View Full Version : Smoothing recoil impulse
So I got some high speed video of my AR and bolt bounce is not an issue. I'm running a CAR buffer and standard spring right now on a 16" middy from ST (pencil profile barrel if it matters)
It does however appear that the bolt is slamming to the rear of the extension which makes for the highest spike in recoil impulse. I was wondering if running an H buffer or a heavier buffer spring would possibly slow down the impulse. I was considering an A5 system but I am a college student and have a budget.
can anyone proffer any pro's and con's of one over the other? thank you.
Yes, heavier buffers will slow the velocity of the bolt carrier.
If you slow it too much, you can induce problems. Fail to lock on an empty mag being one, fail to feed etc. Some of these can also be magazine problems, so if you're testing use the same magazines throughout any testing.
My advice would be to buy an H3 buffer, which has three tungsten weights. This is opposite a CAR buffer which has three steel weights. You can swap them around to make an H or an H2.
Ammunition will also effect this too. So test your setup with all ammunition you foresee yourself using.
The heavier you make the moving assembly, it will change not only the recoil on the rear stroke, but forward as well.
The A5 setup is a little different, as it uses a rifle spring which has a different spring rate than a carbine spring. The A5 system uses a heavier buffer than a typically found in carbine setups, 5.33oz with the stock buffer.
Just food for thought.
IndianaBoy
03-17-12, 21:04
It depends on your criteria... but as a gamer (3-gun) I have a solution.
Adjustable gas block, JP LMOS carrier and buffer, and possibly a comp.
I have experienced perfect reliability with the JP system in my 3-gun rifles. They get run hard, and often dirty. My only malfunctions in the past 2 years have been mag related.
Lighten up the reciprocating mass, tune down your gas until your carrier isn't bottoming out with a lot of force, and then the comp will be working for you as well. All have drawbacks. Different brands of ammo might not run your gun if you tune it way down. Personally I don't get greedy turning it down and my rifle runs everything. Comps are loud. Some louder than others. My friends complain about my Cooley comp.
My setup is not a valid option for a duty carbine, but depending on what you are doing with your rifle, it might work for you.
Another drawback, JP parts aren't cheap.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/gnieman/limited_rifle/cooley_comp.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/gnieman/limited_rifle/carrier.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/gnieman/limited_rifle/adj_gas.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/gnieman/limited_rifle/overall.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/gnieman/limited_rifle/101_8662.jpg
This rifle shoots SOFT and flat.
This one too... but a little less so because the nordic comp isn't as effective as the JP, and the gas isn't adjustable, and the barrel weighs less.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/gnieman/IMG-20120221-00248.jpg
Heavy Metal
03-17-12, 21:16
MGI RRB spread out the impact energy over a greater time with its counter-plunger system.
I was actually just looking into this.
I recently traded my KAC SR-15 for an LMT MRP. I kept the BattleComp 2.0 from it and threw it on the MRP. Needless to say it still doesn't feel anywhere near as soft as my KAC did. It literally felt like a .22LR.
I think the big difference comes from the "tuned" gas port. And if you've ever read about SR-15's you probably know that they some times have problems with wolf. It's because the gas port is so small.
So an adjustable gas block or some kind of restrictor is needed for the gas system. That along with a carbine buffer and the lightest carrier and you'll feel exactly what a KAC feels like with a comp.
The gun runs 100%?
What's your time on the VTAC 9-hole? What's your score on the MEU(SOC)? The Modified Navy Qual? Defoor Proformance Carbine Tests 1-3?
At most I'd use the H-buffer and ensure that it runs with that. Even on the mid-length I think the H-buffer is the correct part. Beyond that I'd be worried about personal performance.
On my M4 builds I always run, a Auto carrier ( These are alittle heavier than the semi auto carriers), A "H" buffer, and a Bravo company extractor spring with their black bumper.
I have Comps on a few of my guns, they do work but make the gun really loud as some of the blast is coming back towards the shooter.
