View Full Version : Help me decide / educate me on buffers.
Anatoly Lebed
06-30-22, 19:02
I recently had a Colt SOCOM 14.5 in barrel installed on a new upper. While shooting it using 5.56 55 gr ammo, I’ve noticed that the brass is ejecting around 2 o’clock. After doing some reading, I’m understanding that the rifle is over gassed? Further reading I understand Colt shipped H buffers with the 6920, but shipped H2 buffers with the SOCOM barreled 6920’s. I’m trying to understand if both rifles are semi-automatic, is there a reason why Colt would use an H buffer for the 6920 and an H2 buffer for the SOCOM 6920? How would the thicker barrel of the SOCOM necessitate a heavier buffer? Or am I interpreting this wrong? I’m trying to figure out if I should get an H2 buffer or not, due to the perceived over gassing.
The prevailing conventional wisdom in this forum is not to pay too much attention to ejection angle as long as the rifle runs reliably. However, I will say that an H2 is still most likely the way to go. Yes, it will move the ejection angle back to 3 o'clock, but it will do so by slowing the bolt speed which has the additional benefits of reducing perceived recoil and keeping your sights on target better. Do it.
I’m trying to figure out if I should get an H2 buffer or not, due to the perceived over gassing.
If you just 'got' to do it cause the internet tells you to -
Buy a generic H3 for cheap and pull the tungsten weights out. Now you can make any config you want for cheap (providing you have a carbine buffer laying around someplace for the other weights).
Would not bother personally.
Buy an H3 and strip the tungsten weights, or buy the weights separately. I've seen several options in packs of 3, the usual places sell them.
The pie is a fake. You cannot determine how an AR is gassed by the ejection angle. A friend and I tried to adjust the gas block of his AR using the ejection angle according to that stupid pie chart. It was an exercise in comical futility. (I love my Sprinco springs, but that ejection chart is the second greatest joke pulled on the world of AR shooters.) What the ejection angle can give you an insight to is the condition of your extractor spring. If the ejection angle moved towards 1 o’clock, the spring is headed towards failure. Another indication of impending spring failure is the angle moving toward 4 o’clock when slowing down the carrier speed.
Anatoly, from your description, your extractor spring is starting to go. Install a Colt extractor spring.
AR gassing cannot be changed by changing the buffer. A heavier buffer may soften how the recoil feels, but an over gassed AR is an over gassed AR no matter how heavy the buffer is.
The most correct buffer weight is the rifle buffer. An H2 is lighter, but still works well. The H is close to marginal and the carbine buffer is useless.
Your Colt SOCOM barrel isn’t over gassed. If the lower uses a carbine buffer, it’s under buffered.
Anatoly Lebed
07-01-22, 07:33
Anatoly, from your description, your extractor spring is starting to go. Install a Colt extractor spring.
The upper, barrel, BCG, ejector spring, extractor and extractor spring are all brand new. I installed the Colt copper extractor spring before I fired the first shot. So it’s not the extractor spring.
It will run fine with an H. Colt recommends H for semi-auto.
I use H2s in all my 6920s.
H2 is the optimal buffer for carbine gas systems. I most closely mimics the Rifle buffer system. A Colt SOCOM barrel, short of some monumental Eff Up, is not over gassed.
The increased inertia of the SOCOM barrel is the reason for the H2 vs H1 in the Govt profile barrels. Either buffer is fine in either gun for semiauto operation. H2 is “clone correct”.
Enjoy your rifle; there is nothing wrong with it. It is the gold standard.
Anatoly, from your description, your extractor spring is starting to go. Install a Colt extractor spring.
. I disagree. Factory .mil M4s with mil ammo and proper extractor springs eject to 2 o’clock when brand new. Its normal. I don’t think there is anything wrong with his gun.
Enjoy your rifle; there is nothing wrong with it. It is the gold standard.
That spicy 5.56 ammo will indeed kick out in a forward fashion. Perfectly normal. I do favor the H2 for all carbine gas systems though.
The upper, barrel, BCG, ejector spring, extractor and extractor spring are all brand new. I installed the Colt copper extractor spring before I fired the first shot. So it’s not the extractor spring.
Every cycling, extraction or ejection problem that gets posted about here and that same guy blames it on the extractor spring...
No matter what - 'You need a new Colt extractor spring'.
:)
Hammer_Man
07-01-22, 19:37
My assigned weapon has a SOCOM barrel, and an H2 buffer. Consequently my home brew SOCOM build runs an H2 buffer. Both run like a top.
You don't "need" an H2 buffer, your upper should work fine with an H1. Colt 14.5s are not overgassed unless you run a suppressor.
As has been said here, I run H2s in carbine gas ARs but half the reason is for a little more reciprocating mass to strip and chamber rounds.
Andy
fedupflyer
07-02-22, 12:40
Buffer chart from Sprinco
68450
I recently had a Colt SOCOM 14.5 in barrel installed on a new upper. While shooting it using 5.56 55 gr ammo, I’ve noticed that the brass is ejecting around 2 o’clock. After doing some reading, I’m understanding that the rifle is over gassed? Further reading I understand Colt shipped H buffers with the 6920, but shipped H2 buffers with the SOCOM barreled 6920’s. I’m trying to understand if both rifles are semi-automatic, is there a reason why Colt would use an H buffer for the 6920 and an H2 buffer for the SOCOM 6920? How would the thicker barrel of the SOCOM necessitate a heavier buffer? Or am I interpreting this wrong? I’m trying to figure out if I should get an H2 buffer or not, due to the perceived over gassing.
I'm pretty sure Chris Bartocci of Small Arms Solutions mentioned Colt uses the H2 buffer in the M4A1 because they have full auto capability and it help with bolt bounce.
NYH1.
Anatoly Lebed
07-03-22, 22:33
The increased inertia of the SOCOM barrel is the reason for the H2 vs H1 in the Govt profile barrels. .
This part I don’t understand.
How if two barrels are of equal length ie 14.5 in, how can the SOCOM barrel generate more inertia? I thought the SOCOM barrel came about due to barrels bursting under full auto fire?
Hammer_Man
07-04-22, 00:42
https://youtu.be/DYf-MLMODhA
This part I don’t understand.
How if two barrels are of equal length ie 14.5 in, how can the SOCOM barrel generate more inertia? I thought the SOCOM barrel came about due to barrels bursting under full auto fire?
Increased mass of the heavy barrel causes more bolt bounce.
Increased mass of the heavy barrel causes more bolt bounce.
While this is true, the H2 buffer was developed with the lightweight barrel in 1999.
While this is true, the H2 buffer was developed with the lightweight barrel in 1999.
M4 or pencil? I knew it’s been around for awhile, but thought it was first put to widespread use with the M4A1.
68450
Who authored this chart? The source is as important as the chart.
While this is true, the H2 buffer was developed with the lightweight barrel in 1999.
It boggles my mind that the carbine and H1 buffers were ever thought to be adequate. The latter being decent, but still. How can the right buffer weight be so hard to figure out from the start?
While this is true, the H2 buffer was developed with the lightweight barrel in 1999.
That may be, and I respect your expertise, but, at least into the mid-2000s, the H1 was installed in gov’t profile barreled M4s and M4a1s in SOF. I distinctly remember my (Crane trained) armorer going on rants that I didn’t understand at the time about how we were supposed to be using heavier buffers with our NT4s. I was like “dude, can we shoot these ****ing things, or what?”.
It boggles my mind that the carbine and H1 buffers were ever thought to be adequate. The latter being decent, but still. How can the right buffer weight be so hard to figure out from the start?
An H2 or H3 is simply not needed in most cases with semi auto guns friend.
I have plenty of AR pattern carbines that came with 'carbine' buffers and they shoot just fine as is...
OutofBatt3ry
07-05-22, 20:08
An H2 or H3 is simply not needed in most cases with semi auto guns friend.
I have plenty of AR pattern carbines that came with 'carbine' buffers and they shoot just fine as is...
This has been my experience. I have some guns with H1-H3 buffers that do seem to be smoother but I have similar guns as far as gas/barrel length that run standard carbine buffers that are equally reliable; IE 100%. Can't name an exact number, but something like 20+ bought/sold over the years.
This has been my experience. I have some guns with H1-H3 buffers that do seem to be smoother but I have similar guns as far as gas/barrel length that run standard carbine buffers that are equally reliable; IE 100%. Can't name an exact number, but something like 20+ bought/sold over the years.
I think I have 6 right now with carbine buffers in them. At least 2 of which are factory Colt carbines and 2 (in current use) that are bull barreled carbine length gas and barrel. (a good bit heavier than a SOCOM barrel FWIW)
(yeah guys, Colt actually made and sold carbines with carbine buffers)
And I got plenty that came with (or I built with) the heavier buffers...
The buffer weight is only one part of it. Just like the barrel weight is one part and the gas port size is one part. I would even go so far as to say the chamber matters as far as the 'felt recoil' or speed / action of the cycling is concerned.
Just because a guy has a heavy barrel - does not alone mean he just 'has to have' a heavy buffer for things to work correctly.
And then being semi auto...
M4 or pencil? I knew it’s been around for awhile, but thought it was first put to widespread use with the M4A1.
