View Full Version : Intermediate gas system owners ITT.
We know KAC did well with their intermediate, how is the vltor/Noveske length working out for you? On 16" barrels. Thinking about trying that setup in a big way.
I really don't know if that many people have one. I bought mine from Wes at MSTN. So far, its been great. I've run it with a standard Vltor A5 and it worked perfectly, exactly what you would expect.
I'm going to try it with a carbine RE now. I have a Vltor RE-1, CMT carbine spring, and a CMT H, H2 and H3 buffer(s).
I had one fail to lock when using it with a A5 with the A5H3 buffer, which I expected, due to how soft the gas system is.
Make sure you get the pinned gas block. Its worth the little extra money for a lot of security.
I would love to see the Noveske intermediate gas become a standard offering. Very interested in hearing about these also.
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
For a target/competition gun I understand the soft shooting aspect. For duty/HD/SD I prefer the mid 16".
At some point "softer shooting" comes with reduced B/C speed and if it's too low weak ammo, lack of lube, carbon, or dirt has a much greater chance of causing a stoppage.
It is 1.9" longer than mid and we sell the gas tubes if anyone wants to make one.
Todd, How about selling us the N4 barrel w/ intermediate gas? :D
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
Todd, in this thread https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=77625 you talk about moving from 14.5 car to 14.5 mid without much apparent concern for margin of reliability, but you seem to have such concern about moving from 16 mid to 16 int. Do you find that decreasing dwell time for 16 affects it more than decreasing it for 14.5, or there is something else in play?
We have a lot of testing on the 14.5" mid, I would need to do more testing with the 16" INT to give a really good answer.
In short there is less total energy available at the longer gas system length, given equal length from the gas port to the muzzle, because of how fast pressure drops as the bullet travels down the barrel.
Has there been problems with rifle length systems with weak ammo? from what I understand, rifles are more forgiving
I don't have a 16" bbl, but the intermediate gas system on my 18" Noveske SS bbl has been working without a single hick-up... Shooting anything from 62gr-77gr match ammo from BH, Hornady and Privi as well as XM193 with out a problem. Not a high round count at all, but I would say about 300 to 400 so far.
Shoots very smooth with an H-buffer and ejects brass to the 4 o'clock position.
ultimately as I understand the system - it is not about the gas length so much as the length between the gas port and the end of the barrel. A 16' intermediate will give you more gas than say a 14.5" intermediate because the bullet leaves the barrel sooner on the 14.5 than it does on the 16".
i certainly would enjoy seeing more intermediate makers out there. But from what I can tell, a 14.5" middie is going to shoot just as soft as an intermediate 16". Only you have to have the muzzle pined or an NFA lower. So I can see the benefits of a 16" intermediate.
We have a lot of testing on the 14.5" mid, I would need to do more testing with the 16" INT to give a really good answer.
In short there is less total energy available at the longer gas system length, given equal length from the gas port to the muzzle, because of how fast pressure drops as the bullet travels down the barrel.
interesting...
I'm thinking about having some made. Lightweight, chrome lined. Need to know if they are reliable first and I'm having doubts.
I'm thinking about having some made. Lightweight, chrome lined. Need to know if they are reliable first and I'm having doubts.
I've been doing some 16" intermediate barrels lately, but only for 3Gun. I have to agree with Todd on this one. Ammo becomes a huge issue as does back end weights (Carrier, Buffer). Sometimes opening port sizes alone still won't work with low pressure ammo in high altitudes.
The only ones I've put out so far have been used with JP adjustable blocks and tuned to specific ammo. I'm sure a good port size would alleviate, but a good deal of testing needs to be done across a large ammo selection and atmospheric conditions before anyone would be comfortable running that setup in duty conditions.
I've found the 17 to 18.5 lengths to be a lot more forgiving. This all observational of course.
Making the port big enough for cold weather and weaker loads would probably negate most of the softer shooting aspect that fair weather competitors can get with lightened carriers, buffers, springs and probably only shooting one type of ammo of decent quality.
For shooting games it may be worth it for some, I don't see much reason to try it for a duty gun.