I mostly shoot Federal XM193 which runs fairly hot. The guns have little recoil to them, even the ones with flash hiders.
Yes, heavier buffers will slow the velocity of the bolt carrier.
If you slow it too much, you can induce problems. Fail to lock on an empty mag being one, fail to feed etc. Some of these can also be magazine problems, so if you're testing use the same magazines throughout any testing.
My advice would be to buy an H3 buffer, which has three tungsten weights. This is opposite a CAR buffer which has three steel weights. You can swap them around to make an H or an H2.
Ammunition will also effect this too. So test your setup with all ammunition you foresee yourself using.
The heavier you make the moving assembly, it will change not only the recoil on the rear stroke, but forward as well.
The A5 setup is a little different, as it uses a rifle spring which has a different spring rate than a carbine spring. The A5 system uses a heavier buffer than a typically found in carbine setups, 5.33oz with the stock buffer.
Just food for thought.
Shag, looks like this is your College boy budget answer, next might be the A5, it does exactly what your looking for very nicely.
We were out of H buffers at work so I tried an ST-T2 buffer. I'm not sure if snake oil fouling was to blame but an occasional round would hang on the feed ramp. a light shake or tap an the bolt would go to battery. replaced with an H buffer, shot a match yesterday and it ran fine. was too busy shooting to notice if it was much smoother but I will be shooting a benefit match today and will have to pay more attention.
thanks for the replies.
Nightvisionary
03-19-12, 20:58
My Spikes mid length has the Spikes ST-T2 Tungsten Buffer and it's extremely smooth compared to the carbine I had previously. It's almost like shooting a 20 in rifle.
Failure2Stop
03-19-12, 21:06
We were out of H buffers at work so I tried an ST-T2 buffer. I'm not sure if snake oil fouling was to blame but an occasional round would hang on the feed ramp. a light shake or tap an the bolt would go to battery. replaced with an H buffer, shot a match yesterday and it ran fine. was too busy shooting to notice if it was much smoother but I will be shooting a benefit match today and will have to pay more attention.
thanks for the replies.
Sounds like you might need to check your action spring, provided that lubrication is adequate.
I am an idiot, but I think "smooth" recoil should not be in the same sentence as reliability in an AR. The stroke is too short for the variance in everything else to be both. Go with the bounce off the extension as added energy to forward stroke and call it a day.
I am an idiot, but I think "smooth" recoil should not be in the same sentence as reliability in an AR. The stroke is too short for the variance in everything else to be both. Go with the bounce off the extension as added energy to forward stroke and call it a day.
While overgassed guns are not good, I think you're right. "Gamer-gassed" guns can be bad too, especially when the user doesn't consider WHY they're making the modifications that they make. Add an obnoxious muzzle brake, a lightened hammer spring, and one of those tiny-objective variable optics that can't resolve shit in low lighting conditions, and you've reduced a useful tool into a finicky toy.
well, the H buffer worked fine... on saturday. on sunday it was giving me 2-4 malf's per magazine.
I guess midlength just wasn't meant for heavier buffers. I'm going back to the CAR. Thanks for your advice guys.
It's not that the mid-length won't run with a heavier buffer, it just sounds like for whatever reason, your combination is more reliable with the standard carbine buffer.
If your BCG & buffer is hitting hard on compression, that's a problem that needs to be addressed with spring rate (or the reciprocating mass needs to be lightened). Adding to the reciprocating mass with the same spring rate usually exacerbates the problem. It takes more energy to move the greater mass but it also takes more energy to stop it.
If the BCG & buffer is bottoming out too hard, try replacing the spring. Before going with a spring with a heavier than standard rate, make sure the current spring isn't worn or too light
I am an idiot, but I think "smooth" recoil should not be in the same sentence as reliability in an AR. The stroke is too short for the variance in everything else to be both. Go with the bounce off the extension as added energy to forward stroke and call it a day.
