View Full Version : Vltor A5 vs. Geissele Super 42, which is better?
HansTheHobbit
06-24-16, 13:55
I was already set to convert my carbine systems to A5, but then I saw the Geissele Super 42 braided spring and buffer. Does anyone have any opinions on which is the better system?
I say Geissele. I've never seen one, or even heard of anyone using one, and don't even really know what it's for.
It's better because you can go back to your proper Colt spring and H2 buffer with no tools. You don't even have to take the whole upper off if you don't want to....
um...
anyhow, the geissele buffer is a standard buffer. The wire braid spring is a way to differentiate Geissele's solution for the market address compressed spring weight variation, longevity, and harmonics. Similar to Flatwire, CS springs, etc. Different solution, but none bring the same performance changes an A5 buffer system will, the reasons for which have been dealt with ad nauseum.
Rayrevolver
06-24-16, 14:36
I say Geissele. I've never seen one, or even heard of anyone using one, and don't even really know what it's for.
It's better because you can go back to your proper Colt spring and H2 buffer with no tools. You don't even have to take the whole upper off if you don't want to....
Bored today?
I would almost guess that it would have less travel relative to the Tubbs flat wire (something I had not thought of until I watched the Tubbs video). That and the increase in strength could mean faster cyclic rate? The description does not address these performance aspects.
Happy with the Vltor A5 and stock spring. I may try the Tubbs AR10 down the road vice Sprinco Green, just not a high priority.
Buford's epic saga of posts led me to try it on SBRs with different bbls/gas ports... changed my life. The operational range is wider. Whether the range is relevant to most people... up for debate.
Stick with the Vltor A5. I don't think you'll be sorry you did. The extra spring length should give you the reliability you're looking for.
HansTheHobbit
06-24-16, 16:53
Bored today?
I would almost guess that it would have less travel relative to the Tubbs flat wire (something I had not thought of until I watched the Tubbs video). That and the increase in strength could mean faster cyclic rate? The description does not address these performance aspects.
Happy with the Vltor A5 and stock spring. I may try the Tubbs AR10 down the road vice Sprinco Green, just not a high priority.
Yea, I was a little disappointed that Geissele's description didn't really offer any data or demonstration of performance over the standard springs. Everything they claim seems to be in the hypothetical category, whereas the A5 has been proven to get rid of all the problems associated with carbine length buffer systems. However, if Geissele's claims are true, then their setup might offer the same performance and still work with a standard buffer tube. Not to mention it's about half the price of the A5 system.
Outlander Systems
06-24-16, 17:08
The A5 is a proven system.
Just do it.
Until the Geissele's spring offering shows a tangible benefit over the rifle or rifle like A5 based systems, how could that product be preferred over the A5 based system at this time?
I'm not saying that a braided style spring doesn't have potential, because it does. The execution to make that product with advantages over the other isn't so simple. I'm not a spring guy really, but I have spoken to a few who are more knowledgable than myself on this subject. There's a lot of ways that this could end up less than preferably, I do plan on looking deeper into what they offer in production samples. I would be more curious to see an approach that may include a braided spring offering for rifle like actions over the carbine type action.
Here is slow-motion footage of my Vltor A5 w/"Green" spring and A5H2 buffer, as well as the Geissele Super 42 and included H buffer. I used 4 rounds of .223 PMC Bronze, followed by 4 rounds of 55gr PMC XTAC M193, followed by 4 rounds of 75gr Gold Dot .223. The rifle is a 16.1" DDM4 with a Surefire 556-212 suppressor. Rounds are fed by a Gen 3 PMAG.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0-t17dt67k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpZZne3ttRk
As one notes, for whatever reason, the A5 setup HATES 75gr Gold Dot. I have to run an A5H4 buffer to get it to run correctly/well.
What are your conclusions from this? What do you base this on?
Not a bash or anything like that, just wondering what you based this on.
What are your conclusions from this? What do you base this on?
Not a bash or anything like that, just wondering what you based this on.
The heavier bullet and special powder causes the weapon to cycle faster. This leads to weak ejection with some springs. Colt milspec ejector springs work best. Slowing things down helps, and heavier buffers do better with gold dot 75gr. Specifically, maybe the rebound is the issue, as the bcg hits the case on the return stroke if it ejects weakly, based on some of my videos. Of note, the weakest spring, the milspec, did fine. That said, the gun out runs troy cbr mags using h and colt milspec action spring. Over all of it, I prefer the sprinco blue and an h. Good function, lighter recoil and more controlled than the Vltor a5. Add an H2 buffer for primarily suppressed use, and g2g. I've come full circle on the a5. The weight of an a5h4 plus the stiffer green spring just over complicates cycling and recoil is significantly worse with no functional improvement.