When the M4 was first designed they had a 5.4 oz steel buffer with three steel weights. This design did not work at all, they had to stop testing due to the number of failures to fire. (Just to let you know what was considered unacceptable 40 FTF out of 5000 rounds.) It order to continue development testing an expedient of using Colt's Standard aluminum, three steel weight buffer was substituted, while a permanent solution was found. Some things tested in 1987:
- A solid steel buffer, which bounced so bad they couldn't get a full three round burst off.
- A buffer filled with lead shot, that worked acceptably, and
- A buffer with tungsten carbide weights, that worked acceptably.
Meanwhile, the Standard buffer was also working acceptably, and the lead and tungsten carbine filled buffer were projected to have a unacceptable cost, so the Standard buffer was chosen.
Fast forward to 1999, when all the M4s and M4A1 still had the "Government" profile barrel, M4A1s in acceptance testing (with the standard buffer) started to experience a rash of light primer strikes, indicative of bolt bounce.
This was investigated and eventually resulted in the H2 buffer being adopted as standard on all M4s and M4A1s on 21 January 2003..
Why did it suddenly start being an issue after several years of M4 production? The answer lies in the difference between the M4 and the M4A1 - three round burst vs full automatic fire.
The Standard buffer was marginal at preventing bounce. Even as such, bolt bounce did not automatically lead to failure to fire on every round, it was an intermittent problem, maybe once in a dozen or so magazines did the timing line up so that the hammer fell at peak bounce, and sometimes the hammer could muscle through and get the round fire. With the three round burst limit there were only 20 chances for a bounce related stoppage, in full auto, there are 29*. Then there is also a peculiar behavior of the urethane buffer bumper, The elastic recovery time is longer than the cycle time by a wide margin, so after the three or so shots the buffer bumper get continuously compressed until it reaches an equilibrium point. And as it compresses, it get harder and less "bouncy", so the cyclic rate speeds up ever so slightly. So, with the M4, just as bumper gets to the point where it is likely to have problematic bounce start to occur, you stop shooting.
___________
* Two 30 round magazines are fired the first in semi for targeting and accuracy, as well ans semi-auto function and the second in full auto to measure the cyclic rate and functionality.
Anatoly Lebed
07-05-22, 22:49
Just an update to my question, I weighed my current buffer today on a postal scale; weighed in at 4.3 oz. Somewhere between an H and an H2 as I understand it. So I guess I’m just going to continue to use the current buffer, based on its weight.
When the M4 was first designed they had a 5.4 oz steel buffer with three steel weights. This design did not work at all, they had to stop testing due to the number of failures to fire.
Do you know why this design failed? Was it because the floating weights were too small a fraction of the total buffer mass?
This was investigated and eventually resulted in the H2 buffer being adopted as standard on all M4s and M4A1s on 21 January 2003..
.
Was there a program to replace buffers in existing M4A1s that were made before that date?
Do you know why this design failed? Was it because the floating weights were too small a fraction of the total buffer mass?
Probably several reasons, but the weight of three steel weight and their pads is 1.9 oz, the weight the buffer body was 3.5 oz, so that is a likely contributor.
Was there a program to replace buffers in existing M4A1s that were made before that date?
The development of the H2 buffer from 1999 to 2003 was the only buffer improvement recorded, other than what was done during the XM4 development.
Just an update to my question, I weighed my current buffer today on a postal scale; weighed in at 4.3 oz. Somewhere between an H and an H2 as I understand it. So I guess I’m just going to continue to use the current buffer, based on its weight.
The allowable variation in tungsten weights is a maximum of 1.37 oz per weight to 1.55 oz per weight. So, with two of them the range is 0.375 oz, not including the variation in the weight of the aluminum buffer body.
Roughly:
Standard buffers will be between 2.95 -3.05 oz
H1 buffers will be between 3.98 - 3.94 oz
H2 buffers will be between 4.41 - 4.83 oz
H3 buffers will be between 5.14 -5.73 oz
You may note that the averages give the nominal weights of 3 oz, 3.8 oz, 4.6 oz, and 5.4 oz
The development of the H2 buffer from 1999 to 2003 was the only buffer improvement recorded, other than what was done during the XM4 development.
To be more clear, what I meant was: did the M4a1s that left the factory prior to 2003 with H1s get upraded with H2s during the time period that they still had govt profile barrels? Like, an armorer level upgrade. Or did that not occur until the “SOCOM” profile barrel upgrade?
fedupflyer
07-06-22, 08:07
Who authored this chart? The source is as important as the chart.
It came from Springco.
I though I put that in the original post but it does not appear to be there.
An H2 or H3 is simply not needed in most cases with semi auto guns friend.
I have plenty of AR pattern carbines that came with 'carbine' buffers and they shoot just fine as is...
Did you see the post by Rsilvers years back that quantified the H2 as the best buffer for the carbine action/spring? Carbine buffers, in my experience, don't work good enough in ANY set up. WAY too light.
- A solid steel buffer, which bounced so bad they couldn't get a full three round burst off.
Those goofballs at heavybuffers.com make one we tried that bounced so friggin bad it was distracting. I thought we would have bullets fall out like an inertia bullet pulling hammer. I have no idea how that even made it to market... American mediocrity in motion.
To be more clear, what I meant was: did the M4a1s that left the factory prior to 2003 with H1s get upraded with H2s during the time period that they still had govt profile barrels? Like, an armorer level upgrade. Or did that not occur until the “SOCOM” profile barrel upgrade?
I have no record of M4 or M4A1 ever having the H1 buffer.
It may have been a SOPMOD, but general service M4s went from three steel weights (P/N 9390023/NSN 1005-01-231-3138, assn 1986-04-05) to the two tungsten/one steel buffer (P/N 13004468/NSN 1005-01-522-0772, assn 2004-07-16).
The information in bold is incorrect.
The standard weight buffer is P/N 8448730, NSN 1005-00-914-4578. In 1997, the single tungsten weight (H) buffer was introduced, P/N 9390023. Then in 2003, the two tungsten weight (H2) buffer, P/N 13004468 was approved.
For the data points only, I have a VLTOR H4 that I bought for experimentation purposes but is pretty much too heavy for anything I own.
It weighs in at a healthy 7.2 oz
I have an H3 somewhere but can’t find it.
Standard A5 buffer is 5.5 oz
For the data points only, I have a VLTOR H4 that I bought for experimentation purposes but is pretty much too heavy for anything I own.
Yeah... the reciprocating mass on that would be rough if a gun ran with that beast.
Hammer_Man
07-06-22, 10:58
Yeah... the reciprocating mass on that would be rough if a gun ran with that beast.
The only thing I can think of that would be remotely applicable would be an over-gassed 308 AR10.
I have no record of M4 or M4A1 ever having the H1 buffer.
It may have been a SOPMOD, but general service M4s went from three steel weights (P/N 9390023/NSN 1005-01-231-3138, assn 1986-04-05) to the two tungsten/one steel buffer (P/N 13004468/NSN 1005-01-522-0772, assn 2004-07-16).
Interesting; thanks.
To be more clear, what I meant was: did the M4a1s that left the factory prior to 2003 with H1s get upraded with H2s during the time period that they still had govt profile barrels? Like, an armorer level upgrade. Or did that not occur until the “SOCOM” profile barrel upgrade?
Okay, I made an error.
Here is the latest information I have on buffer development in the M4 Carbine:
The XM4 and early M4/M4A1s used the Standard weight buffer, P/N 8448730.
In 1997, the single tungsten weight (H) buffer was introduced, P/N 9390023. You are correct in stating that the H1 was used early in the M4 series. My reference that indicated P/N 9390023 was the standard weight buffer was wrong.
Then in 2003, the two tungsten weight (H2) buffer, P/N 13004468 was approved.
The XM4 and early M4/M4A1s used the Standard weight buffer, P/N 8448730.
Boggles my mind that the standard buffer was ever deemed appropriate. It's literally good for NOTHING.
Okay, I made an error.
Here is the latest information I have on buffer development in the M4 Carbine:
The XM4 and early M4/M4A1s used the Standard weight buffer, P/N 8448730.
In 1997, the single tungsten weight (H) buffer was introduced, P/N 9390023. You are correct in stating that the H1 was used early in the M4 series. My reference that indicated P/N 9390023 was the standard weight buffer was wrong.
Then in 2003, the two tungsten weight (H2) buffer, P/N 13004468 was approved.
Thanks, I was wondering if I’d lost my mind.
H2 is almost always the way to go. If in doubt, H2.
My personal definition of proper gassing is if you can fire the rifle straight vertical into the dirt and lock back on an empty GI mag on the coldest day of the year, using your preferred ammo. So if it'll do that on an H3, run the H3. If it fails on the H3, step back down to the H2. If it still fails to lock back, step down to H.
That said, my experience is that anything over 12" is pretty much a gimme unless it has a weird out of spec gas port, in which case all bets are off. Shorties can be a bit more tricky, especially moving back and forth between 223 and 556. Since you have a 14.5, either H or H2 should be a gimme. If you primarily shoot 223 as your defensive load, you might want to error on the side of caution and use the H. If you use 556, then you should be really safe with the H2.