Any experience with an SR-15?
machinegunbob
03-21-12, 14:40
I run a H2 buffer,Wolff extra power spring and 2"Battlecomp on LMT 16".Gun runs like butter.
ROUTEMICHIGAN
03-21-12, 15:20
H2 buffer with Spinco blue spring in my 14.5" Centurion Arms middy (1,500 rounds)-- I also run this set up in my DD 16" carbine (6,600 rounds). Both function flawlessly and smoothly.
machinegunbob
03-21-12, 19:19
I have about 6000 rds through mine with same set up,H2 and Wolff extra power spring.
Any experience with an SR-15?
but does it "feel smooth",
my point is that with the variation of ammo, From Tula to M855, if you have a weapon that can cycle with the low and high end, then you may feel a little more recoil which isn't hardly much on the hot end. If you're got a real soft shooter with hot brass, you are screwed with reliable operation on the not so hot brass. So man up and separate the variables. It's also very hard to have a super fast car that also gets over 40 mpg. Not a perfect world, stroke is partly the culprit.
Any experience with an SR-15?
No kidding, that gun is one smooth operator. Very nice and very light.
Failure2Stop
03-23-12, 16:45
well, the H buffer worked fine... on saturday. on sunday it was giving me 2-4 malf's per magazine.
I guess midlength just wasn't meant for heavier buffers. I'm going back to the CAR. Thanks for your advice guys.
If it makes you feel any better, my first middie, an original BCM run, ran best with a standard CAR buffer.
I seriously must be lucky. I bought H2 and h3 and A5's and have 11.5's and 12.5's and 16 inch guns. I never had an issue swopping them around causing FTF or anything. I swop the upper and lowers around without regard, and never had issues.
I even ran my 11.5 on my A2 Colt lower. Ran like a champ.
No kidding, that gun is one smooth operator. Very nice and very light.
True, however...
When I did my article about the pre-production prototype SR15 Trey told me very specifically not to even bother trying to run Wolf or other similar ammo in it and to only shoot ammo like XM193. Fast forward a few years to production guns and there were more than a few people that sent their guns back to have the gas port opened up further because of reliability problems, to the point that the production gas port size was changed to a larger one.
Which I think is part of the point some of the other posters are making. If you're a rabid three-gun competitor and can actually take advantage of the difference (hint, you should already be the guy to beat at your local matches for this to matter) and are willing to shoot one kind of ammo and one kind only, and keep a handle on the level of cleanliness of the gun, trying to run on the ragged edge of reliability in order to achieve "smoother" may be worthwhile. For everyone else it's the kind of minutiae that tends to distract from what matters.
what year did they start to open the gas ports.
what year did they start to open the gas ports.
I'm not sure. There are several posts about it on the KAC section of Silencertalk from Kevin B, Trey, and Casey (I think).
ETA:
My article appears in the January 2009 SWAT (http://www.swatmag.com/issues/view/january_2009)
I am not a huge steel cased guy. I run it in my piston gun and that's about it.
I did try it for 40 rounds in my SR15. So I don't exactly have much experience with it there. But it did run what I put through it. That being said, with full power 5.56 and a BattleComp it felt like a .22lr. Literally.
I think there are gains to be made, as far as other manufacturers go. But what do I know. I'm just a user. Not a smith / engineer.
Ghostmaker
04-02-12, 23:22
I've seen people say you get a harder recoil impulse with piston set ups... when i use one of my piston rigs I cant tell a big difference between them & my KAC rig. A lot of people say piston guns are a answer looking for a problem, while I can agree with that somewhat, I think Larry Vickers said it best when he said "there is a time and place for a piston AR". Short barrels, full auto, different ammo, suppressed use for instance".
Full auto for example. I can tell a difference between running a D.I. rig vs Piston rig as far as how fast it heats up... They both get hot, but D.I.s on full auto get hotter faster 4 sure.