While I appreciate your reply, I do not come to the same conclusions. Within the confines of the base system as it is now, we are limited as to what our options actually are. Timing and the balance of stresses and strains are what come to light here.
You can help "felt recoil" in ways that really induce more stresses/strains. You can help the same "felt recoil" that is not optimal for the timing of mechanical events that occur in the system. Same could be said for ejection patterns, distance, etc.
To help the base system operate at a higher capacity, we need to look at reducing stresses and strains, we need to look towards the appropriate timing of events to improve the base system.
Time has shown us that an improved based system is not feasible now, how many of us would be okay with a receiver length more similar to a M110 length for 5.56 than the shorter 5.56 M-16 FOW?
While I appreciate your reply, I do not come to the same conclusions. Within the confines of the base system as it is now, we are limited as to what our options actually are. Timing and the balance of stresses and strains are what come to light here.
You can help "felt recoil" in ways that really induce more stresses/strains. You can help the same "felt recoil" that is not optimal for the timing of mechanical events that occur in the system. Same could be said for ejection patterns, distance, etc.
To help the base system operate at a higher capacity, we need to look at reducing stresses and strains, we need to look towards the appropriate timing of events to improve the base system.
Time has shown us that an improved based system is not feasible now, how many of us would be okay with a receiver length more similar to a M110 length for 5.56 than the shorter 5.56 M-16 FOW?
So, what conclusions have you come to, and why? The 50,000 round test of the A5 system by the military seemed rather inconclusive to me, so I simply use the system with less felt recoil, as they failed to demonstrate superiority one way or another regarding reliability, etc.
The system that induces the lesser of stresses and strains with reliability, that would not be the carbine type action over the rifle or rifle like A5 type of action system for function. Sure, some sand tests show otherwise, and I still protest them in the way they prove, or attempt to prove function overall.
You can skin a cat many ways, concentrating on a minor concerns with a focus on those is a small slice of the pie to a broader visual to the operation of the system as a whole.
Without looking into the life cycle of the components as a merit and focusing more on felt recoil is not a net positive in my book. Sure, less felt recoil is good, but not with dramatic effects on operation due to those variables.
The system that induces the lesser of stresses and strains with reliability, that would not be the carbine type action over the rifle or rifle like A5 type of action system for function. Sure, some sand tests show otherwise, and I still protest them in the way they prove, or attempt to prove function overall.
You can skin a cat many ways, concentrating on a minor concerns with a focus on those is a small slice of the pie to a broader visual to the operation of the system as a whole.
Without looking into the life cycle of the components as a merit and focusing more on felt recoil is not a net positive in my book. Sure, less felt recoil is good, but not with dramatic effects on operation due to those variables.
How, exactly, is the carbine system not as good as the rifle system? They are so close to each other that the differences are insignificant, mechanically. Computer models for each spring length/construction show that they are WELL within accepted mechanical tolerances for a very long life.
As to the dynamics of the system, it is simply conjecture until proven otherwise, one way or the other, IMO.
Another point is that neither the military and the commercial market have not embraced the Vltor system. All of the R&D is focused on the carbine RE, and the military concluded that the H6 buffer would be fine vs. the A5 RE.
If you currently agree with that, continue to do so.
SomeOtherGuy
06-25-16, 09:10
OP: Braided wire springs have advantages "in theory" but I don't think anything has been proven in this application. Bill Geissele has shown his engineering capability and cleverness with many different products so I expect it's a good idea, but until it's proven I'm reserving judgment. The rest of the setup is conventional and it seems like a stiff price for a spring.
A5 discussion: I've been using the A5 system since shortly after it came out, and use it alongside standard carbine setups (most with H or H2 buffers) and standard rifle setups. I also have an H6 buffer that I've done moderate testing with. On the A5 I've only used the A5H2 buffer that comes with the VLTOR kit, not the optional lighter and heavier buffers.
1) Reliability: the A5 has worked OK with everything I've tried, but the A5H2 and the rifle setup don't tame highly overgassed uppers enough for my taste. It does work well with reasonably gassed (typical 16" midlength) and marginal (18" rifle) uppers, but those also work fine with carbine if you're willing to choose the right buffer. You could buy and use the other weight buffers but that adds considerably to the cost of the A5 system, and for someone who already has the full the range of carbine weight buffers it's just too much extra hassle.
