Can generated fouling in an AR SBR [Archive]

Thomas M-4

04-19-11, 19:31

Isn't it true in both piston and DI ARs, that the bullet has exited the bore by the time the bolt has completed unlocking, and thus any additional gas present in the bore at that point will blow forward?

Yes the bullet is out of the bore. But the can will still have gas pressure in it.
Think about it that is how a can works it captures the gas and releases it in a controlled manner. A little bit of the gas will blow back through the bore hence soot on the ejected cases. Gas takes the path of least resistance if its waiting in line to get out through the can and the gas seal is broken when the spent casing is being extracted out of the chamber some of the gas will go that way.

Reagans Rascals

04-19-11, 20:05

Omega_556

04-19-11, 20:12

My SBR is a 10.5in LMT and it is suppressed 90% of the time with an AAC M4-2000.

More fouling into the weapons with a suppressor, absolutely.

Does it cause problems, absolutely not.

If I shoot 20-25 rnds out of a 30 rnd magazine, with the suppressor attached, and do a tactical reload the rounds are much dirtier than than without the suppressor attached; so yes more gas is entering the receiver.

It is rarely cleaned, and ran wet (I wipe down the BCG and patch the barrels, not a detailed strip,scrape, & polish like many believe the AR needs). She is a dirty whore, and loves being ran hard...

Use quality components and you should have no problems.

Good luck, with your build.

Iraqgunz

04-19-11, 20:15

Smart man.

My SBR is a 10.5in LMT and it is suppressed 90% of the time with an AAC M4-2000.

More fouling into the weapons with a suppressor, absolutely.

Does it cause problems, absolutely not.

If I shoot 20-25 rnds out of a 30 rnd magazine, with the suppressor attached, and do a tactical reload the rounds are much dirtier than than without the suppressor attached; so yes more gas is entering the receiver.

It is rarely cleaned, and ran wet (I wipe down the BCG and patch the barrels, not a detailed strip,scrape, & polish like many believe the AR needs). She is a dirty whore, and loves being ran hard...

Use quality components and you should have no problems.

Good luck, with your build.

Thomas M-4

04-19-11, 20:27

I have read a lot about this, and one thing I have consistently seen solve the problem was the addition of an enhanced BCG from LMT. It has different configured gas ports to allow for a longer dwell time.

You still get some blow back even using the LMT enhanced carrier with a can. I have shot both with a 10.5'' noveske switch block. No scientific testing but seat of the pants the switch block made the biggest difference. But the enhanced carrier does cycle slightly slower [ smoother feeling]. The best recoil wise is with a switch block, suppressor and the enhanced carrier all working together. I will add the sbr worked fine with the std carrier but the enhanced did soften it up a tiny bit.

Grunt Medic TXARNG

04-19-11, 21:01

Thank you gentlemen, for the detailed and patient explanation to one with minimal experience with suppressors.

glocktogo

04-19-11, 22:09

As an intentional torture test, I ran about 900 rounds through my RR M16A1 with 11.5" 6933 upper/M42K suppressor without lube or cleaning. I'm running a BCM Ion-Bonded BCG FWIW. No malfunctions or noticeable cyclic rate change during the test. Squirted some lube in it and ran another 300 before I cleaned it. Firing was mainly with Federal 55gr FMJ in 100 round Wal-Mart packs.

As stated, if you use quality components you'll be fine.

SHIVAN

04-19-11, 22:15

I built up my 10" Noveske, and it runs suppressed about 100% of the time. The only ammo it wouldn't run was Fiocchi frangible.

It gets dirty, it runs. It stays lubed. I'm sure it will stop some day, but about every 2000rds I get in there and scrap the crap out of the lower, and the recesses of the upper. It just keeps running.

SBR's and cans these days are pretty reliable if you go with the top names. LMT, COLT, Noveske, KAC and Daniel Defense would be on my short list.

g5m

04-22-11, 23:55

I have read a lot about this, and one thing I have consistently seen solve the problem was the addition of an enhanced BCG from LMT. It has different configured gas ports to allow for a longer dwell time.

