View Full Version : New bolt carrier from PWS
Cagemonkey
03-02-11, 20:09
Look at this http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/n=y/pid=42317/Product/AR_15_DIRECT_IMPINGEMENT_BOLT_CARRIER . What do you guys think? I always thought the M16 bolt carrier could use some debris grooves in it like the sand grooves in the L1A1.
Looks like marketing/branding to me.
The mil spec carrier has only four places it touches the upper.. the rest of it is clearanced significantly so it would take some serious fouling before crap in the upper will stop the carrier.
Thomas M-4
03-03-11, 00:42
Looks like marketing/branding to me.
The mil spec carrier has only four places it touches the upper.. the rest of it is clearanced significantly so it would take some serious fouling before crap in the upper will stop the carrier.
Exactly that thing looks like it would have a greater chance of fouling up.
BTW in that pic it looks like it has only one exhaust vent :suicide:
What in the hell are these people thinking?
What do you guys think?
My first thought is that this is a solution looking for a problem.
ChicagoTex
03-03-11, 06:04
My first thought is that this is a solution looking for a problem.
Given that it's the same folks who gave us this (http://primaryweapons.com/store/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=214&idcategory=21) piece of ridiculousness (double the price of a standard RE and in craptastic 6061 to boot), I'd say it's exactly that.
For some reason PWS seems determined to reinvent every wheel they can get their hands on. While their Muzzle Devices are pretty good, the rest of their efforts are much less impressive.
OP: I'm not qualified to say whether or not the BC is better or worse.
For some reason PWS seems determined to reinvent every wheel they can get their hands on. While their Muzzle Devices are pretty good, the rest of their efforts are much less impressive.
I applaud their efforts and I look for vendors trying to do things better. I like their piston systems. The fact they took a proven, successful system and improved it with modern technology kicks butt. In fact, you illustrate my point with your FH comment. Without their efforts and efforts from folks like AAC, we'd still have the A2 birdcage.
ChicagoTex
03-03-11, 08:49
I applaud their efforts and I look for vendors trying to do things better.
Different doesn't mean better. Neither their buffer tube nor BCG achieve anything the mil-spec parts don't already provide for much less cost with higher-grade materials. When PWS comes up with something that actually solves a problem, instead of just redesigning something for the hell of it, they can have their props.
I like their piston systems. The fact they took a proven, successful system and improved it with modern technology kicks butt.
Are you kidding me? The first piston-driven autoloader was patented by JMB in 1895, almost 60 years before Stoner's DI design. There's nothing the least bit modern about piston systems.
In fact, you illustrate my point with your FH comment. Without their efforts and efforts from folks like AAC, we'd still have the A2 birdcage.
As I've stated before, the only thing of actual use I think PWS produces is their muzzle devices. That said, they were hardly innovators in that market, as there were literally dozens of alternative AR MDs available before PWS showed up.
So no, I don't illustrate your point at all, because outside of some functional MDs, all PWS makes is useless junk that's different just to be different.
all PWS makes is useless junk that's different just to be different.
got it. thanks!
A solution looking for a problem!!
Cagemonkey
03-03-11, 14:48
Ya, thats kind of what I thought.
They have to do something to be different. Kinda hard to sell a product that is exactly the same as every other one on the market.
Like I have said many times before. The AR-15 DI system is a near perfect system from an engineering perspective. Manufacturers instead of finding ways to improve quality and decrease cost to make a profit, either lower quality or create a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. They know that there are too many people out there who do not know any better and will buy the latest "enhancement" or "tacticool" feature.
foxjordan22
03-03-11, 21:09
ok. so a new product is released and everyone craps on it with out even trying it or hearing an actual review. very nice. :( I fear change.
it is heavier than a standard carrier so it will slow dwell time, like a heavy buffer does. the PWS carrier = 9.9oz, m16 carrier is 9.46oz, colt carrier is 8.87oz.
for reference the H buffer is .87oz more than standard buffer. some guns will run better with a heavy buffer or carrier.
also isonite is a very strong treatment. it increases resistance to heat, abrasion and seizure. resistance to pitting is 50-60% better than untreated. also material strength and stiffness are increased. overall improved durability.
so with these benefits why talk bad about something you have no experience with? there are alot of (different) parts that were made for guns that i like alot. such as the spikes st-t2 buffer, magpul AFG, and polymer, nylon 6 (glock frames).
...also material strength and stiffness are increased. overall improved durability.
...so with these benefits why talk bad about something you have no experience with?
Durability/strength/stiffness has not been an issue with the standard mil spec type carrier. Have you ever seen one fail?
BufordTJustice
03-04-11, 20:50
Somebody shut-up and just test the damn thing. Everything else is conjecture. This is turning into a thread from Barfcom. :rolleyes:
have you ever been out on the range, blasting away, and stopped and thought to yourself, "you know... my carrier is lacking. i wish somebody would improve it."