My M4A1 conventional clone eats whatever with its H2. It’d be fine with an H1, as well.
Just shoot it.
Every cycling, extraction or ejection problem that gets posted about here and that same guy blames it on the extractor spring...
No matter what - 'You need a new Colt extractor spring'.
:)
Because I go with the percentages. When troubleshooting ejection problems, 90% of the time replacing the extractor spring fixes it. Or the spring isn’t replaced and nothing else does fix it.
I didn’t say an AR won’t work with carbine or H1 buffers. They can and do. But in my experience, ARs with H2, A5H2 or Rifle buffers shoot smoother. With a carbine buffer, recoil can be sharp enough that it’s painful after a couple of mags. I see no reason to put up with a carbine buffer when it’s simple enough to pop in an H2.
With a carbine buffer, recoil can be sharp enough that it’s painful after a couple of mags. I see no reason to put up with a carbine buffer when it’s simple enough to pop in an H2.
You definitely need to stay away from .223 bolt action guns if the rounds are causing YOU that much pain.
None of my kids ever had the same problems you seem to have with .223 or 5.56 recoil regardless of the buffer weight.
Can't say I've ever experienced any discomfort from AR recoil, even an SBR with a carbine buffer. After several hundred rounds' worth of drills my arms start to go numb and my back starts seizing up, but never experienced any pain like I do after many rounds with a shotgun or M14.
You definitely need to stay away from .223 bolt action guns if the rounds are causing YOU that much pain.
None of my kids ever had the same problems you seem to have with .223 or 5.56 recoil regardless of the buffer weight.
You're missing the point. The bolt speed is WAY too fast with a carbine buffer. It's not good for anything. There's no upside to running it... EVER.
The Carbine buffer is why the collective "we" (AR Carbine shooters) used to to completely retarded shit like put O-rings in our extractors. (The bad buffer combined with oversized ports too)
That guy RSilvers did the match. He quantified the H2 as the optimal buffer weight for the carbine gas system. I'm no engineer, but he is.
Somehow I think ya'll are making it harder than necessary.
I find it a lot less effort to just hit the easy button with the VLTOR A5 rear end in all of my builds. It just works and works very reliably and well.
From memory, the only AR's I own without the A5 are my two Colt LE6920's that I left stock on purpose and my DD M4 that remains stock for the same reasons as the Colts.
I've used it in the following:
6.5C AR10
6.5G
450BM
458 SOCOM
Multiple copies of 10.4 - 16 - 18 & 20" 556 rifles with a variety of gas systems (Carbine - Midlength - Rifle)
I'm certain I'm forgetting something, but you get the point.
Hell, I wish they made something for my HK91 / MP5 HK platforms. :)
- No, I don't make anything from VLTOR, nor am I associated with them in any way.
Somehow I think ya'll are making it harder than necessary.
I find it a lot less effort to just hit the easy button with the VLTOR A5 rear end in all of my builds.
Very true. But if you already have a Carbine build, the H2 comes so close it's not truly worth a complete changeout.
Very true. But if you already have a Carbine build, the H2 comes so close it's not truly worth a complete changeout.
I will give you that one for sure. But I truly don't trust most of these companies to get the springs correct. Let alone the inside of the buffer tube......Heck, even the end plates and castle nuts on some of these are cheap as **** in my experience Mark.
You're missing the point. The bolt speed is WAY too fast with a carbine buffer. It's not good for anything. There's no upside to running it... EVER.
The Carbine buffer is why the collective "we" (AR Carbine shooters) used to to completely retarded shit like put O-rings in our extractors. (The bad buffer combined with oversized ports too)
That guy RSilvers did the match. He quantified the H2 as the optimal buffer weight for the carbine gas system. I'm no engineer, but he is.
There are two things that are required for an AR to work properly.
1) Gas pressure inside the bolt carrier cavity has to peak between 2,000 and 2,200 psi.
2) A cyclic rate of 650 to 900 rpm.
You can maintain these to parameters with a standard weight buffer and M193/M855 loads. The standard buffer is adequate, if a little on the light side.
Overgassing/undergassing (having the cavity pressure outside the limits) is a port size issue that generally leads to a cyclic rate symptoms, but also can lead to issues that just reducing the cyclic rate won't fix.
High or low cyclic rate can be adjusted with buffer weight, but if you have too much gas you may not be able to put enough weight into the system.
Inkslinger
07-21-22, 13:08
Is chasing buffer weights still a thing with things like Clint’s gas tubes?
You definitely need to stay away from .223 bolt action guns if the rounds are causing YOU that much pain.
None of my kids ever had the same problems you seem to have with .223 or 5.56 recoil regardless of the buffer weight.
Mock all you want. I’m long done with “manning up” when it comes to uncomfortable firearms. If it chafes or has sharp corners, I recontour & smooth. If recoil is sharp, I look for ways to soften it. If muzzle blast slaps my face, pops my ears or blows into my eyes, I find ways to change that. If I have to be a contortionist to see the sights, things get reconfigured.
What you don’t understand is, a bolt action 223 with a modern classic stock is more pleasant to shoot than an AR with a carbine buffer, especially with an over gassed carbine gas system. I don’t let any kid shoot ARs equipped with carbine buffers. Its a good way for them to develop a flinch.
During a shooting session, recoil fatigue accumulates with each shot. Sharp recoil adds pain to that fatigue plus it’s a distraction.
Willingness to put up with carbine buffers isn’t a test of toughness, but a sign of foolishness.
Is chasing buffer weights still a thing with things like Clint’s gas tubes?
Chasing buffer weights to fix gas drive issues was never a thing. I know in the past many experts (real experts) advised increasing buffer weight fix over gassing issues, but we know so much more now. We now know buffer weights cannot fix gas drive issues. The only way to fix gas drive issues is to fix the gas drive.
We also know ARs can be under buffered and an under buffered AR can easily be mistaken for being over gassed.
Is chasing buffer weights still a thing with things like Clint’s gas tubes?
It might be for fools. But if you're thinking, you set the correct buffer system, and fix the gas if necessary.
Mock all you want. I’m long done with “manning up” when it comes to uncomfortable firearms.
Absolutely. When you have guns set up right, and you shoot a complete mess of an AR, it's awful. You can feel a piece of shit gun with each pull of the trigger.
Is chasing buffer weights still a thing with things like Clint’s gas tubes?
I have one of his tubes running sucessfuly on a barrel with a gas port larger than I thought necessary. It is working well, even with the VLTOR A5. All is smooth.
Chasing buffer weights to fix gas drive issues was never a thing. I know in the past many experts (real experts) advised increasing buffer weight fix over gassing issues, but we know so much more now. We now know buffer weights cannot fix gas drive issues. The only way to fix gas drive issues is to fix the gas drive.
We also know ARs can be under buffered and an under buffered AR can easily be mistaken for being over gassed.
The way I understand it, the buffer is there to create a dead blow effect and thereby overcome issues arising from bolt bounce and the absence of a "runway" in the cam path, like you generally find on other rotating bolt designs.
It can definitely slow the carrier down though. It reduces the speed, but also adds inertia, so the replacement of velocity with inertia lets the bolt run slower and still complete its cycle.
Very true. But if you already have a Carbine build, the H2 comes so close it's not truly worth a complete changeout.
I’ll go one further and say that from 13 years of tinkering with the A5 that a carbine+H2 is a better, more reliable setup than the A5.
I’ll go one further and say that from 13 years of tinkering with the A5 that a carbine+H2 is a better, more reliable setup than the A5.
What makes you say that? I had one for a while that I didn't shoot much, but I never had any issues with it either. Seems like it would be the better option being that the compression ratio is better.
I’ll go one further and say that from 13 years of tinkering with the A5 that a carbine+H2 is a better, more reliable setup than the A5.
That is a very broad statement.
Made by whom? Are all of the parts as solid as the A5 including the end plate and castle nut?
Regardless, that is not consistent with my experience pending narrowing down the options.
Made by whom? Are all of the parts as solid as the A5 including the end plate and castle nut?
How would those parts affect reliability apart from outright failure?
What makes you say that? I had one for a while that I didn't shoot much, but I never had any issues with it either. Seems like it would be the better option being that the compression ratio is better.
I do. I have an A5 kit from ‘08 that I’ve used off and on every different kind of upper you can imagine and it took years and a lot of ammo to put two and two together that it’s the cause of FTRB/FTFeed malfs that were always attributed to the magazines.
It’s been running on a friends 14.5” mid upper for awhile now without the biasing spring and seems to be doing better.
The Carbine buffer is why the collective "we" (AR Carbine shooters) used to to completely retarded shit like put O-rings in our extractors. (The bad buffer combined with oversized ports too)
Speak for yourself dude.
I have never had to run any sort of o-ring on any carbine buffered, carbine of mine to get it to function correctly.
Especially not on any of the carbines I have that came from Colt (with carbine weight buffers installed from the factory).
What you don’t understand is, a bolt action 223 with a modern classic stock is more pleasant to shoot than an AR with a carbine buffer, especially with an over gassed carbine gas system. I don’t let any kid shoot ARs equipped with carbine buffers.