Any idea why LMT doesn't recommend the enhanced bolt/carrier for barrels less than 14.5"?

quote:"Enhanced bolt carriers are to be used with a 14.5" barrel or longer."

Thomas M-4

04-23-11, 00:40

Any idea why LMT doesn't recommend the enhanced bolt/carrier for barrels less than 14.5"?

quote:"Enhanced bolt carriers are to be used with a 14.5" barrel or longer."

Because it was optimized for carbine gas system with 14.5''-16'' gas system and dwell timing, firing 5.56 nato pressure ammo.
Any thing after that you are going past the manufactures recommendations SO BUYER BE WARE . Now after saying that I have run one in a 10.5'' noveske switch block with the gas setting set on suppressed and with OUT the suppressor attached[not running the suppressor cuts back on the gas cycling the action] the sbr still cycled but it was on the cusp of short stroking it would go through a 30 rd p-mag but fail to lock the bolt back on the last round with the suppressor attached it worked fine the BCG would lock back on the last round . All of my testing with this set up was done with 5.56 nato pressure M-855 ammo PP & LC to be exact I didn't try it with .223 ammo. In my 14.5'' LMT I normally use the enhanced carrier with H-buffer and sprinco blue spring and it will cycle PMC bronze and 62 grain wolf with out a problem. But I did run 1k of M-196 5.56 through it before I tried the .223 ammo the BCG loosens up a considerably after about 500 rounds. I have read some reports of it being used in a mid-length gas system no first hand experience so I couldn't recommend it. BTW I have close to if not 4k through the 14.5'' LMT with a enhanced carrier.

More info can be found on this subject by looking up the ultimate sbr thread started by Grant.

MarkG

04-23-11, 09:18

The only ammo it wouldn't run was Fiocchi frangible.

Frangible through a suppressor is always a bad idea...

markm

04-23-11, 09:32

Frangible through a suppressor is always a bad idea...

Agreed. I'd never fire frang through a can. There are several flavors of frangible... all with their own downside risks.

g5m

04-23-11, 11:50

Thanks, Thomas M-4.

SHIVAN

04-23-11, 15:48

Frangible through a suppressor is always a bad idea...

Yep, I hear it is. No issues. Except the gun wouldn't run. :sarcastic:

Dave_M

04-23-11, 21:00

Piston guns are better in some cases. Read through some of the previous threads. Full auto, and SBR suppressor use are some of the times when it will be beneficial.

This arena is where a FailZero BCG really shines

TehLlama

04-23-11, 22:20

It can be reduced somewhat by decreasing the size of the gas port - but only if it's going to be a truly 100% suppressed unit. Expect short stroking without the can on there to increase backpressure, and even at that the volume and longer amount of time hot gas pressure is maintained at the gas port by the can will make it dirty up quicker.
That being said, if properly lubed the weapon will fire hassle free more rounds than any reasonable person would carry on them anyway.

I still view the increased amount of gunk coming out the port near my face to be a larger tradeoff than how dirty the inside of the upper or magazine followers are getting.

rob_s

04-24-11, 06:31

This arena is where a FailZero BCG really shines

why?.

Magic_Salad0892

04-24-11, 06:44

why?.

Because the FZ Carriers don't hold on to carbon as much. (also doesn't hold on to lubricant well either, but this isn't much of an issue. I use grease on the one I own, and it seems to work well.)

In fact, the dude you quoted ran his FZ carrier like 2k rounds before cleaning before his gun choked IIRC. I've had good results as well. FZ carriers make suppressed guns run better. IME.

Here is what I'm using so far. (Furniture is all the same, where the differ is buffer, carrier, and port size.)

Gun 1: .071'' port, 11.1'' barrel, FZ carrier
Gun 2: .056'' port 11.1'' barrel, LMT Enhanced carrier
Gun 3: 16.1'' barrel, hasn't been worked on yet, but will be set up identical to Gun 2.

ETA: I just re-read his post, and now I realized why you quoted him. I have no idea what he means either.

rob_s

04-24-11, 07:00

In fact, the dude you quoted ran his FZ carrier like 2k rounds before cleaning before his gun choked IIRC.

