View Full Version : Centurion Arms Barrels
Anyone have any experience with Centurion Arms 16" mid-length barrels?
Are you talking about their CL fn barrels?
If so, they are fantastic. Ive only heard great things about any of their barrels, but I have a 14.5” CL LW.
Good gas port (not measured, but no gas to face silenced, and runs very smooth with springo blue and h2).
Im getting 1.3moa with fusion 62 grain consistently. Havent done a good accuracy test with match ammo, but would assume its close to 1moa.
I have a MK12 barrel that has consistently printed tight groups with factory Magtech 77gr ammo. Last outting with it my best groups were .70",.66", .58", .55" when I did my part (5 round groups, the .66" was actually 6 rounds though. All at 100 meters). Even at times when I know something was off during a group, it still hovered around MOA.
Centurion Arms is also a pleasure to deal with. Monte and Corrie will go out of their way for you.
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
gunnerblue
01-25-20, 18:33
I have an older medium profile Centurion 16” mid length which I cut back to 14.” Quite gassy with a SOCOM Mini so I installed a .071” insert from BRT (the size was their recommendation for 90% suppressed brass-case ammo use) and it’s now much better. I haven’t shot it for groups with match ammo but get similar results as MegademiC with 62 grain Gold Dots.
I bought a Centurion Barreled upper from a member here.
He should never have let it go. Its awesome.
My brother has a Centurion Arms 16" mid-length barrel that he bought 10 years ago with about 14,000+ rounds down the pipe that is still shooting a tad over 1moa.
SeriousStudent
01-26-20, 14:51
Yes, I have one, and it is superb. Consistently under MOA from a rest. Mine seems to love the IWI 77-grain 5.56 load.
https://www.sgammo.com/product/223-556mm-ammo/20-round-box-556mm-77-grain-smk-otm-lr-mod-1-razorcore-imi-ammo-made-israel-m
It also shoots quite well with both M262 and the 75- and 62-grain Gold Dots.
Definitely a keeper.
They are shall we say strongly gassed.
They are shall we say strongly gassed.
That's why I ended up only owning Colts.
I think the whole point of the midlength got lost in somewhere along the way.
I had Daniel Defense and BCM 16" mids and my 6920s shot softer. What's the point?
They are shall we say strongly gassed.
Is this with newer production barrels? And which ones exactly?
I always remember reading that Centurion was one of the few manufactures that had gas ports on the smaller side.
I have a 16” mid chf barrel. Bought in the last few years.
It’s reported to have a .80 gas port. It about shoots that way. I use a LMT enhanced bolt carrier, and Vltor A5-H4 with a spring co green spring.
I would not call it over gassed, it’s just gassed to make sure it always functions. That said it probably would always function with a .76 gas port as well.
They are shall we say strongly gassed.
Strongly gassed as in well-gassed?
They're some of the smallest ports in the industry.
Strongly gassed as in well-gassed?
They're some of the smallest ports in the industry.
My 14.5” mid runs tula with a carbine buffer, short strokes with h2 and standard spring.
Using wolf gold and 556 it runs very smooth with springco blue and h2. I dont notice significant gas-to-face when suppressed... id call it properly gassed for a do-it all barrel. Better than my bcm 11.5 in the gas department- without question.
I wish they offered more sensible profiles.
Leonidas24
01-28-20, 20:40
They are shall we say strongly gassed.
That it is not the case at this time. My 2019 production 12.5 carbine is ported at .066, and the last report I've seen of a .08 port on a 16" middy CA barrel is 2013. Most recent reports on 16" mids are smaller than BCM, or very near to .076 on the high end.
I just bought a new (2020) 16" mid-length. Gas port is .080
I just bought a new (2020) 16" mid-length. Gas port is .080
That's bullshit. To me, BCM's .076" is borderline gas hog as they shoot just like a 6920 to me.
Serious question:
Do you get any benefit from a mid gas if it's hogged out to run like a carbine?
