View Full Version : Switch to A5 System?
jahwarrior1423
12-23-11, 13:07
I have a 16" mid-length hammer forged BCM upper with the standard A2 flash hider. My lower is a AZ Armory billet lower (dont know the exact trigger brand) but it was worked on by Bill Springfield, and a commercial buffer tube with a carbine buffer and a Magpul MOE buttstock.
I want my rifle to stay reliable with abuse given to it but I want my rifle to become softer shooting. I was doing research on comps but found that I could get a better outcome with "upgrading" my buffer system to an A5 system.
Is this the consensus?
What is all needed for this "upgrade?...just the buffer tube, spring and buffer? Does it work with the Magpul endplate also?
I've really liked the A5 on everything from an 12" carbine system to a 16" middy. I think it works better than a comp and is less limiting. The kit comes with the A5 7-position extension, hybrid buffer, spring, and endplate.
You obviously need the A5 kit, a lower, an armorer's or castle nut wrench, and a center punch/mallet for staking. I didn't like the Magpul end plate when I used it because of the tab you insert into the groove in the buffer tube. I like the end plates that have the tab built in. Make sure you screw the buffer tube in so it captures the retaining pin and so the rear part of the carrier/contacts takes the tension of the buffer face. And stake it!!
http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t294/myersma2/45354e99.jpg
http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t294/myersma2/3af1dd3e.jpg
I have a 16" mid-length hammer forged BCM upper with the standard A2 flash hider. My lower is a AZ Armory billet lower (dont know the exact trigger brand) but it was worked on by Bill Springfield.
If looking to increase reliability, I'd replace the Springfield trigger with either a stock trigger from a known good manufacturer, or with a Geissele unit. But that's just me.
An A5 system certainly couldn't hurt. You will need the A5 receiver extension tube, a rifle length spring, and an A5 buffer weight. Since your current stock is commercial, you'll also need a standard buttstock (or suffer with a loose commercial buttstock on a standard spec RE). You can either get a full-blown A5 kit that includes an Vltor buttstock, or you can order the receiver extension a la carte, plus a the spring and buffer weight in a separate bundle (but no buttstock).
It'll work with any endplate, just like a regular carbean setup. Chances are good that you'll be able to re-stake your old endplate since the castle nut that comes with the receiver extension is unlikely to time exactly the same as your old one. I've re-staked Magpul and Noveske endplates and aside from the extra divots, they work fine.
I used a Noveske QD end plate when I installed mine. No problems there and I staked it in two places. OP just be sure you never try to use a standard carbine buffer once you replace the receiver extension. The A5 receiver extension is about 3/4" longer than a regular receiver extension and using a standard buffer could cause damage.
Will the A5 system take any standard rifle spring?
Will the A5 system take any standard rifle spring?
The A5 system includes the appropriate buffer, buffer tube, and spring.
I was thinking of replacements for springs. Vltor does not appear to offer them separately.
Thomas M-4
12-24-11, 23:16
I was thinking of replacements for springs. Vltor does not appear to offer them separately.
It uses a standard rifle buffer spring.
The a5 would be a monumental leap from what you have now.... in every way.
And I agree on getting rid of that Springfield trigger parts.
Found this description while trolling Sprinco's site:
[Part 25001] Tactical Springs LLC M16 / AR-15 Chrome Silicon RIFLE Spring in Hand Tube (Color Coded GREEN) (NOTE: Also the choice for use with VLTOR A-5 Stock System with 5.3 Oz. Buffer for 5.6 Platforms)
Found this description while trolling Sprinco's site:
[Part 25001] Tactical Springs LLC M16 / AR-15 Chrome Silicon RIFLE Spring in Hand Tube (Color Coded GREEN) (NOTE: Also the choice for use with VLTOR A-5 Stock System with 5.3 Oz. Buffer for 5.6 Platforms)
:mad:
Edit... not sure if the OEM Vltor spring is homo CS yet.
skullworks
12-27-11, 12:33
**** me! I was worried about that. I noticed the springs DON'T look like stainless. I've been a Springco FAG and didn't even know it.