2) Recoil: in my use the perceived recoil of the A5 is sometimes better than carbine and sometimes not, but when I have video of my shooting the visible recoil is noticeably less compared to a carbine and H buffer.
3) Value: if you're building a stripped lower, the extra cost of the A5 setup is only $10-20 more than a comparable quality carbine setup (true milspec buffer tube). I think it's a reasonable choice for a new build, depending on the uppers you plan to use. I wouldn't toss an existing carbine buffer system to install an A5.
4) H6: this is supposed to be an alternative to the A5. I've only tested it to a moderate extent and it works fine in that limited testing. I can't comment on exactly how it compares to an A5.
5) Severely overgassed uppers: H3 buffer and quality GI spring or H2 buffer and Springco Blue will tame most. You could try an H3 and Springco Red if the gassing is outrageous, but if it's that bad you should get an adjustable gas block, or just toss the barrel and start over.
I think plenty has been said comparing the A5 with the carbine buffer system. Geissele's main benefits should be increased spring force and life. Braided wire springs have been proven to last longer than their single stranded counterparts. They lose some return energy due to internal friction between strands. You would likely see a similar benefit as the Geissele from a Sprinco blue. The buffer masses and internal construction, and overall system length are unchanged.
Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
I think plenty has been said comparing the A5 with the carbine buffer system. Geissele's main benefits should be increased spring force and life. Braided wire springs have been proven to last longer than their single stranded counterparts. They lose some return energy due to internal friction between strands. You would likely see a similar benefit as the Geissele from a Sprinco blue. The buffer masses and internal construction, and overall system length are unchanged.
Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
Sprinco blue is a lot stouter.
Hmmm, Brownells CS then. Is the Geissele spring 17-7 ph?
Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
Hmmm, Brownells CS then. Is the Geissele spring 17-7 ph?
Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
No, it is music wire.
556BlackRifle
06-27-16, 10:07
The Geissele spring looks interesting although I'm not sure it will make a noticeable difference to the shooter in the same way that the A5 has. In addition to the felt recoil being more ''rifle like'' with the A5, it also reduces bolt bounce. For most shooters bolt bounce may not be a huge issue but it is a benefit that the A5 system offers.
jerrysimons
06-27-16, 12:02
No, it is music wire.
Of springs and rust?
Most say that testing of the A5 has shown a greater operational range over the carbine set-up due largely to the rifle spring rate and of coarse buffer weight selection. Also there is the spring in the back of the weight stack that gives consistency to unlock.
Rayrevolver
06-27-16, 13:21
As to the dynamics of the system, it is simply conjecture until proven otherwise, one way or the other, IMO.
So help us out and provide some hard data. Get a timer and shoot splits A5 vs S42. Sprinco Green vs Vltor spring.
In another hobby I have seen how some people can be very insensitive to small changes (or even big changes), but the data usually doesn't lie. Do something repeatable and measurable. I can only think of splits as a benchmark.
Another point is that neither the military and the commercial market have not embraced the Vltor system. All of the R&D is focused on the carbine RE, and the military concluded that the H6 buffer would be fine vs. the A5 RE.
I suppose I disagree. Vltor A5 is doing well in the "high performance" side of the commercial market. Just because the USMC decided it was not worth it to upgrade a few hundred thousand M-16s doesn't mean anything to the consumer trying to eek out 1% or 5% performance increases.
"Do something repeatable and measurable. I can only think of splits as a benchmark"
You got a reliable human being to do these splits? I don't think so. The only results you would get is a range of time it took your human to peddle a trigger. What does a split time have to do with this conservation? To me the A5 feels a little smoother but it's the kind of improvement you will forget you did after a couple of magazines. The A5 is a no brainer for a new build but I am not so sure I would replace the extension, spring and buffer of a rifle that was running good. Maybe I am not sensitive enough to appreciate the benefits.
"Do something repeatable and measurable. I can only think of splits as a benchmark"
You got a reliable human being to do these splits? I don't think so. The only results you would get is a range of time it took your human to peddle a trigger. What does a split time have to do with this conservation? To me the A5 feels a little smoother but it's the kind of improvement you will forget you did after a couple of magazines. The A5 is a no brainer for a new build but I am not so sure I would replace the extension, spring and buffer of a rifle that was running good. Maybe I am not sensitive enough to appreciate the benefits.
Exactly.. I am nowhere good enough to make splits worth beans. Taran wouldn't even be good enough.