Bull crap.
If the ammo remains the same and the weight of the firearm is nearly the same - The one with the spring back there is not going to feel as harsh as a solid stock.
Kids that actually shoot AR's are laughing at you just like I am now. :)
…Factory .mil M4s with mil ammo and proper extractor springs eject to 2 o’clock when brand new. Its normal. I don’t think there is anything wrong with his gun.
I stand corrected. I had it in my head Anatoly was also having problems with malfunctions when in fact he is not.
Bull crap.
If the ammo remains the same and the weight of the firearm is nearly the same - The one with the spring back there is not going to feel as harsh as a solid stock.
Negative, Ghostrider. Free recoil remains the same. Felt recoil is affected by many more factors than weight, like having a buffer slam sharply into the rear of the RE at excessive speeds.
Kids that actually shoot AR's are laughing at you just like I am now. :)
The kids are allowed to laugh. They only know what they’re taught.
You, on the other hand, should take time to ponder the facts being discussed before laughing at them dismissively.
Speak for yourself dude.
I have never had to run any sort of o-ring on any carbine buffered, carbine of mine to get it to function correctly.
Especially not on any of the carbines I have that came from Colt (with carbine weight buffers installed from the factory).
Was pretty much entirely a mk18 problem that didn't really exist, as it would turn out.
How would those parts affect reliability apart from outright failure?
Stuff wears out and breaks, cheap stuff only breaks more quickly.
Bull crap.
If the ammo remains the same and the weight of the firearm is nearly the same - The one with the spring back there is not going to feel as harsh as a solid stock.
Kids that actually shoot AR's are laughing at you just like I am now. :)
I have a scoped Ruger Compact American Rifle in 223 and a BCM 16" mid with RDS and WL that weigh within an ounce of two of each other. The bolt gun's recoil does not feel harsher than the midlength, my ridiculously recoil sensitive wife loves shooting either. Recoil is different between the two, but both are soft shooters.
I fully understand the AR stretches the recoil over a longer period but its hard to beat a well designed classic stock for recoil mitigation. On the flip side, my BCM is a soft shooter because it is well set up (credit goes to BCM not me).
Andy
I have a scoped Ruger Compact American Rifle in 223 and a BCM 16" mid with RDS and WL that weigh within an ounce of two of each other. The bolt gun's recoil does not feel harsher than the midlength, my ridiculously recoil sensitive wife loves shooting either. Recoil is different between the two, but both are soft shooters.
Be glad it is not a carbine length gas with a carbine weight buffer or she would be very angry you gave that to her to shoot!
(NOT)
Those carbine buffers can cause major bruising and you would be fixing your own dinners for a loooong time... :rolleyes:
Sarcasm off now. :)
Off to change out some new Colt extractor springs with some new Colt extractor springs because the internet told me to... :lol:
Stuff wears out and breaks, cheap stuff only breaks more quickly.
But it would be unscrupulous to count those breaking as unreliability of the A5 system, so I still find it strange to call out those parts specifically.
I do. I have an A5 kit from ‘08 that I’ve used off and on every different kind of upper you can imagine and it took years and a lot of ammo to put two and two together that it’s the cause of FTRB/FTFeed malfs that were always attributed to the magazines.
It’s been running on a friends 14.5” mid upper for awhile now without the biasing spring and seems to be doing better.
I don't claim to be am expert, but thats a real head scratcher. A standard (H2) A5 setup is effectively the same system as a rifle. I don't credit the biasing spring very much, but its very hard to see how it would have a negative effect. I guess the guns that had issues with an A5 system "needed" a lighter buffer than an A5H2/rifle?
Andy
I don't claim to be am expert, but thats a real head scratcher. A standard (H2) A5 setup is effectively the same system as a rifle. I don't credit the biasing spring very much, but its very hard to see how it would have a negative effect. I guess the guns that had issues with an A5 system "needed" a lighter buffer than an A5H2/rifle?
Andy
I’ve had the same (or close to) problem as he had. Failure to strip the top round. Intermittent, difficult to reproduce. I’ve blamed shit mags, dirty gun, etc. but it still pops up occasionally.
For me, this stoppage is “just barely”. It can be remedied by giving the rifle a quick fore-aft snatch.
Our suspicion is that the buffer weights normally slam forward when the bolt hits the top round, giving it a second bump. But perhaps, the biasing spring holds the weights forward so that doesn’t happen. There could be specific details in our setups that exacerbate it, or stacking of tolerances (BCG length/weight, internal length of RE, or how deep it threads, etc). Because it is difficult to reproduce, it is also difficult to test that hypothesis. I’d probably have to log 10k rnds x10 weapons with the bias spring, and another set without it and looks at MRBS, both of all types combined, and of just that type. And I’m not prepared to do that.
But anecdotally, 17k removed the spring last year, and I think he said it went away (please clarify). I left mine in, because I’m still trying to find a way to reproduce the issue reliably so that I can figure out what exactly causes it for sure. If anyone has a worn rifle spring or mags that tend to do this, shoot me a PM. I might try to find a reduced power action spring this fall.
I did take the biasing spring out and ran, iirc, about 2K rounds with no failures. A friend has that lower now with a 14.5” mid on it and hasn’t had any problems.
The A5 buffer has more internal space for the weights to move, and the biasing spring. The guy that designed it said the spring was what mattered and those two differences were necessary to get a patent, as just a longer carbine buffer wouldn’t be different enough.
I did take the biasing spring out and ran, iirc, about 2K rounds with no failures. A friend has that lower now with a 14.5” mid on it and hasn’t had any problems.
The A5 buffer has more internal space for the weights to move, and the biasing spring. The guy that designed it said the spring was what mattered and those two differences were necessary to get a patent, as just a longer carbine buffer wouldn’t be different enough.
I did take the biasing spring out and ran, iirc, about 2K rounds with no failures. A friend has that lower now with a 14.5” mid on it and hasn’t had any problems.
The A5 buffer has more internal space for the weights to move, and the biasing spring. The guy that designed it said the spring was what mattered and those two differences were necessary to get a patent, as just a longer carbine buffer wouldn’t be different enough.
The biasing spring is going to do several things by holding the weights in the forward position.
1) Normally, the weights will hit the front wall and bounce back slightly, so unless the gun is pointed downwards the weights will tend to be at the back of the buffer, with a small space in front of them. On firing, the weights will initially NOT add to the recoiling mass of the bolt carrier until the bolt carrier motion (from both the gun's recoil and the action of the gas system) moves the buffer back to where the weight sit. By placing a biasing spring to hold weight forward ensures that their mass is always part of the recoiling mass of the bolt carrier, therefore reducing the carrier velocity.
Ordinarily, I would say this would be negligible, unless you are running real close to minimum bolt velocity for minimal muzzle jump.
2) When the carrier and buffer bottom out in the back of the receiver extension at the end of the carrier stroke, the rubber tip of the buffer wants to bounce, but the weights cascade into the back and effectively kill the rear bounce. Therefore the spring will be the only source of energy for forward motion. With a spring biasing the weights forward, when the buffer bottoms out the biasing spring get compressed from both directions as the buffer wants to bounce off the back end of the tube, and the weights want to continue traveling rearward, the bolt carrier may rebound off the buffer. Then there is going to be a complicated reaction as the action spring starts the buffer forward, the internal weights return to the front with an impact and the buffer catches back up to the carrier. What the energy distribution is in all that bouncing around I don't know, but I'll guess it is a small net loss.
Again, unless you are running close to the minimum bolt velocity, think this is going to make much difference. But, as you noted when the spring was removed normal function returned, so I think you regained that tiny amount of energy lost to the biasing spring and the free weight would help bump the bolt forward when picking up rounds from the magazine.
Putting a biasing spring in the buffer, completely negates the whole purpose of the weights in the buffer, as biasing the weights forward keeps them from helping when the carrier bounces off the barrel extension.
I did take the biasing spring out and ran, iirc, about 2K rounds with no failures. A friend has that lower now with a 14.5” mid on it and hasn’t had any problems.
The A5 buffer has more internal space for the weights to move, and the biasing spring. The guy that designed it said the spring was what mattered and those two differences were necessary to get a patent, as just a longer carbine buffer wouldn’t be different enough.
The biasing spring is going to do several things by holding the weights in the forward position.
1) Normally, the weights will hit the front wall and bounce back slightly, so unless the gun is pointed downwards the weights will tend to be at the back of the buffer, with a small space in front of them. On firing, the weights will initially NOT add to the recoiling mass of the bolt carrier until the bolt carrier motion (from both the gun's recoil and the action of the gas system) moves the buffer back to where the weight sit. By placing a biasing spring to hold weight forward ensures that their mass is always part of the recoiling mass of the bolt carrier, therefore reducing the carrier velocity.
Ordinarily, I would say this would be negligible, unless you are running real close to minimum bolt velocity for minimal muzzle jump.
