View Full Version : vltor a5 system or jp silent captured spring?
bobbytucson
11-12-17, 22:35
sorry if this vs. was asked before but tried to search for a thread and found nothing except lots of info exclusive to each product. so here it goes, if you had the choice to install either the vltor a5 system or jp silent captured spring buffer, what you pick? my particular ar has horrible spring noise and vibration, sprinco spring with h1, so thats why im looking into the jp, but i have seen lots of praise for the vltor a5. yes, my carbine is functioning flawlessly and its not broke so it shouldnt need to be messed with. but i just hate hearing the spring when i weld my cheek, and read that jp and vltor work excellent to help that along with better PERCEIVED felt recoil. what do you guys recommend? i shoot alot, i take alot of classes and compete in 2-gun. a5 or jp ?
Spring noise is harmless, but if it matters to you it can be eliminated by simply lubricating the recoil spring.
But to directly answer your question, A5. No brainer. You probably wont find anybody here that would pick a JP system over A5.
What kind of tube do you have currently?
EDIT to add: Forgot about the Geisselle Super 42, that would be a great option too.
I run a JP silent captured spring. Great product. Have a few thousand rounds since installation. Works like a champ.
GeneralPurpose
11-13-17, 10:39
I absolutely love the way the JP-SCS makes my rifles feel when cycling. It makes the action feel like it's on bearings. However, I seem to have trouble feeding the first round off the magazine if my rifle isn't well lubricated.
They cycle completely fine, but since the first round was giving me a little bit of trouble, I just replaced my JP-SCS setups with Geissele Super 42s. I should be able to provide a range report this weekend with my thoughts on the Super 42.
I've never encountered horrible noises or vibration coming from the buffer spring. Is the inside of the extension rough?
Action spring, to use the correct terminology. Some folks often hear a "twang" contributed to the spring vibrating and resonating inside the RE. I believe this happens more prominently with stainless steel springs than chrome silicon, at least in my experience.
A relatively rough interior and spring finish will contribute to a more grinding sound when the action reciprocates.
I've never encountered horrible noises or vibration coming from the buffer spring. Is the inside of the extension rough?
MisterHelix
11-13-17, 14:09
The VLTOR A5 system potentially enhances reliability, whereas anecdotal reports of the JP system lead me to suspect that it potentially decreases reliability.
The VLTOR A5 system returns a carbine (closer) to original rifle design specs, the JP system is s fairly radical departure from those specs.
My first AR had me noticing the sproing. Run the crap out if it for a few thousand rounds, and your focus will be on getting rounds on target, maneuvering, and problem solving.
"Feel" is overrated. It's a rifle, not an exotic massage.
My rifles have VLTOR A5 systems to allow for slightly more forgiving functional parameters, as well as a slightly longer LOP.
Diamondback
11-13-17, 14:11
Vltor all the way, unless you really can't spare the 3/4" of extra length, in which case it's Geissele time.
bobbytucson
11-13-17, 18:47
no not at all, very clean and smooth, not even any anodizing wear. spikes tube
bobbytucson
11-13-17, 18:48
thanks man, and its a mil spec tube from spikes
bobbytucson
11-13-17, 18:52
Spring noise is harmless, but if it matters to you it can be eliminated by simply lubricating the recoil spring.
But to directly answer your question, A5. No brainer. You probably wont find anybody here that would pick a JP system over A5.
What kind of tube do you have currently?
EDIT to add: Forgot about the Geisselle Super 42, that would be a great option too.
thanks man, its a milspec spikes, not sure who their oem is. and whats geisselle super 42?
bobbytucson
11-13-17, 18:54
I've never encountered horrible noises or vibration coming from the buffer spring. Is the inside of the extension rough?
nope, clean and smooth
The only time I notice spring is when I’m firing suppressed, with ear pro, with a focus on precision. Even the JP has some spring sound. Less pronounced but there.