16” barrels will have larger gas ports than the 11.5 - 12.5’ but .080 is too larger IMO
Strongly gassed as in well-gassed?
They're some of the smallest ports in the industry.
You are the only person I have ever encountered that considered a .80 gas port on a 16" mid to be 'small'
That it is not the case at this time. My 2019 production 12.5 carbine is ported at .066, and the last report I've seen of a .08 port on a 16" middy CA barrel is 2013. Most recent reports on 16" mids are smaller than BCM, or very near to .076 on the high end.
I'd like to see evidence of these new gasports.
Additionally Centurion does have a rep for 12.5" barrels with small (too small?) gas ports. To me all this means is they actually kind of suck at gas ports as there is no consistency in the gas drive of their barrels across the range. A company with gas ports figured out would have barrels that all deliver similar amounts of gas energy to the BCG regardless of barrel or gas system length.
I have one that shoots well. However, if you want a proper gas port, buy a Sionics reduced gas port or Extreme RGP barrel. I’m a fan. The RGP is more of a properly gassed barrel. It runs with or without gas port.
PB
Leonidas24
01-29-20, 23:04
I'd like to see evidence of these new gasports.
Additionally Centurion does have a rep for 12.5" barrels with small (too small?) gas ports. To me all this means is they actually kind of suck at gas ports as there is no consistency in the gas drive of their barrels across the range. A company with gas ports figured out would have barrels that all deliver similar amounts of gas energy to the BCG regardless of barrel or gas system length.
Having seen what prepare posted regarding a 2020 production barrel being .080 I sent an email to Centurion for clarification on what they spec their ports at, and whether or not they would offer the option of having them drilled a few thousandths smaller (.070-.072 range.)
Admittedly what I've seen that led me to believe they were smaller were internet reports that they were supposedly smaller than BCM's .076 standard. If that's not the case I'll stand corrected.
Having seen what prepare posted regarding a 2020 production barrel being .080 I sent an email to Centurion for clarification on what they spec their ports at, and whether or not they would offer the option of having them drilled a few thousandths smaller (.070-.072 range.)
Admittedly what I've seen that led me to believe they were smaller were internet reports that they were supposedly smaller than BCM's .076 standard. If that's not the case I'll stand corrected.
I emailed them also after I received the barrel to ask why they went with a .080 gas port. Thee reply I got was because people shoot low powered ammo so they felt .080 was the best of both worlds.
I then emailed Black River Tactical about a BRT Micro Tun Gas Port and they recommended a .071- .073 for a diet of quality brass 5.56 and 223 ammo.
I have a BRT micro tune gas port in another over gassed barrel that I've been extremely satisfied with.
I was this >< close to having a Centurion upper built.
Glad I didn't. Nothing worse than a gas hog barrel.
morpheus562
01-30-20, 16:38
I was this >< close to having a Centurion upper built.
Glad I didn't. Nothing worse than a gas hog barrel.
I thought they had an option where you can request a smaller sized gas port? Can't remember where I read it, but I'm sure if you contact them they can assist.
Centurion Arms has a great reputation. Haven’t heard any complaints on build quality, accuracy, or customer service.
As far as the gas port on 16” mid length barrel I’m not aware of a definitive combat grade gas port size. That being said .080 does appear to be on the larger end of the scale. For a premium priced barrel it’s hard for me to imagine many people buying them to shoot cheap crap ammo with.
Exactly. I do not shoot crap ammo in any of my 5.56 guns, they all receive brass cased , full power 5.56 ammo, or my hand loads which are all on the warm side to hot. I do not shoot suppressed either as I dont have one. Obviously, if and when I do get one then I'll shoot suppressed but for now I cant.
I also just bought a 16" mid from Monty during their Christmas sale and spoke with Corrie I asked the very question under discussion here and she said .080" as well. I was a little taken aback because that was not the spec I was expecting at all. I was hoping to here almost anything else, smaller.
I too have a BRT gasblock with the reducing port on another barrel that was just wat too overgassed and it has worked well. Am I heading there again with this one?