2) When the carrier and buffer bottom out in the back of the receiver extension at the end of the carrier stroke, the rubber tip of the buffer wants to bounce, but the weights cascade into the back and effectively kill the rear bounce. Therefore the spring will be the only source of energy for forward motion. With a spring biasing the weights forward, when the buffer bottoms out the biasing spring get compressed from both directions as the buffer wants to bounce off the back end of the tube, and the weights want to continue traveling rearward, the bolt carrier may rebound off the buffer. Then there is going to be a complicated reaction as the action spring starts the buffer forward, the internal weights return to the front with an impact and the buffer catches back up to the carrier. What the energy distribution is in all that bouncing around I don't know, but I'll guess it is a small net loss.
Again, unless you are running close to the minimum bolt velocity, think this is going to make much difference. But, as you noted when the spring was removed normal function returned, so I think you regained that tiny amount of energy lost to the biasing spring and the free weight would help bump the bolt forward when picking up rounds from the magazine.
Putting a biasing spring in the buffer, completely negates the whole purpose of the weights in the buffer, as biasing the weights forward keeps them from helping when the carrier bounces off the barrel extension.
The biasing spring is going to do several things by holding the weights in the forward position.
1) Normally, the weights will hit the front wall and bounce back slightly, so unless the gun is pointed downwards the weights will tend to be at the back of the buffer, with a small space in front of them. On firing, the weights will initially NOT add to the recoiling mass of the bolt carrier until the bolt carrier motion (from both the gun's recoil and the action of the gas system) moves the buffer back to where the weight sit. By placing a biasing spring to hold weight forward ensures that their mass is always part of the recoiling mass of the bolt carrier, therefore reducing the carrier velocity.
Ordinarily, I would say this would be negligible, unless you are running real close to minimum bolt velocity for minimal muzzle jump.
2) When the carrier and buffer bottom out in the back of the receiver extension at the end of the carrier stroke, the rubber tip of the buffer wants to bounce, but the weights cascade into the back and effectively kill the rear bounce. Therefore the spring will be the only source of energy for forward motion. With a spring biasing the weights forward, when the buffer bottoms out the biasing spring get compressed from both directions as the buffer wants to bounce off the back end of the tube, and the weights want to continue traveling rearward, the bolt carrier may rebound off the buffer. Then there is going to be a complicated reaction as the action spring starts the buffer forward, the internal weights return to the front with an impact and the buffer catches back up to the carrier. What the energy distribution is in all that bouncing around I don't know, but I'll guess it is a small net loss.
Again, unless you are running close to the minimum bolt velocity, think this is going to make much difference. But, as you noted when the spring was removed normal function returned, so I think you regained that tiny amount of energy lost to the biasing spring and the free weight would help bump the bolt forward when picking up rounds from the magazine.
Putting a biasing spring in the buffer, completely negates the whole purpose of the weights in the buffer, as biasing the weights forward keeps them from helping when the carrier bounces off the barrel extension.
The problem I describe happens only when loading the first round from a fresh mag from bolt lockback, so everything is static until the release is hit.
I suspect that during normal firing, the weights are able to provide some deadblow effect when grabbing the next round, because they are at the rear (maybe) from the buffer bottoming out, then being accelerated by the action spring.
Putting a biasing spring in the buffer, completely negates the whole purpose of the weights in the buffer, as biasing the weights forward keeps them from helping when the carrier bounces off the barrel extension.
That’s what I finally concluded. Like 1168 I saw the most failures from bolt release, but some would show up at other times.
I don’t recall a failure with a Pmag as they feed a lot slicker and masked the problem.
I had a box ‘bad’ GI mags I had deadlined over the years with the A5 guns. When I got suspicious last year and went back to the carbine-H2 setup ALL of those mags worked, and are still working just fine.
Putting a biasing spring in the buffer, completely negates the whole purpose of the weights in the buffer, as biasing the weights forward keeps them from helping when the carrier bounces off the barrel extension.
It was my understanding that the strength of the biasing spring is such that the inertia of the buffer weights will compress it as the action spring drives the buffer forward. The weights will then be at the tail end of the buffer and provide the deadblow effect.
That’s what I finally concluded. Like 1168 I saw the most failures from bolt release, but some would show up at other times.
I don’t recall a failure with a Pmag as they feed a lot slicker and masked the problem.
I had a box ‘bad’ GI mags I had deadlined over the years with the A5 guns. When I got suspicious last year and went back to the carbine-H2 setup ALL of those mags worked, and are still working just fine.
Thank you and 1168 both for your replies. I certainly agree an AR configuration should work with any decent magazines and ammunition as well as at reasonable temperatures. Your willingness to dig until the problem is fixed instead of accepting it benefits the rest of us and makes this site what it is.
Andy
It was my understanding that the strength of the biasing spring is such that the inertia of the buffer weights will compress it as the action spring drives the buffer forward. The weights will then be at the tail end of the buffer and provide the deadblow effect.
The mass of the weights is actually low, and the acceleration gradient is against you. If the spring were that weak, it would do anything.
It was my understanding that the strength of the biasing spring is such that the inertia of the buffer weights will compress it as the action spring drives the buffer forward. The weights will then be at the tail end of the buffer and provide the deadblow effect.
The mass of the weights is actually low, and the acceleration gradient is against you. If the spring were that weak, it wouldn't do anything.
Putting a biasing spring in the buffer, completely negates the whole purpose of the weights in the buffer, as biasing the weights forward keeps them from helping when the carrier bounces off the barrel extension.
Could you expand on this some, or maybe clarify it?
Am I correct that you are saying the biasing spring makes it like a solid buffer, totally negating the fact they can move. Therefor making the A5 buffer better with the spring removed?
What is the purpose of the spring?, other than holding the weights in place. Why hold the weights in place?
Thank you!
Could you expand on this some, or maybe clarify it?
Am I correct that you are saying the biasing spring makes it like a solid buffer, totally negating the fact they can move. Therefor making the A5 buffer better with the spring removed?
What is the purpose of the spring?, other than holding the weights in place. Why hold the weights in place?
Thank you!
It behaves sort of like a solid buffer at the front end, but as the weights can move against the spring under the right loads, but its dynamics are different from free weights at other places in the operational cycle.
The point of the Sturtevant patent is that under the acceleration of the buffer and bolt carrier assembly, the inertia of the free weight will move them to the rear of the buffer. When the bolt carrier assembly hits the barrel extension, the high coefficient of restitution of steel-on-steel causes the carrier to rebound, but the free weights at the rear of the buffer continue to move forward an eventually hit the front of the inside of the buffer tube. The weights and the buffer are separated by rubber washers with a low coefficient of restitution, so they experience no internal bounce. The free space inside the buffer tube is such that the weights impact just as the bounce starts, the combined effect is that the bounce is killed.
By putting a spring behind the weight it biases the weights to the forward position. So, on impact there are no cascading hits from the weights moving forward and the carrier can rebound.
Seeing as bolt bounce is only an issue in full automatic fire, 99% of users never notice if there is excessive bounce. And, if anyone says they are fast enough on the trigger to have problems, post your times.
The only reason I can see for putting a spring in the buffer is to eliminate the “clunk-clunk” of the buffer when shaken. In reality, a non-issue, like the “sprong!” of the action spring inside the receiver extension some people complain about.
Bolt bounce from tests:
https://i.imgur.com/zMCfLBa.png
With a better "no bounce" buffer:
https://i.imgur.com/cbz58gO.png
The mass of the weights is actually low, and the acceleration gradient is against you. If the spring were that weak, it wouldn't do anything.
Please correct me. In an A5H2 buffer there are two steel and two tungsten weights with a combined mass of about 120 grams? The buffer plus BCG is around 480 grams? Ignoring friction and resonances isn't the bias spring subject to 1/4 the force of the action spring while the buffer/BCG system is accelerated? If the actual force is 50% due to friction and the action spring provides 8 pounds of force, a bias spring weaker than 1 lb would compress from the inertia of the buffer weights?
By putting a spring behind the weight it biases the weights to the forward position. So, on impact there are no cascading hits from the weights moving forward and the carrier can rebound.
When the A5 system first came out, I was removing the bias spring from my buffers. Someone sold be on it being a functional improvement, and I quit taking them out. I'd pull them all out if I thought it was noticeable, but to your point.. I can't tell the difference.
Seeing as bolt bounce is only an issue in full automatic fire, 99% of users never notice if there is excessive bounce. And, if anyone says they are fast enough on the trigger to have problems, post your times.
(I've posted this observation before) We had one of those solid steel buffers from heavybuffers.com in a .308/AR-10.... and Holy Crap did that worthless piece of crap cause bolt bounce. Especially with that heavy AR-10 carrier group. Good Lord was that annoying to shoot. I don't know what special olympian thought that'd be a good product.
When the A5 system first came out, I was removing the bias spring from my buffers. Someone sold be on it being a functional improvement, and I quit taking them out. I'd pull them all out if I thought it was noticeable, but to your point.. I can't tell the difference.
(I've posted this observation before) We had one of those solid steel buffers from heavybuffers.com in a .308/AR-10.... and Holy Crap did that worthless piece of crap cause bolt bounce. Especially with that heavy AR-10 carrier group. Good Lord was that annoying to shoot. I don't know what special olympian thought that'd be a good product.
To be clear, what exactly are you calling bolt bounce in that .308?
It behaves sort of like a solid buffer at the front end, but as the weights can move against the spring under the right loads, but its dynamics are different from free weights at other places in the operational cycle.