?
retarded.
foxjordan22
03-04-11, 22:06
Somebody shut-up and just test the damn thing. Everything else is conjecture. This is turning into a thread from Barfcom. :rolleyes:
yes this is very sad.
OR maybe we just have eyes to see retardation when we see it.
have you not noticed that when TRUE innovation appears on this website, it's well received? that guy with the mag-release-bolt-hold-open thing came on here with his "battery assist device" and was laughed off the board. but when he came back with something that WAS potentially useful, everyone gave encouragement. for example.
but what the hell does any of this have to do with TOS?
Look beyond the "sand cuts" to see a bolt carrier with a slick coating for $99. That's cheeper than FailZero! :D
Find ManBearPig!
03-05-11, 00:28
Look beyond the "sand cuts" to see a bolt carrier with a slick coating for $99. That's cheeper than FailZero! :D
Huh...
If it works just as well, however, then I'd be really interested.
Also, can we just have someone freakin try the thing? If for some reason it's just as good as a BCM bolt, then we could save some money every time we purchased a bolt. If it's a good bolt, and it's cheaper than the competitors, what's so bad about that? I don't see any thing about the design, besides the single gas ports, that makes it look worse than other designs.
Huh...
If it works just as well, however, then I'd be really interested.
Also, can we just have someone freakin try the thing? If for some reason it's just as good as a BCM bolt, then we could save some money every time we purchased a bolt. If it's a good bolt, and it's cheaper than the competitors, what's so bad about that? I don't see any thing about the design, besides the single gas ports, that makes it look worse than other designs.
it's not a bolt, nor a BCG. it's just a carrier. an expensive one.
Find ManBearPig!
03-05-11, 00:32
it's not a bolt, nor a BCG. it's just a carrier. an expensive one.
In my rush, I seemed to have not noticed that. Thanks for the correction. I seem to lump the bolt and the BCG together also... It's a bad habit, I know.
I just went to PWS website, and looked at another picture of it. The bolt staking looks pretty bad, comparable to a Bushmaster, but the photo was at a bad angle, so I could be wrong.
The PWS carrier with the Isonite coating is listed for $99 at the Brownell's webpage. Plain Jane carriers are about the same. The FailZero carrier with it's Exo coating is $175. $99 for a carrier with a "special coating" looks pretty cheep to me. Yes, I realize I'm taking about carriers only not complete BCGs.
(Please don't confuse what I'm saying with "Holy Toledo! That carrier rocks- everyone should try it!" I don't even know if the thing will work or that the Isonite coating is worth considering. Just saying it's cheep compared to other plated carriers)
ETA- Ok, Bravo Company has standard carriers for $70, a better price than those listed at Brownell's
Find ManBearPig!
03-05-11, 00:55
Honestly, I think someone should just buy it and learn about it the fun way.
This product could range from POS to something along the line of KAC's E3 bolt in terms of impact on a AR's performance. Most likely, it will just end up being another bolt carrier that looks cooler than the rest and will be a little easier to clean, but only testing will actually tell.
The PWS carrier with the Isonite coating is listed for $99 at the Brownell's webpage. Plain Jane carriers are about the same. The FailZero carrier with it's Exo coating is $175. $99 for a carrier with a "special coating" looks pretty cheep to me. Yes, I realize I'm taking about carriers only not complete BCGs.
(Please don't confuse what I'm saying with "Holy Toledo! That carrier rocks- everyone should try it!" I don't even know if the thing will work or that the Isonite coating is worth considering. Just saying it's cheep compared to other plated carriers)
compared to bravo's $69, i suppose $30 isn't a HUGE difference... next to G&R's $42 carrier, though, it's a bigger difference.
if you want a "special" coating...? i don't, personally.
Yeah, after I made the post, I checked out Bravo Company and edited to include that. I should have reversed that order of events.
I did order a Failzero carrier just to try it out. I hope I like it's special coating. Worse case, I paid too much for a carrier and a standard carrier will go into my next AR
ChicagoTex
03-05-11, 04:24
Also, can we just have someone freakin try the thing?
Honestly, I think someone should just buy it and learn about it the fun way.
I've tried to let this go, but it bothers the hell out of me. You seriously expect expect us to shell out our hard-earned cash on an idea we view to be obviously stupid to satisfy YOUR curiosity/optimism? If you're so hot to see how it performs, buy it yourself and post about it. If you're unwilling, stop trying to make us do it for you.
nikuraba29
03-05-11, 05:35
If your a Mil/LE with Brownells's it is even cheaper than $99.00 more like 82.00(?)
S/F
29
It will be in many ARFcom rilfes soon!
Somebody shut-up and just test the damn thing. Everything else is conjecture. This is turning into a thread from Barfcom. :rolleyes:
No. Conjecture would be saying that, even though I have never ran one, it is a POS. We are merely pointing out that the standard USGI carrier has not demonstrated flaws which necessitate it being redesigned. I have no reason to believe that this thing will not run just as good, but it does not solve any particular problem in the existing product.