BRT asks a series of questions when ordering these and I'll spell it out to you guys and if anyone want to offer up your advice I'd be happy to hear it. You already know the barrel and ammo, non- suppressed and I already have the Vltor A5 setup (A2 buffer) with the Sprinco green spring. Again, never ANY cheap ammo, no steel case combloc stuff. As low as I go is brass case FC223 to get on paper during zeroing.
I looked really, really hard at BRT but I wanted a hard use, high volume barrel this time because all of my current ARs have SS barrels, great for precision and all but I dont tend to abuse them. This build is being built for that purpose, to be driven hard so BRTs lack of a CL barrel steered me to CA because of their reputation for quality CL barrels.
If I can get it to shoot soft and smooth then all the better. So what has port size would you request from BRT if you had these parts to build with? What's the thoughts on the BRT ported gastubes? Anybody have any firsthand?
I know this will sound ammo-snobbish but g-damn, why the hell does a significant part of the industry cater to cheap asses who shoot shit ammunition? Not just cater to them per se, but make it so that the rest of us who don't shoot cheap crap have no other choice? I absolutely REFUSE to shoot steel-cased garbage through my AR's (that's why AK's exist). I won't even shoot PMC as I've had issues with function in a 20" A1 clone. The only .223 pressure fodder I have are 64gr Gold Dots, and they are hardly weak and work fine. The rest is all 5.56mm NATO pressure stuff. Whether it's M193, M855, Mk262, Mk318, Hornady Tap T2, and a little M855A1 I came across it's all full-on stuff.
If you shoot Wolf/Tula/Brown Bear/etc. through your AR then more power to ya. I just don't want a barrel gassed for that crap.
Leonidas24
01-30-20, 20:09
I emailed them also after I received the barrel to ask why they went with a .080 gas port. Thee reply I got was because people shoot low powered ammo so they felt .080 was the best of both worlds.
I then emailed Black River Tactical about a BRT Micro Tun Gas Port and they recommended a .071- .073 for a diet of quality brass 5.56 and 223 ammo.
I have a BRT micro tune gas port in another over gassed barrel that I've been extremely satisfied with.
I got a reply this morning and was told that their last order from FNH was sourced with .080 ports, and they were trying to sell off what they had before exploring a smaller gas port. Apparently the order was rather large, as they're making 14.5" mids and 12.5" mids cut down from 16" barrels as well. They are not currently doing custom ports on CHF barrels from what the reply said.
*Sigh* I can't recommend the 12.5 carbine barrel enough, it's just stupid pleasant to shoot, but .080 is pretty dang big for a 16" mid. Next size down is Sionics and BCM at .076, then DD at .073 (I think.)
edit: I have to imagine Corrie lets out a sigh every time she has to answer this question.
I've had a few of BCM's .076" and I always felt like they were gassed a little hotter than a 16" Colt carbine.
I liked BCM's first 14.5" mids. 5.56 ammo with a carbine buffer and it ran soft and smooth.
Big gas ports and heavy buffers are clunky and kick hard and are just aggravating to shoot.
I feel my CA middy is on the porn star side. I may explore one of BRT nozzles. I just don't feel like pulling it apart. I wonder why they specified .080?
I feel my CA middy is on the porn star side. I may explore one of BRT nozzles. I just don't feel like pulling it apart. I wonder why they specified .080?
I suspect it’s primarily to prevent negative reviews about their rifles not cycling. That and they haven’t done their own T&E on properly sized gas ports that cycle quality ammo without being over gassed.
I don’t mean that negativity, that’s just my opinion.
With carbine length barrels the T&E and the actual data is already out their.
Walker_Texasranger
01-31-20, 08:46
Interesting thread. I think social media has made it very difficult for companies in all types of industries but especially for something like this.
