View Full Version : Educate me-Flat wire vs round spring technical data...
I run the Vltor A5 with everything I can. It's always been as simple as ordering a Green spring when I buy a kit to do a build, and my rifles run very well this way. You could even say that I build the rifles around the A5H2/Green spring combo, since it's worked from -20 to 101 degrees for me. My 18" precision rigs get the A5H3/Green spring. In a recent thread there was discussion of using the flat wire spring instead, with it's own set of benefits and retractions. Knowledge wanted...
Definitely need more information as well. Thank you!
Motivated1
08-01-18, 11:45
Definitely need more information as well. Thank you!
Yes! If Tom, Buford and all SME could contribute, it would be greatly appreciated.
I'm also interested in this information.
So maybe we start with how the product has changed since it first entered the market?
When the spring was first introduced to me, when it was relatively new, I decided to test some out. At the time I was informed that for 5.56 there was a carbine action spring, that could work on some 5.56 rifle actions. A .308 spring that worked with AR-15 carbine buffers with the 3/4"ish extended carbine RE for .308, rifle actions in .308, and some 5.56 rifles.
I already had a low friction set up to test spring loadings from an earlier project. Very simple with a load cell, force screw, and 3 polished rods (to simulate the RE diameter). The testing on the fixture looked great, some more L1 with very similar L2 with the carbine spring. I tried the spring in many known good platforms, the results ended up being erratic. After some more testing, I was looking at what appeared to be friction dragging the action down. I altered my original fixture so that I could check for drag by using a pusher rod down the barrel of an assembled rifle minus the bolt so that the pusher rod was seated to the carrier to test in compression and rebound. The findings were that there could be much more drag in some systems than others. Additional testing was done, the flat wire could add friction that normally wouldn't be there in a conventional spring. There was combinations that worked well, but the flat wire spring was less tolerant to combinations of factors, offset and angular misalignment for the RE, RE interior finish, etc.. There was a coating on the springs, but no amount cycling could make a marked improvement in some with issues, others seemed fine.
A similar test was done slightly later on with the longer version of the spring in rifle actions. Their marketing indicated that cutting coils to trim the spring could be used for tuning. Personally, I'm not a fan of an end user attempting this. I very much believe that springs for this need to be properly closed and ground square, anything else adds an angle to that portion of the spring. That makes more drag on a regular spring, adding that to a flat wire spring adds insult to injury. Cutting the springs down could hurt L2 tensions to the point that the safety margin diminished for stripping the round out of the magazine to chamber. Masking friction issues by reducing the work required to cycle the action isn't a good place to be.
There were combinations that seemed to work well enough, so more testing was done. When the drag was low, the springs showed benefits. Around this time, I was able to get with an engineer that actually worked on springs. He wasn't fast about getting back with me, it took him over a year. During that time I continued with the combinations that seemed to work well and relegated the others back to normal springs.
In some of my "good" flat wire combinations, issues came up. Symptoms started as erratic forms of function. Upon removing the springs, it was evident that some coils towards the buffer became kinked. Not long after, those springs would break. I wouldn't run a broken spring, even if there was some function, so those combinations were out.
A few others, mostly suppressed guns started to show signs of corrosion on portions of the spring.
Around this time, my spring engineer guy got back with me. When he told me the stress level range compared to a normal spring, I understood that the spring had 50% more stress than a conventional one. I still had some combinations that seemed to work well, so I continued to test. The springs with rust would fail fast and would break in multiple locations. During that same timeframe, I had the opportunity to test some cut away guns on camera. I was not and am not opposed to the concept of the L1 and L2 tensions of the flat spring, more of the offering's execution of that. What was found in the camera findings was how tightly the springs coils could stack together quickly during the action sequence towards the buffer end. The shock loading of the spring during initial movement was shown to my spring engineer with different amounts of gassed uppers using different buffer masses. The lower mass shock loaded more than than the higher mass options and he really questioned the L1 loading with the action at higher velocities.