That shit is coming out of my gun the minute I GET HOME!!! DAMN IT! ****ING VLTOR!!!! :mad:
Couldn't it just mean that this is the spring to chose if you're looking for a replacement; not necessarily that it is the spring VLTOR use from the factory?
BTW; the A5 receiver extension is MilSpec diameter then?
Couldn't it just mean that this is the spring to chose if you're looking for a replacement; not necessarily that it is the spring VLTOR use from the factory?
I hope so. I edited my panic attack reply... It looks like it has a homo redish color to it. I can't imagine the Military messing with CS nonsense.
BTW; the A5 receiver extension is MilSpec diameter then?
Yep!
skullworks
12-27-11, 13:02
Thank you kindly; been wondering about that - and my Google-Fu was weak.
I hope so. I edited my panic attack reply... It looks like it has a homo redish color to it. I can't imagine the Military messing with CS nonsense.
I sorta had the same response. A casual/quick reading might lead one to your original conclusion.
The a5 would be a monumental leap from what you have now.... in every way.
And I agree on getting rid of that Springfield trigger parts.
markm, kartoffel, I've done a LITTLE research on the springfield fcg and I don't understand the freakout. I thought they were good to go. Enlighten the blind, whats wrong. I don't own one, but was thinking about it. If it's as useless as a bag full of assholes I want to know.
markm, kartoffel, I've done a LITTLE research on the springfield fcg and I don't understand the freakout. I thought they were good to go. Enlighten the blind, whats wrong. I don't own one, but was thinking about it. If it's as useless as a bag full of assholes I want to know.
I don't know exactly what that monkey is doing to the FCG parts, but from some of the stuff I've read on the forums, he's messing with the surface hardened areas and basically ruining the life of the parts.
The classic symptom is getting double fires a few hundred or thousand rounds after the part has been ruined.
This also happens to guys new to the AR.... they think that the simple surface areas of the FCG can just be honed or something for a home trigger job.... They just end up ruining the parts.
No firsthand experience but I've read some SCARY things about the work Bill Springfield has done. Everything from double and triple fires to losing customers' guns.
Jesus, is he retarded? The reason I was thinking about it is because I have totally screwed two trigger groups with stoning(I have more than a little experience in this, so it SHOCKED me when I got a double). I figured it was a bad idea, and I didn't think this was what he did.
I've seen so many posts on other forums praising his work, I thought he was 5x5. Gonna do a lot more looking into stuff. Thanks for the heads up and money not wasted on more garbage.
I shot the A5 system on my friend's DDm4v7 and was surprised on how soft it shot. Recoil impulse is like a push and was very easy to control and manage. Probably putting one of those on my next build.
blasternank
12-31-11, 07:40
I need to check into the A5 system as well. As far as bill springfield goes he has done several triggers from me and I have not had any problems with them. I've seen some others have but he has taken care of any problems if you just contact him. That's just my experience with dealing with him.
I have an A5 on order. I have often tried to figure out how to get a rifle-like recoil/buffer/operating system without having to use the rifle receiver extension. Commercial availability of REs was limited to carbine-length (e.g., carbine or entry length) or rifle length. I even once tried to figure out how to shorten a rifle tube for reliable cycling -- pretty much a non-starter for a person of my skills, but I could try.
I've got just the place to put it (the rest of my build parts are coming next week), so, weather permitting, I'll be out there giving it a whirl.
OP;
Do a little digging around on Bill Springfield and make up your own mind..About a year ago a guy posted on the HK board, that he personally took 6 HK pistols to Springfield's home for him to work on..He screwed up all 6..This poor bastard ended up sending them to HK, they found cut springs,rounded sears, rounded hammer engagement surfaces, this cost this guy several hundred dollars to get fixed... Call HK's customer service and ask for Travis...ask him his opinion on Springfield trigger jobs. Besides for a carbine that's going to be used for HD or SD,why would you use a trigger,hammer that's been altered, possibly compromising reliabilty? if you want a better than stock trigger get a Geissele and be done with it.. Sure they're not cheap, But they won't double or triple on you,and it'll probably be the last trigger you install.
blasternank
12-31-11, 10:47
Where's the best place to buy an A5 extension?