Let’s say Billy Bob buys a Centurion barrel and posts a video up on Instagram of it choking with some underpowered ammo. That video will get spread around, people will talk on forums and Facebook, and before you know it, Centurions reputation is hurt greatly, even if it isn’t justified. There’s lots of competition because there’s a ton of AR manufacturers out there and you probably can’t afford to have anything work less then perfect.
I would like to see smaller gas ports but for a defensive gun it probably doesn’t matter much. An adjustable gas block with a light buffer and a light BCG will always shoot the softest if you want a gamer gun.
Eurodriver
01-31-20, 09:38
Per Centurion their 10.3” is gassed at 0.070”
Interesting thread. I think social media has made it very difficult for companies in all types of industries but especially for something like this.
Let’s say Billy Bob buys a Centurion barrel and posts a video up on Instagram of it choking with some underpowered ammo. That video will get spread around, people will talk on forums and Facebook, and before you know it, Centurions reputation is hurt greatly, even if it isn’t justified. There’s lots of competition because there’s a ton of AR manufacturers out there and you probably can’t afford to have anything work less then perfect.
I would like to see smaller gas ports but for a defensive gun it probably doesn’t matter much. An adjustable gas block with a light buffer and a light BCG will always shoot the softest if you want a gamer gun.
Due to the fact that the AR/M4 platforms have become common use, the amount of information available online, through videos, books, armor courses, and training classes, a significant number of end users are more knowledgeable about the system and how it works. Ammo has also improved. That being said I don’t think a properly gassed AR/M4 would harm a known quality manufacturers reputation if it didn’t cycle low pressure ammo that it wasn’t designed for in the first place.
No need to pull anything apart.
With our EZTUNE gas tubes, you just swap the tube and go.
The preset 14-16" MID version should work great for most uses.
https://www.blackrivertactical.com/concrete5/store/#!/BRT-EZTUNE-Gas-Tube-Midlength-14-16-Barrel/p/154960005/category=6464009
More discussion here.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?218722-BRT-EZTUNE-Gas-Tubes
I feel my CA middy is on the porn star side. I may explore one of BRT nozzles. I just don't feel like pulling it apart.
The gas tubes are equally effective at changing gas drive as the ports and blocks, but have a service life around 5k rounds for CAR length and more for MID length.
I too have a BRT gasblock with the reducing port on another barrel that was just wat too overgassed and it has worked well. Am I heading there again with this one?
BRT asks a series of questions when ordering these and I'll spell it out to you guys and if anyone want to offer up your advice I'd be happy to hear it. You already know the barrel and ammo, non- suppressed and I already have the Vltor A5 setup (A2 buffer) with the Sprinco green spring. Again, never ANY cheap ammo, no steel case combloc stuff. As low as I go is brass case FC223 to get on paper during zeroing.
I looked really, really hard at BRT but I wanted a hard use, high volume barrel this time because all of my current ARs have SS barrels, great for precision and all but I dont tend to abuse them. This build is being built for that purpose, to be driven hard so BRTs lack of a CL barrel steered me to CA because of their reputation for quality CL barrels.
If I can get it to shoot soft and smooth then all the better. So what has port size would you request from BRT if you had these parts to build with? What's the thoughts on the BRT ported gastubes? Anybody have any firsthand?
Prepare, agreed. There are a number of really knowledgeable people out there and I'd bet CAs consumer base contains alot of real world users who've probably used this platform in anger. I dont think bubba posting a video of his newly built CA barreled gun not running on the steel case tula would convince them CA makes junk.
Clint, I'll be in touch soon. You really helped sort out my previous issue so I have no doubts we can get this one dialed in as well.
DThat being said I don’t think a properly gassed AR/M4 would harm a known quality manufacturers reputation if it didn’t cycle low pressure ammo that it wasn’t designed for in the first place.
Nope. KAC, DD, CA, and plenty of others have had to change out gas port sizes due to people and the "I don't want a gun that won't cycle everything" comments. The posts online all start the same, about their weapon that "jams", and then anyone and everyone who knows next to zero pig piles on.