Other than those examples though, I really cant see much of a advantage with piston systems over D.I.s, I've had D.I. rigs since i was young, Never have had a real problem with them as long as they were from a good reputable manufacture. D.I.s on the other hand do have some advantages over the Piston system also.
I don't think people that buy piston system ARs should be bashed for their preference... I mean if they think they are going to be in some pond or lake somewhere playing navy seal... more power to'em. At least they would have an somewhat advantage there. Wouldn't have to worry about the gas tube filling up with water. :lol: Some people just get them to add to their "arsenal". Long as its a good rig from a reputable manufacture, So what.
Back from the dead.
Hey all. after consulting with another AR enthusiast, he seems to think that adding a sprinco extra power spring might give the carrier enough forward energy to feed that round. As I have not been experiencing any issues with FTE, bolt override or other short stroking issues, I think this might be the ticket. However we have discussed that there is a chance of this being induced by the spring. Anyone care to comment/help with this can of worms I'm opening?
Back from the dead.
Hey all. after consulting with another AR enthusiast, he seems to think that adding a sprinco extra power spring might give the carrier enough forward energy to feed that round. As I have not been experiencing any issues with FTE, bolt override or other short stroking issues, I think this might be the ticket. However we have discussed that there is a chance of this being induced by the spring. Anyone care to comment/help with this can of worms I'm opening?
This is an attempt to be able to run an H buffer in the gun?
It's running fine on a stock spring and C buffer, yes?
This is an attempt to be able to run an H buffer in the gun?
It's running fine on a stock spring and C buffer, yes?
Rog. Refer to title though. This is a competition gun.
Rog. Refer to title though. This is a competition gun.
Are you outrunning the gun with the original pars?
This seems like something that wasn't an issue until you decided it was an issue, and now you have the exact result of fiddle-****ing that I and others use as a reason not to fiddle-**** with things that work.
So what if it was slamming into the back of the receiver extension?
Cowtown556
04-24-12, 14:42
All three of my BCM middies run fine with rifle buffers.
We were out of H buffers at work so I tried an ST-T2 buffer. I'm not sure if snake oil fouling was to blame but an occasional round would hang on the feed ramp. a light shake or tap an the bolt would go to battery. replaced with an H buffer, shot a match yesterday and it ran fine. was too busy shooting to notice if it was much smoother but I will be shooting a benefit match today and will have to pay more attention.
thanks for the replies.
That is a problem with the ST-T2 buffer. It is a neat idea until you realize that the weight inside can be floating in air and not "engaged" so to speak and effectively have too little active mass to do what the buffer is supposed to do. You fix this by using the right parts, not some buffer with two dicks engraved on the front of it.
That is a problem with the ST-T2 buffer. It is a neat idea until you realize that the weight inside can be floating in air and not "engaged" so to speak and effectively have too little active mass to do what the buffer is supposed to do. You fix this by using the right parts, not some buffer with two dicks engraved on the front of it.
Not defending Spikes parts.... but just out of curiosity, how would you rate your own understanding of physics?
Not defending Spikes parts.... but just out of curiosity, how would you rate your own understanding of physics?
Sufficient.
If you have found an error in my explanation please let me know. It is based on a Spikes ST-T2 buffer from 2010, around May, and some high-speed video and actually having many other buffers in hand.
That is a problem with the ST-T2 buffer. It is a neat idea until you realize that the weight inside can be floating in air and not "engaged" so to speak and effectively have too little active mass to do what the buffer is supposed to do. You fix this by using the right parts, not some buffer with two dicks engraved on the front of it.
So, if you're in a free-falling elevator and jump up in the air right before it hits the ground, will you be injured?
Did I say that?
If I were to jump just before impact the impulse of the impact would be altered as there is less mass initially slamming on the ground.