Big fan of the A5 system myself. I run it on my 300BLK Noveske 10". It feels almost better with my 125gr loads than my buddie's Armalite 14.5" Carbine gas with car buffer shooting 5.56
I would rather buy the kit from BravoCo than the full A5 from vltor with the EMOD.
http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/Vltor-A5-Spring-and-Buffer-Kit-p/vltor%20sp-a5.htm
http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/Vltor-A5-Receiver-Extension-Tube-p/vltor%20re-a5.htm
And pair it with a STR, Sopmod or ACS....
skullworks
12-31-11, 11:28
I would rather buy the kit from BravoCo than the full A5 from vltor with the EMOD.
http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/Vltor-A5-Spring-and-Buffer-Kit-p/vltor%20sp-a5.htm
http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/Vltor-A5-Receiver-Extension-Tube-p/vltor%20re-a5.htm
And pair it with a STR....
That's where I bought mine and what I intend to do with it. ;)
Jesus, is he retarded? The reason I was thinking about it is because I have totally screwed two trigger groups with stoning(I have more than a little experience in this, so it SHOCKED me when I got a double). I figured it was a bad idea, and I didn't think this was what he did.
I've seen so many posts on other forums praising his work, I thought he was 5x5. Gonna do a lot more looking into stuff. Thanks for the heads up and money not wasted on more garbage.
Got nothing to say about Springfield in particular, but anybody who stones stock triggers without re case hardening the exposed surfaces is begging for trouble. I can't fathom why a DIY gunsmith would be willing to cut through the case harden on a part, and then not re-harden it. Either they don't know any better, or they think they can cut corners and get away with it.
I've re-hardened flintlock frizzens with a mapp gas torch, Kasenit, and a bucket of old motor oil. Basic medieval technology, folks. Not that hard to do. But for my time, money, and peace-of-mind, I'll stick to stock or quality aftemarket triggers in an AR.
sinlessorrow
12-31-11, 13:43
I have an A5 on order. I have often tried to figure out how to get a rifle-like recoil/buffer/operating system without having to use the rifle receiver extension. Commercial availability of REs was limited to carbine-length (e.g., carbine or entry length) or rifle length. I even once tried to figure out how to shorten a rifle tube for reliable cycling -- pretty much a non-starter for a person of my skills, but I could try.
I've got just the place to put it (the rest of my build parts are coming next week), so, weather permitting, I'll be out there giving it a whirl.
The A5 is the best stock system IMO. It gives you the same length of travel and reliability the A2 stock gives but in a collapsing package
I run it with a 20" upper and its the softest shooting gun ive ever used
Where's the best place to buy an A5 extension?
I've purchased 2 kits directly from Vltor. I don't think you'll find major discounts on the A5 system. Just find a vendor you're comfortable with and order.
sinlessorrow
01-01-12, 00:00
I've purchased 2 kits directly from Vltor. I don't think you'll find major discounts on the A5 system. Just find a vendor you're comfortable with and order.
I got mine from Midway USA, they generally have a coupon every month and i have never had issues with them.
Oddly enough I bought one of mine from BRAVO... I'd rather pay shipping than Sales tax to the Government!! ;)
Failure2Stop
01-01-12, 12:11
Oddly enough I bought one of mine from BRAVO... I'd rather pay shipping than Sales tax to the Government!! ;)
So mark, you admit that YOU are the reason the Gummint is broke!!!
:lol:
Back on topic:
I like the A5.
Makes a lot of sense and reduces a lot of issues.
Yep. I'll buy out of state to keep the money in the private sector!
And yeah... back on the A5... it's not voodoo. It's effectively going back to the rifle buffer system.... which is better.
Put one on my BCM LW Carbine build. Works very well, and recoil is slightly reduced. Runs Wolf 55 gr like a champ. My son has one on a 16" middy, and it runs Wolf also very well. So, it does well even with light loads.
I’m a little new to the A5 game and this is a pretty non specific A5 thread so…
I’ve read any mil spec collapsing stock will fit. Does this include old CAR stocks?