Walker_Texasranger
01-31-20, 13:39
Nope. KAC, DD, CA, and plenty of others have had to change out gas port sizes due to people and the "I don't want a gun that won't cycle everything" comments. The posts online all start the same, about their weapon that "jams", and then anyone and everyone who knows next to zero pig piles on.
Yup. It’s happened to several companies already so to say it won’t continue to happen or isn’t part of a company’s decision when designing a barrel is silly.
I’ve seen companies put warnings on the website that says something like: this thing may not work unsuppressed with .223.
Nope. KAC, DD, CA, and plenty of others have had to change out gas port sizes due to people and the "I don't want a gun that won't cycle everything" comments. The posts online all start the same, about their weapon that "jams", and then anyone and everyone who knows next to zero pig piles on.
Personally, I don't see an issue with barrels gassed on the stronger side (i'm not talking about incorrectly-sided huge ports).
At the same time I don't understand the obsession on this forum to have a "smoothest shooting gun ever". Shooting a steel cased ammo is not always an issue. Most people forget (or willfully ignore) that a larger port gives increased reliability in adverse conditions.
Your smoothest shooting stick with a '0.06" port' using M855 in mild weather will have issues running in -20/-30 degrees, high altitude (i.e. low env. pressure), introduction of snow/ice, or dirty/sandy conditions which is typically a requirement for a military gun.
These two requirements are on the different ends of the spectrum.
I think it was a correct decision for some companies to go with a larger port as it eliminates issues with steel cased ammo and gives a better reliability in harsh conditions all at the cost of mildly increased recoil. Whenever this approach is suitable for an individual is up to them. There are choices on the market for different barrels and adjustable gas blocks to mitigate this issue if need be.
If there were some fundamental issues with a Centurion Arms barrels like an accuracy, reliability, or bad chrome lining - that's one thing to discuss and throw hands up in the air (there are none as far as I know). But I think it's a bit strange to criticize the company trying to cater to 80-90% of the typical users.
I suspect it’s primarily to prevent negative reviews about their rifles not cycling. That and they haven’t done their own T&E on properly sized gas ports that cycle quality ammo without being over gassed.
I don’t mean that negativity, that’s just my opinion.
With carbine length barrels the T&E and the actual data is already out their.
Baseless accusations like this don't add anything to the discussion and can be detrimental to a company's rep.
Also, considering Monty's rep as a highly knowledgeable gun nerd it's an ignorant statement.
My 14.5” mid would not cycle tula with a spikes t2 with powdered W in extreme cold.
I would hardly call that overgassed. Not sure what the port is as Ive never pulled it, but its from the 2013-ish timeframe.
Yup. It’s happened to several companies already so to say it won’t continue to happen or isn’t part of a company’s decision when designing a barrel is silly.
I don't think most fudds are likely to drop $300 on a CHF barrel... I bought mine with the belief that the barrel was produced to optimal specifications. Having a over gassed barrel isn't just about a gun that doesn't cycle smoothly. It means you are prematurely wearing out parts and reducing the service life of the weapon. Adding a suppressor to the equation makes it that much worse...
I don't think most fudds are likely to drop $300 on a CHF barrel... I bought mine with the belief that the barrel was produced to optimal specifications. Having a over gassed barrel isn't just about a gun that doesn't cycle smoothly. It means you are prematurely wearing out parts and reducing the service life of the weapon. Adding a suppressor to the equation makes it that much worse...
It is highly unlikely that you'll see any difference in durability or wear between gas port size of 0.07" and 0.08", let alone a smaller difference. If you go from 0.05" to 0.08" - maybe. Most people overthink gas ports and "smooth weapon" to the point of being either unreasonable or simply not making any scientific sense.
It is highly unlikely that you'll see any difference in durability or wear between gas port size of 0.07" and 0.08", let alone a smaller difference. If you go from 0.05" to 0.08" - maybe. Most people overthink gas ports and "smooth weapon" to the point of being either unreasonable or simply not making any scientific sense.