I got my Vltor RE-1 in the mail the other day. After this weekend I'm going to grab some PMC Bronze and Wolf for no other reason than to test it out with some low(er) powered ammo.
Now, granted mine has run w/o hiccups with the A5, I'm wondering with the carbine extension how much I can really push it. Instead of making things as heavy as possible, as seems to be the new trend, I'm wondering how light I can make it, w/o losing any of the smooth quality.
With any rifle I can feel a difference in the action when all the heavy componets are added. More so when the bolt carrier is going forward.
Making the port big enough for cold weather and weaker loads would probably negate most of the softer shooting aspect that fair weather competitors can get with lightened carriers, buffers, springs and probably only shooting one type of ammo of decent quality.
For shooting games it may be worth it for some, I don't see much reason to try it for a duty gun.
Is it really that much different than a 14.5" middie? KAC seems to have figured out how to do it reliably. Having to perm attach a FH makes the 14.5" a non-starter for some folks. I guess it depends on the company's standard for reliabilty. If you want to run with any ammo and in any environment, I can begin to understand. However, KAC & BCM have both made it known that their rifles (14.5 mid & SR15) should be run with quality ammo, preferably 5.56.
Is it really that much different than a 14.5" middie?
Yes, there is less pressure farther down the barrel. So even if the distance from the gas port to muzzle is the same there is less pressure available to operate the action.
justin_247
03-30-11, 12:36
Is it really that much different than a 14.5" middie? KAC seems to have figured out how to do it reliably. Having to perm attach a FH makes the 14.5" a non-starter for some folks. I guess it depends on the company's standard for reliabilty. If you want to run with any ammo and in any environment, I can begin to understand. However, KAC & BCM have both made it known that their rifles (14.5 mid & SR15) should be run with quality ammo, preferably 5.56.
Can we get some data on how well low quality ammo, such as Wolf or Brown Bear, runs on the KAC 16" intermediate and the BCM 14.5" midlength? This is a fascinating subject and I'd like to know more.
Also, Todd, my understanding is that your intermediate length is different from the length KAC uses for their intermediate. Do you think this may play a role?
Ultimately, I think we have to be careful how far we're willing to push this "ensure it's reliable with the weakest ammo" trend... that's how the "lower tier" manufacturers have ended up with overgassed operating systems.
Also, Todd, my understanding is that your intermediate length is different from the length KAC uses for their intermediate. Do you think this may play a role?
Ultimately, I think we have to be careful how far we're willing to push this "ensure it's reliable with the weakest ammo" trend... that's how the "lower tier" manufacturers have ended up with overgassed operating systems.
IIRC, the intermediate is something like .40" longer than the KAC SR15 system.
I would also note the KAC SR15 doesn't use a super heavy buffer. Its actually a tick lighter than the standard carbine buffer.
I couldn't agree more on ammo. I wouldn't use PMC/Wolf for anything, other than to see how my gun shot with shit ammo. ;)
bp, I meant to ask you but got too busy and lost track of this thread:
- did you buy a barrel only from Wes and Paul, or complete upper?
- what's the shortest rail that would work with intermediate system?
- barrel profile is medium, am I correct?
Thanks.
Can we get some data on how well low quality ammo, such as Wolf or Brown Bear, runs on the KAC 16" intermediate and the BCM 14.5" midlength? This is a fascinating subject and I'd like to know more.
Also, Todd, my understanding is that your intermediate length is different from the length KAC uses for their intermediate. Do you think this may play a role?
Ultimately, I think we have to be careful how far we're willing to push this "ensure it's reliable with the weakest ammo" trend... that's how the "lower tier" manufacturers have ended up with overgassed operating systems.
I have fired exactly 20 rounds of Wolf through my E3 and it didn't go well. However, I regularly shoot Centurion & Federal .223 through it with zero issues. Centurion is known to be pretty weak. I run an H buffer in it and have no issues with weak, brass cased ammo. I should mention that the only time I tried Wolf, the rifle was brand new. The rifle really smoothed out as the BCG broke in over the first 100 rounds or so, but the action was still tight when I tried the wolf ammo. This may have contributed to the issues I experienced. I generally don't shoot steel cased ammo, so I never really worried about it.