The Vltor a5 with the Vltor spring is gentler. I have to un the green spring to make my rifle reliable. Thus changes the feel of the a5 greatly, and the carbine setup is now similar to better. Thus is based off of me shooting it back to back in these configurations. It's the best I can offer.
Somebody tell G to make a rifle length braided wire spring so we can test it in the A5RE.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
I don't think it would work with the a5 buffer
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Interesting, if it were the correct length, why not?
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Because the spring is thicker. The carbine one doesn't work with carbine buffer either. It's a proprietary buffer that's smaller in diameter to compensate for the spring.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ah, gotcha. Didn't notice that.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
HansTheHobbit
07-05-16, 03:04
Thanks to all for responding. So basically the Geissele spring will last longer but doesn't improve reliability or reduce bolt bounce?
Thanks to all for responding. So basically the Geissele spring will last longer but doesn't improve reliability or reduce bolt bounce?
It's a little stiffer than mil-spec, which is good. I find that mil-spec springs don't get it done for me in my AR's.
From your video on another thread here. It may be helpful to look into what others are doing without requiring the need to increase L1 action spring tension to this point. That and using the FA without needed results. There are some issues here that are not inline with others in use.
Dunno what thay would be. All testing I've seen shows inadequacy of the milspec spring. It's about 400% less consistent in cyclic rate, too, due to variance when stripping rounds in full auto fire. It's just anemic.
HansTheHobbit
07-05-16, 17:41
Dunno what thay would be. All testing I've seen shows inadequacy of the milspec spring. It's about 400% less consistent in cyclic rate, too, due to variance when stripping rounds in full auto fire. It's just anemic.
I think those are just problems associated with the carbine length systems in general. You have a weaker spring combined with half the mass in the buffer. I've been told it's something to do with the compression rate, but I'm pretty vague on that term.
Looks like I will be going with the A5.
Dunno what thay would be. All testing I've seen shows inadequacy of the milspec spring. It's about 400% less consistent in cyclic rate, too, due to variance when stripping rounds in full auto fire. It's just anemic.
I would argue that point for a few models at the least. None required as a whole more L1 spring, adding more L1 tension does not automatically mean a higher degree of function for the system as a whole, there are negatives associated with that.
400% variance in cyclic rate is well beyond normal, that system has some other items that are issue. With that 4X variance, do you think that an M16 would be acceptable with an RPM range of that? Not likely at all.
You could be some of the unfortunate ones that believe that they can make the "best" frankenAR without knowing how the stack up of tolerances can add up in the system and induce issues. You could be an unfortunate one that bought a factory gun that had base issues and wanted to fix them on their own. Maybe something in-between with an outside issue involved, or a good system with outside issues. You could fall into any of that, or a combination of.
I've seen easy things like primer or brass parts causing binding, expensive things like transferable lowers that were incorrect causing binding, and about everything in between. Binding is still binding, a cheap spring may help an expensive lower, but would that make a better solution for all, or that case?
I think those are just problems associated with the carbine length systems in general. You have a weaker spring combined with half the mass in the buffer. I've been told it's something to do with the compression rate, but I'm pretty vague on that term.
Looks like I will be going with the A5.
My issues occurred with the A5, also. I have THAT on video in my other thread. That said, BOTH systems function fine with the correct spring and buffer tailored to YOUR system. I will have Vltor A5 data up shortly (slow motion video).
I would argue that point for a few models at the least. None required as a whole more L1 spring, adding more L1 tension does not automatically mean a higher degree of function for the system as a whole, there are negatives associated with that.
400% variance in cyclic rate is well beyond normal, that system has some other items that are issue. With that 4X variance, do you think that an M16 would be acceptable with an RPM range of that? Not likely at all.
You could be some of the unfortunate ones that believe that they can make the "best" frankenAR without knowing how the stack up of tolerances can add up in the system and induce issues. You could be an unfortunate one that bought a factory gun that had base issues and wanted to fix them on their own. Maybe something in-between with an outside issue involved, or a good system with outside issues. You could fall into any of that, or a combination of. I could. And it could have happened every time I bought an AR. And when Mike Pannone bought an AR. And Andrew Touhy. but I kindof doubt the odds.
I've seen easy things like primer or brass parts causing binding, expensive things like transferable lowers that were incorrect causing binding, and about everything in between. Binding is still binding, a cheap spring may help an expensive lower, but would that make a better solution for all, or that case?
There is NADA binding in my weapon system. Zip. Nothing. What can I do to show this to you to get you off that horse? It functions 100% with Tula and Wolf (except won't lock back every mag) and a nearly 7oz buffer and Vltor Green with a 0.074" gas port. Do you really think it's "binding"? Really?