Funny, this guy (http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/) did something similar but without the FZ. Or lube. (or can, if that's what you're saying).

Magic_Salad0892

04-24-11, 08:25

Lol. I knew you were going to post that article!

Nah, I don't think he did it with a can.

Sorry, Rob. You got me. I don't have a counter argument for that.

Dave_M

04-24-11, 16:52

Suppressed guns, especially shorter ones, eat lube faster and foul faster than their unsuppressed and longer brethren. Running a standard BCG in that setup means a far more frequent lubrication schedule than with a 16" gun. The one advantage of a piston gun over a DGI is when running in a suppressed SBR AR/M16 since it does indeed eat less lubricant (the gun still gets dirty as some gas will enter the upper receiver via back-pressure through the barrel but not as much). A FZ successfully negates that advantage IMO.

A FZ BCG in a, 'standard' unsuppressed AR/M16 is like a pants-and-suspenders solution. As it stands, it's a niche product.

Boss Hogg

04-24-11, 20:42

Funny, this guy (http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/) did something similar but without the FZ. Or lube. (or can, if that's what you're saying).

fouling in an SBR is probably 8-10X worse with a can on. In other words, 50 rounds suppressed will make the BCG look like 400-500 rounds unsuppressed. The inner walls of the upper receiver are equally filthy. If I could use a BCG that would wipe down easily with a paper towel, such as a FailZero, why wouldn't I?

I've had very good luck with my AAC, Daniel Defense 12.5", nickel boron BCG, and Vltor A5 buffer system. The A5 is key to reliability, I believe.

I'm sure that Mike Pannone would agree that 2400 suppressed rounds would be a far greater challenge for a DI upper than the unsuppressed 14.5" in his test. In fact, I'll ask him about it when I see him next month.

"When the rifles become fouled, they have more drag (friction) inside the upper receiver, which slows down the bolt carrier group. This along with the pressure on the bottom of the bolt carrier from a loaded magazine will slow the BCG down enough to keep it from reliably going into battery during the counter-recoil cycle."

Omega_556

04-24-11, 20:59

In other words, 50 rounds suppressed will make the BCG look like 400-500 rounds unsuppressed.

This is an extreme exaggeration.

My 10.5in LMT w/ M4-2000 definitely does not show this to be true.

Dave_M

04-24-11, 21:51

This is an extreme exaggeration.

My 10.5in LMT w/ M4-2000 definitely does not show this to be true.

I'd agree that it's a bit hyperbolic. However, the direct statement is true that SBR's with suppressors are far quicker fouling when compared to an unsuppressed full-size rifle; hence why Iraqiguns made his original statement about advantages of piston guns in similar setups.

Boss Hogg

04-24-11, 21:56

This is an extreme exaggeration.

My 10.5in LMT w/ M4-2000 definitely does not show this to be true.

If you have a std phosphate finish then it will not be as noticeable and you wouldn't be able to see the difference as clearly as you would with chrome, NiB, etc

So what ratio does your experience show?

Omega_556

04-24-11, 22:17

If you have a std phosphate finish then it will not be as noticeable and you wouldn't be able to see the difference as clearly as you would with chrome, NiB, etc

So what ratio does your experience show?

There is more gas/carbon entering the receiver of a suppressed SBR, I acknowledged that in post #8 of this thread.

Any ratio is anacdotal at best, but if I were to give a wild guess it would be maybe 20% to 30% more fouling.

Dave_M

04-24-11, 23:03

Any ratio is anacdotal at best, but if I were to give a wild guess it would be maybe 20% to 30% more fouling.

Oh it can be measured but I expect is matters more in regard to brand and manufacturer gas hole size than than just simply barrel length. Throw in buffer weight and brand of buffer/action spring and we have a lot of variables...