GeneralPurpose
11-18-17, 15:21
I've now shot my ARs with the Super 42, and I really like it. In my opinion, the JP-SCS has the best feel, the Super 42 is second, and in a far-away third place is a regular carbine spring. For feeding reliability, the Super 42 feels strongest, followed by a carbine spring, followed by the JP-SCS.
I believe the Super 42 represents the best all-around replacement to a regular carbine spring. The "sproing!" is completely eliminated by it, which is important to me because I mainly shoot suppressed.
The only time I notice spring is when I’m firing suppressed, with ear pro, with a focus on precision. Even the JP has some spring sound. Less pronounced but there.
Ditto. The first time I shot my 300BLK shorty with a can and no ear pro I thought something had broken it was so crunchy sounding.
Hammer_Man
11-18-17, 16:57
Try the Geissele Super 42. I ran that setup in a previous build, and found it eliminated all the "sproing" from my rifle. It's a lot cheaper than the A5 and JP SCS, and does not require replacing the receiver extension.
Between the A5 and the JP? The A5 properly set up will operate over a wider span than the JP properly setup, as far as MRBS/MRBF due to the action system.
The Super 42 could be an option for some that can not add the 3/4" RE for whatever reason. The timing events for the 42 are not as preferable than what the A5 can be.
Neither the JP or the 42 have the time in bolt over travel to the magazine as the A5 does for proper round presentation to allow proper chambering. Magazines can be "fast", but they do not work "instantly", issues come up where the timing of a standard carbine action, JP, 42 do not have the time available to function properly. This is just one example of a few that shows preferable operation of the A5 or rifle like action over what is available for the carbine length RE, as far as MRBS.
GeneralPurpose
11-18-17, 19:28
Between the A5 and the JP? The A5 properly set up will operate over a wider span than the JP properly setup, as far as MRBS/MRBF due to the action system.
The Super 42 could be an option for some that can not add the 3/4" RE for whatever reason. The timing events for the 42 are not as preferable than what the A5 can be.
Neither the JP or the 42 have the time in bolt over travel to the magazine as the A5 does for proper round presentation to allow proper chambering. Magazines can be "fast", but they do not work "instantly", issues come up where the timing of a standard carbine action, JP, 42 do not have the time available to function properly. This is just one example of a few that shows preferable operation of the A5 or rifle like action over what is available for the carbine length RE, as far as MRBS.
That's quite a statement to say guns with a carbine receiver extension don't have the time available to function properly. You should tell the Army, they'll be shocked to know their M4s don't function properly. The A5 presents some improvements, as the Super 42 does, but there's millions of guns that work absolutely fine with carbine receiver extensions.
That's quite a statement to say guns with a carbine receiver extension don't have the time available to function properly. You should tell the Army, they'll be shocked to know their M4s don't function properly. The A5 presents some improvements, as the Super 42 does, but there's millions of guns that work absolutely fine with carbine receiver extensions.
You misread, and I am very well aware of the changes for the M4 types of systems. I only cited above one example out of many issues.
For the cited example above, "Would you prefer the 30 round magazine with the traditional black follower for an M4?" It worked well enough for the M16/M16A1, what changed to make that a priority? Or look at why we have M4 feed ramps to begin with? The transition of a round from the magazine to the chamber is a more bumpy ride with the M4 ramps. "Why would we choose M4 feed ramps then?"
There are many more examples to look at beyond what was posted, that was just one issue.
GeneralPurpose
11-18-17, 20:54
You misread, and I am very well aware of the changes for the M4 types of systems. I only cited above one example out of many issues.
For the cited example above, "Would you prefer the 30 round magazine with the traditional black follower for an M4?" It worked well enough for the M16/M16A1, what changed to make that a priority? Or look at why we have M4 feed ramps to begin with? The transition of a round from the magazine to the chamber is a more bumpy ride with the M4 ramps. "Why would we choose M4 feed ramps then?"
There are many more examples to look at beyond what was posted, that was just one issue.