BufordTJustice
03-05-11, 11:42
No. Conjecture would be saying that, even though I have never ran one, it is a POS. We are merely pointing out that the standard USGI carrier has not demonstrated flaws which necessitate it being redesigned. I have no reason to believe that this thing will not run just as good, but it does not solve any particular problem in the existing product.
Using your quote from earlier in the thread:
"My first thought is that this is a solution looking for a problem. "
I agree that there are no basic deficiencies with a quality basic bolt carrier. However, friction is ALWAYS an enemy....and reducing it is a never ending journey.
I know little about this BC, but if it reduces friction without creating any other detrimental side effects, it might be a decent 'coated' BC for the money. I currently run a FZ BCG and have found the reduction in friction (and tolerance to shitty russian ammo even while using heavy buffers) has been greatly improved.
I'm only personally concerned about the single gas port...that's really the only feature I would call into question without touching/testing one. But maybe there is some engineering behind that. Great place for a factory rep to chime in.
Robb Jensen
03-05-11, 12:23
Look at this http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/n=y/pid=42317/Product/AR_15_DIRECT_IMPINGEMENT_BOLT_CARRIER . What do you guys think? I always thought the M16 bolt carrier could use some debris grooves in it like the sand grooves in the L1A1.
I'll refuse to pass judgment until I've actually used one, I would like to T&Eing one.
Cagemonkey
03-05-11, 12:29
I'll refuse to pass judgment until I've actually used one, I would like to T&Eing one.Thanks Robb. Didn't mean to open a can of worms or insinuate that there's anything wrong with a standard bolt carrier. The only thing that I thought a bolt carrier could use is some debris/sand grooves.
You know, sometimes companies win when the innovate, and sometimes they don't. At least PWS is trying. It's a free market. If a fool wants to part with his money, let him.
It's a fiercely competitive marketplace. Companies in the AR space can either grow (DD, BCM, Spike's), innovate (Vltor, Magpul, etc), or die. PWS is trying to innovate their way to growth, so good for them (and Next Generation Arms etc).
Some of the traditionalists probably wouldn't have tried a midlength 16" when they came out because their carbine 16"worked just fine. Now, that same carbine gas system causes the AR to recoil so violently that it literally jumps out of one's hands. Then that same previous 16" carbine lover wouldn't shoot anything other than a midlength. Oh, just a reminder that the gold standard aka Colt 6920 still uses a carbine gas system. [/sarcasm]
Find ManBearPig!
03-05-11, 15:20
I've tried to let this go, but it bothers the hell out of me. You seriously expect expect us to shell out our hard-earned cash on an idea we view to be obviously stupid to satisfy YOUR curiosity/optimism? If you're so hot to see how it performs, buy it yourself and post about it. If you're unwilling, stop trying to make us do it for you.
Hmm. Seems there was some misunderstandings, most likely my fault for not clarifying. What I was trying to state is that someone needs to shoot the thing before we start passing judgement, and that is the only to find out if it does what is advertised. If my post came across as me saying someone should buy it, well then yes, that was the point. If my post came across as someone should buy it just so I can see how well it works without having to spend my own time and money, then I am sorry about the miscommunication. While experience with similar products and the system as a whole can give someone huge amounts of insight and the ability to pass of judgement based only on pictures, you still cannot say the products has no purpose in almost all cases like this until you actually try it.
Now if a product, like this one, advertises something that many people most likely don't need, they can say, "What is the point of this?" and can simply pass over it and explain why, but they should reserve full judgement about it doing something positive or negative until they have used it to do something, in this case shooting.
Hope I clarified well enough. I tend to ramble and have issues with getting my point across. I'm sure you can understand. I never meant what I said in the way I appeared to have come across. And yes, your right, we can say this product dose not offer much, and talk about why, but we still should not pass full judgement until one of us owns one and has used it extensively. Who knows, it could be great product.
Anyhow, I hope that cleared things up. As I said before, I tend to ramble and have trouble getting my point and tone across. It just happens with the nature of the internet.
EzGoingKev
03-05-11, 16:08
I always thought the M16 bolt carrier could use some debris grooves in it like the sand grooves in the L1A1.
It fits so loose they are not needed IMO.
Without being to contrarian here. PWS makes fantastic muzzle devices, likely one of the best piston systems (if you think you need one, I realize this is another debate) so I am willing to give them a little leeway here before I make a judgement.
Chris
For a guy who rarely cleans his rifle and uses loads of crappy wolf ammo, when I have some extra cash lying around that I don't know what to do with...I may bite.
BufordTJustice
03-06-11, 11:31
For a guy who rarely cleans his rifle and uses loads of crappy wolf ammo, when I have some extra cash lying around that I don't know what to do with...I may bite.
That was a huge reason why I bought my FZ BCG. It made a HUUUUUUUGE difference (read: improvement) with wolf, tula, etc. I got a bud who switched to BCM's IONbond and it was the same deal...an enormous reduction in friction when using Slip2k EWL.
A test would quickly reveal whether it is a decent piece of kit or total junk. More legitimate competition means lower prices. I'm down with that. Time will tell...