Okay... So where does that excess gas go? What does that excess gas do to the components of the gun? Did you read the part where I said it's not just about smooth cycling?
I think at one time, when choices in barrels/manufacturers were small, having a larger gas port would be a good business decision. Seeing various forums over the years (here, TOS, reddit, etc.), most people are buying full powered ammo and using some kind of buffer/spring/adjustable gas block combination to reduce the effects of over-gassed barrels. The majority of people these days are buying cheap nitride barrels from various sources and wouldn't even consider a CL barrel no matter what the gas port size is or manufacturing technique/QC/price etc., so I don't see the reasoning in keeping it on the larger size. With that being said, I only shoot full power stuff with CL barrels and will be purchasing a CA 14.5 middy and will make adjustments as I see fit with a BRT gas port (if needed).
It is highly unlikely that you'll see any difference in durability or wear between gas port size of 0.07" and 0.08", let alone a smaller difference. If you go from 0.05" to 0.08" - maybe. Most people overthink gas ports and "smooth weapon" to the point of being either unreasonable or simply not making any scientific sense.
I say the opposite.
The gas port size is one of the most critical dimensions on an AR.
I say the opposite.
The gas port size is one of the most critical dimensions on an AR.
What % of increase in wear do you see going from a 0.07" to a 0.08" gas port... all things equal?
(this is assuming carbine gas system, 14.5" barrel, and 0.75" barrel diameter)
What % of increase in wear do you see going from a 0.07" to a 0.08" gas port... all things equal?
(this is assuming carbine gas system, 14.5" barrel, and 0.75" barrel diameter)
It's not all about wear. It's about being built right and running well without dickin around with stupid gas blocks and springs and buffers.
I have a safe full of 16" carbines with stock springs and H buffers that shoot just as soft as most, and softer than many mid-lengths.
I say the opposite.
The gas port size is one of the most critical dimensions on an AR.
Gas port is important - I don't dispute that. What I find silly is that some people argue that, for example, a gas port 0.072 is better than 0.076. Why they argue that and what data points they have - absolutely nothing. Not only, that most folks haven't measured gas ports at all.
Then they start going into even deeper theoretical discussion of throwing into the equation things like all sort of ammo from handloads and steel case to M855A1, A5 or rifle setup, different springs, different buffer weights, what if they want to cut down barrel in the future. But it does not stop here, no. They also start postulating reliability with 6 different brands of suppressors (most, if not all, of them they don't own), etc. etc.
Matter of fact - most trusted brands will have proper sized ports. Even PSA will be fine, it might be on the larger side, but it will work fine for most people.
Here is an interesting point - there was a thread in the Technical Section here, where a member claimed that 2(or 3) different Mil-Spec BCGs produced a drastically different recoil characteristics in the same gun. More knowledgable members than I, accurately pointed out that was due to a different cam path on BCGs - which was later confirmed. How many people who like to theorize about recoil and minor gas port difference considered that fact? I suspect - very few, if any.
Gas port is important, but it does not alone define reliability, durability or recoil characteristics of the weapon. Saying that an AR with the gas port size 0.08 will beat itself to death vs 0.07 (or 0.074) is simply, absolutely, positively NOT TRUE. Suppressor might change variables, but then you start going into what brand and what kind of back pressure and etc. If you want to run a can - you might have to do a custom port size. Do your own testing with the barrel length, port size, and buffer setup you like and let us know - i'd be interested in what works for other members.
me2hootyhoo
02-19-20, 03:37
Gas port is important - I don't dispute that. What I find silly is that some people argue that, for example, a gas port 0.072 is better than 0.076. Why they argue that and what data points they have - absolutely nothing. Not only, that most folks haven't measured gas ports at all.
Then they start going into even deeper theoretical discussion of throwing into the equation things like all sort of ammo from handloads and steel case to M855A1, A5 or rifle setup, different springs, different buffer weights, what if they want to cut down barrel in the future. But it does not stop here, no. They also start postulating reliability with 6 different brands of suppressors (most, if not all, of them they don't own), etc. etc.