Understood. The A5 appears to be an improvement over the standard carbine receiver extension, but I think there's a tendency for people to overlook the fact that the carbine receiver extension and collapsible stock have been around for over 50 years and were working fantastically before the A5 showed up. It would be one thing if carbines were plagued with issues and the A5 fixed them.
Understood. The A5 appears to be an improvement over the standard carbine receiver extension, but I think there's a tendency for people to overlook the fact that the carbine receiver extension and collapsible stock have been around for over 50 years and were working fantastically before the A5 showed up. It would be one thing if carbines were plagued with issues and the A5 fixed them.
You are lost. When has the rifle like lower been a dis-advantage in function of the base system compared to the carbine one as a base system overall?
There's more than a few things going on here.
I'd rather enjoy dinner with my wife, educate yourself, goodbye.
GeneralPurpose
11-18-17, 21:29
You are lost. When has the rifle like lower been a dis-advantage in function of the base system compared to the carbine one as a base system overall?
There's more than a few things going on here.
I'd rather enjoy dinner with my wife, educate yourself, goodbye.
:jester:
Aaand you prove my point. The A5 zealots never cease to amaze me, reading things into statements that were never there. Where did I say anything that's incorrect? Educate yourself, your reading skills and your personal skills leave a lot to be desired.
ETA: You're too busy arguing to realize that I agreed with you. The A5 is an improvement. Woo-hoo, after about 10,000 rounds the only failures I've had are from using non-USGI magazines and a firing pin whose tip chipped off after several thousand rounds. People act like if you don't have an A5, you're going to die an unglorious death on the two-way range on your way to Taco Bell.
:jester:
Aaand you prove my point. The A5 zealots never cease to amaze me, reading things into statements that were never there. Where did I say anything that's incorrect? Educate yourself, your reading skills and your personal skills leave a lot to be desired.
ETA: You're too busy arguing to realize that I agreed with you.
You're missing his point. He never stated the regular ol' carbine length RE set up isn't functional. Just that (to sum it up) the A5 is a better system for a variety of reasons, timing being one of them.
It took quite some time, huge money, and plenty of research to get the carbine RE setup/buffer/gas porting/ammo combo set up optimally in what became the M4, but the rifle length set up began with those things, and the A5 is an improved version of the rifle length system. There's nothing wrong with the carbine RE when set up properly with the rest of the components of the overall weapon (gas system, gas port size, etc). But the A5 does it all and for the most part, does it better. As far as timing, especially in the configurations we're issued them, the M4/M4A1 would only benefit from the A5 system and the appropriate A5 buffer, and empirical data backs this claim, as does advice from high level trainers (Mike Pannone, in my case).
GeneralPurpose
11-18-17, 22:04
You're missing his point. He never stated the regular ol' carbine length RE set up isn't functional. Just that (to sum it up) the A5 is a better system for a variety of reasons, timing being one of them.
It took quite some time, huge money, and plenty of research to get the carbine RE setup/buffer/gas porting/ammo combo set up optimally in what became the M4, but the rifle length set up began with those things, and the A5 is an improved version of the rifle length system. There's nothing wrong with the carbine RE when set up properly with the rest of the components of the overall weapon (gas system, gas port size, etc). But the A5 does it all and for the most part, does it better. As far as timing, especially in the configurations we're issued them, the M4/M4A1 would only benefit from the A5 system and the appropriate A5 buffer, and empirical data backs this claim, as does advice from high level trainers (Mike Pannone, in my case).
Yes, I know. And I agree. But you're missing my point: If everyone was having problems with carbine RE equipped guns for the last 50 years, nobody would be using them. Everyone would using rifle RE setups.
Improvements are great. I love 'em. But if you can shoot 10,000 rounds without a failure on a suppressed 10.5" AR, including a lot of full auto, and never have a failure...it's tough to have a strong desire for improvements that, frankly, will go unnoticed. For the military, of course that incremental improvement is worth it. For everyone else, probably not going to make a tangible difference.
I'd like Geissele to make a Super 42 for the A5 so I could have both. I shoot with my stock out one position anyway.