The lightest a5 buffer is 5.3oz but a H3 carbine buffer is 5.6oz. I’ve heard that some carbines won’t lock back on a H3 so why will my 14.5 middy work with a A5?
sinlessorrow
01-02-12, 17:19
I’m a little new to the A5 game and this is a pretty non specific A5 thread so…
I’ve read any mil spec collapsing stock will fit. Does this include old CAR stocks?
The lightest a5 buffer is 5.3oz but a H3 carbine buffer is 5.6oz. I’ve heard that some carbines won’t lock back on a H3 so why will my 14.5 middy work with a A5?
Any mil-spec stock fits but only the Emod and ACS will fully collapse since its a special buffer tube
You also cant compare buffers, this uses a special buffer and a standard A2 spring. If you are having issues VLTOR makes a middy buffer for the A5 now as well but alot of people are fine with the standard buffer
I have an A5 on order. I have often tried to figure out how to get a rifle-like recoil/buffer/operating system without having to use the rifle receiver extension.
It uses a rifle spring, but compresses it closer to being solid than a rifle stock/buffer.
It's effectively going back to the rifle buffer system.... which is better.
It really needs to be about an inch longer to be exactly like a rifle buffer from the spring's point of view.
The A5 is the best stock system IMO. It gives you the same length of travel and reliability the A2 stock gives but in a collapsing package
The length of travel of all three systems is the same - about 3.75 inches. The A5 system allows you to use the rifle spring, but it compresses the spring more than a rifle stock.
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/9268/buffercomparisonsmall.jpg
http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/8825/buffertubecomparisonsma.jpg
sinlessorrow
01-02-12, 17:58
Nope. Now I know why I thought it performed like the rifle system - because everyone told me it does. That is not the case.
As you can see - the tube is 0.75 longer, but so is the buffer - so the travel remains the same as a carbine system.
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/9268/buffercomparisonsmall.jpg
http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/8825/buffertubecomparisonsma.jpg
Whats the OAL of the rifle minus the spacer? And what if you tool the length of the spacer off the rifle buffer tube?
Nope. The rifle buffer is better than the carbine buffer because it has more travel.
Wrong! They all have the same amount of travel, which is based on the BCG distance of travel, not the length of the buffer or its tube.
I just checked and you are right - about 3.75 inches for both.
I just checked and you are right - about 3.75 inches for both.
Yep, anymore travel than that, and the carrier key would break the lower receiver when it hit the buffer tube mounting point. The supposed reason the A5 works better than the carbine system is because of the rifle spring/heavier buffer combination. I don't completely understand the engineering involved, but the softer spring/heavier buffer seems to work better than the lighter buffer/heavier spring combination. It doesn't seem like it should, but it appears to work that way. Either combination of parts should be having to work against the same amount of pressure, generated by the firing cartridge, but evidently not. I suppose we're getting into dwell, timing, and probably some other factors, now. Someone with an engineering background would have to take over from here.
If the rifle buffer is over 5 oz, and the rifle and carbine buffer have the exact same travel - why does the carbine and H buffer even exist? Why would anyone use anything less than an H2 buffer (and whatever gas port was needed to make it work at the correct cyclic rate)?
It seems like the entire problem with the carbine buffer all along was that it was not an H2 buffer from the start.
If the rifle buffer is over 5 oz, and the rifle and carbine buffer have the exact same travel - why does the carbine and H buffer even exist? Why would anyone use anything less than an H2 buffer (and whatever gas port was needed to make it work at the correct cyclic rate)?
It seems like the entire problem with the carbine buffer all along was that it was not an H2 buffer from the start.
Spring rate? Is the carbine spring just a shortened rifle spring, or is it stronger?
If the rifle buffer is over 5 oz, and the rifle and carbine buffer have the exact same travel - why does the carbine and H buffer even exist? Why would anyone use anything less than an H2 buffer (and whatever gas port was needed to make it work at the correct cyclic rate)?
It seems like the entire problem with the carbine buffer all along was that it was not an H2 buffer from the start.
There are a few things about the CAR extension that don't make sense to me.
Do you know the inside depth of the tubes?
Also, if you get a chance can you see what the dims are at the locations marked? I don't have a rifle buffer or extension or any A5 parts at the moment. I suspect the OAL's between them, at a glance, might not be as far apart as mentioned here.