Ironman8

04-25-11, 00:31

If you have a switchblock or a reduced GP size for a dedicated suppressed SBR, then the fouling should be reduced dramatically (when compared to "normal" GP sizes)

And I'll throw the LMT Enhanced BC in the mix too....should run nice and clean(er) ;)

Magic_Salad0892

04-25-11, 01:58

You could have just left it at nice and clean.

rob_s

04-25-11, 05:00

fouling in an SBR is probably 8-10X worse with a can on. In other words, 50 rounds suppressed will make the BCG look like 400-500 rounds unsuppressed. The inner walls of the upper receiver are equally filthy. If I could use a BCG that would wipe down easily with a paper towel, such as a FailZero, why wouldn't I?

I've had very good luck with my AAC, Daniel Defense 12.5", nickel boron BCG, and Vltor A5 buffer system. The A5 is key to reliability, I believe.

I'm sure that Mike Pannone would agree that 2400 suppressed rounds would be a far greater challenge for a DI upper than the unsuppressed 14.5" in his test. In fact, I'll ask him about it when I see him next month.

"When the rifles become fouled, they have more drag (friction) inside the upper receiver, which slows down the bolt carrier group. This along with the pressure on the bottom of the bolt carrier from a loaded magazine will slow the BCG down enough to keep it from reliably going into battery during the counter-recoil cycle."

You're taking my post out of context.

The suggestion was made to use FZ. I rebutted with "why?" The response was that FZ BCGs can go 2k rounds without lube (evidently in a 16" unsuppressed gun). I simply provided a link to a gun that did the same thing without the fancy whale jizz.

FWIW, however, I do NOT believe that the alleged advantages of that same whale jizz somehow become exponentially greater in a suppressed SBR. Actually, yes I do, since I think the advantage is 0, and 0, even to the 1,000,000 power is still zero. :sarcastic:

rob_s

04-25-11, 05:08

Oh it can be measured but I expect is matters more in regard to brand and manufacturer gas hole size than than just simply barrel length. Throw in buffer weight and brand of buffer/action spring and we have a lot of variables...

This is true, and a large part of the problem with these discussions. Everyone starts comparing their own results and it's often not worth the time it takes to type other than an amusing distraction. However any kind of empirical testing is unlikely to happen, especially in terms of comparing suppressed SBRs to unsuppressed 14.5-16" guns. About the only test of any meaning in that regard would be a MK18 with whatever can is issued vs. an M4 without a can, since military firearms are the only way to ensure a standard.

Boss Hogg

04-25-11, 05:53

20-30%? Really? Look at the bolt below.

The photo below shows what a previously clean BCG looks like after 45 rounds of suppressed shooting. I would say that it was roughly the same as when I shot 400 rounds in Mike Pannone's February class. The only difference is that the firing pin was a lot dirtier after 400 unsuppressed rounds.

Rob_S: I never said that a FailZero BCG was required to use an AR. I like the ease with which it cleans, particularly with a suppressed SBR. If you're happy with phosphate bolt carriers, that's your call. I have plenty of both and am not new to ARs.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc295/B055H0GG/100_4441_small.jpg

Dave_M

04-25-11, 06:45

The response was that FZ BCGs can go 2k rounds without lube (evidently in a 16" unsuppressed gun). I simply provided a link to a gun that did the same thing without the fancy whale jizz.

FWIW, however, I do NOT believe that the alleged advantages of that same whale jizz somehow become exponentially greater in a suppressed SBR. Actually, yes I do, since I think the advantage is 0, and 0, even to the 1,000,000 power is still zero. :sarcastic:

2k+ rounds, no lube, no cleaning, in a suppressed SBR. Comparing that to an unsuppressed longer rifle is invalid.

There's definitely an advantage; it's just a niche product.

Magic_Salad0892

04-25-11, 07:03

Damn. I forgot it was suppressed. My bad, I would've used that in an argument.

Omega_556

04-25-11, 09:30

WOW Boss, that is filthy...

And in your case your ratio could be accurate, but not everyone experiences this. As I said before, my 10.5in LMT w/ M4-2000 definitely does not show this to be true.

Magic_Salad0892

04-25-11, 10:02

You're taking my post out of context.