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
IIRC, the intermediate is something like .40" longer than the KAC SR15 system.
I would also note the KAC SR15 doesn't use a super heavy buffer. Its actually a tick lighter than the standard carbine buffer.
I couldn't agree more on ammo. I wouldn't use PMC/Wolf for anything, other than to see how my gun shot with shit ammo. ;)
I thought the Noveske INT was slightly shorter than the KAC? Also, the SR15s ship with a standard CAR buffer these days. When they first came out, they used a buffer marked "SR15" that was just a shade lighter. But as I mentioned above, mine runs like a clock with an H buffer.
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
bp, I meant to ask you but got too busy and lost track of this thread:
- did you buy a barrel only from Wes and Paul, or complete upper?
Thanks.
I've been wondering this too? I thought they wouldn't sell barrels, only complete uppers. Where did they go anyway? Disappeared from arf earlier this year & the website was down last time I checked too.
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
Can we get some data on how well low quality ammo, such as Wolf or Brown Bear, runs on the KAC 16" intermediate and the BCM 14.5" midlength? This is a fascinating subject and I'd like to know more.
Also, Todd, my understanding is that your intermediate length is different from the length KAC uses for their intermediate. Do you think this may play a role?
Ultimately, I think we have to be careful how far we're willing to push this "ensure it's reliable with the weakest ammo" trend... that's how the "lower tier" manufacturers have ended up with overgassed operating systems.
I have around 3,000 rounds of brown and silver bear through my 2 BCM 14.5 mid length uppers. Running an H buffer they work great. With an H2 I occasionally got failures to lock back on an empty mag. I obviously went back to the H buffer for both.
Longhorn86
04-02-11, 04:45
I'm new here to M4Carbine, I was referred by a friend and I'm so glad he did, I have done a lot of reading.Thanks guys for all the hard work. Now to my question. I have an decent quality 14.5 upper made by a local guy (NC). I'm running a AAC M4-1000. I have blown 2 sets of gas rings in 1000 rounds(Rem). I bought the solid one piece gas ring and it has worked so far but the brass are black when they come out. There is no resistance between the bolt and the carrier though and I don't think that's cool. I can't tell what the buffer is either, I can't see any markings. I talked to the guy who made the barrel and the gas port out of the barrel is .0072 he said that if I brought it back he would make it .0082 (which is what he doing now to newer ones). I don't know if that is the answer or not and I'm not experienced enough using suppressors to make a call. I would also like to have the real MIL-Specs so I would know buffer size and gas port hole size etc. Any ideas?:suicide2:
bp, I meant to ask you but got too busy and lost track of this thread:
- did you buy a barrel only from Wes and Paul, or complete upper?
- what's the shortest rail that would work with intermediate system?
- barrel profile is medium, am I correct?
Thanks.
I bought the barrel only from MSTN with a pinned Noveske gas block and a matched LMT bolt w/ LMT M16 bolt carrier. I installed it into a matched Noveske upper & lower I bought from PK Firearms in IL.
The barrel is a 1/8 turn 3 groove. I was up in the air about the 3 groove, but i've read they get longer barrel life due to the increased width of the lands. I don't have enough rounds down it to quanitfy this however. I can tell you they clean much easier than the polygonal rifled barrels. I would guess this has to do with the tracking of the brush down the rifiling. Wes said they get slightly better accuracy with the 3 groove as opposed to the polygonal. Again, I'll hopefully have a S&B in July to test this with.
The barrel is a medium countor. Looks exactly like the Noveske recon, less the longer gas system.
As far as the shortest rail that will work, I think that depends on what you want to "work". I had a question if the RIS-II would work with the INT gas. The mouth of the RIS-II is more closed off than the DD Lite rails. What I found out is the RIS-II opening is larger than the gas block. On the KAC the gas block is forward the rail. On my setup, the gas block is contained within the rail system. You could use a 10" rail, but you would have about an inch of the gas tube exposed.