Take a water bottle that is half full, or half empty. Turn it horizontal and shake it slowly back and forth. Does it feel consistent or does the water moving around inside have an impact on the amount of force needed to continue the cycle?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=575Q0O41u5s&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkXRtTqs_4A&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=575Q0O41u5s&feature=relmfu
There is another video floating around that shows the ST-T2 over multiple fast shots that shows far more bounce than that.
There is another video floating around that shows the ST-T2 over multiple fast shots that shows far more bounce than that.
and ultimately the problem with those videos is that guys who can't successfully complete a 1/2 & 1/2 drill are worrying about bolt carrier bounce. Which isn't to say that's the case with the video author, or the person who posted it, but if the OP can't come up with some metrics for his current performance and how he thinks that worrying about bolt bounce is going to help him, there is probably little point in all of this.
Did I say that?
If I were to jump just before impact the impulse of the impact would be altered as there is less mass initially slamming on the ground.
Perfect. Thanks for answering that for me. And no, it wouldn't. Just the time it took to get there (a crazy short amount of time) and given the rates of free-fall, would be insignificant as a separate "event". I'm only saying that because in your example you are saying there are two impacts as I'm reading it.
I asked you your perception of your understanding of physics, not to be dick, but to see at what reasoning led you to such an odd statement ("It is a neat idea until you realize that the weight inside can be floating in air and not "engaged" so to speak and effectively have too little active mass to do what the buffer is supposed to do.").
I'll use the elevator analogy if you don't mind. When asked about it you replied that you could lessen the force if you jump at the end. The issue here is if the BUFFER is the elevator car, the TUNGSTEN/WEIGHTS is you, then the GROUND has to be the end of the carrier. You took that question and looked at from the perspective of the force upon YOU (weights/media), when really you would be concerned with the force on the GROUND (carrier).
In that case, NO. Jumping right before the end of the fall does not change the force on the GROUND (carrier). If you were to jump you would both be accelerating the elevator shaft downwards and yourself up equally. The result is that while you could (infinitesimally) reduce the impact on YOU, you accelerated the elevator car (buffer) in the opposite direction. Making the net impact on the ground (carrier) the exact same. You're all falling and unless you can jettison mass, the force will not change.
That brings me to a quick smart-ass question... Did your Spikes buffer leak it's powder out during use?
Being serious again... The powder inside the Spikes buffer can not "Jump" it can also not "be engaged" as mass at any point. What you are thinking is that since it's "floating" around, that at some point it is weightless and does not count as "mass". This is absolutely incorrect. The part I'll concede with you on is that during the instant the spring stops the buffer there is a moment that the powder is traveling from one end of the buffer to the other (full back on the carrier) the recoil impulse will change but the net force will not. This modified impulse is why HK carriers are filled with Tungsten, same with dead-shot hammers.
I'm not saying the Spikes product is good. I have one, and while it's never given me any issues and I saw it work under highspeed and this particular example had no more bounce than an H2 we were using, I wouldn't buy one again. I'm not saying they don't have the potential for more bolt bounce. I'm just saying that why you think it's not working is not really why it's not working.
Perfect. Thanks for answering that for me. And no, it wouldn't. Just the time it took to get there in a crazy short amount of time that given the rates of free-fall would be insignificant. I'm only saying that because in your example you are saying there are two impacts as I'm reading it.
I asked you your perception of your understanding of physics, not to be dick, but to see at what reasoning led you to such an odd statement ("It is a neat idea until you realize that the weight inside can be floating in air and not "engaged" so to speak and effectively have too little active mass to do what the buffer is supposed to do.").
I'll use the elevator analogy if you don't mind. When asked about it you replied that you could lessen the force if you jump at the end. The issue here is if the BUFFER is the elevator car, the TUNGSTEN/WEIGHTS is you, then the GROUND has to be the end of the carrier. You took that question and looked at from the perspective of the force upon YOU (weights/media), when really you would be concerned with the force on the GROUND.