The suggestion was made to use FZ. I rebutted with "why?" The response was that FZ BCGs can go 2k rounds without lube (evidently in a 16" unsuppressed gun). I simply provided a link to a gun that did the same thing without the fancy whale jizz.

FWIW, however, I do NOT believe that the alleged advantages of that same whale jizz somehow become exponentially greater in a suppressed SBR. Actually, yes I do, since I think the advantage is 0, and 0, even to the 1,000,000 power is still zero. :sarcastic:

Rob. The advantage to the Nickel Boron coated carriers, is low friction coefficient, the carbon and other filth just doesn't cling to the carrier. During the cycling of the action this allows the filth to more freer - so it doesn't accumulate and cake on to the carrier: which will happen with a phosphate carrier without lube, over time. When the filth frees up, and gives way it puts less resistance to the cycling of the action, hence.... it running smoother, and longer.

That's how it was explained to me when I called FZ the day I bought my first carrier. After some sleep, I now have something to contribute. :)

glocktogo

04-25-11, 13:37

Why?.

Why not?

This is true, and a large part of the problem with these discussions. Everyone starts comparing their own results and it's often not worth the time it takes to type other than an amusing distraction. However any kind of empirical testing is unlikely to happen, especially in terms of comparing suppressed SBRs to unsuppressed 14.5-16" guns. About the only test of any meaning in that regard would be a MK18 with whatever can is issued vs. an M4 without a can, since military firearms are the only way to ensure a standard.

So why compare the experiences of yet another single source, and especially one using a carbine that doesn't meet the TDP? Am I to be considered a fool because I bought an Ion-Bonded BCG for my RR 11.5" M-16A1 with an M42K? If all that happened was Bravo Company made an extra $50, off me, is that the worst thing in the world?

I think that's part of the problem when we start down the road of saying things like special coatings are "unnecessary". There are simply too many variables in the equation to pretend there are any absolutes. Do most users need an Ion-Bond or Fail Zero BCG? Most likely not. Does that mean they have no added value? Most likely not. If all it buys the end user is a little extra piece of mind, then that's worth something. It's doubtful that anyone will ever know the precise moment where a little extra of anything made the difference between a bang and a failure.

Until someone does a test on my exact configuration vs. the exact same thing with a standard BCG, I'm certainly not gonna feel like I got ripped off. :rolleyes:

Boss Hogg

04-25-11, 18:30

Thomas M-4

04-25-11, 19:13

This thread reminds me of the thread in which many were bashing PWS's new DI bolt carrier because it was......different.

The bolt carrier (and buffer) are the significant moving parts in an AR. Vltor already proved that the A5 system is a reliability enhancement. If someone develops a better/slicker/whatever bolt carrier, why shouldn't we look at it with an open mind? Horse and buggy were a perfectly acceptable means of transportation for 2000 years before the Model T.

The A5 makes perfect engineering since it uses the original rifle buffer spring rate and buffer weight that AR-15 was originally designed to use it keeps the BCG velocity low were as the carbine system with a stiffer spring and lighter buffer speeds up the BCG velocity some thing that the original design didn't a account for. It just worked that is why it stayed in service for so long. But you pay a price for it in the durability of the bolt and the faster BCG velocity.
That PWS carrier is a piece of crap the AR-15 carrier doesn't need sand cuts its not a FN-FAL or a 1911 that has a long continuous rail engagement.
I have some limited experience with a FZ BCG and I wasn't impressed with FZ in that particular application and neither was the owner that returned it shortly there after. In something like a 1911 or a revolver it might have more benefit. It did clean up easy with a rag but I always use brake cleaner and it cleans up a phosphate carrier faster than taking a rag to the FZ. No benefit for me or the the original owner of that FZ bcg because he cleans the same way.
Was there any friction reduction to be honest I couldn't tell I keep my phosphate carrier well oiled to begin with.

Boss Hogg

04-25-11, 22:35

What makes the PWS a POS? I could care less about the relief or sand cuts. It runs smoother inside of an upper. The tolerances are tighter and I could sense the difference when shooting it.