At the end with the issues of drag, breakage, rust, shock loading, etc.. I gave up on how the spring was done, not the concept of the increased L1 with similar L2 for this system. Pneumatic systems showed that years prior, but carrying an air tank with hoses is not practical. While in typing, the process explained may seem exhaustive, but it was not out of my normal during that timeframe doing what I was doing.
This is by no means to condemn or discourage others from trying the product, as their execution of this has improved by a great deal at this time. It's not a jack of all trades by now, but a master of some. The product has improved in time, and I am glad to see that. There are some other issues that could be addressed, but it is good to see how the product has improved over time.
More to follow if interested.
Fantastic work! Could you define L1 and L2 please? What sort of service life were you getting out of these springs? Was there a gradual and predictable reduction in spring force or sudden drop off?
Wow,......all I thought I knew about springs has unraveled.
Motivated1
08-01-18, 20:54
Great info Tom, thank you! Keep it coming.
Fantastic work! Could you define L1 and L2 please? What sort of service life were you getting out of these springs? Was there a gradual and predictable reduction in spring force or sudden drop off?
L1 is length 1, or the spring length (and associated force) while the action is locked in battery.
L2 is length 2 or the spring length (and associated force) while the action is bottomed out in full recoil.
A little background on the shock loading:
This phenomena is not uncommon in automatic weapons.
It is basically a wave that travels at high speed back and forth along the spring
The stranded wire spring ( as found in the Kalashnikov )
is specifically recommended for shock loading applications.
The friction between the strands helps damp the shock wave.
https://www.ctspring.com/press/2012/03/stranded-and-shaped-wire-springs
http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1967
https://www.roehrs-springs.com/springs-products/multi-wire-springs
crosseyedshooter
08-02-18, 01:27
This topic is relevant to my interests. As a mental exercise to satisfy my own curiosity, I had measured a few springs to try and understand how spring parameters might translate into AR15 operation and perceived recoil. In concept, the spring stores the recoil energy and the reciprocating mass changes the harmonic frequency of the spring-mass system. In my case, I just wanted to look at the spring variable.
I used a digital trigger scale to roughly measure the force, in pounds, at bolt closed position and after (x) inches compression. I did this by installing the respective spring into a lower receiver with the corresponding buffer and measured the force needed to push the buffer away from the buffer detent horizontally. Then I used an extension of known length (x) to push the buffer and tried to get the force after (x) compression. I averaged three to five measurements each time. Those numbers are F1 and F@x. Due to the limits of the trigger scale, I had to calculate the bottom-out force of F2 at 3.5" of bolt travel.
I also measured other spring characteristics like coil count, free length, coil diameter, etc. and used spring formulas to back-calculate linear spring rate (k) and stored energy (1/2 kx^2). The below table is the data I've collected so far. I haven't had any time to do any analysis beyond a brief review of it and I'm sure there are many problems with it.
The flatwire springs with (Calc) in the description are calculated A5 extension values using measurements in a carbine extension as a sanity check to compare with actual A5 measurements. They seem to correlate for the most part.
https://i.imgur.com/gT8kawx.jpg
There are some general observations I made from the data, although not precise due to the limits of my measurement system. I think there are valid general trends and physical principles.
Flatwire springs have a higher F1 due to the longer free-length and more initial compression. The flatwire allows the longer spring to fit within the confines of the buffer and receiver extension at full compression.
The A5 rifle spring follows a similar principle by using a longer free-length but instead, uses a longer extension to accommodate the longer coil spring.
Even at the same spring rate, longer springs with more initial compression can store more energy within the same 3.5" of bolt travel. This will reduce the bottom-out impact and therefore, felt recoil until it prevents full bolt travel and proper function.
Flatwire springs make a grinding sound and generally have more friction than coil springs in the same receiver extension.