In that case, NO. Jumping right before the end of the fall does not change the force on the GROUND (carrier). If you were to jump you would both be accelerating the elevator shaft downwards and yourself up equally. The result is that while you could (infinitesimally) reduce the impact on YOU, you accelerated the elevator car (buffer) in the opposite direction. Making the net impact on the ground (carrier) the exact same. You're all falling and unless you can jettison mass, the force will not change.
I did not say you could lessen the force on impact, you could alter the impulse.
If I were to jump just before impact the impulse of the impact would be altered as there is less mass initially slamming on the ground.
There would be two impacts in the elevator analogy. First the car and then the person. The net force once both bodies were stopped would be the same though the impulse would be different as there would be 2 possible impacts, the car and the person, say 2000# and then 200# or a net 2200# force. Since the bolt/carrier/buffer/spring all act as a system and altering this weight and spring force can have negative impacts and the buffer was constructed to allow a variation in weight, though small, issues did arise (mainly feed). My issue with it appeared to be slowing of the bolt as it stripped the round off the top, other buffers did not exhibit this behavior.
The Spikes buffer I used felt to be half full of powder thus allowing it to float. If that is not how they are intended to be then the one I had that was bad and my thoughts based on that do not translate to a proper ST-T2.
That brings me to a quick smart-ass question... Did your Spikes buffer leak it's powder out during use?
Being serious again... The powder inside the Spikes buffer can not "Jump" it can also not "be engaged" as mass at any point. What you are thinking is that since it's "floating" around, that at some point it is weightless and does not count as "mass". This is absolutely incorrect. The part I'll concede with you on is that during the instant the spring stops the buffer there is a moment that the powder is traveling from one end of the buffer to the other (full back on the carrier) the recoil impulse will change but the net force will not. This modified impulse is why HK carriers are filled with Tungsten, same with dead-shot hammers.
My thoughts were that the half full powder was floating and while the net impact would be the same under rapid fire the inconsistent weight that was overcome to intiate movement was varying as some of the powder was floating. Once it reached one end or the other it would act as a normal buffer. And again, if the intent was for it to be full my statements do not apply to the ST-T2 as a whole, just the one I had in my possesion.
I'm not saying the Spikes product is good. I have one, and while it's never given me any issues and I saw it work under highspeed and had no more bounce than an H2 we were using, I wouldn't buy one again. I'm not saying they don't have the potential for more bolt bounce. I'm just saying that why you think it's not working is not really why it's not working.
If they are supposed to be full and the powder cannot shake I see little difference to the consumer and possibly a lower cost to the manufacturer.
Ok, the impulse is SUPPOSED to be different though. That's the HK and hammer references I added. Spikes will tell you this I'm sure. The idea is that the amount of time we're talking between particle sorting of the powder and the time difference of "full force" to be applied should be so small it can be discounted.
In the elevotar example, you can't use 2000 and 200. You can use 2100 and 100 or 2200 and 0 or whatever. Since when you jump you are accelerating the car in the opposite direction as yourself. I'll just state again this is for reference as I don't see how the tungsten can "jump" anywhere.
My ST2 buffer seems to me, just guessing here, to be about 80-90% full. There is a little shake in there, but really not that much. I wonder if you did get a bad one?
That's the thing though... The powder is only floating at one point in the cycle. The point at which the direction of the buffer changes. In the full back position. There is that moment where all the mass is packed against the carrier side of the buffer, the spring compresses and then all the powder moves to the stock side of the buffer. It "shouldn't" ever be floating other than this one time. This is the weightless moment but it's very brief and the spring is doing all the work at that point. Shouldn't effect anything during the rest of the cycle.
Yea, I don't know... Perhaps they have awful quality control. I'm less than pleased with their mil-spec parts I bought years ago before I knew better. But, the tungsten idea is solid. Afaik, all the HK carriers in rifles and smgs have been tungsten filled from the 50's to today. And fwiw, my MP5 carrier does have a little shake to it (very tiny though).