As for brake cleaner, I can wipe down that filthy FZ BCG pictured previously in 30 seconds without subjecting my eyes, nostrils, skin, and lungs to brake cleaner. That stuff is nasty- but whatever works for you!

I'm done with this thread. Cans do increase fouling in DI SBRs. If there's something out there to make them run longer, I'm all for looking at it.

Dave_M

04-25-11, 22:48

Thomas M-4

04-25-11, 23:19

What makes the PWS a POS? I could care less about the relief or sand cuts. It runs smoother inside of an upper. The tolerances are tighter and I could sense the difference when shooting it.
Ok the tolerances are tighter how does that effect the ability of it running better with a suppressor and dirty?

As for brake cleaner, I can wipe down that filthy FZ BCG pictured previously in 30 seconds without subjecting my eyes, nostrils, skin, and lungs to brake cleaner. That stuff is nasty- but whatever works for you!

When I spray it down it takes less than 10 seconds. Don't spray it in your eyes and you wont have a problem, It does tend to dry your skin a tiny amount but when a reapply oil to the BCG guess what my skin is no longer dry :blink:

I'm done with this thread. Cans do increase fouling in DI SBRs. If there's something out there to make them run longer, I'm all for looking at it.

Nobody has that they don't increase fouling.
I am also fairly certain others are looking to improve the performance of them to. Just they don't jump on every thing that just says it will run better and prefer to use common sense in there decisions

I have seen this many times with racing cars probably 40% is just junk that doesn't stand the test of time. And with a rifle that your life may depend on one needs to practice patience and do diligence in there decision making.

Thomas M-4

04-25-11, 23:38

Okay, do the guys naysaying FZ run suppressed SBR's?

I do. Without lube.

It is often on a FA host too. Try that with a regular BCG and report back. I've gone over 2k rounds three times now out of sheer neglect with no cleaning and no lube.

10.5'' noveske switch block suppressed.
Experience is limited with it as I previously posted. No high round counts but it was run with limited lube and suppressed.
Not saying it worth less just that in the AR-15 platform I feel that its performance is more limited. Friction reduction I could not tell a significant difference between the FZ and a well lubed phosphate one.
It very will could run longer unlubed but oil I cant see being a major problem unless I was in a prolonged firefight on the moon maybe.

chadbag

04-26-11, 00:10

Any idea why LMT doesn't recommend the enhanced bolt/carrier for barrels less than 14.5"?

quote:"Enhanced bolt carriers are to be used with a 14.5" barrel or longer."

That is the complete enhanced BCG (bolt and carrier). I think what many people run is the enhanced carrier with a standard bolt. I believe this was discussed in Grants SBR thread on the "best SBR in the world".

Dave_M

04-26-11, 00:39

I feel that its performance is more limited.

Wow, have I been saying something different?!

The entire time, I've been calling it a niche product!

Two points:
1) You're running a Noveske switch-block; not the same as running full-on carbine length gas (in Iraqigunz's thread about BCM SBR's I mentioned just how much my SBR is overgassed and provided setup and round counts--no wonder the Legion Firearms guns have run twice as long as mine with the FZ system)
2) You're using lubricant. I am not. Apples and oranges. No way to cut around it.

As I've previously mentioned in innumerable threads lubrication is important for most AR-15 setups. The singular advantage of a piston setup (which once again, Iraqigunz mentioned on this thread: is when running a suppressed SBR/M16 )

At this point I think negating advantages of FZ BCG's (and many other coatings) is simple intellectual dishonesty. Show me a test under similar conditions and perhaps I'd change my tune.

glen

04-26-11, 08:06

Hey There,

Building up my first AR SBR with a dedicated can. During a course this weekend one of the guys told me that the AR will foul quickly and I will have nothing but problems after a couple of hundred rounds due to the fouling generated by the can.

True? If so, any mitigation? Would a piston gun be a better choice?

Thanks,

Damien

Sample of one, here is my experience with my 12.5" SBR:

Yes it fouls much more quickly suppressed than unsuppressed.
No the faster fouling has not caused any problems, but then again I run my rifle very wet.