Okay, Andrew Touhy showed 1000% variable in carrier return velocity. I tested MY rifle and have the video to prove it. Go see my thread. Now, I don't have the fancy gadgets he does, but you can see with your naked eye how bloody inconsistent the function of the Mil-Spec spring was in comparison. It's glaring. Slings cases all over, while the OTHER springs do NOT. couple my quick and cheap test with his test, and you kindof have to admit...Mike Pannone, Andrew, Myself, Bill G. the guys at Sprinco...we might be onto something.
Then continue to do so as you wish. I am quietly anticipating this change in spring value to improve overall function of this system.
Is another "biased" sand test in order? Why wouldn't you think that the system going into "battery" was not involved in this to begin with? What a shortfall of our logic on our part was to not think of this?
Too bad the M16 or it's FOW could not run. How frightening it was to our prospect of our future. It needed a FA smack that still could not help it to run.
Then continue to do so as you wish. I am quietly anticipating this change in spring value to improve overall function of this system.
Is another "biased" sand test in order? Why wouldn't you think that the system going into "battery" was not involved in this to begin with? What a shortfall of our logic on our part was to not think of this?
Too bad the M16 or it's FOW could not run. How frightening it was to our prospect of our future. It needed a FA smack that still could not help it to run.
Okay, how much derp would I have to be full of to change a system THAT HAS NEVER FAILED for one that FAILS OFTEN, just because some guy on the internet says "You should!"? Seriously? Why would I do what you are suggesting when I have seen and experienced failure after failure after failure, year after year, rifle after rifle, doing that? I may not be a genius, but I'm not stupid, either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou8M4uXDSRw
HansTheHobbit
07-06-16, 01:31
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou8M4uXDSRw
I'm really confused what you're trying to do. As far as I can see, everything is completely normal there.
I'm really confused what you're trying to do. As far as I can see, everything is completely normal there.
Yep. It is. 100%.
That is not a comprehensive determination of the system. Not sure what you are getting at?
wetidlerjr
08-29-16, 04:21
I was already set to convert my carbine systems to A5, but then I saw the Geissele Super 42 braided spring and buffer. Does anyone have any opinions on which is the better system?
I just installed one on a BCM carbine length gas 16" and it made a noticeable difference in recoil and smoothness compared to a BCM mid-length gas 16" with a standard H buffer and spring. I only shot about 60 rounds with it but I was impressed. This is, of course an "example of one" and will require much more use to make a definitive opinion but it looks promising. As always, YMMV. No opinion on the A5 system as I don't have one.
HansTheHobbit
08-29-16, 07:45
I just installed one on a BCM carbine length gas 16" and it made a noticeable difference in recoil and smoothness compared to a BCM mid-length gas 16" with a standard H buffer and spring. I only shot about 60 rounds with it but I was impressed. This is, of course an "example of one" and will require much more use to make a definitive opinion but it looks promising. As always, YMMV. No opinion on the A5 system as I don't have one.
Thanks! Now if only Geissele would make their spring in a rifle length version, preferably that worked with standard buffers.
I just installed one on a BCM carbine length gas 16" and it made a noticeable difference in recoil and smoothness compared to a BCM mid-length gas 16" with a standard H buffer and spring. I only shot about 60 rounds with it but I was impressed. This is, of course an "example of one" and will require much more use to make a definitive opinion but it looks promising. As always, YMMV. No opinion on the A5 system as I don't have one.
How's that Geissele spring holding up? I'm thinking of picking one up for testing
sugerwater
06-09-17, 07:01
I might have a few guns, but only one AR, rollmark not important. A normal 16" over gassed carbine made by the thousands. Over the years all parts have been changed except the receivers and RE.
Trigger, bolt upgrades, and 14.5" barrel. I used parts from all the top names, BCM, Larue, Geissele, Colt and even Magpul. I needed a H buffer and bought the S42. A little over 600 rounds and
the S42 does what it's suppose to. Ejection is 3 to 4:00 and have zero reliability issues. Somewhat pricey but I got it on sale for $55. Definitely quieter then stock, no twang. although that's not why
I purchased this. As said, I needed a H buffer and I trust his products.
I was already set to convert my carbine systems to A5, but then I saw the Geissele Super 42 braided spring and buffer. Does anyone have any opinions on which is the better system?