Like I have said many times before. The AR-15 DI system is a near perfect system from an engineering perspective. Manufacturers instead of finding ways to improve quality and decrease cost to make a profit, either lower quality or create a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. They know that there are too many people out there who do not know any better and will buy the latest "enhancement" or "tacticool" feature.
smoke and mirrors plus less Q/C ! lets have standards, all to build to for Q/C and safety for all!!!
I have ordered one and will be posting my experience. PWS makes good gear and this should be no exception. We'll see.
ETA- Ok, Bravo Company has standard carriers for $70, a better price than those listed at Brownell's
We have our M16 carriers on sale for $42 right now. ;)
http://www.gandrtactical.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=GRT-M16C
C4
We have our M16 carriers on sale for $42 right now. ;)
http://www.gandrtactical.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=GRT-M16C
C4
done
I have the bolts already and it saves me about $15 per combo versus buying a complete BCG
scoutfsu99
03-23-11, 15:21
On a slightly related note - for all those who are saying there's nothing wrong with standard carriers, solution seeking a problem, etc....what's the difference b/w something like this and an enhanced bolt vs standard bolt? There's nothing "wrong" with a standard bolt right?
Am I missing something?
ChicagoTex
03-23-11, 15:35
On a slightly related note - for all those who are saying there's nothing wrong with standard carriers, solution seeking a problem, etc....what's the difference b/w something like this and an enhanced bolt vs standard bolt? There's nothing "wrong" with a standard bolt right?
Am I missing something?
First off, the reason a reinventing of the BC gets automatically mocked where a reinventing of the Bolt does not is because basically BC's never fail. Bolts, however, do (usually by breaking). While mil-spec bolts last long enough to keep us happy, we'd be only too happy to see a bolt developed tomorrow that gave equal reliability with a longer (preferably infinite) lifespan.
Reinventing something that always works and lasts forever is stupid, reinventing something with clear limitations (in the hopes of going beyond them) isn't.
That said, I've not seen one shred of evidence that shows that anyone's "enhanced" AR-15 bolt produced so far actually works better/lasts longer, so in actual practice, both are wastes of money. It's just that one is a waste of money in the (failed) pursuit of something useful, while the other is just a simple waste of money.
Thomas M-4
03-23-11, 17:33
On a slightly related note - for all those who are saying there's nothing wrong with standard carriers, solution seeking a problem, etc....what's the difference b/w something like this and an enhanced bolt vs standard bolt? There's nothing "wrong" with a standard bolt right?
Am I missing something?
If you are talking about LMT enhanced carrier then there is a lot that you are missing;)
I will start with the PWS first.
From Brownells
* Made from S7 tool steel & hardened to 57 Rockwell
The standard carrier has never had a problem of breaking or wearing out yes you may have to replace the gas key at some point in time but the PWS is going to be the same
* Nitro-vac process in an Isonite coating that the outside hard and slick, while leaving an egg shell looking black finish
I am usually not to big on coatings but hey what ever I see no problem with it
* Slabbed sides and raised contact pads allows more debris to build up in the action before it becomes a problem by creating less points of contact within the receiver
Ok now this one is ass backwards [ raised contact pads by creating less contact points in the receiver] BIG WTF makes no sense to me on a standard carrier there is no contact in that area in fact there is about a 1/16'' clearance all the way around the receiver.
The LMT enhanced carrier is designed for a specific area and that is carbine gas systems the original carrier gas porting and dwell time was for the 20' rifle with a rifle length gas system the LMT enhanced carrier merely tries to correct that. Is it needed HELL NO :sarcastic:
The standard carrier has been serving in the carbine gas system for decades. Does it help any yes I believe so I can feel a difference between swapping carriers in my 14.5'' LMT the BCG velocity is slower it has a slightly lower recoil impulse than the standard carrier it also has been favored by guys running suppressors also.
so has the standard bolt... you're not going to find any more people who think an "enhanced" bolt is a good thing than you're going to find proponents of this "improved" PWS carrier.
they're both voodoo.
Bumping this sucker to see if anyone has tried one... :confused:
Sparky5019
01-11-13, 22:50
Snake Oil
I was thinking unicorn jizz...:laugh:
I do wonder if they are trying to break even on R & D by dropping on this market now after maybe seeing some internal test results that were, say, less than stellar.
I can't fault them if that's the case! As long as it runs the customer will think he got something high speed!
I'll be interested to see how this reviews.
Sparky
It may even be a special blend of snake oil and unicorn jizz, but if they were in stock for the original price of $99, I'd buy at least two and I don't think I'm the one who would do so
There's two parts that concern me...
1. It doesn't look like the inside is hard chromed... the whole thing appears to have some magic finish. and..
2. There's only one exhaust port on the right side.
twistedcomrade
01-12-13, 09:04
I wonder if they have sold out of them like every other dealer/manufacturer has? Glad I bought an extra BCM BCG for a spare last year.