Rob_s posted a pic of the KAC system next to a ruler. From what I can surmise by the pic, the INT system is slightly longer. From the face of the receiver, the gas port on the INT is 11.5" down the barrel. If you look at Rob's pic in one of the KAC threads, the 11.5" on the ruler is slightly forward of the center of the gas block. I'll see if i can dig up the post were i read is was a .40" difference.
My next range trip I'll try it with both the carbine and H buffer. I don't think making the reciprocating assembly as heavy as possible is the best way to reduce recoil. The rearward motion of the bolt carrier is only one componet of recoil. If you add a ton of mass to the assembly, you have all that weight slamming forward as well. Everytime I shoot, I notice the forward motion more than the rear motion.
Provided I don't have any extraction issues, I'll probably run the carbine buffer.
I know at some point KAC changed the gas port size of the SR15. I would love to see how the gas port size compares with the INT system.
Thanks for detailed response.
RE: rail length, my minimal requirement is that gas tube is fully covered.
I know that 10 inch will be too short; I am basically curious if 11 inch is enough, or one needs 12 inch rail.
There was a whole thread re "light-fast vs. heavy-slow BCG-buffer-spring setup" in regards to recoil and its perception; as it commonly happens, we never came to any definitive conclusions...
I'll have to dig up that thread. Do you have a link to it?
I would rather the bolt carrier movement to be light and snappy, rather than heavy and slow.
When I ran the INT with the Vltor A5, with the A5H3 buffer, it was on the slow side and had one fail to lock back with a PMAG.
It felt quicker with the standard A5 buffer.
I now have a Vltor RE-1 on there, so I'll give it a go with the carbine buffer.
On my RIS-II, the gas block sits about 1/4" from the inside edge of the rail's front section, with plenty of clearence around it.
With an 11" rail, depending on the actual measured length of the rail, just the gas block may stick out. You almost have to measure it to find out.
I'll have to dig up that thread. Do you have a link to it?
Tried to search for it - can't find it. It was somewhere in tech forum, basically revolving around speed, momentum, individual perception etc. On one hand, you have very soft-shooting competition guns that use low-mass carriers etc, supporting lighter-faster crowd. On the other hand, there is a number of opposing examples, SCAR is one of them - very soft shooting and easy to keep on target, and with BCG much heavier than AR's. I am personally in heavy-slow corner, but I claim no specific corroborating data.
An 11" rail will cover the gas tube but not the gas block.
http://noveskerifleworks.com/imimg/18-556_2d.jpg
Thanks Todd, I should've thought of looking at your site.
On the other hand, there is a number of opposing examples, SCAR is one of them - very soft shooting and easy to keep on target, and with BCG much heavier than AR's
I don't know that much about the SCAR line, but aren't those piston driven guns? Obviously, differences in the operating spring would factor in this as well.
Yes, but without deviating from this thread much further, there is a certain amount of energy that needs to be transmitted to BCG to cycle it. Since we're discussing aspects of moving mass and how it affects perceived recoil, it doesn't matter that much if this mass is being pushed back by gas, or by gas pushing on piston pushing on BCG. Traditionally, piston-driven rifles were considered not as smooth as DI when all other things/mass were being equal. SCAR changed it to some extent.
alpha.kilo
04-02-11, 20:39
This is a great discussion.
There is another aspect to this thought process in the DI system. That is reliability. Having a well gassed system with a high amount of mass moving back and forth does have a direct effect on the reliability of the ar15 platform when using in dusty, dirty environments. I am speaking about the desert areas surrounding Phoenix. Shooting in the desert and going prone on a dry, windy day will definitely get grit into the receivers.
A system that moves more mass, i.e. F/A carrier, heavier buffer, extra power buffer spring, etc has a tendency to overcome the friction and resistance that shooting 1K rounds in the dirt can bring.
But I have the same observations as bp7178 when it comes to recoil. There is a price to pay for having that mass come slinging forward. So I guess it becomes a question of recoil vs. reliability. And also, what type of ammo are you shooting?