Just to add some clarity about the initial shock loading posted above. It was more focused on the beginning of the action cycle stacking coils closer together compared to a regular Colt action spring on the buffer end of the spring. Less emphasis on the resonance aspect of shock loading.
Resurrecting this: can someone translate tom12.7 and crosseyedshooter's conclusions into plain English? All I understood was that they have some advantages, but also some downsides. Which are stronger/more important/"better"? Tom12.7 was talking about the early days. How about now?
What's the verdict? Do you recommend them? To be avoided?
I can add some more details later, I'm short on time now.
The spring has changed somewhat, more for the better though. To get any value from it, the system needs low drag and reduced cyclic speed for the bolt unlocking sequence. Low drag meaning meaning friction from the action system. Reduced cyclic speed for the bolt unlocking sequence that ends up meaning higher reciprocating mass requirements, details later. You can't really do it in a carbine action as well as in a rifle like or A5 type action, less active coils mostly for their respective spring. Even with a A5H4, do not push the .308 flat wire action spring change out further than a standard carbine spring for your schedule. I would avoid the .308 flat wire in the A5H2 or lighter systems. It does work with the A5H4 better than the A5H3. You can also easily find yourself requiring specific gas porting for the A5H4 Tubb flat wire if your drive is to use that action system, it can be more forgiving to increase an operational span or usage. Excess drag from this can become very evident depending on many things or a stack up of RE interior bore and finish, offset or angular RE alignment (many don't know how bad this can be), etc..
More later if there's any interest.
It is far easier overall to gas a system for the Colt spring A5H2 for most. If your combination suits it though, you can increase your operational span with the .308 Tubb flat wire A5 combination, but don't expect it to last beyond your standard carbine action spring.
Motivated1
08-20-18, 20:55
I can add some more details later, I'm short on time now.
The spring has changed somewhat, more for the better though. To get any value from it, the system needs low drag and reduced cyclic speed for the bolt unlocking sequence. Low drag meaning meaning friction from the action system. Reduced cyclic speed for the bolt unlocking sequence that ends up meaning higher reciprocating mass requirements, details later. You can't really do it in a carbine action as well as in a rifle like or A5 type action, less active coils mostly for their respective spring. Even with a A5H4, do not push the .308 flat wire action spring change out further than a standard carbine spring for your schedule. I would avoid the .308 flat wire in the A5H2 or lighter systems. It does work with the A5H4 better than the A5H3. You can also easily find yourself requiring specific gas porting for the A5H4 Tubb flat wire if your drive is to use that action system, it can be more forgiving to increase an operational span or usage. Excess drag from this can become very evident depending on many things or a stack up of RE interior bore and finish, offset or angular RE alignment (many don't know how bad this can be), etc..
More later if there's any interest.
It is far easier overall to gas a system for the Colt spring A5H2 for most. If your combination suits it though, you can increase your operational span with the .308 Tubb flat wire A5 combination, but don't expect it to last beyond your standard carbine action spring.
There's a lot there! I'll start with the ' angular RE alignment', extrapolate that, please.
Thanks Tom12.7! Lots of good info here. Please, expand as much as you can, so we can all benefit from your knowledge! Especially about "higher reciprocating mass requirements, details later."
I'm definitely looking at A5 and rifle rec extensions with 308 flat wire. The carbine one does not look long enough for such a long spring anyway.
Bigger L1 and not too big L2 is what makes the 308 flat wire appealing for my (slightly) overgassed rifles.
crosseyedshooter
08-22-18, 01:06
In my simple mind, and generally speaking, flat wire spring geometry is stressed more than round wire springs. The benefit of flat wire springs is to store more energy in a limited space (buffer tube) as compared to a round wire spring due to higher coil count (so-called 308 spring) in the same stack height (carbine extension and buffer). There's no free lunch here.