I was under the impression that their entire bcg is proprietary and will only work on their rifles...
sinlessorrow
01-12-13, 11:55
There's two parts that concern me...
1. It doesn't look like the inside is hard chromed... the whole thing appears to have some magic finish. and..
2. There's only one exhaust port on the right side.
I read a review of someone who used one and it stated he had to go to a H2 from a carbine buffer when using it because of increased cyclic rate.
Given that it only has one gas port which should increase pressure in the chamber by reducing vented gas I believe it.
BufordTJustice
01-12-13, 13:53
I read a review of someone who used one and it stated he had to go to a H2 from a carbine buffer when using it because of increased cyclic rate.
Given that it only has one gas port which should increase pressure in the chamber by reducing vented gas I believe it.
Yeah, if anything they should have two larger ports or three ports like the LMT. Going to one port is going to be a problem now that I have gone to all LMT E-carriers in my AR's.
What most people need is not MORE gas pressure.
We have our M16 carriers on sale for $42 right now. ;)
http://www.gandrtactical.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=GRT-M16C
C4
Ah....yes....the good old days when critical quality parts were in stock and cheap.
I remember those times well.
-Jax
grunt soldier
01-17-13, 09:51
My local shop still has one of these in stock for 95 bucks. I'm thinking I should pick it up and test it out. I need a back up anyhow
My local shop still has one of these in stock for 95 bucks. I'm thinking I should pick it up and test it out. I need a back up anyhow
No. Buy it, and list it on Gunbroker with a $195 buy now option and you'll have made a quick hundo.
I've watched a few go like that...
grunt soldier
01-17-13, 14:22
No. Buy it, and list it on Gunbroker with a $195 buy now option and you'll have made a quick hundo.
I've watched a few go like that...
Lol I might just go that route. It felt like a solid carrier but it definitely only had the one gas port and it's not staked right. Looks like they used a flat head set most the way across on each and smacked it. The coating did feel pretty slick but no idea how it will hold up over time.
The store owner did mention they came out with them to eliminate carrier tilt but I have never seen a DI gun suffer from that issue so who knows.
The store owner did mention they came out with them to eliminate carrier tilt but I have never seen a DI gun suffer from that issue so who knows.
That's not even part of PWS's sales verbage on their site.
sinlessorrow
01-17-13, 14:46
Lol I might just go that route. It felt like a solid carrier but it definitely only had the one gas port and it's not staked right. Looks like they used a flat head set most the way across on each and smacked it. The coating did feel pretty slick but no idea how it will hold up over time.
The store owner did mention they came out with them to eliminate carrier tilt but I have never seen a DI gun suffer from that issue so who knows.
Its their standard carrier for the ppiston system with a different key and a few holes drilled into it.
Its their standard carrier for the ppiston system with a different key and a few holes drilled into it.
That makes sense. It does look like a piston carrier.
grunt soldier
01-17-13, 17:06
That makes sense. It does look like a piston carrier.
This was my first thoughts when I looked at it also. but I had a AR with their piston system in it, so I knew how they were set up and that bolt wouldn't work.
If it's the piston system bolt with a few extra holes the carrier tilt issue makes sense kinda so maybe that's what he was thinking or maybe he just didn't know lol
sinlessorrow
01-17-13, 17:11
This was my first thoughts when I looked at it also. but I had a AR with their piston system in it, so I knew how they were set up and that bolt wouldn't work.
If it's the piston system bolt with a few extra holes the carrier tilt issue makes sense kinda so maybe that's what he was thinking or maybe he just didn't know lol
Not the bolt but carrier. This is their piston carrier with a carrier key and a few drilled holes.
Carrier tilt does not happen in the DI system due to the inline action, so that enlarged tail on the carrier is not needed.
grunt soldier
01-17-13, 17:31
Not the bolt but carrier. This is their piston carrier with a carrier key and a few drilled holes.
Carrier tilt does not happen in the DI system due to the inline action, so that enlarged tail on the carrier is not needed.
yes sir correct. My fault. I meant the carrier. I was typing from my phone. and that is what I had said in my previous post. I had never heard of a DI gun having carrier tilt issues but since it's the same carrier used for both their DI and gas piston set ups (just a few more holes drilled in it) that makes sense and I agree with you completely, it's useless on a DI rifle.
Bobbeedigi
01-12-15, 14:16
ok. so a new product is released and everyone craps on it with out even trying it or hearing an actual review. very nice. :( I fear change.
it is heavier than a standard carrier so it will slow dwell time, like a heavy buffer does. the PWS carrier = 9.9oz, m16 carrier is 9.46oz, colt carrier is 8.87oz.
for reference the H buffer is .87oz more than standard buffer. some guns will run better with a heavy buffer or carrier.
also isonite is a very strong treatment. it increases resistance to heat, abrasion and seizure. resistance to pitting is 50-60% better than untreated. also material strength and stiffness are increased. overall improved durability.
so with these benefits why talk bad about something you have no experience with? there are alot of (different) parts that were made for guns that i like alot. such as the spikes st-t2 buffer, magpul AFG, and polymer, nylon 6 (glock frames).