The point of the Sturtevant patent is that under the acceleration of the buffer and bolt carrier assembly, the inertia of the free weight will move them to the rear of the buffer. When the bolt carrier assembly hits the barrel extension, the high coefficient of restitution of steel-on-steel causes the carrier to rebound, but the free weights at the rear of the buffer continue to move forward an eventually hit the front of the inside of the buffer tube. The weights and the buffer are separated by rubber washers with a low coefficient of restitution, so they experience no internal bounce. The free space inside the buffer tube is such that the weights impact just as the bounce starts, the combined effect is that the bounce is killed.
By putting a spring behind the weight it biases the weights to the forward position. So, on impact there are no cascading hits from the weights moving forward and the carrier can rebound.
Seeing as bolt bounce is only an issue in full automatic fire, 99% of users never notice if there is excessive bounce. And, if anyone says they are fast enough on the trigger to have problems, post your times.
The only reason I can see for putting a spring in the buffer is to eliminate the “clunk-clunk” of the buffer when shaken. In reality, a non-issue, like the “sprong!” of the action spring inside the receiver extension some people complain about.
Bolt bounce from tests:
https://i.imgur.com/zMCfLBa.png
With a better "no bounce" buffer:
https://i.imgur.com/cbz58gO.png
The A5 buffers also have more internal space for the weights to move, further reducing their effectiveness to mitigate bolt bounce and robbing the system of inertia during the highest resistance part of the feed cycle causing failures to fully feed.
I’m glad the conversation has finally been allowed to mature to this point.
The A5 buffers also have more internal space for the weights to move, further reducing their effectiveness to mitigate bolt bounce and robbing the system of inertia during the highest resistance part of the feed cycle causing failures to fully feed.
I’m glad the conversation has finally been allowed to mature to this point.
I never did understand the spring in them. The first time I saw a cutaway of one, I had a WTF moment trying to figure it out. According to my understanding of how the buffers work and what their purpose is, I've always felt like the spring was counterproductive.
To be clear, what exactly are you calling bolt bounce in that .308?
A massive, distracting clunk clunk of the BCG bouncing off the barrel extension. So bad, we went to get cell phone high speed video, but you could see it with your eyes in real time. I mean obnoxious bolt bounce.
I never did understand the spring in them. The first time I saw a cutaway of one, I had a WTF moment trying to figure it out. According to my understanding of how the buffers work and what their purpose is, I've always felt like the spring was counterproductive.
Same here. I was like WTF is this? The weights need to float for the dead blow effect. But I'm not an engineer nor a physicist... so???
A massive, distracting clunk clunk of the BCG bouncing off the barrel extension. So bad, we went to get cell phone high speed video, but you could see it with your eyes in real time. I mean obnoxious bolt bounce.
Same here. I was like WTF is this? The weights need to float for the dead blow effect. But I'm not an engineer nor a physicist... so???
Roger; thanks.
I think the idea behind the bias spring is consistency in unlocking, and maybe a C-hair of cushioning at the rear of the stroke. I’m also no engineer, so I could be wrong. I made a bis spring rifle buffer for my gaming gun that has mostly aluminum weights, but I enabled one weight to float around it, so the deadblow effect would still exist, in a small amount. It is reliable and has little felt recoil.
It was back in ‘07-‘08 maybe? The guy who came up with the A5 said the spring and the extra room was
for patent purposes as just making the longer wouldn’t qualify it for a new patent.
A massive, distracting clunk clunk of the BCG bouncing off the barrel extension. So bad, we went to get cell phone high speed video, but you could see it with your eyes in real time. I mean obnoxious bolt bounce.
Same here. I was like WTF is this? The weights need to float for the dead blow effect. But I'm not an engineer nor a physicist... so???
I'm starting to get really skeptical of engineers. I'm just not sure how much you really stand to learn in four years at a state school. Obviously there are top notch engineering schools out there, and obviously there are engineers who get post grad and or teach themselves long into their careers. But your run of the mill guy with more GPA than brains or common sense...how much can he really know? I mean two years of the four are just repeating high school, smoking a bunch of weed, and attending mandatory life skills classes. So only two years of actual engineering stuff, spending like maybe six hours a week actually in engineering related courses. I feel like you could probably read engineering for dummies over a long weekend and know about as much as they do.
It was back in ‘07-‘08 maybe? The guy who came up with the A5 said the spring and the extra room was
for patent purposes as just making the longer wouldn’t qualify it for a new patent.
I sincerely hope that's a joke. If not, that easily qualifies as the most retarded thing since the Glock bayonet.
I'm starting to get really skeptical of engineers. I'm just not sure how much you really stand to learn in four years at a state school. Obviously there are top notch engineering schools out there, and obviously there are engineers who get post grad and or teach themselves long into their careers. But your run of the mill guy with more GPA than brains or common sense...how much can he really know? I mean two years of the four are just repeating high school, smoking a bunch of weed, and attending mandatory life skills classes. So only two years of actual engineering stuff, spending like maybe six hours a week actually in engineering related courses. I feel like you could probably read engineering for dummies over a long weekend and know about as much as they do.
Don't confuse "engineer" with "inventor" or "designer".
If you have a good head for 3-dimensional thinking and spacial modeling you can come up with some pretty good and quite intricate designs, that makes you a designer.
But, if you can calculate the bending stress in that little leaf spring, and redesign it so it doesn't fatigue and break after 500 cycles, you might be an engineer.
I don't know where your experience with engineering comes from but when I went through the only class I repeated from high school was first year calculus, and there where only four one-semester classes that were unrelated to engineering. You are close in that only about four or five semesters were "actual engineering classes" like statics, dynamics, mechanics of materials, engineering design, etc, but the rest of it was maths.
Then there is the fact that University doesn't now, nor has it ever, produced "engineers". University provides future engineers with the tools, the maths, the physics, the understanding of dynamics, etc., they will need to make themselves engineers.
I sincerely hope that's a joke. If not, that easily qualifies as the most retarded thing since the Glock bayonet.
You should read some patents . . .
Don't confuse "engineer" with "inventor" or "designer".
If you have a good head for 3-dimensional thinking and spacial modeling you can come up with some pretty good and quite intricate designs, that makes you a designer.
But, if you can calculate the bending stress in that little leaf spring, and redesign it so it doesn't fatigue and break after 500 cycles, you might be an engineer.
I don't know where your experience with engineering comes from but when I went through the only class I repeated from high school was first year calculus, and there where only four one-semester classes that were unrelated to engineering. You are close in that only about four or five semesters were "actual engineering classes" like statics, dynamics, mechanics of materials, engineering design, etc, but the rest of it was maths.
Then there is the fact that University doesn't now, nor has it ever, produced "engineers". University provides future engineers with the tools, the maths, the physics, the understanding of dynamics, etc., they will need to make themselves engineers.
That's kind of my point. I get the feeling there's a very wide range of competence with your run of the mill mechanical engineer, and some on the lower end of that scale might be borderline helpless. Idk, I'm just guessing. I just see a lot of stuff done by engineers where my intuition alone can find major flaws.
You should read some patents . . .
I've definitely seen some asinine patents, but this would be the first I've heard of where they literally patented a way to make something no longer do the thing for which it was designed.
What I do find confusing though is that nobody has created a competing system without the spring, because that would not only escape their patent, but it would do everything the A5 system claims to do.
What I do find confusing though is that nobody has created a competing system without the spring, because that would not only escape their patent, but it would do everything the A5 system claims to do.
See this: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?225500-V-Seven-quot-Enhanced-A5-buffer-quot-appears-to-have-no-bias-spring
I hope lysander will reply to my post above however as I still see a conceptual value to the bias spring.
I've definitely seen some asinine patents, but this would be the first I've heard of where they literally patented a way to make something no longer do the thing for which it was designed.
What I do find confusing though is that nobody has created a competing system without the spring, because that would not only escape their patent, but it would do everything the A5 system claims to do.
A standard spring and an H2 does what the A5 claims to do. Always has.
I've definitely seen some asinine patents, but this would be the first I've heard of where they literally patented a way to make something no longer do the thing for which it was designed.
What I do find confusing though is that nobody has created a competing system without the spring, because that would not only escape their patent, but it would do everything the A5 system claims to do.
Heavybuffers makes an A5 length buffer that has a rubber doodad instead of the spring. As 17k said, an H2 simply works. And it doesn’t require tools to install.
Bull crap.
If the ammo remains the same and the weight of the firearm is nearly the same - The one with the spring back there is not going to feel as harsh as a solid stock.
Kids that actually shoot AR's are laughing at you just like I am now. :)You're skipping some things like the height of the recoil impulse above the contact point. AR is a straight stock design, classic bolt-action as the force axis two to four inches above the contact point of the stock.
I mean two years of the four are just repeating high school, smoking a bunch of weed, and attending mandatory life skills classes. So only two years of actual engineering stuff, spending like maybe six hours a week actually in engineering related courses. I feel like you could probably read engineering for dummies over a long weekend and know about as much as they do.
Much ignoranance showing there...