In an overgassed rifle, the first and best solution is to correct the gas port diameter or throttle the gas with a restrictor or adjustable gas block. However, the discussion here is about playing with the other factors, reciprocating mass, stored spring energy, etc. The L1(F1) and L2(F2) are not values that directly relate to solving your overgassed problem. You simply want a spring that can store more energy so the buffer has minimal impact at the end of the receiver. Whether you achieve that with a stiffer spring (Sprinco) or a longer spring (flatwire) depends on the tradeoffs you're willing to make.
Interpreting tom12.7's post, the flatwire spring longevity will benefit from full weight carrier and heaviest buffers, smooth receiver tube and minimal carrier tilt, all to reduce the "shock" to the flatwire spring. Sudden hangups and abrupt changes in friction surfaces, initial bolt acceleration, should be minimized when using the flatwire spring.
If looking to improve from a carbine system, something like the A5 or rifle extension with Sprinco spring is already a best of both worlds compromise by using a longer AND stiffer round wire spring with ability to increase buffer weight due to longer buffer body.
So maybe we start with how the product has changed since it first entered the market?
When the spring was first introduced to me, when it was relatively new, I decided to test some out. At the time I was informed that for 5.56 there was a carbine action spring, that could work on some 5.56 rifle actions. A .308 spring that worked with AR-15 carbine buffers with the 3/4"ish extended carbine RE for .308, rifle actions in .308, and some 5.56 rifles.
I already had a low friction set up to test spring loadings from an earlier project. Very simple with a load cell, force screw, and 3 polished rods (to simulate the RE diameter). The testing on the fixture looked great, some more L1 with very similar L2 with the carbine spring. I tried the spring in many known good platforms, the results ended up being erratic. After some more testing, I was looking at what appeared to be friction dragging the action down. I altered my original fixture so that I could check for drag by using a pusher rod down the barrel of an assembled rifle minus the bolt so that the pusher rod was seated to the carrier to test in compression and rebound. The findings were that there could be much more drag in some systems than others. Additional testing was done, the flat wire could add friction that normally wouldn't be there in a conventional spring. There was combinations that worked well, but the flat wire spring was less tolerant to combinations of factors, offset and angular misalignment for the RE, RE interior finish, etc.. There was a coating on the springs, but no amount cycling could make a marked improvement in some with issues, others seemed fine.
A similar test was done slightly later on with the longer version of the spring in rifle actions. Their marketing indicated that cutting coils to trim the spring could be used for tuning. Personally, I'm not a fan of an end user attempting this. I very much believe that springs for this need to be properly closed and ground square, anything else adds an angle to that portion of the spring. That makes more drag on a regular spring, adding that to a flat wire spring adds insult to injury. Cutting the springs down could hurt L2 tensions to the point that the safety margin diminished for stripping the round out of the magazine to chamber. Masking friction issues by reducing the work required to cycle the action isn't a good place to be.
There were combinations that seemed to work well enough, so more testing was done. When the drag was low, the springs showed benefits. Around this time, I was able to get with an engineer that actually worked on springs. He wasn't fast about getting back with me, it took him over a year. During that time I continued with the combinations that seemed to work well and relegated the others back to normal springs.
In some of my "good" flat wire combinations, issues came up. Symptoms started as erratic forms of function. Upon removing the springs, it was evident that some coils towards the buffer became kinked. Not long after, those springs would break. I wouldn't run a broken spring, even if there was some function, so those combinations were out.
A few others, mostly suppressed guns started to show signs of corrosion on portions of the spring.
Around this time, my spring engineer guy got back with me. When he told me the stress level range compared to a normal spring, I understood that the spring had 50% more stress than a conventional one. I still had some combinations that seemed to work well, so I continued to test. The springs with rust would fail fast and would break in multiple locations. During that same timeframe, I had the opportunity to test some cut away guns on camera. I was not and am not opposed to the concept of the L1 and L2 tensions of the flat spring, more of the offering's execution of that. What was found in the camera findings was how tightly the springs coils could stack together quickly during the action sequence towards the buffer end. The shock loading of the spring during initial movement was shown to my spring engineer with different amounts of gassed uppers using different buffer masses. The lower mass shock loaded more than than the higher mass options and he really questioned the L1 loading with the action at higher velocities.