True there is increased fouling and gas as can be expected but nothing I see the need to mitigate really.

Boss Hogg

04-26-11, 08:28

I have seen this many times with racing cars probably 40% is just junk that doesn't stand the test of time. And with a rifle that your life may depend on one needs to practice patience and do diligence in there decision making.

Just to clarify, I didn't say that you had to use a PWS bolt carrier in a suppressed SBR....or any AR. But a number of people in that thread jumped on it because it wasn't a "Mil Spec" bolt carrier- same as those in this thread equate FailZero to snake oil because it's not the phosphate finish as Rx'd in the TDP. JP Rifles' bolt carriers aren't mil spec dimensionally.....does that make them garbage? a midlength gas system isn't mil spec, either.

There is undoubtedly snake oil in the world of ARs, but I am willing to pony up the $ and give some new products a shot.

Thomas M-4

04-26-11, 09:35

Wow, have I been saying something different?!

The entire time, I've been calling it a niche product!

Two points:
1) You're running a Noveske switch-block; not the same as running full-on carbine length gas (in Iraqigunz's thread about BCM SBR's I mentioned just how much my SBR is overgassed and provided setup and round counts--no wonder the Legion Firearms guns have run twice as long as mine with the FZ system)
2) You're using lubricant. I am not. Apples and oranges. No way to cut around it.

No it sounds like we are saying similar things. I will add doing a simple comparison of FZ coating to other similar coatings the difference is very less desarnable
As I've previously mentioned (one in a thread which is stickied on this forum) lubrication is important for most AR-15 setups. The singular advantage of a piston setup (which once again, Iraqigunz mentioned on this thread: is when running a suppressed SBR/M16 ) I did a write-up a while back which breaks it down nicely which has been posted here before:
http://www.milcopptactical.com/piston.htm

At this point I think negating advantages of FZ BCG's (and many other coatings) is simple intellectual dishonesty. Show me a test under similar conditions and perhaps I'd change my tune.

Accuse me of being intellectually dishonest and we have another engagement entirely.

FYI: I am not sponsored, endorsed, nor bestowed by FZ in any way. Many times you will find the advocates of XYZ product are in some way--not in this case.

1# The FZ BCG was also run in my 14.5" LMT none suppressed I should have mentioned that.

2# FZ recommends a little bit of lube so we were just following manufactures recommendations . And the only place lube was applied was to the rings the out side of the carrier was completely dry as were the cam pin and bolt lugs.

Have you compared FZ to other similar marked coatings?
NP3, Hard chrome, plain Nickle I haven't done any testing all I have done is a simple comparison done at the range the differences seam to be minor.

It sounds like we are actually fairly close to being on the same page as far as its uses. Like I posted before no extensive testing of it the main purpose of our test that day was the enhanced carrier and switch block not testing the FZ coating I will add the coating on the enhanced bolt did feel slicker to the touch than FZ it also felt slightly harder compared to FZ. Does this tell me anything about its performance no it doesn't but it does make me question how much better is it compared to other similar marketed products.

Thomas M-4

04-26-11, 09:59

Just to clarify, I didn't say that you had to use a PWS bolt carrier in a suppressed SBR....or any AR. But a number of people in that thread jumped on it because it wasn't a "Mil Spec" bolt carrier- same as those in this thread equate FailZero to snake oil because it's not the phosphate finish as Rx'd in the TDP. JP Rifles' bolt carriers aren't mil spec dimensionally.....does that make them garbage? a midlength gas system isn't mil spec, either.

There is undoubtedly snake oil in the world of ARs, but I am willing to pony up the $ and give some new products a shot.

JP builds mainly 3 guns they can chase fairies trying to squeeze out any difference that can help them make abetter race gun. Because there race guns are not going to be used in a military/police environment and are not subject to the same demands.
I am going to have use another car term just because its used in a race care doesn't mean it will work in your daily driver .
What does the PWS carrier actually have that would be a benefit ?
You already posted the sandcuts are no concern to you a tighter fitting carrier do not equate to tighter groups nor does it equate to more reliability.