1) every engineering degree I know of starts with taking a couple of engineering 101 classes plus physics your first freshman semester. Then the next semester builds upon the first classes, and so forth.
2) most of the engineering curriculum requires a matching expertise in physics. Which for nearly every engineering degree is at least three semesters. And of course advanced math which you need for the advanced physics and in many cases the advanced engineering stuff. Depending on the program sometime you can defer the later physics but the first physics is pretty much a requirement to understand much of what you're dealing with.
You can dis fresh engineering graduates all you want, and a few may have zero practical experience. (Or be stereotypical nerds) but that would be a very broad generalization.
Likewise, nearly every modern engineering program requires practical experience in the form of senior projects or things of this nature. And the smart engineering students co-op or work summer jobs in the industry.
So no, reading engineering for dummies or learning ohm's law is not going to make you an engineer.
As an example... EEs normally know ohm's law prior to starting school. But in your first semester you will master it all the other operating principles like Norton's law, thevenan equivalent, etc. It's largely the framework that you have to have to understand every other bit of electrical engineering.
And if you don't know those principles you will fail in your second semester classes as they assume mastery of what you learned in your first semester.
That's said, it is very unlikely that a newly graduated engineer is the one designing the stuff that you were complaining about. It's probably an engineer with years of experience.
University provides future engineers with the tools, the maths, the physics, the understanding of dynamics, etc., they will need to make themselves engineers.
I saw this example on The Family Feud the other night....
Some black woman was giving her quick bio to Steve, the host, as she was the leader of the family competing. She explained that she was an electrical engineer (I think), and that she quit because she sucked.. and in her words was "messing up a lot of cars".
I thought this is EXACTLY the problem with American Mediocrity in design and manufacturing. Companies will now put a blithering idiot in a critical position because 1. the color of her skin and her gender, and 2. because some crappy "college" degreed her dumb ass because of her Color and Gender.
This is one of the reasons why America hasn't produced a decent automobile in over 50 years. Shit.. there's a Ford recall on my news feed every fukking week.
A standard spring and an H2 does what the A5 claims to do. Always has.
I'd say that goes against conventional wisdom on this site, as well as mine and thousands of other's experiences. If it did nothing, BCM wouldn't have pushed it since inception and wouldn't have developed their own version.
But you do you and I'll do me.........
One More Time
08-04-22, 10:31
I was under the impression that the A5 action wasn't fixing anything.
All it did was give rifle action guns a collapsing stock and still retain the A2 spring and a rifle weight buffer.
Pretty much the same thing as using an A2 lower on a carbine upper.
I only have mid and rifle gas systems and prefer a rifle action for those and a collapsing stock so went with the A5 with an A5H2
A standard spring and an H2 does what the A5 claims to do. Always has.
What's always appealed to me about the A5 was the ability to use an M16 recoil spring and only adding an inch to the length. To me, that's a winning trade all day every day.
What's always appealed to me about the A5 was the ability to use an M16 recoil spring and only adding an inch to the length. To me, that's a winning trade all day every day.
Absolutely. RSilvers did a bunch of analysis years back. And he quantified the H2 with carbine action spring to be a relatively close second to the Rifle/A5 buffer system. H2 is close enough to A5/Rifle that I don't replace it on existing guns.
Absolutely. RSilvers did a bunch of analysis years back. And he quantified the H2 with carbine action spring to be a relatively close second to the Rifle/A5 buffer system. H2 is close enough to A5/Rifle that I don't replace it on existing guns.
It's the better compression rate of the rifle spring that appeals to me.
I'd say that goes against conventional wisdom on this site, as well as mine and thousands of other's experiences. If it did nothing, BCM wouldn't have pushed it since inception and wouldn't have developed their own version.
But you do you and I'll do me.........
Conventional A5 fans on this site are nothing more than an internet peanut gallery that lap up the products that the owners of this site advertise to them.
If you think the A5 fixes a problem, then it does. It’s that simple.
Conventional A5 fans on this site are nothing more than an internet peanut gallery that lap up the products that the owners of this site advertise to them.
You are calling out all these members as shills or mindless drones? https://www.m4carbine.net/poll.php?pollid=831&do=showresults
26 Inf, 556BlackRifle, aap3535, Abull, alx01, archad, Azraeyl, bad aim, Biggy, biohazard1717, BL1, bmg, Boba Fett v2, BoringGuy45, C-grunt, Chuc, Clint, Code3Patriot, CoryCop25, cutamerc, dlraymond30, docsherm, DPTX25, Duffy, El Cid, Freelance, Furbyballer, glocktogo, graffex, grizzman, Hammer_Man, HardRice, Henry Porter, HKGuns, hk_shootr, Hmac, IKnowNotEverything, Iraqgunz, Jar_Head, JediGuy, jwfuhrman, Jwknutson17, kaltesherz, Korgs130, m1a convert, mack7.62, masakari, maximus83, Metric Matt, mpom, Mr McSimon, msstate56, MWAG19919, nate89, nightchief, ninpo_student, noonesshowmonkey, NWshooter, NYH1, ODgreenpizza, opngrnd, PatrioticDisorder, patrolman, PhoPoweR, PrivateCitizen, QuickStrike, R0C, Randall, Rayrevolver, Renegade04, RHINOWSO, RKB Armory, RobertTheTexan, sdacbob, Skeeter98, SomeOtherGuy, Sry0fcr, STAMarine, SteveL, Stickman, tb-av, tehpwnag3, The Rat, thei3ug, themonk, titsonritz, tmcgahe2, TMS951, Todd.K, uffdaphil, USAF VET, utahjeepr, Vegas, vicious_cb, VIP3R 237, vvhiskey
And SOLGW who commented without vote.
The A5 system is great in that it's more forgiving and less sensitive to input.
There has been a single type of failure associated with the A5 system and it doesn't present when using PMAGs. That alone does not invalidate the entire system.
You are calling out all these members as shills or mindless drones? https://www.m4carbine.net/poll.php?pollid=831&do=showresults
26 Inf, 556BlackRifle, aap3535, Abull, alx01, archad, Azraeyl, bad aim, Biggy, biohazard1717, BL1, bmg, Boba Fett v2, BoringGuy45, C-grunt, Chuc, Clint, Code3Patriot, CoryCop25, cutamerc, dlraymond30, docsherm, DPTX25, Duffy, El Cid, Freelance, Furbyballer, glocktogo, graffex, grizzman, Hammer_Man, HardRice, Henry Porter, HKGuns, hk_shootr, Hmac, IKnowNotEverything, Iraqgunz, Jar_Head, JediGuy, jwfuhrman, Jwknutson17, kaltesherz, Korgs130, m1a convert, mack7.62, masakari, maximus83, Metric Matt, mpom, Mr McSimon, msstate56, MWAG19919, nate89, nightchief, ninpo_student, noonesshowmonkey, NWshooter, NYH1, ODgreenpizza, opngrnd, PatrioticDisorder, patrolman, PhoPoweR, PrivateCitizen, QuickStrike, R0C, Randall, Rayrevolver, Renegade04, RHINOWSO, RKB Armory, RobertTheTexan, sdacbob, Skeeter98, SomeOtherGuy, Sry0fcr, STAMarine, SteveL, Stickman, tb-av, tehpwnag3, The Rat, thei3ug, themonk, titsonritz, tmcgahe2, TMS951, Todd.K, uffdaphil, USAF VET, utahjeepr, Vegas, vicious_cb, VIP3R 237, vvhiskey
And SOLGW who commented without vote.
There has been a single type of failure associated with the A5 system and it doesn't present when using PMAGs. That alone does not invalidate the entire system.
I did my own testing and came to my own conclusions. People really can’t feel a difference if they don’t know what buffer is in the gun, and reliability is not as good.
It's the better compression rate of the rifle spring that appeals to me.
This is why I used to have an 11.5 with an A1 rifle stock. Damn it. I miss that set up.
I did my own testing and came to my own conclusions. People really can’t feel a difference if they don’t know what buffer is in the gun, and reliability is not as good.
There are many members who have reported an improved operating range, versatility with more uppers, ammo, temperature, suppressors, etc. You have identified a problem but if it may be resolved either by using PMAGs or removing the bias spring there remain benefits from the A5 system. It is not justified to dismiss all of these people as "an internet peanut gallery."
The A5 system was developed to address a reliability issue with the collapsible stock on the M16 Rifle - and yes, during independent testing involving many, many thousands of rounds and a controlled group of test weapons, the A5 system did improve reliability significantly.
The other benefit is increased consistency from the spring biased weights, more weights (4 vs 3) and using the longer rifle spring.
Most configurations will run with just an H buffer.
However, the A5 will not only run, but it is extremely consistent with different loads.
Whereas with standard buffers you will see the ejection change and feel the cycle change with hotter and weaker loads, with the A5 it seems much less sensitive to this and seems to cycle about the same no matter what.
I run all A5's now: the main benefit is the increased reliability and consistency running many types of ammo. I think I can detect that the recoil pulse is smoother as well, but that's subjective and not something that in itself, I'd upgrade to A5 for. Ultimately, it's about one thing: reliability with many types of ammo whether running suppressed or unsuppressed.
The purpose of the A5 system is not to reduce felt recoil.
