost than a 90.00 A5 system) and you want to compare the two. Really?

I know, crazy right?

Because suppressors while costing more, have lots of available independent testing, and completely obvious benefits and issues. Not at all like the buffer system I'm trying to stay on topic about.

[Iraqgunz]

This thread is going nowhere. What we have is a Joe vs. the Volcano situation.

When someone has more "raw data" for you then we'll reopen it.