The OP's chief complaint is spring noise. The A5 does not address this. The Super 42 does, and it's drop-in. For the OP's priorities, the Super 42 is the clear winner over the A5.
I have a VLTOR a5 in 3 of mine with Damage Industries chrome silicon rifle spring. No noticeable spring noise, softer recoil, and slows the action down.
:jester:
Aaand you prove my point. The A5 zealots never cease to amaze me, reading things into statements that were never there. Where did I say anything that's incorrect? Educate yourself, your reading skills and your personal skills leave a lot to be desired.
ETA: You're too busy arguing to realize that I agreed with you. The A5 is an improvement. Woo-hoo, after about 10,000 rounds the only failures I've had are from using non-USGI magazines and a firing pin whose tip chipped off after several thousand rounds. People act like if you don't have an A5, you're going to die an unglorious death on the two-way range on your way to Taco Bell.
What exactly is an A5 Zealot? Is it different than a Carbine Zealot?
GeneralPurpose
11-19-17, 11:54
What exactly is an A5 Zealot? Is it different than a Carbine Zealot?
The people who act like, since the inception of the A5, all carbine receiver extension equipped guns are garbage that can't possibly function correctly. Carbine RE guns have been around for over 50 years and they've been working just fine. For an example of this, one could look at the guns adopted by the U.S. military and count how many have carbine REs and how many have A5 REs. The A5 is an improvement, but it doesn't invalidate 50 years of history.
The reality is AR carbines have not been reliable for that long.
M4 feedramps, heavy buffers, magazine followers, stronger extractor springs or O-ring, middy gas, magazines, longer cam pin track carrier, A5 system... all to fix problems seen in carbines but not rifles.
Todd, you'll be named a zealot just for preferring reliability and durability.
GeneralPurpose
11-19-17, 19:25
Todd, you'll be named a zealot just for preferring reliability and durability.
Preferring reliability makes sense. Saying that carbine REs/buffers "do not have the time to function properly" is asinine. M4s don't function properly? You should call up the military and alert them of your expert insight.
Were you running around ~8 years ago (before the A5 even existed) telling everyone that their carbines don't work and they have to use rifle REs?
If you stick to facts, you would sound more credible. As it is, it just sounds like the adage "no one more zealous than a convert." Everyone understands the A5 is an improvement. But saying that carbines don't work lends you zero credibility.
The reality is AR carbines have not been reliable for that long.
M4 feedramps, heavy buffers, magazine followers, stronger extractor springs or O-ring, middy gas, magazines, longer cam pin track carrier, A5 system... all to fix problems seen in carbines but not rifles.
I’m not calling anyone a zealot or anything else, but the M4A1 with its 14.5 in barrel functions just fine, gray mags and all. No special middy gas system, mag followers, carrier, or A5 RE required.
Don’t get me wrong; I like guns with some of these changes, but they aren’t strictly necessary for function.
Preferring reliability makes sense. Saying that carbine REs/buffers "do not have the time to function properly" is asinine. M4s don't function properly? You should call up the military and alert them of your expert insight.
Were you running around ~8 years ago (before the A5 even existed) telling everyone that their carbines don't work and they have to use rifle REs?
If you stick to facts, you would sound more credible. As it is, it just sounds like the adage "no one more zealous than a convert." Everyone understands the A5 is an improvement. But saying that carbines don't work lends you zero credibility.
", issues come up where the timing of a standard carbine action, JP, 42 do not have the time available to function properly."
^No one said they don't work, period. You are making a mountain out of a molehill that doesn't exist. There are situations where they don't work well with the carbine RE but would work with the A5. If he did call them up, they'd agree: the M4 series of weapons would benefit from a wider window of operation, especially when run full auto and/or suppressed. Hence the upgrades to the M4A1 from the M4, etc. It's an evolving family of weapons because "good enough", isn't always good enough. The M4 was designed and set up around a specific family of ammo. There are many upgrades out there put in place to deal with shortcomings in the system that are addressed with the A5, E-carrier, etc.