At the end with the issues of drag, breakage, rust, shock loading, etc.. I gave up on how the spring was done, not the concept of the increased L1 with similar L2 for this system. Pneumatic systems showed that years prior, but carrying an air tank with hoses is not practical. While in typing, the process explained may seem exhaustive, but it was not out of my normal during that timeframe doing what I was doing.
This is by no means to condemn or discourage others from trying the product, as their execution of this has improved by a great deal at this time. It's not a jack of all trades by now, but a master of some. The product has improved in time, and I am glad to see that. There are some other issues that could be addressed, but it is good to see how the product has improved over time.
More to follow if interested.
I filmed rifles in slow motion suppressed and unsuppressed using all manner of springs. I found the Tubb Flatwire springs to "feel" good to me, the shooter, but they were very erratic in ejection performance, which leads me to believe carrier velocity was also erratic, and they also caused much more "muzzle dip" than any other combination I tried, upon return to battery.
Crosseyedshooter, thanks for your input!
You say: "Whether you achieve that with a stiffer spring (Sprinco) or a longer spring (flatwire) depends on the tradeoffs you're willing to make." Can you elaborate on the tradeoffs for each?
Also, did I understand correctly from your last sentence that a Sprinco green spring is "better"?
crosseyedshooter
08-22-18, 16:48
Crosseyedshooter, thanks for your input!
You say: "Whether you achieve that with a stiffer spring (Sprinco) or a longer spring (flatwire) depends on the tradeoffs you're willing to make." Can you elaborate on the tradeoffs for each?
I think tom12.7’s and my posts already did. Flatwire has flatter F1-F2 slope and higher energy storage for a given space but is less consistent, causes more friction, is susceptible to shock loading and can fail from over stress.
Roundwire needs higher k and steeper F1-F2 slope to store more energy in the same space, has less friction and stress but will have more “ramping up” feel as it compresses.
Also, did I understand correctly from your last sentence that a Sprinco green spring is "better"?
What characteristic do you consider “better”?
"Better" means more advantages and less downsides. Just from the post above:
Flatwire has 2 plusses and 4 minusses.
Roundwire has only one minus. Still trying to figure out what "needs higher k and steeper F1-F2 slope to store more energy in the same space" means for a rifle. But it sounds less dramatic than the disadvantages of the flatwire.
There's no free lunch, I get it. So, I'm looking at both the number of +s/-s and the perceived importance. And struggling mightily... lol
I filmed rifles in slow motion suppressed and unsuppressed using all manner of springs. I found the Tubb Flatwire springs to "feel" good to me, the shooter, but they were very erratic in ejection performance, which leads me to believe carrier velocity was also erratic, and they also caused much more "muzzle dip" than any other combination I tried, upon return to battery.
You'll get erratic carrier speeds with these using lower action masses and systems with more drag. Using the A5H4ish in a low drag system, the carrier velocities get more consistent. Besides, with lower masses you can end up distorting the round from stripping the round from the magazine to chambering. You want to keep the carrier velocity in check.
As for the "muzzle dip", you'd have to accept that to run the A5H4, Tubb .308 spring combination. You can gain in operational span range of function going this route, but there are pros and cons.
It can help to reduce drag when using these to alter some buffer dimensions. The spring seat area of the buffer can improve by slight reduction in diameter, seating diameter length, and a shallower transition angle with a radius to that. The combination can have drag induced from the spring OD and ID areas. Changing the buffer dimensions is not a requirement, but you can reduce drag by doing so before the buffer body gets anodized.
There's more we can discuss on these if anybody is interested.