Personally, I kind of like a well gassed system, with a little more mass on the back end to ensure reliability with full performance ammo like 5.56.
I run H2 buffers and Sprinco Blue springs in all of my Noveske 16 inch mids. They run like industrial grade sewing machines with everything from PMC Bronze to the 75 and 77 grain stuff. I can't speak to the Wolf and other steel cased ammo as I have never tried it.
I have a 14.5 inch mid on order from Noveske and am anxious to see if it also will reliably run a blue spring and H2.
AK
I would also add all of this is dependant on the volume of gas entering the system, and it's pressure.
Buffer and spring are one end of the equation.
I don't think anyone would doubt that the KAC system functions well.
The intermediate is a very similar system. The intermediate allows you to get where the KAC is, but it exists in parts you can use to build your own rifle, as opposed to buying a completed KAC.
But I have the same observations as bp7178 when it comes to recoil. There is a price to pay for having that mass come slinging forward.
I actually find it almost beneficial, kind of brings muzzle back down.
I have a 14.5 inch mid on order from Noveske and am anxious to see if it also will reliably run a blue spring and H2.
My 14.5 BCM cycles fine with H2 and regular spring, and just at the edge of normal lockback on empty mag. I've had two no-locks with regular training ammo, but then no issues with over 25 test rounds loaded singly in the mag.
ll.
The intermediate is a very similar system. The intermediate allows you to get where the KAC is, but it exists in parts you can use to build your own rifle, as opposed to buying a completed KAC.
Yeah, I've been thinking of rebarreling one of my uppers ever since Wes announced them on AR15.
Originally Posted by alpha.kilo
But I have the same observations as bp7178 when it comes to recoil. There is a price to pay for having that mass come slinging forward.
I actually find it almost beneficial, kind of brings muzzle back down.
My Battlecomp 2.0 does a bang up job of that. ;)
bp, can you say how much MSTN wanted for it? On outside chance of you talking technical specs with them, do you know if gas port on 16 INT is the same as one on 18 INT? Todd?
Thank Todd. I was faintly hopeful for 16 INT with switchblock, but I understand that this would bring another level of uncertainty.
The "custom" port size to me is an indication of thoughtful approach to this, rather than just chop 18 INT and hope it works.
Funny you should ask about the gas port size. I had sent Wes and email asking about it and he said that information was "not available".
I don't know to take it as its being regarded as a trade secret or he just doesn't have the size off-hand. I just don't feel like taking off the DD RIS-II and gas block of measure it myself.
I was wanting to know how it compared with the KAC system. I may take it apart when I get a calipers or something to actually get a precise measurement of it. But for now, w/o the tools to actually measure it, there's not much point in taking it off.
I think Wes posted the price in the thread about them on TOS. It was very similar to all of Noveske's barrels. The total on my order was higher, but it included a headspaced LMT bolt and bolt carrier. I want to say they were around $450ish.
If the port sizes are similar between the 18" and 16" with the intermediate, I suppose you could get the 18" turned down to 16", but i've never been a big fan of making those kind of changes after the fact, regardless of the port size. If I wanted a barrel dimpled or fluted, I would rather it come that way from the get go. Of course, if you wanted a polygonal SS lightweight barrel with a INT gas system, that is probably your only option.
Is MSTN still active over on TOS?
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
How would a 16 inch INT gas barrel compare to an 18 inch rifle gas barrel? There are questions of reliability with the 16 INT, saying there's not as much gas pressure to work the action as a 14.5" mid gas system. However, the 18" rifle gas system has worked quite well, i.e. Mk 12. I have shot several hundred rounds of .223 pressure ammo through my Centurion Mk 12 upper and a Vltor A5 extension with no hint of being "under gassed" or sluggish. How would the 16" INT gas have less pressure to work with than the 18" rifle gas system?
I would really like to try a 16" INT barrel if they can be considered reliable by our standards.
if they can be considered reliable by our standards.
What is the standard in particular? How many thousands of rounds, and what type of rounds, must be fired to meet a community standard of reliable?