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a183/orionz06/buffercomparisonsmall.jpg
The carbine and rifle spring, when installed in their respective tubes, both provide 5.8 lbs of force and go up to about 11 lbs of force.
Normally I would think the carbine spring would be stressed more, but I calculated the stress in both, and they were both fine and within normal limits.
I can think of no reason why the rifle buffer system would be any different than a carbine buffer system that uses an H2 buffer.
It seems like what gave the carbine system the bad rap was the carbine buffer and H buffer - which, in 5.56mm at least, seem to have no reason to exist except to save money on Tungsten.
Basically, the rifle buffer has low-cost steel weights, so someone put steel weights in the carbine buffer, and that is how we got the C buffer.
So if you want to upgrade your carbine, I would use an H2 buffer - and then measure the cyclic rate on a FA lower, and enlarge the gas port if necessary to achieve 800-825 rpm (while using a normal spring).
skullworks
01-03-12, 12:07
The length of travel of all three systems is the same - about 3.75 inches. The A5 system allows you to use the rifle spring, but it compresses the spring more than a rifle stock.
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/9268/buffercomparisonsmall.jpg
http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/8825/buffertubecomparisonsma.jpg
Huge thanks for posting those pics!
It seems like the entire problem with the carbine buffer all along was that it was not an H2 buffer from the start.
Wow. Could it REALLY be that simple?
The carbine and rifle spring, when installed in their respective tubes, both provide 5.8 lbs of force and go up to about 11 lbs of force.
Normally I would think the carbine spring would be stressed more, but I calculated the stress in both, and they were both fine and within normal limits.
I can think of no reason why the rifle buffer system would be any different than a carbine buffer system that uses an H2 buffer.
<SNIP>
Ooooh... that's interesting. I'd have guessed the Rifle spring to have lower force on the bottom side.
Wow. Could it REALLY be that simple?
The extra irony being that tungsten buffer weights are manufactured via powder metallurgy, which is basically MIM.
I just can't believe that the decades of problematic carbines was as simple as an H2 buffer....
Although.... now that the heavy buffers are common... Carbine troubles occur much less frequently.
I still think back to the bolt bounce high speed footage too.... didn't the rifle buffer do a little better??? I can't remember.
When compressing a carbine spring to the bottom of the buffer the spring is almost solid. On the rifle spring and the A-5 or standard rifle buffer the spring is not compressed as much, it has a lot more space between the coils.
The carbine and rifle spring, when installed in their respective tubes, both provide 5.8 lbs of force and go up to about 11 lbs of force.
I thought that a rifle spring does not experience as much of a change in force over the working distance as a carbine spring, because it is a longer spring with more coils. In other words, the difference in force(between bcg forward and bcg rearward positions) should be smaller for the rifle spring. Is this correct?
jonconsiglio
01-03-12, 14:53
Interesting points Ron. Now, I believe your findings and don't disagree with you as I have no time invested in technical research.
That said, why am I then feeling a difference between an H2/3 and an A5 or rifle receiver extension? Also, why can I install an A5 RE with the standard A5 buffer then run everything from my 10.5" LMT, my buddy's 10.5" Noveske, my 14.5" mid length BCM (though sluggish with weaker ammo), my SR15's (uppers), my old Colt SP1 20" upper and a MK12 with pretty much every ammo from Wolf and Brown Bear to xm193, 855 and TAP 75gr 5.56 and 223, both suppressed and unsuppressed with no serious issues but if I try that with an H2 or H3, certain ones will only run with specific ammo and not allow as broad of a selection of uppers, ammo and suppression?
The only time the A5 might need some tweaking (I'll probably be switching to an H or H2) is with my BCM 14.5" mid length when running low powered ammo, especially when it's been running hard for a couple days with no cleaning and just added lube. It hasn't failed in any way, but it's noticeably sluggish with weaker ammo and it feels like it's on the verge of short stroking. it's fine with 5.56 ammo.
Please understand I'm not being argumentative here, I just want to understand it better as I always thought it was due to the springs compression tolerances, for lack of a better explanation.
When compressing a carbine spring to the bottom of the buffer the spring is almost solid. On the rifle spring and the A-5 or standard rifle buffer the spring is not compressed as much, it has a lot more space between the coils.