Gentlemen,
Long time lurker. I'm interested to see where this topic goes, if the handful of individuals that have a handle on this (or similar) type of setup have the time. I've started down this same road myself due to the information passed here on similar threads.
Semper Fi
Ryan
I recently assembled an AR with an 18” Ballistic Advantage heavy barrel with rifle length gas system.
It is only been out on two range trips so far, however I had several failure to feeds which I attribute to the buffer and or spring. As soon as I put that upper on my A4 (with A2 stock); clone lower, the problems went away.
Since than I got a Superior Shooting Systems (David Tubb) flat wire buffer spring.
I may make it out to the range this coming weekend or two weeks from now.
I’ll post here whatever results.
So which buffer system was in in the problem lower and has that lower been verified with another upper?
I recently assembled an AR with an 18” Ballistic Advantage heavy barrel with rifle length gas system.
It is only been out on two range trips so far, however I had several failure to feeds which I attribute to the buffer and or spring. As soon as I put that upper on my A4 (with A2 stock); clone lower, the problems went away.
Since than I got a Superior Shooting Systems (David Tubb) flat wire buffer spring.
I may make it out to the range this coming weekend or two weeks from now.
I’ll post here whatever results.
You'll get erratic carrier speeds with these using lower action masses and systems with more drag. Using the A5H4ish in a low drag system, the carrier velocities get more consistent. Besides, with lower masses you can end up distorting the round from stripping the round from the magazine to chambering. You want to keep the carrier velocity in check.
As for the "muzzle dip", you'd have to accept that to run the A5H4, Tubb .308 spring combination. You can gain in operational span range of function going this route, but there are pros and cons.
It can help to reduce drag when using these to alter some buffer dimensions. The spring seat area of the buffer can improve by slight reduction in diameter, seating diameter length, and a shallower transition angle with a radius to that. The combination can have drag induced from the spring OD and ID areas. Changing the buffer dimensions is not a requirement, but you can reduce drag by doing so before the buffer body gets anodized.
There's more we can discuss on these if anybody is interested.
I'm interested. What does it look like and does it reduce drag between the buffer and the spring?
If you are talking about the buffer body, it looks very similar to a normal one. Not like some of the other stuff out there, like HK using something unique to help deal with their carrier tilt issues.
If you are talking about the buffer body, it looks very similar to a normal one. Not like some of the other stuff out there, like HK using something unique to help deal with their carrier tilt issues.
Is this something that is commercially available or one off skunk works stuff?
I am also interested in how you ended up with the A5H4/Tubbs 308 combo. I went as far as the Tubbs 308 and A5H2. I found this combo to be extremely violent in comparison to both the tubbs car/A5H2, and a carbine RE w/ an H2 and the Tubbs spring. The latter honestly having the best feel of all of them.
Rifle:
Nov gen III
Nov 14.5 Mid CHF w/SF brake
SLR Sentry 7
LMT E-BCG
64gr GDSP as function baseline
Semper Fi
Ryan
You can't keep the carrier velocity down low enough with the Tubb .308 spring with an A5H2. You would really want to use an A5H4.
Again, this setup is not for all by any means, but it can be used by some to get some gains.
You can't keep the carrier velocity down low enough with the Tubb .308 spring with an A5H2. You would really want to use an A5H4.
Again, this setup is not for all by any means, but it can be used by some to get some gains.
That makes sense. Right now with the Tubbs car spring and A5H2 I am in between gas settings with the SLR block. One down and I have failures to lock back consistently. At the current setting there is enough gas drive that the buffer is impacting the RE with some force. This same setting with the car RE was perfect. I believe that changing the installed length of the spring with the A5 RE has lowered the L1/L2 values. I think a 39ish coil spring would be ideal if one didn't want to commit to the .308 spring, however I don't like the idea of cutting springs. I would like to do so to test my theory, but I would not keep it long term. I currently have an A5H3 to test. I'm hoping this solves the velocity issue enough to minimize the buffer bottoming out without going another click open on the block.