I have the Geissele. It was an impulse buy. Honestly, your buffer set up doesn't really make that much of a difference over stock configurations IMO, unless your trying to address cycling issues. But, I will say the Super 42 does run nice and smooth; it's noticeable but not mind blowing. An important side note, if you DO buy the Geissele it's important to know that you must use their buffer/spring combo together and NOT swap their parts with standard AR buffer parts. Their spring has a smaller inside diameter than a standard buffer spring due to the braided wire, so the shoulder of the actual buffer is smaller as well to accommodate this. If you try to use, for example, a standard buffer with the Geissele spring it will be too tight due to the larger shoulder on standard buffers and cause friction in the buffer tube.
They have a video posted that explains all that stuff as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you care about how the events time, then there are considerations to look into. The Geissele set up and the Colt spring with the A5 time differently for many. If you look into those deeper, you could have a deeper understanding of those events.
QuickStrike
06-19-17, 23:19
I once took a stock colt 6920 with H2 buffer. And another 6920 with an A5 rec. extension with a H-0 installed and an extra H-3 buffer.
Shot the two guns back to back with the same ammo.
The one with the A5 tube shot the flattest with the H3 buffer installed. My red dot only moved about 2 inches at 25 yards and accurate rapid fire was much easier.
I've been sold on the A5 ever since. YMMV.
Hammer_Man
07-01-17, 12:45
I have the Super 42 setup in my 16" heavy mid build, so I thought I'd give my .02 cents. I've shot 250 rounds of mixed loads through it thus far. I've used XM193, CBC 77 gr. OTM, Hornady Superformance 75 gr, PMC Bronze, IMI 77 gr. razor core. I experienced feeding issues with the Hornady, but no issues with the other rounds listed. Ejection seems to be where it's supposed to be - near 4 O'clock. Recoil impulse feels normal, no better or worse than a standard carbine spring and buffer. As advertised it does eliminate the "boing" or "twang", so if quiet cycling is a priority you may want to give it a try. Overall I'm pretty happy with it, however I'm not entirely convinced it is worth spending the extra money over a standard set up. My advice is if you're thinking about using this setup, wait until it comes on sale during Black Friday. As an aside, I'm currently building a MK12 Mod 1 clone of sorts, and decided on a Vltor A5 setup as I wanted an adjustable buttstock. I'm hoping the rifle length gas system of the MK12 barrel will work well with the rifle like buffer system of the VLTOR A5.
Hammerman, I assure you the A5 will work with your SPR build, I have the same setup and I love it.
The-Hammer
07-27-17, 23:39
I've been thinking about trying the A5 on an 18" rifle gas build. I had an A2 stock with rifle buffer and spring but switched to a carbine setup so I could use an enhanced SOPMOD stock. The rifle buffer and spring definitely shoots smoother than the carbine buffer and Sprinco blue that's in it now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
i'll add some unscientific observations as well. I've got two LMT MRPs that I like to run suppressed and unsuppressed.
My 16" SS 5-r rifled one has always been significantly more overgassed when run suppressed. It was originally built with LMT's enhanced BCG, standard carbine buffer spring and an H buffer. As I started running more ammo like the CBC 77gr OTM and IMI 77gr OTM I started to get bolt over base malfunctions suppressed, and noted that ejection was like a dribble towards the front of the gun.
I tried a sprinco red with an H buffer and finally said enough was enough, I tried the Gemtech SBC with a standard LMT bolt. Finally, a gun that felt like it was running ok suppressed. Even with the sprinco red and an H buffer. With PMC bronze .223 it felt like a kitten fart, and bordered on not fully cycling.
I saw Geissele's product and figured I'd give it a shot. Same setup, LMT 16" SS 5-r rifled mid-length, AAC SPR/M4 suppressor, a Gemtech SBC with LMT bolt, and now the Geissele super 42 braided buffer setup and buffer.
Gun actually felt smoother, and of course the action was easier to hand cycle compared to the sprinco red.
I got my other LMT finally set up as an SBR (12.5") and on first range session with a standard carbine buffer I thought it felt like too much recoil for the gun. I played with H through H3 buffers and finally felt that an H3 buffer tamed it the best. But running suppressed with the LMT e-carrier it still seemed like casings were flying too far forward and may indicate too high of a cyclic speed. On one range trip with an h2 buffer shooting PMC bronze .223 I had a failure to lock back suppressed while shooting controlled pairs. Never happened again over the course of 2-300 rounds. Hmm,oh well.