Very true.... I'm just not smart enough to reconcile that with the equivalent compression weights. I can't tell if that makes a difference or not. :confused:
I just can't believe that the decades of problematic carbines was as simple as an H2 buffer....
Although.... now that the heavy buffers are common... Carbine troubles occur much less frequently.
My theory is an H2 combined with a matching gas port size. If the gas port size was optimal for a C buffer, it will need to be made larger. How much larger - I would only determine with High Speed Video or a cyclic rate counter.
Here is spring data I have...
M16 rifle:
When at rest in the rifle, it is 8.19 inches long and 5.8 lbs of force.
When at full recoil, it is 4.415 inches long and 10.9 lbs of force.
The stress as a percentage of material tensile strength is 22% (anything 45% or under is good).
Note that the A5 may compress the spring more than a rifle buffer - which may raise the stress equal to or higher than a carbine spring in a carbine tube. I think I did this calculation, but did not save the results.
The M4 spring model I have is:
5.960 lbs at rest (when 6.894 inches long).
12 lbs at 3 inches long (the shortest the buffer allows it to get).
The stress at full recoil is 24% - also very low.
Since the carbine spring in a carbine tube is not over-stressed, I see no reason to seek out a rifle spring as somehow being better. I think people just assume it is significantly better because carbines have had more problems than rifles. Remember - the problem with carbines is generally the short barrel and carbine gas system and extraction - and I think the "C" buffer and to a lesser degree the H buffer.
A mid-length 16" barrel carbine with a carbine stock, H2 buffer, USGI carbine spring, the right extractor spring system, and a gas port that is optimal - should be as reliable as the same thing with a rifle buffer system.
I bet if you built 20 rifles - 10 with the H2 buffer and USGI carbine spring, and 10 with the rifle buffer and USGI rifle spring - and shot 10,000 rounds in each one (200,000 rounds total) - and then blindly looked at the data, you would not be able to separate which group, A or B, was the carbine stock.
Until someone does such a test, I am not gonna make a decision to change my stock system.
Until someone does such a test, I am not gonna make a decision to change my stock system.
So from what aspect are you choosing your extension and spring, spring life?
Here is spring data I have...
M16 rifle:
When at rest in the rifle, it is 8.19 inches long and 5.8 lbs of force.
When at full recoil, it is 4.415 inches long and 10.9 lbs of force.
The stress as a percentage of material tensile strength is 22% (anything 45% or under is good).
Note that the A5 may compress the spring more than a rifle buffer - which may raise the stress equal to or higher than a carbine spring in a carbine tube. I think I did this calculation, but did not save the results.
The M4 spring model I have is:
5.960 lbs at rest (when 6.894 inches long).
12 lbs at 3 inches long (the shortest the buffer allows it to get).
The stress at full recoil is 24% - also very low.
Hold on...isn't the spring rate itself important here? Based on these numbers it looks like the rifle spring has a rate of 1.351 lbs/in, and the M4 spring has a rate of 1.551 lbs/in. That's a pretty big difference in spring rate.
I am going with an H2 (130 grams/4.6 oz) buffer most of the time (unless there is a reason not to), a gas port set up for it, a standard carbine receiver extension, and a standard 17-7 mil-spec spring. Note that some H2 buffers are lighter, due to using a lower grade of Tungsten.
I am not against the concept of using a spring with more force - as HK did with the 416, and then up-gassing the gun to match it. But I don't have enough data to want to do it.
Hold on...isn't the spring rate itself important here? Based on these numbers it looks like the rifle spring has a rate of 1.351 lbs/in, and the M4 spring has a rate of 1.551 lbs/in. That's a pretty big difference in spring rate.
The dimensions requested above might also give some insight to differences at play here.
But I think in typical fashion we will just ignore the big picture...
There are a few things about the CAR extension that don't make sense to me.
Do you know the inside depth of the tubes?
Also, if you get a chance can you see what the dims are at the locations marked? I don't have a rifle buffer or extension or any A5 parts at the moment. I suspect the OAL's between them, at a glance, might not be as far apart as mentioned here.