Everytime I've fired mine it went bang. The only (1) malfunction was a fail to lock back with using a A5 extension with the A5H3 buffer when I was testing it.
I don't see it being different than a 18" with a rifle, or a 14.5" with a mid.
I have went to the Vltor RE-1 carbine extension, and will run it with either the H or carbine buffer after I give it a go during my next range trip. I don't see it being much different than the KAC SR15 system, which uses a buffer very close to the standard carbine.
How would a 16 inch INT gas barrel compare to an 18 inch rifle gas barrel? There are questions of reliability with the 16 INT, saying there's not as much gas pressure to work the action as a 14.5" mid gas system. However, the 18" rifle gas system has worked quite well, i.e. Mk 12. I have shot several hundred rounds of .223 pressure ammo through my Centurion Mk 12 upper and a Vltor A5 extension with no hint of being "under gassed" or sluggish. How would the 16" INT gas have less pressure to work with than the 18" rifle gas system?
I would really like to try a 16" INT barrel if they can be considered reliable by our standards.
The difference is in the dwell time between when the bullet passes the gas port and when it exits the barrel.
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
What is the standard in particular? How many thousands of rounds, and what type of rounds, must be fired to meet a community standard of reliable?
Everytime I've fired mine it went bang. The only (1) malfunction was a fail to lock back with using a A5 extension with the A5H3 buffer when I was testing it.
I don't see it being different than a 18" with a rifle, or a 14.5" with a mid.
I have went to the Vltor RE-1 carbine extension, and will run it with either the H or carbine buffer after I give it a go during my next range trip. I don't see it being much different than the KAC SR15 system, which uses a buffer very close to the standard carbine.
I won't get into a keyboard debate over X amount of rounds of X ammo during training course X, is the only way to know if a rifle is reliable. Most of us here can use a weapon and give a yes or no answer to the reliability question. I carry several weapons on duty every day. I didn't get out a chart or secret formula, or run to the internet and ask "I fired X number of FMJs through my new blaster, is it reliable?" I can put enough rounds down range through a given system to determine if I feel confident enough to trust my life and the citizens that I swore to protect with that particular weapon. There is no "500- 1000- 250,000 flawless rounds" is what you have to shoot to be reliable in my book. No arbitrary number is what I'm saying. I haven't kept a detailed round count in years.
You say you had one failure to lock on empty and you determined the cause, so you can rule that one out. You also say it went bang every time, was that out of 10 rounds or 10,000? If it was bang say 523 times, I would tote that rifle on duty. Now if it were bang 48 times, I would be doing myself and others a grave injustice in carrying that rifle.
The difference is in the dwell time between when the bullet passes the gas port and when it exits the barrel.
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
I understand dwell time. Off hand do you know how much barrel is in front of the 16" INT port vs the 18" rifle port? Todd was talking about how pressure was greater the closer you are to the chamber, which is why the 14.5 mid works so well. So along that line of thinking I just wondered if dwell time would be less of an issue because the INT gas port is still closer to the chamber than the rifle gas port.
I'm no weapon engineer, I don't mean to be argumentative. I have no operational knowledge of the INT system. I am just curious, and would like to understand the system better.
I understand dwell time. Off hand do you know how much barrel is in front of the 16" INT port vs the 18" rifle port? Todd was talking about how pressure was greater the closer you are to the chamber, which is why the 14.5 mid works so well. So along that line of thinking I just wondered if dwell time would be less of an issue because the INT gas port is still closer to the chamber than the rifle gas port.
I'm no weapon engineer, I don't mean to be argumentative. I have no operational knowledge of the INT system. I am just curious, and would like to understand the system better.
Sorry, I don't know the specs for each of the barrels you mentioned. Regarding 16" intermediate gas systems, there are basically two available to the public, KAC & now Noveske. However, the Noveske is only available through MSTN and was spec'd by MSTN, not Noveske. Not sure what's going on at MSTN, but they seem to be MIA lately, at least in their web presence.
Comparing the two 16" INT systems, the Noveske is reportedly 0.40" longer than the KAC and as a result, has less dwell than the KAC. When compared to a rifle length barrel, I think the dwell time would be greater, I think?