OK gentlemen, here's the straight dope. I bought one of these for a build that has employs a few other PWS parts. It's riding inside a MEGA Arms GTR-3h upper. Also, this is the complete BCG, not just the carrier. After running through about 1000 rnds, I can say that this is absolutely one of the nicest looking and best functioning bolt carriers that I've ever used. It cycles really smoothly and the Isonite coating remains in pristine condition. The single exhaust port, as far as I can tell has no affect on the parts performance. This carrier's higher weight does increase the dwell time to allow for lower pressures at unlocking and therefore significantly reduced recoil. Especially when you also use a PWS H3 buffer and JP tuned spring, as I do. The only thing that was less than satisfactory in this assembly, was that the firing pin retaining pin had a tendency to creep out when the BCG was not in the receiver. So I spread it's legs a tiny bit and...problem solved. Yes, this is an expensive part. However, it looks nicer than those cheesy, NiB BCGs, and the Isonite doesn't change color or start rubbing off after 500 rnds. So, the final verdict on this is an enthusiastic two thumbs up. Get one you won't be disappointed!
Just a final note for the good ole boys who think they know everything and will try to discount my opinion. I AM A GUNSMITH, NOT A FANBOY! I graduated from Colorado School of Trades 5 years ago, and previous to that worked in the firearm industry for most of my life. I am also a certified factory armorer for both Colt and ArmaLite. Custom ARs are a huge part of my business. So, you can either accept my opinion or not. However, I can guarantee you that I know what I'm talking about.
Carry on!
Can you quantify in what ways its better than the other carriers you have tested in the same rifles or rifles set up the exact same way?
... This carrier's higher weight does increase the dwell time to allow for lower pressures at unlocking and therefore significantly reduced recoil. ...
I thought increased dwell time lead to more recoil - as in carbine vs midlength.
How does chamber pressure effect recoil?
On a slightly related note - for all those who are saying there's nothing wrong with standard carriers, solution seeking a problem, etc....what's the difference b/w something like this and an enhanced bolt vs standard bolt? There's nothing "wrong" with a standard bolt right?
Am I missing something?
Bolts are one of the first items to cause a major failure. I've never even heard of a bolt carrier failure.
ok. so a new product is released and everyone craps on it with out even trying it or hearing an actual review. very nice. :( I fear change.
it is heavier than a standard carrier so it will slow dwell time, like a heavy buffer does. the PWS carrier = 9.9oz, m16 carrier is 9.46oz, colt carrier is 8.87oz.
What? Please clearify, because I'm lost on this one.
** sorry to throw this in one post, but I just read the whole thing and had a few questions.
gotuinmysights
01-12-15, 17:05
OK gentlemen, here's the straight dope. I bought one of these for a build that has employs a few other PWS parts. It's riding inside a MEGA Arms GTR-3h upper. Also, this is the complete BCG, not just the carrier. After running through about 1000 rnds, I can say that this is absolutely one of the nicest looking and best functioning bolt carriers that I've ever used. It cycles really smoothly and the Isonite coating remains in pristine condition. The single exhaust port, as far as I can tell has no affect on the parts performance. This carrier's higher weight does increase the dwell time to allow for lower pressures at unlocking and therefore significantly reduced recoil. Especially when you also use a PWS H3 buffer and JP tuned spring, as I do. The only thing that was less than satisfactory in this assembly, was that the firing pin retaining pin had a tendency to creep out when the BCG was not in the receiver. So I spread it's legs a tiny bit and...problem solved. Yes, this is an expensive part. However, it looks nicer than those cheesy, NiB BCGs, and the Isonite doesn't change color or start rubbing off after 500 rnds. So, the final verdict on this is an enthusiastic two thumbs up. Get one you won't be disappointed!
Just a final note for the good ole boys who think they know everything and will try to discount my opinion. I AM A GUNSMITH, NOT A FANBOY! I graduated from Colorado School of Trades 5 years ago, and previous to that worked in the firearm industry for most of my life. I am also a certified factory armorer for both Colt and ArmaLite. Custom ARs are a huge part of my business. So, you can either accept my opinion or not. However, I can guarantee you that I know what I'm talking about.
Carry on!
You might want to look at one of these pins from Leitner wise
http://www.leitner-wise.com/collections/parts/products/m67-solid-firing-pin
^1st post-check
Gunsmith - check
enthusiastic about a specific item - check
Can you quantify in what ways its better than the other carriers you have tested in the same rifles or rifles set up the exact same way?
I thought increased dwell time lead to more recoil - as in carbine vs midlength.
How does chamber pressure effect recoil?
Bolts are one of the first items to cause a major failure. I've never even heard of a bolt carrier failure.
What? Please clearify, because I'm lost on this one.