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a183/orionz06/buffercomparisonsmall.jpg
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/rob_s/gun%20stuff/buffercomparisonsmall.jpg
The A5 may compress the rifle spring 0.5 inches closer to solid than a rifle buffer. To be exactly like a rifle system, the tube would need to be 1/2 inch longer, and the buffer 1/2 inch longer.
I am not sure that matters, as the rifle spring is not stressed that close to the limit. But then again, neither is the carbine spring over stressed with an H2 buffer in a carbine receiver extension.
That does have implications on things other than spring life.
I do not recall anyone buying an A5 because they might think they can squeeze a few extra rounds out of a different spring...
sinlessorrow
01-03-12, 18:52
Wouldnt the heavier buffer/long spring increase dwell time also since it compresses it more shouldnt it increase reliability.
I have one and i can feel a dif between a H2 carbine and the A5, ive also seen slo-mo videos of the A5 and it has no bolt bounce at all which is a big deal, even the H2 and a cabine spring had some
even the H2 and a cabine spring had some
That is up to the timing of the rifle. Another rifle may behave in the opposite way. There are certainly H2 rifles with no bolt bounce.
I bet if you built 20 rifles - 10 with the H2 buffer and USGI carbine spring, and 10 with the rifle buffer and USGI rifle spring - and shot 10,000 rounds in each one (200,000 rounds total) - and then blindly looked at the data, you would not be able to separate which group, A or B, was the carbine stock.
The Marines shot a mother load of ammo with the A5 and it malfed less than the Rifle buffer within a statistical margin of error. So although the h2 carbean may be no worse, you certainly don't appear to be losing anything with the A5.
The A5 may compress the rifle spring 0.5 inches closer to solid than a rifle buffer. To be exactly like a rifle system, the tube would need to be 1/2 inch longer, and the buffer 1/2 inch longer.
I am not sure that matters, as the rifle spring is not stressed that close to the limit. But then again, neither is the carbine spring over stressed with an H2 buffer in a carbine receiver extension.
I'm still stunned by that. I guess I assumed the compression was the same... I thought I looked at that.... wow.
The A5 may compress the rifle spring 0.5 inches closer to solid than a rifle buffer. To be exactly like a rifle system, the tube would need to be 1/2 inch longer, and the buffer 1/2 inch longer.
I am not sure that matters, as the rifle spring is not stressed that close to the limit. But then again, neither is the carbine spring over stressed with an H2 buffer in a carbine receiver extension.
What aspect of recoil management are you investing efforts into?
I have never noticed the recoil on most ARs.
The most effective way to reduce recoil is to add mass.
Muzzle brakes are loud - so I would not use them on anything smaller than a 300WM.
The "mercury recoil reducers" on shotguns were all scams, in the sense that they work no better than the same amount of mass of a solid.
That doesn't answer anything.
What is your concern with the A5?
I looked into the A5 because I heard that it would allow for the reliability of the rifle buffer system but with an adjustable stock. At the time, I did not know that the rifle buffer system and carbine buffer system had the same travel. I assumed the rifle had more (I assumed this because people said rifle was better) but had never checked. Now that I know they have the same amount of travel and that the carbine springs have about the same stress as a rifle spring, I am content with the carbine system and an H2 buffer.
If you are asking if I think that buffer systems are a good way to achieve recoil reduction - I don't know for sure - I never looked into it for that reason. I am not sensitive to small differences in recoil. I think my Steyr Scout recoils a lot. But my ARs - it is not something I ever notice.
Ahh, makes sense for the most part. What the H2 and carbine spring do no capture is some recoil reduction due to the different springs and the max weight is limited.
jonconsiglio
01-03-12, 19:55
The Marines shot a mother load of ammo with the A5 and it malfed less than the Rifle buffer within a statistical margin of error. So although the h2 carbean may be no worse, you certainly don't appear to be losing anything with the A5.
I'm still stunned by that. I guess I assumed the compression was the same... I thought I looked at that.... wow.
I'm surprised by this too. You and I have always been on the same page about the A5 since very early on.
According to Military Morons, which I'm sure they got from Vltor, the rifle action spring is more consistent. It also equals the carrier velocity of the rifle RE as well as offering more consistent carrier velocity over the carbine RE.