S/F
Ryan
Motivated1
09-01-18, 09:40
I presuppose that's with the LMT-E carrier? That being, carrier velocity increases with the LMT-E carrier?
I presuppose that's with the LMT-E carrier? That being, carrier velocity increases with the LMT-E carrier?
I believe so.
S/F
Ryan
So which buffer system was in in the problem lower and has that lower been verified with another upper?
It was a milspec 6-position receiver extension, carbine buffer and spring.
When I put on the lower from my A4 rifle clone, no problems.
That A4 clone long ago started off with that very same carbine lower and it had no problems what so ever.
It made me wonder if perhaps an 18” barrel with rifle gas system could be more susceptible to short stroking because of the shorter dwell time than a 20” barrel.
Also, that carbine lower worked fine with my son’s 16” faxon mid-length gunner upper.
Everything pointed to that Ballistic Advantage 18” barrel.
morpheus562
09-04-18, 19:40
I'm running the Tubbs 308 flat wire spring in a suppressed build, and I'm overall pleased with how it runs. I compared the Tubbs 308 flat wire to a green Sprinco spring, and the Tubbs had less felt recoil, less gas to the face, and less violent ejection of the casing. Felt recoil is about the same (if not slightly better) than my KAC SR15 mod 1 with a muzzle brake on it.
I did a fairly high round count course with the rifle back in June and it did well outside of 2 failures to extract that required light mortaring of the rifle. The failures were during heavy tempo shooting and the casing was stuck in the barrel extension. I added a black o-ring over the BCM extractor spring and then it was good to go for the rest of the course without another hickup.
Overall the rifle runs incredibly clean for a suppressed gun and there is virtually no gas to the face when shooting.
Rifle setup:
Centurion Arms 12.5" barrel
Silencerco Saker K
Hodge Defense upper receiver, rail, and gas block
LMT e-carrier with BCM bolt
Geissele Airborne charging handle
BCM lower ordered from Grant with the A-5 Buffer system
A5H4 buffer and Tubb's flat wire spring.
Ohio_Shooter
09-09-18, 11:56
Has anyone done testing on the Geissele Super 42 buffer & buffer spring kit?
If sticking with the A5H2 and A5 system, would there be an advantage to running the Tubbs flat wire spring over the Springco Green?
There isn't any real overall gain with either for the A5H2, too many negatives compared to a Colt rifle action spring. The gains from either the Tubb flat wire or the green spring don't really come into play until the action mass increases. If we want to keep the timing of events to our advantage for function overall, we need to not limit timing in places where we don't have much of a margin to begin with.
Best source for Colt rifle springs?
BufordTJustice
09-13-18, 17:09
OP,
I suppose that I'm the one to blame for this entire thread. But, you'll like what I have to say.
Like Tom12.7, my findings in real world testing essentially mirror his. Literally. I found that the Tubbs SS 308 flatwire spring, coupled with the Vltor A5H4 buffer, and an LMT enhanced carrier....has permitted me to run the same lower on two different uppers; a 16" BRT Intermediate (Optimum) gas upper usually without a can (my duty upper) and a Sionics RGP 11.5" upper that is 100% suppressed with a SiCo SpecWar 556.
As Tom noted, friction is the cause of many observed inconsistencies and certainly in these applications. A conservative application of an NLGI #2 grease to the outer and inner diameter of the spring coils can assist greatly in break-in of the rough surface of the spring over the first several hundred rounds.
morpheus562, your findings mirror my own as well. Less gas to face....virtually none, in fact. I have to shoot multiple rounds in quick succession with no breeze, nor gun movement, and no eye pro to even begin to get a whisp of that ole Gas-to-Face feeling. And even then it is very slight. My brass, like yours, comes out so clean that it's impossible to tell it from another gun until you put it side by side with the same ammo from one of our agency std 16" carbine gas patrol rifles. And, if the sun isn't out, you still might not be able to tell at a casual glance.