** sorry to throw this in one post, but I just read the whole thing and had a few questions.
Cut Bobbeedigi some slack. He's been a member here longer than you. :)
I have used PWS DI bolt carriers, and I agree that they are very nice. But don't flame me, I am not saying, "Wow, throw all your other bolt carriers in the trash. They won't work."
One thing I like about the PWS carrier is the nitride/Isonite treatment. It's slicker than the phosphate finish on most carriers, cleans up easier, and the hammer rides smoother on the bottom of the carrier when you pull back the charging handle (until the phosphate carrier is broken in of course).
With regards to the dwell time comments, I think you two are talking about 2 different dwell times: (1) the bullet dwell time in the barrel (as it passes from the gas port to the muzzle), and (2) the bolt carrier dwell time (how long the carrier is sitting in the forward position after firing). I think you are talking about the first definition and Bobbeedigi is talking about the second one.
I have weighed the PWS bolt carrier and it is significantly heavier than the mil-spec M16 style carrier. But my numbers are different than what Bobbeedigi stated. I got 10.79 ounces for the PWS DI bolt carrier and 9.50 for a Colt M16 style mil-spec carrier (both weighed with gas keys attached and nothing else). I can't otherwise quantify the differences in bolt carriers. But in theory, the heavier PWS bolt carrier will generally make the gun more reliable (just like heavier buffers generally make the gun more reliable).
There are lots of features on the PWS carrier, some of which (like the single gas exhaust port) I don't fully understand. But I think the biggest differences are the heavier weight, the nitride/Isonite treatment, and the different contact points (where the carrier contacts the receiver).
As with most things made by PWS (that I have used), the more closely I examine it, the more I am impressed. This bolt carrier is very high quality, but the cost is high too. Is it worth it? That's for every individual buyer to decide for themselves.
Bobbeedigi mentioned JP. It reminded me of a problem that a friend of mine had with this PWS carrier. The one flaw in this carrier is that it is not compatible with the JP Silent Captured Spring (SCS) system. I think it has something to do with a tight spot in the inside diameter of the tail end of the carrier, and the large size of the JP rod end that fits into it. But I recently read on the other site that the 2 companies are working together and have resolved this incompatibility for the PWS DI and piston bolt carriers.
Joe Mamma
Bobbeedigi
01-12-15, 23:59
Originally Posted by MegademiC
"^1st post-check
Gunsmith - check
enthusiastic about a specific item - check"
---------------------------------------------
Right out of the box, what a surprise.
First, JoeMamma was correct, I was referring to carrier dwell time. Look it up, pal. I'm not here to give free lessons on the AR cycle of operations, or submit to quizzing by some wiseass. If that's not the impression you meant to give, then you should have omitted your snarky opening checklist.
Second, when did I say anything about the bolt? That was a comment previously made by another member.
However, carriers DO fail quite a bit as well, mostly having do with the gas key. Never heard of that before? Hmmmmmm...
Though an "enhanced" carrier key is not a feature of this assembly and wasn't of particular concern, I thought I mentioned in my original post that this carrier's gas key was tight, and it's staking flawless. Looks like in my final proofread and edits before posting, I had inadvertently deleted that.
Lastly, there the member "foxjordan22" is referring to carrier weight increasing dwell time before unlocking. He said "slow", but I can assure you he meant it would be increased. Once again, do your own homework and I'm sure you'll find out how that is pertinent to the subject of recoil reduction in AR platform rifles.
Just a couple additional facts about the test rifle. It has a 16 inch Noveske Recon bbl with a mid-length gas system and a perfectly tuned Syrac Ordnance Gen II adjustable gas block. Also, as mentioned before, I'm running a PWS H3 buffer and a JP Enterprises tuned and polished carbine spring. That is not the silent captured spring.
Test ammunition was mostly Remington UMC .223 Rem 55gr MC, Hornady .223 Rem 55gr SP and Federal XM855 5.56X45mm NATO 62gr FMJ, with a couple others thrown in here and there.
So far, I do really like this item. No it's not needed in order to build a fantastic go-to rifle and milspec would work just fine. But, It does have some great features, and in my opinion, if you have the money sitting around it won't be wasted. Do what you want, just thought I'd try to use my actual experience with this item to add to the discussion a little bit. Like I said before, take it or leave it.
Thanks guys...carry on.
Okay, I'm gonna edit my post cause I sounded like an ass, sorry. But you have to admit, it looked suspicious.
I never said you said anything about the bolt, I was quoting the poster who did.
Thank you for the additional info.
This carrier's higher weight does increase the dwell time to allow for lower pressures at unlocking and therefore significantly reduced recoil
I thought increased dwell time lead to more recoil
Dwell time does nothing to reduce or increase recoil. If you want to reduce recoil, you must increase the weight of the firearm, reduce the weight of the bullet, reduce the weight of the powder charge and/or reduce muzzle velocity. Or use a muzzle device to reduce how much rearward thrust the exiting gasses generate.
Dwell time may change how the recoil feels (which is described as felt recoil) but will not change how much recoil energy is generated or the amount of free recoil the shooter absorbs
Eurodriver
01-13-15, 08:25
I miss when folks on this forum focused more on software than hardware.