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
You also say it went bang every time, was that out of 10 rounds or 10,000? If it was bang say 523 times, I would tote that rifle on duty. Now if it were bang 48 times, I would be doing myself and others a grave injustice in carrying that rifle.
About 400 rounds so far. After this weekend, I should have plently more on it. I have confidence in the weapon to carry it on duty.
IIRC, a rifle gas system is 13.2". So, 4.8" from the muzzle of an 18".
The INT is 11.5", 4.5" from the muzzle of a 16".
Mid-length, 9.8", 4.7" from the muzzle of a 14.5".
I understand there is much more to this equation than just length to the muzzle. However, there are similarities there. Gas port, and ammunition are factors here of course. I'm wondering more and more what the gas port size is on my barrel. I wish I would have measure it before I installed everything.
I see the advantage of the INT system as not having to run a heavy buffer system to strike a balance with the gas impulse.
When you start putting numbers on everything, where I see a problem is that there isn't a mendoza line where if you are above here its a go, and below its a no-go. I've seen plenty of charts and graphs, and a metric shit ton of conflicting opinions.
With those measurements for the gas system lengths, it would appear that the 16 INT (Noveske length to clarify) would have slightly less dwell time vs the 14.5 mid and 18 rifle. But, the 18 rifle would have less pressure at the gas port than the 16 int. I also understand that the gas port size has a lot to do with the amount of gas allowed to enter the system. I'm just very interested in the INT setup, because it would appear that it shoots very smooth and you can use a light buffer.
I also have noticed MSTN's disappearance as of late. I would only be interested in a barrel w/ pinned gas block and gas tube.
ETA: bp7178 what ammo have you tried in your INT? I wonder how the INT works with known low power loads like Rem .223, PMC, Wolf or Bear
We didn't change to the INT on our 18" because we were happy with rifle gas 18". We actually used mid length on our 18" barrel before the INT.
What issue does 18/rifle have? There are thousands of them in service.
With those measurements for the gas system lengths, it would appear that the 16 INT (Noveske length to clarify) would have slightly less dwell time vs the 14.5 mid and 18 rifle. But, the 18 rifle would have less pressure at the gas port than the 16 int. I also understand that the gas port size has a lot to do with the amount of gas allowed to enter the system. I'm just very interested in the INT setup, because it would appear that it shoots very smooth and you can use a light buffer.
I also have noticed MSTN's disappearance as of late. I would only be interested in a barrel w/ pinned gas block and gas tube.
ETA: bp7178 what ammo have you tried in your INT? I wonder how the INT works with known low power loads like Rem .223, PMC, Wolf or Bear
The ammo (vast majority of) is what the county PD uses for practice ammo, its HSM .223, all in LC 06 brass, 55gr FMJ. I've never put it over a chrono, so I don't know what its shooting. Some Winchester and Federal .223 here and there.
After I get a scope (shooting for a S&B 1-8x), I'll be going with Hornady TAP, maybe even dable in reloading.
Hopefully this weekend, I'll buy a box or two of PMC Bronze and Wolf, just to see how the low(er) powered stuff runs.
I think MSTN is just having website issues. Every email i've sent Wes i've had a response within a day or two at most. I think he's fallen off of TOS after every tool over there busts his chops for typing in all caps. Some of those threads are like trainwrecks.
The ammo (vast majority of) is what the county PD uses for practice ammo, its HSM .223, all in LC 06 brass, 55gr FMJ. I've never put it over a chrono, so I don't know what its shooting. Some Winchester and Federal .223 here and there.
After I get a scope (shooting for a S&B 1-8x), I'll be going with Hornady TAP, maybe even dable in reloading.
Hopefully this weekend, I'll buy a box or two of PMC Bronze and Wolf, just to see how the low(er) powered stuff runs.
I think MSTN is just having website issues. Every email i've sent Wes i've had a response within a day or two at most. I think he's fallen off of TOS after every tool over there busts his chops for typing in all caps. Some of those threads are like trainwrecks.