Got another Geissele braided recoil setup and of course did not read the instructions. Popped a standard h2 buffer in the braided recoil spring, assembled, cycled, and started shooting to zero a new optic. About 10 rounds in I hit the bolt release, and note that it went forward rather sluggishly, and did not go in to battery. Cleared and emptied the gun, noting that hand cycling was difficult. Separated the upper and lower and the buffer was about a half in recessed in to the buffer tube and would not move. Finally got it out of there and realized the mistake. Someone already mentioned it but the ID of the braided buffer spring is small than a standard spring, a few cycles from actual firing and the braided buffer spring will make itself fit around a standard buffer, but the pointy end of the spring will start raking the inside of your buffer tube. Not a good recipe.
Put the included Geissele buffer back in and fire it suppressed and unsuppressed the rest of the range session. Zeroed irons and two optics and no malfunctions from PMC .223 through CBC 77gr OTM. Need to fire it a bunch more to make some better observations.
I'm still curious if a Vltor a5 setup wouldn't serve me better but I'll keep with the pair of Geissele's for now.
Wolfpack45
09-26-17, 13:31
I have ARs from 10.3" to 18" with almost every barrel length in between, all get the A5 setup, none have given me issues functioning. All smoothed out from carbine tubes with H2-H3 buffers. A5 system is all I use in my ARs anymore. Makes it easier when they all take the same springs. I haven't looked back.
I've been thinking about trying the A5 on an 18" rifle gas build.
I have a 20" rifle with the A5 RE, BCM rifle action spring and an A5H2 (standard) buffer. It feels basicaly like all the M16 A1 and A2 rifles I shot in the military, smooth and controllable. Reliability has been 100% while shooting a wide range of handloads, full power 5.56, and quality 223 ammunition.
The ability to change length of pull for different shooters (and winter/summer clothes) was worth the cost to me, not to mention being able to use a variety of stocks and slightly shorten the gun for storage.
Andy
So the 42 has a different type of spring which is obvious.
What makes the VLTOR A5 different than standard types? Is it just the proprietary tube?
Hammer_Man
10-04-17, 21:54
The Vltor A5 is a complete system. The buffer tube is longer, therefore the buffer spring and buffer are also longer.
Makes sense. When I was searching it I saw the full kit with the stock, but didn't see tube, spring, buffer as a kit. Thanks.
Rayrevolver
10-05-17, 16:20
Don't forget there is a spring INSIDE the buffer as well.
IIRC the spring keeps the weights forward when the bolt is at rest to keep consistency and helps with bolt bounce. Don't quote me on these reasons for the spring...
BufordTJustice
10-05-17, 19:42
Don't forget there is a spring INSIDE the buffer as well.
IIRC the spring keeps the weights forward when the bolt is at rest to keep consistency and helps with bolt bounce. Don't quote me on these reasons for the spring...The biasing spring. A critical, yet often overlooked part of the Vltor A5 system. Great observation, Ray. :)
Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk
Hammer_Man
10-06-17, 00:07
Don't forget there is a spring INSIDE the buffer as well.
IIRC the spring keeps the weights forward when the bolt is at rest to keep consistency and helps with bolt bounce. Don't quote me on these reasons for the spring...
I've purchased two A5 systems, and I did not know that. That's actually really impressive, thanks for the knowledge bomb Ray.
Diamondback
10-06-17, 04:41
I've been planning an A5 for my pistol, but had a question... did they ever give a reason behind dumping that lip that goes over the buffer-retainer and supports the rear of the BCG, or is that a normal thing for pistol tubes and the lip on my cheap crappy "just to say the lower was first built as a pistol" Tacfire tube is an oddball freak?
i have the geissele and really like it so far.
I have both, both have functioned great, and I don't feel any need to replace one with the other. Disassembling the 42 buffer to tune the buffer weight is easy, as is the convenience of being able to drop it into any standard carbine receiver extension, so i'll probably stay that route going forward.
It might be better to look at these as levels of function with the compromises of some timing events for use during the lifespan of platform.
UCLAfanBrian
10-09-17, 09:54
I have both, both have functioned great, and I don't feel any need to replace one with the other. Disassembling the 42 buffer to tune the buffer weight is easy, as is the convenience of being able to drop it into any standard carbine receiver extension, so i'll probably stay that route going forward.
That's exactly what I like about it over my A5 setup also. Plus the Receiver extension isn't as long so all stocks collapse all the way down and if you don't like it easier to change back. Plus it's easier to dissasemble the buffer to tune and cheaper than buying new Vltor buffers.
If you compare the stresses and strains involved with timing for many events in the system, you'll see many advantages with a rifle like action system for durability/reliability of the system as a whole.
If you compare the stresses and strains involved with timing for many events in the system, you'll see many advantages with a rifle like action system for durability/reliability of the system as a whole.