Matter of fact - most trusted brands will have proper sized ports. Even PSA will be fine, it might be on the larger side, but it will work fine for most people.
Here is an interesting point - there was a thread in the Technical Section here, where a member claimed that 2(or 3) different Mil-Spec BCGs produced a drastically different recoil characteristics in the same gun. More knowledgable members than I, accurately pointed out that was due to a different cam path on BCGs - which was later confirmed. How many people who like to theorize about recoil and minor gas port difference considered that fact? I suspect - very few, if any.
Gas port is important, but it does not alone define reliability, durability or recoil characteristics of the weapon. Saying that an AR with the gas port size 0.08 will beat itself to death vs 0.07 (or 0.074) is simply, absolutely, positively NOT TRUE. Suppressor might change variables, but then you start going into what brand and what kind of back pressure and etc. If you want to run a can - you might have to do a custom port size. Do your own testing with the barrel length, port size, and buffer setup you like and let us know - i'd be interested in what works for other members.
Excellent point/post. That bcg may have been mine that you are referring to. No one seemed to believe me. I sent it out to be inspected. Chad at SOTAR found it had very tight tolerances, while still being in spec. So, nothing wrong with it, passes mil spec gauging. He tried it in his firearms too, and found higher recoil as well. After inspecting multiple bcg’s, I could see a difference in cam paths on some (just the lower cost brands)
Then there is the rest of the system. How tight or loose is the gas block, tube, key, and tube to key? Buffer springs seem to be hit or miss, some guys have cycling issues with certain brands and rates in the same barrel/buffer setup as someone else.
So I had come to the same conclusion that you are pointing out when I went through my situation. Also, will not buy any bargain bcg’s, buffers, or springs anymore.
Leonidas24
05-17-20, 13:08
/thread revive:
I ended up snagging an unfired Centurion 16" LW on the EE for a smoking price and building an upper out of it. Out of the box I checked it with pin gauges and confirmed it to be .080". Got on BRT's website right away and ordered a microtune gas block with the .071 insert. I've read that some think this is too small; however, DD 16" mids have been confirmed to run .073 and Colt 6960's are confirmed at .071, so I figured I was safe. Ended up doing a test fire yesterday and the bolt locked back on Winchester .223 white box, AE .223, and AE 5.56. Recoil was incredibly tame with the .223 loads, and similar to a mil-spec 14.5 carbine with the 5.56. Each ammo type was tested in incremental loadings of 1 round, 2 rounds, 3 rounds, 5 rounds, then 9 rounds.
BCM blem upper
BCM Mod 4 charging handle
Centurion 16" mid LW 556 barrel
Centurion BCG
Centurion 14" CMR Gen 1
BRT gas block
.071 insert
A2 FH
H2 buffer
Sprinco blue buffer spring
/thread revive:
I ended up snagging an unfired Centurion 16" LW on the EE for a smoking price and building an upper out of it. Out of the box I checked it with pin gauges and confirmed it to be .080". Got on BRT's website right away and ordered a microtune gas block with the .071 insert. I've read that some think this is too small; however, DD 16" mids have been confirmed to run .073 and Colt 6960's are confirmed at .071, so I figured I was safe. Ended up doing a test fire yesterday and the bolt locked back on Winchester .223 white box, AE .223, and AE 5.56. Recoil was incredibly tame with the .223 loads, and similar to a mil-spec 14.5 carbine with the 5.56. Each ammo type was tested in incremental loadings of 1 round, 2 rounds, 3 rounds, 5 rounds, then 9 rounds.
BCM blem upper
BCM Mod 4 charging handle
Centurion 16" mid LW 556 barrel
Centurion BCG
Centurion 14" CMR Gen 1
BRT gas block
.071 insert
A2 FH
H2 buffer
Sprinco blue buffer spring
Awesome! I did the same thing with mine. It shoots very soft and very accurate.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.