No other spring/buffer/carrier combo have has ever done this. Ever. And across barrel lengths and gas system types, too.
I'm not saying it's "the best" as that's a deceptive and amorphous phrase....but I'm not changing my setup until something comes along that is better. Might be a while.
BTJ-You're certainly a contributing factor! I knew of your experience, coupled with little bits of knowledge I had picked up along the way reading other people's post and I didn't want to derail anyone else's thread. As they say, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, although in this case it's more of a desire to make well informed choices. Do you feel much muzzle dip with the A5H4?
BufordTJustice
09-13-18, 19:49
BTJ-You're certainly a contributing factor! I knew of your experience, coupled with little bits of knowledge I had picked up along the way reading other people's post and I didn't want to derail anyone else's thread. As they say, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, although in this case it's more of a desire to make well informed choices. Do you feel much muzzle dip with the A5H4?
I honestly don't unless I truly limp grip the gun. I also do a lot of shooting from unconventional positions. It's no worse than my agency's std patrol rifles which are much heavier (16" LMT carbine gas with non free float quad rails, FSB,H buffers, aimpoint PRO, streamlight TLR-1, and sling).
I hope that helps.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I can't find a Colt rifle spring anywhere, so I ordered a few rifle springs from BCM. I'll try them in a non-adjustable gas drive mid-length(Sionics barreled) upper and see how I like it. I'll try to find an A5H4 to try with the Green spring and flat wire spring as well. I may try the Tubbs at some point, but for the time being it would be more for curiosity.
BufordTJustice
09-16-18, 11:02
I can't find a Colt rifle spring anywhere, so I ordered a few rifle springs from BCM. I'll try them in a non-adjustable gas drive mid-length(Sionics barreled) upper and see how I like it. I'll try to find an A5H4 to try with the Green spring and flat wire spring as well. I may try the Tubbs at some point, but for the time being it would be more for curiosity.
I tested them. I bought several from Specialized Armament. They were super close to the BCM rifle springs I also bought. Super close.
My credit card number was stolen around the same time as each of my two SA orders (which I'm sure was dumb luck and a coincidence) so I haven't ordered anything else from SA in quite a while. Lol.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nice solid info in this thread, it seems a shame we haven't had input from some of the key players lately. Guys who contribute are certainly missed when they leave.
Anyone have any updated info or spring combinations that are working out well for them?
Don’t shoot me.
Colt 6920 running like a scalded dog on the stock spring and H buffer.
Definitely less dot movement and more controllable than with the A5.
Don’t shoot me.
Colt 6920 running like a scalded dog on the stock spring and H buffer.
Definitely less dot movement and more controllable than with the A5.
Amen, and yours isn't the only one, I like an H2, but I also like pepperoni on my side of the pizza.
Nice solid info in this thread, it seems a shame we haven't had input from some of the key players lately. Guys who contribute are certainly missed when they leave.
Do you know where tom12.7 went? His last post was in this thread.
crosseyedshooter, have you measured any new springs since post #10?
I read this thread last night, went out this morning with a few Pmag 40s of 62gr Winchester. I tried the Tubb spring again in an A5 tube with an A5-2 buffer.
Sure enough, it seemed to run fine but a few cases would kick out the front at 1:00 or eject about 3’ to the 4:00.
I am seriously done with anything other than a Colt carbine spring and H, or H2 buffer on anything that I need to depend on.
I read this thread last night, went out this morning with a few Pmag 40s of 62gr Winchester. I tried the Tubb spring again in an A5 tube with an A5-2 buffer.
Sure enough, it seemed to run fine but a few cases would kick out the front at 1:00 or eject about 3’ to the 4:00.
I am seriously done with anything other than a Colt carbine spring and H, or H2 buffer on anything that I need to depend on.
Try Sprinco Green.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.