That may be one of the byproducts, but not it's purpose.
The A5 system distributes that load over more wire...again, making it less sensitive to input. And by input I mean adding a suppressor or changing uppers etc.
The biasing spring in the buffer itself keeps the mass in the same position...so, when your bolt unlocks and the carrier begins to overcome that mass it's more consistent.
My approach to the rifle is that it works suppressed or unsuppressed without the need for adjustable anything, and to work in less than ideal scenarios. Worn rings, dry, fouled, debris, etc...
I also believe that everything starts at the gas port... you don't want the gun so overgassed that it's beating itself to death or creating issues suppressed..but you need enough gas to drive the gun even during those less an ideal scenarios. The A5 with a good port is really opening up the operational window of that rifle.
As an example... if you have a well tuned 16" mid gas gun, with a good gas port...and that's the config you intend to always run it, then you probably won't see much of a benefit from the A5 if you're running an H/H2 buffer.
If you're changing uppers, and adding and removing cans etc... I think you will.
I use the A5 buffer system because a single buffer weight and spring combination works across a wider variety of variables that affect function. I'm always swapping lowers and uppers, shooting suppressed and unsuppressed, shooting different ammo, etc. The A5 system just works for me no matter what. I even use my 9mm setup with the standard A5 buffer and have no issues at all.
Not needed? That's something that each user needs to decide for themselves. To me the A5 most definitely serves a purpose.
But, the A5 when done correctly will allow you to use a wide variety of uppers on one lower. In my experience with it, it almost guarantees that you will have more reliability and control.
That said, why do I prefer the A5 system? In short, it enlarges the pressure and time envelope that the M4 type rifle will function within. It will allow you to run hotter ammunition with a reduced cyclic rate, and it will allow you to run low pressure ammunition and still afford positive function.
Although the heavier buffered carbine action systems can work well in rifle gassed uppers, I've been less than convinced that they posses as wide of a range of operation that the A5 system can offer, given proper porting, etc.
I agree with Clint that the A5 is what the carbine action should have been.
Changing to the rifle like or A5 over the carbine type of action is probably one of the best upgrades you can do to the carbine like action system for function for most users.
Most any company can invest relatively little capital money to study the versatility of the carbine type action system to the rifle type/ A5 action system. I seriously doubt that any that do so would come to the conclusion that the carbine action system could be utilized in an equal role for as wide of a range of the rifle type/ A5 system. The curve of operation supports the higher mass with less spring over carbine type action.
Even minus the internal buffer spring, the rifle like and/or A5 action is well proven in the timing of events during the action cycle for proper function over the conventional carbine action system. Some tests do focus more on certain sand tests that do not prefer it, but those tests are not normal for most. The 7.62 RE with a lengthened buffer with the rifle action spring to accommodate are not new, It can improve function over the carbine action. The possible internal buffer spring is icing on the cake in function.
There are many members who have reported an improved operating range, versatility with more uppers, ammo, temperature, suppressors, etc. You have identified a problem but if it may be resolved either by using PMAGs or removing the bias spring there remain benefits from the A5 system. It is not justified to dismiss all of these people as "an internet peanut gallery."
Nope. There’s no benefit. There’s no increased operating range, or bigger window, or whatever people think it does. I have never seen it in 14 odd years of having at least lower setup with an A5. If the gun will run, it run on a carbine + H2 as well or better than with an A5.
Nope. There’s no benefit. There’s no increased operating range, or bigger window, or whatever people think it does. I have never seen it in 14 odd years of having at least lower setup with an A5. If the gun will run, it run on a carbine + H2 as well or better than with an A5.
I would wager any improvements were more perception, maybe combined with coincidence. Like someone had a hiccup with 223 on a cold day, then installed the A5 system and shot that same ammo on the hottest day of the year and it worked fine, so they then conclude the A5 did something wonderful for them.
Heavy Metal
09-05-22, 10:05
I frankly don't see how they could get a patent on the biasing spring concept for one simple reason...the MGI RRB used that concept for at least a decade and a half before VLTOR incorporated a variation into the A5.
I have taken one of those apart before, it actually has two springs inside.
If the RRB is not patented USPTO could be unaware of it. They also appear different with the RRB having a telescoping tip; what's inside it?
I frankly don't see how they could get a patent on the biasing spring concept for one simple reason...the MGI RRB used that concept for at least a decade and a half before VLTOR incorporated a variation into the A5.
I have taken one of those apart before, it actually has two springs inside.
The patent office is pretty much a meme at this point. They basically just grant patents without doing the prerequisite research, but there's so much prior art that anyone with enough money can pay a patent attorney to find something that invalidates a claim you make. Basically a patent is only provisional until challenged in court.
It's also virtually impossible to protect a patent unless you have big money. You have to write a non refundable check for half a million just to get the ball rolling, and the average cost will run upwards of a million. Even if you win, you're still out the million plus in most cases.
Heavy Metal
09-05-22, 11:13
If the RRB is not patented USPTO could be unaware of it. They also appear different with the RRB having a telescoping tip; what's inside it?
Even it wasn't patented, it constitutes prior art and would not be able to receive a defensible patent. You can't patent something that is already in use somewhere else.
Heavy Metal
09-05-22, 11:14
The patent office is pretty much a meme at this point. They basically just grant patents without doing the prerequisite research, but there's so much prior art that anyone with enough money can pay a patent attorney to find something that invalidates a claim you make. Basically a patent is only provisional until challenged in court.
It's also virtually impossible to protect a patent unless you have big money. You have to write a non refundable check for half a million just to get the ball rolling, and the average cost will run upwards of a million. Even if you win, you're still out the million plus in most cases.
And I suspect you are exactly right in your assessment.
Heavy Metal
09-05-22, 11:19
If the RRB is not patented USPTO could be unaware of it. They also appear different with the RRB having a telescoping tip; what's inside it?
Three weights with two biasing springs separating them. The tip acts as a counter-plunger to spread the energy of the impact of the BCG/Buffer over a longer period of time. Think a "U" instead of a 'V'. The plunger throws the residual energy of impact back to the moving mass in the opposing force vector.
And I suspect you are exactly right in your assessment.
It's a sore point. I'm an industrial designer and I've got a few things that could easily be patented, but without multinational money behind you all that does is allow you to send cease and desist letters, which are almost by definition a bluff. The only time you would ever actually sue someone is if you thought you stood a pretty good chance of winning at least a million dollars, or if you were a big company like Amazon and you could burn a cool million just to protect your turf. In most cases, a cease and desist letter is an outright admission that either you don't have the money to litigate or that you don't think you would win, or that even if you did win the award wouldn't pay your court costs. Awarding fees to the patent holder is extremely rare. In most cases the court will just award whatever the actual damages were and make you eat the litigation costs. Of course they can also deem your case to be petty and make you pay the other party's costs.
The other reality in patent law is that whoever can hire the best lawyers is almost always going to win. It's not like criminal law where simply being innocent can save you. Pro bono is almost unheard of, and actually frowned upon in that area. There's virtually no sympathy for the small time inventor who gets railroaded by a major company. They practice patent law like it's a contact sport, ethics or basic human decency need not apply.
Nope. There’s no benefit. There’s no increased operating range, or bigger window, or whatever people think it does. I have never seen it in 14 odd years of having at least lower setup with an A5. If the gun will run, it run on a carbine + H2 as well or better than with an A5.
I'm starting to come around to this. Just switched out one of my carbines from an A5 to a standard with an H/Carbine buffer (winter + tula). I found the A5 a lil lacking in severe cold temps vs a standard carbine setup.
I'm starting to come around to this. Just switched out one of my carbines from an A5 to a standard with an H/Carbine buffer (winter + tula). I found the A5 a lil lacking in severe cold temps vs a standard carbine setup.
That’s because you’re running under powered ammo. The AR wasn’t designed to run under powered ammo.
That’s because you’re running under powered ammo. The AR wasn’t designed to run under powered ammo.
Absolutely. It's ridiculous to say a system isn't right when you're running steel cased ammo. If a combination is more reliable with an underweight buffer, it's not the correct buffer system's fault. Keep in mind that the A5 is effectively a rifle buffer system with the bias spring being debatable... negligible in my opinion, but whatever. Any quality AR with good ammo should run the Rifle buffer system perfectly. If not, DON'T blame the buffer system.
That’s because you’re running under powered ammo. The AR wasn’t designed to run under powered ammo.
You might have misread. A carbine buffer is used for a specific purpose - to run cheap steel in the dead of winter. H for everything else at any time.
Conventional A5 fans on this site are nothing more than an internet peanut gallery that lap up the products that the owners of this site advertise to them.
If you think the A5 fixes a problem, then it does. It’s that simple.
Wow, just saw this one...........
Peanut gallery lapdogs? Seriously? I don't know the owners of this site or anyone at VLTOR and I've never met any of the other NUMEROUS "peanut gallery" members in person.
Furthermore, I never said it fixed any problem. I started using it years ago and it simply works.
You're entitled to your opinion, but denigrating others because they see things differently is beyond horse excrement.
Put down the blue pill, grab your side charging AR and relieve yourself of your boner against the A5. You'll feel better afterward, I promise.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.