Would you care to explain at length your current opinion on which product best addresses problems with the current mil-spec system and why? What is your current understanding of component timing issues over the life of the weapon?
I'd prefer to avoid addressing attempting to overcome manufacture variances outside of specification and focus on improving an in-spec weapon.
BufordTJustice
11-26-17, 10:27
Would you care to explain at length your current opinion on which product best addresses problems with the current mil-spec system and why? What is your current understanding of component timing issues over the life of the weapon?
I'd prefer to avoid addressing attempting to overcome manufacture variances outside of specification and focus on improving an in-spec weapon.
He and I have both already done this here on M4C. Several times.
Search button.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He and I have both already done this here on M4C. Several times.
Search button.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Will do, thank you.
I've got a Geissele G42 spring on a lower using my BCM mid-length gas system upper and it has worked fine; it's more quiet than the stock spring, and the recoil impulse is a bit smoother. Not a "must have" part but a nice addition nonetheless.
He and I have both already done this here on M4C. Several times.
Search button.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To be honest, you two get so damn sciencey that its hard to understand. I believe the Cliff notes version would say that the A5 provides more benefits, correct?
Diamondback
11-26-17, 16:07
In a nutshell, from this rookie's understanding...
Use Vltor A5 unless any of these three conditions apply:
You are forbidden by employing-agency policy from replacing buffer tube, or are building a strict cosmetic-clone of a milspec config
You can't afford the extra 3/4" length of the A5 tube, like a short arm or a minimum-size pistol, or a Michigan-style length-limit on pistols
You're on a tight budget and need the extra forty or fifty bucks somewhere else
If any of these apply, use Geissele instead.
How's that for a nutshell, Tom and Buford?
Really, what this boils down to is the improvement in reliability and durability of a properly massed and sprung A5 action combination over other offerings. We could look into the many reasons for this, and break it down into individual portions to look at many of the different events that add together for this if desired by others. Most all of those topics can be found in searching here though.
BufordTJustice
11-26-17, 18:43
To be honest, you two get so damn sciencey that its hard to understand. I believe the Cliff notes version would say that the A5 provides more benefits, correct?
And fewer downsides. No reason not to go A5 unless a PDW system is being employed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BufordTJustice
11-26-17, 18:47
In a nutshell, from this rookie's understanding...
Use Vltor A5 unless any of these three conditions apply:
You are forbidden by employing-agency policy from replacing buffer tube, or are building a strict cosmetic-clone of a milspec config
You can't afford the extra 3/4" length of the A5 tube, like a short arm or a minimum-size pistol, or a Michigan-style length-limit on pistols
You're on a tight budget and need the extra forty or fifty bucks somewhere else
If any of these apply, use Geissele instead.
How's that for a nutshell, Tom and Buford?
Essentially, yes. It’s a technically and functionally superior option to ANY carbine system. I would say that the Geissele system, along with a PWS H2 buffer/sprinco blue setup, would be the apex of the carbine system.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm stuck with a regular carbine extension and am torn between the Geissele Super 42 or a H2 w/ Sprinco blue on a middy. I've been thinking about it all weekend w/ this Geissele sale on. Damn. I can't make my mind up.
I'm stuck with a regular carbine extension and am torn between the Geissele Super 42 or a H2 w/ Sprinco blue on a middy. I've been thinking about it all weekend w/ this Geissele sale on. Damn. I can't make my mind up.
I’ve never used any of the products mentioned in this thread. However, after reading through it, and some similar threads. I made a few purchases since there’s been pretty good discounts over the weekend. I ordered an H3 buffer, VLTOR A5 buffer kit, and a Sprinco blue spring, as well as, a Sprinco green spring. And plan on testing various setups on my new 11.5 suppressed BCM upper build. Not saying to do what I did! Just putting the info out there! 😁
I'm stuck with a regular carbine extension and am torn between the Geissele Super 42 or a H2 w/ Sprinco blue on a middy. I've been thinking about it all weekend w/ this Geissele sale on. Damn. I can't make my mind up.
How many Geissele products have you used? Every time I try something new I’m surprised at how awesome it is. I’m debating keeping one just to use their kit. Buy it before you miss out on the sale.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How many Geissele products have you used? Every time I try something new I’m surprised at how awesome it is. I’m debating keeping one just to use their kit. Buy it before you miss out on the sale.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm running two G's and I love their tools and grease. I think I've paid for a employee breakfast or two.
I took your advice and bought two, as I needed two.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.