Let me know how it goes with the weak stuff if you can. I train with mostly Bear ammo because it's cheap, runs fine in my BCM 14.5 mid guns, and I have to supply all my own ammo (no Dept. issue here). That is why I would like to know about the weaker ammo.
Good to hear that Wes is still in business. I've seen a few of those threads on TOS and I can't believe anyone with half a brain would put up with those idiots (I haven't perused TOS is years). Glad Wes left them to their own mutual destruction.
What issue does 18/rifle have? There are thousands of them in service.
The gas port is too large, the cyclic rate gets low in sub zero temps, can be sensitive to low pressure ammo or lack of lube.
The ones in service only shoot 5.56 pressure ammo and were made with rifle gas because it existed, not because it was optimal.
The gas port is too large, the cyclic rate gets low in sub zero temps, can be sensitive to low pressure ammo or lack of lube.
The ones in service only shoot 5.56 pressure ammo and were made with rifle gas because it existed, not because it was optimal.
Not to contradict a manufacturer, but almost all the ammo I shoot through my Centurion Arms Mk12 18" rifle gas upper is .223 pressure stuff, like Hornady and Black Hills Match. I have not noticed any sluggishness or failures to lock back in several hundred rounds. Granted I haven't shot it in sub zero temps, but we don't get a lot of those in the southeast.
Spent the last two days at the range with my 16" intermediate. Worked perfectly everytime, temps were in the 70s-80s, great weather.
Ammo was HSM .223 55gr, and seems to be their newer stuff in LC06 brass. I don't have too much info on the ammo, I'll look at their website and see what I can dig up. I also shot some old Winchester .223 55gr which was given to me. It was pretty old, so I wasn't expecting much, but everyone shot and cycled perfectly. It felt like it had more recoil than the HSM, but without a chrono I don't know what exactly it was shooting.
I had pulled the one of the bullets on each type of cartridge. Both were boat tailed 55gr, with the winchester having a slightly more aggressive boat tail. The powder on the HSM and Win were both of a ball type. The HSM was more of a shiny silver, and the Win a charcoal dull color. I describe it just to list differences I could observe.
Mags were always PMAGs, all are about as old as the barrel, which is to say they are all pups.
I had changed the extension to a Vltor RE-1, with a standard CMT carbine spring. I used it with a carbine, H, H2 and H3 buffer. All cycled perfectly, but tesing was pretty limited with the H3, I had never really intended to run it, just wanted to see if it would run.
The carbine buffer felt very light and quick with the HSM. Oddly, with the Winchester, it felt slightly choppy. Another shooter said he preffered the H2 buffer with the HSM ammo, but I felt it almost seemed clunky compared to the carbine, which was snappy, light and quick. You could notice the extra weight pushing to the rear and forward again with the H2 and especially the H3.
With the H buffer, it was smooth like butter with all the ammo I tested. The H buffer is my go-to and will stay in the rifle. If I run it suppressed, I may go heavier, but I see no reason to stray otherwise. The H buffer smoothed out the action, without overly slowing the bolt carrier speed.
This is by far and away, out of the three ARs i've ownded recently, my favorite setup.
The rifle drops the brass in a neat little pile right about the 4 o'clock posistion with all buffers tested. Just about the easiest time i've ever had policing up brass. Got to save once fired LC brass... ;)
justin_247
04-10-11, 23:58
If you can't figure out the size of the intermediate gas port, you may want to e-mail Kevin Johnson at Johnson Tactical Rifles (https://www.johnsontactical.com/toc/) and ask him. He builds custom rifles, it appears, using many of the same parts that Noveske uses, such as SWS rails and Noveske barrels, and offers custom gas system lengths.
... just a thought.
I was just wanting to know, just to know. After shooting it this weekend, I have that much more confidence in the system.
The only thing you can really do with a gas port is make it larger. Which I don't need to do at all. I was just wanting to know how it compared to the KAC system.
I will add that the carbine RE/H buffer combo felt near the same as the A5 system in terms of recoil, but the carbine RE felt faster, almost as if the A5 slowed the bolt carrier a bit more.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.