Without having it in hand and having never taken it apart I would guess no more than 60% full for me. Without having it in front of me now my thoughts then were that once the carrier hit the top round and it met resistance the mass of tungsten powder moved forward while that was happening the carrier slowed enough to cause an issue. If it were more full, even 80-90% I would see this not happening. I have never handled any of the HK stuff but I imagine none of them are half full and if they are the weight otherwise is more significant than the ST-T2.
Without having it in hand and having never taken it apart I would guess no more than 60% full for me. Without having it in front of me now my thoughts then were that once the carrier hit the top round and it met resistance the mass of tungsten powder moved forward while that was happening the carrier slowed enough to cause an issue. If it were more full, even 80-90% I would see this not happening. I have never handled any of the HK stuff but I imagine none of them are half full and if they are the weight otherwise is more significant than the ST-T2.
I wouldn't suspect "that" much force from the top round... It would be interesting to see bolt bounce with the spikes part under highspeed when chambering a round, vs closing on an empty chamber. If only one bounces then that would be interesting.
Either way, the "idea" of the tungsten is that even if it hits a bump in the road on the way, it barrels through it because of the increased mass of the dense tungsten.
One thing I'd have to look into to comment more about is that I do know the density of tungsten powder is less than a tungsten puck for the same volume (of course) but tungsten shot is far less than both, I have no idea what size shot/powder Spikes is using vs HK. I suppose overall weight is what we're going for here though.
Yes, the mass is there to have the inertia to power through the stripping and chambering. I suppose if we took a standard buffer, empty, and then one with partial powder or one ball we could see what happens. I'm not gonna buy a Spikes to find out.
and ultimately the problem with those videos is that guys who can't successfully complete a 1/2 & 1/2 drill are worrying about bolt carrier bounce. Which isn't to say that's the case with the video author, or the person who posted it, but if the OP can't come up with some metrics for his current performance and how he thinks that worrying about bolt bounce is going to help him, there is probably little point in all of this.
Would not a smoother, flatter, faster shooting rifle help ANYBODY no matter their skill? Would strapping an SRB from the space shuttle on a car make the driver faster no matter the drivers ability to win the indy 500? My performance is sufficient. There. I said it. Now, can you just answer the question about whether an extra power spring would solve the issue of the gun failing to feed? Or should I post my SAT, ASVAB and DLAB scores before you will allow yourself to speak english to me? I'm not trying to get personal here, but you posted a thread asking the same general questions about a "go faster" gun and you somehow find it acceptable to crap in my thread. Answer the intended question or don't.
Everybody behave, please.
Stop trying to play Sheriff, yourselves. The Report Post button is thataway---------->
Would not a smoother, flatter, faster shooting rifle help ANYBODY no matter their skill? Would strapping an SRB from the space shuttle on a car make the driver faster no matter the drivers ability to win the indy 500? My performance is sufficient. There. I said it. Now, can you just answer the question about whether an extra power spring would solve the issue of the gun failing to feed? Or should I post my SAT, ASVAB and DLAB scores before you will allow yourself to speak english to me? I'm not trying to get personal here, but you posted a thread asking the same general questions about a "go faster" gun and you somehow find it acceptable to crap in my thread. Answer the intended question or don't.
Your nonsensical thread sparked my thread, if that makes you feel better. But you notice I'm asking for quantifications there too, or the ability to find them myself.
I plain flat don't believe that you're coming anywhere near to running your gun to it's limits, and certainly not to the point that your fiddle-****ing has any hope of changing.
You may not like it, but I AM trying to help you. If you don't have a known baseline from which to observe improvements you're barking up the wrong tree.
But these types of threads seem to be the norm here now, so I'll leave you to it.
KAC SR-15, Vltor A5 buffer system, KAC Triple tap, and Federal M193...recoil impulse is like shooting a stronger .22.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.