Will this BCG offer any performance improvements over a milspec BCG?
Will the benefit of spending money on this BCG outweigh the benefit of spending a similar amount of money on quality trigger time?
I miss when folks on this forum focused more on software than hardware.
Will this BCG offer any performance improvements over a milspec BCG?
Will the benefit of spending money on this BCG outweigh the benefit of spending a similar amount of money on quality trigger time?
Has there ever been any BCG that offered a real benefit over a mil-spec unit?
Nope. Not even the shiny ones.
BufordTJustice
01-13-15, 10:04
Has there ever been any BCG that offered a real benefit over a mil-spec unit?
Nope. Not even the shiny ones.
Uh oh. Somebody is trying to stoke up some butthurt. ;)
Dwell time may change how the recoil feels (which is described as felt recoil) but will not change how much recoil energy is generated or the amount of free recoil the shooter absorbs
I think the felt recoil is what we are talking about here. It's the same reason some people experiment with different buffer springs, buffer weights, gas port sizes, mid-length versus carbine length gas systems, etc. I think felt recoil is an important characteristic to consider.
I miss when folks on this forum focused more on software than hardware.
This is the "Technical Discussion" forum . . .
Will this BCG offer any performance improvements over a milspec BCG?
Will the benefit of spending money on this BCG outweigh the benefit of spending a similar amount of money on quality trigger time?
I didn't design this bolt carrier (and I don't sell it either). So I don't know. But I am here to have a reasonably intelligent discussion about it. As far as possible performance improvements, I mentioned one. The increased weight may help reliability. Maybe it will hurt it. I don't know. But the weight difference alone significant.
Has there ever been any BCG that offered a real benefit over a mil-spec unit?
Nope. Not even the shiny ones.
It's easy to be cynical with the large number of AR products in the market. But I try to keep an open mind and am all for better products. As just one example with this, the difference in weight with the PWS and mil-spec carriers is significant (about 1.29 oz). That is a LOT more than the difference between a carbine buffer and an "H" buffer, and an "H" buffer and "H2" buffer. Do you think different buffers can offer a real performance benefit? I do. If you are dismissing this carrier, you are dismissing the extra 1.29 ounces in reciprocating mass.
Now balance that extra weight with the single gas exhaust port (versus 2 in a mil-spec unit), and I don't know what it means. Hopefully someone smarter than me does, and will post here.
Think of how much time we spend discussing buffer weights on this forum . . .
Joe Mamma
Everybody should just by a Colt 6920 and never change any parts, right? :cool:
Eurodriver
01-13-15, 13:40
Everybody should just by a Colt 6920 and never change any parts, right? :cool:
Everybody? No. Most people? Absolutely.
How many times have you been to the range and seen a guy shooting at 25 yards with an AR15, but the target looks like he using a shotgun? Ever seen someone have a double feed with a pistol and point the gun directly into their stomach in order to gain leverage on the slide? Or watched a guy with a perfectly functional Glock 19 miss headshots every single round at 7 yards? What about distance? I bet at least five (because that feels like a good number) posters in this thread have never even fired their AR15s further than 100 yards. I bet two haven't even shot beyond 50. Yet, most will have a free float rail, compensator, maybe even a Geissele trigger.
Now don't misunderstand me, I'm not knocking anyone who upgrades their weapon. Paul Buffoni has bills to pay, and I don't want to see him go out of business. However, when you peel away all of the "But" and "What if" and "well, wait a minute" excuses - your sarcasm isn't really that far off.
If everyone bought a Colt 6920, never changed any parts, and actually shot the gun we could be discussing things that were much more meaningful.
I think the felt recoil is what we are talking about here
Then let's call it felt recoil so there's no confusion. There is a difference between recoil and felt recoil
I miss when folks on this forum focused more on software than hardware
It's difficult to talk about software when asking those types of questions gets quashed with "Those with BTDT experience won't answer because of opsec"
Has there ever been any BCG that offered a real benefit over a mil-spec unit?
I believe the LMT Enhanced carrier does when combined with a good adjustable gas block or a specifically sized gas port
Bobbeedigi
01-15-15, 00:08
Dwell time does nothing to reduce or increase recoil. If you want to reduce recoil, you must increase the weight of the firearm, reduce the weight of the bullet, reduce the weight of the powder charge and/or reduce muzzle velocity. Or use a muzzle device to reduce how much rearward thrust the exiting gasses generate.
Dwell time may change how the recoil feels (which is described as felt recoil) but will not change how much recoil energy is generated or the amount of free recoil the shooter absorbs
For an informal discussion on a AR forum, I think you might be getting a little nit-picky here, MistWolf. I'm pretty sure most everyone understood that I was talking about reducing the perceived recoil and not the actual recoil energy. I know JoeMamma did. However, I do apologize if I wasn't clear enough about that.
I'm all for using a standard phosphate carrier.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.