Yes, the M4A1 works with the carbine RE. Just not as well as it could, or should. The changes may not be required for function, but the host weapon would function longer and with better MRBS with the upgrades. Most military equipment will be run until it's broken, they repaired as little as needed to be put back in service because commanders have numbers to meet. That means that systems would work longer if they were more forgiving to worn mags, etc. Don't believe me? Go to any large scale firing exercise and watch what trickles over to the gun truck for repair. Or to any marksmanship training event and watch what weapons go down and why. Sincerely, a guy who regularly watches military weapons fail.
I’m not calling anyone a zealot or anything else, but the M4A1 with its 14.5 in barrel functions just fine, gray mags and all. No special middy gas system, mag followers, carrier, or A5 RE required.
Don’t get me wrong; I like guns with some of these changes, but they aren’t strictly necessary for function.
Not looking to disagree with you. But in the spirit of answering the OP, while looking for best upgrade vs mere proper function, I concur that the A5 hold the most cards.
bobbytucson
11-19-17, 21:45
Yes, I know. And I agree. But you're missing my point: If everyone was having problems with carbine RE equipped guns for the last 50 years, nobody would be using them. Everyone would using rifle RE setups.
Improvements are great. I love 'em. But if you can shoot 10,000 rounds without a failure on a suppressed 10.5" AR, including a lot of full auto, and never have a failure...it's tough to have a strong desire for improvements that, frankly, will go unnoticed. For the military, of course that incremental improvement is worth it. For everyone else, probably not going to make a tangible difference.
I'd like Geissele to make a Super 42 for the A5 so I could have both. I shoot with my stock out one position anyway.
The OP's chief complaint is spring noise. The A5 does not address this. The Super 42 does, and it's drop-in. For the OP's priorities, the Super 42 is the clear winner over the A5.
ill take it! before i opened this thread, i didnt even know about the super 42, and think ill be getting it. and dam ive noticed every thread i start, arguments back and forth. i feel like when i was a kid all over again when my mom and dad would argue because i got a boo boo on my knee and eventually my dad would bust her over the head with a frying pan sending her to the hospital with 9 stitches, resulting in me feeling bad i ever said anything.
ill take it! before i opened this thread, i didnt even know about the super 42, and think ill be getting it. and dam ive noticed every thread i start, arguments back and forth. i feel like when i was a kid all over again when my mom and dad would argue because i got a boo boo on my knee and eventually my dad would bust her over the head with a frying pan sending her to the hospital with 9 stitches, resulting in me feeling bad i ever said anything.
Sorry to hear that, bro. Empirical data is big around here, so if you look at the answers that answered your question directly, I think you'll find what you're looking for.
bobbytucson
11-19-17, 22:47
no worries ! and what is empirical data? im barely out of the novice stage of a.r. intelligence lol
no worries ! and what is empirical data? im barely out of the novice stage of a.r. intelligence lol
https://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html
Think of it as large amounts of data that unabashedly and without bias points to conclusions made from facts. For example, in firing 60,000 rounds total of M855A1 through 10 identical rifles, we conclude the mean rounds between failure equals xxx, with yyy percent of those failures being attributable to the host weapon, and zzz being attributable to out of spec ammo. Just a made up example.
bobbytucson
11-19-17, 23:27
https://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html
Think of it as large amounts of data that unabashedly and without bias points to conclusions made from facts. For example, in firing 60,000 rounds total of M855A1 through 10 identical rifles, we conclude the mean rounds between failure equals xxx, with yyy percent of those failures being attributable to the host weapon, and zzz being attributable to out of spec ammo. Just a made up example.
ahhh i see. logic math and probability math !
Thank you! You said well before I had the chance.
The reality is AR carbines have not been reliable for that long.
M4 feedramps, heavy buffers, magazine followers, stronger extractor springs or O-ring, middy gas, magazines, longer cam pin track carrier, A5 system... all to fix problems seen in carbines but not rifles.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.