So, at the very least, it appears to have slower, more consistent carrier velocity than using an H2 or H3 in a carbine RE with a carbine action spring.
http://www.militarymorons.com/weapons/ar.furniture2.html
6/13/10 - The Vltor Weapons Systems A5 Buffer & Recoil System was developed for the specific needs of U.S. Military users of the M16A4 rifle (or AR-15's with rifle-length gas systems). The A5 system provides the functionality of a collapsible stock while maintaining rifle-length buffer system reliability. It includes a newly designed buffer and receiver extension.
Description - One of the issues encountered by current users of the M16A4 rifle (the USMC and U.S. Army) is its overall length and maneuverability. The 20" barrel (while providing additional velocity) and fixed A2 stock configuration has proven less than optimal for some of the close-quarter/house-to-house fighting encountered in recent engagements, especially when combined with the body armour being worn. The added thickness of body armour, sometimes consisting of soft inserts plus a plate can cause the A2 stock to be too long, especially when a less bladed stance is used.
Another issue is that of reliability. As the M16 series of rifles evolved into specialized configurations like the SPR, Mk18 etc, each of them using different combinations of barrel and gas-systems, attempts to universally use the standard collapsible stock on all platforms have encountered issues. The solution is not as simple as sticking the A4 rifle uppers on lower receivers with carbine collapsible stocks. Some of the issues that arise are increased rate of fire on full auto and inconsistent carrier velocities. Putting a heavier weight buffer in a carbine system (like the Army's H6 buffer) is one solution, but also comes with its share of associated issues.
The Vltor A5 package is a replacement stock system for users of the the M16A4 rifle (as found on the M16A4) who want to maintain the same reliability, carrier velocity and rate of fire as the rifle-length A2 stock, while adding the functionality of an adjustable stock. This is achieved by a new buffer and receiver extension (buffer tube), and the use of the standard rifle length buffer spring.
The A5 system can be used on all direct impingement systems of any gas system length, and also reduces cyclic rate on short-barreled rifles and maintains a much more consistent bolt velocity and rate of fire on all current issue weapons based on the M16. With different A5 buffer weights available, the A5 system can also be used with piston systems, or over-pressured rifles.
The Vltor A5 Kit consists of an A5 Standard Buffer, rifle-length spring, A5 receiver extension, EMOD stock, receiver end plate and castle nut. Other A5 buffer weight configurations will be available individually/separately.
Buffer - With an AR or M16 rifle stock system, part of the rifle buffer is just 'spacer'. It's there to allow the longer rifle-length buffer tube to be used without affecting the length of travel of the bolt carrier (which is the same whether a rifle or carbine buffer system is used). Vltor saw that this extra spacer length could be eliminated while still using a standard rifle length spring, and came up with the A5 buffer. The A5 buffer is approximately the same length as a rifle buffer with the 'spacer' portion at the front removed. It is 4", versus the 3.25" of a carbine buffer. The A5 can be had in different weights, but the standard A5 weight (shown here) is about 5.3 oz (2 steel, 2 tungsten weights), and matches the same carrier velocity as the A4 configuration. Instead of a carbine spring, the standard rifle-length buffer spring is used. The A5 H1 buffer has 3 tungsten, 1 steel and the A5 H2 buffer has 4 tungsten weights.
The use of a rifle spring provides consistency that the carbine-length spring does not. It was found that the more coils that a spring has, the more consistent the spring rate upon each compression.
Would harmonics of a rapidly compressed spring be important? Is that a contributing cause of bolt bounce?
Edit: I wonder how short one could make a H2 weight buffer. We could have some real short exstension tubes...
Thomas M-4
01-03-12, 22:17
I'm surprised by this too. You and I have always been on the same page about the A5 since very early on.
According to Military Morons, which I'm sure they got from Vltor, the rifle action spring is more consistent. It also equals the carrier velocity of the rifle RE as well as offering more consistent carrier velocity over the carbine RE.
So, at the very least, it appears to have slower, more consistent carrier velocity than using an H2 or H3 in a carbine RE with a carbine action spring.
http://www.militarymorons.com/weapons/ar.furniture2.html
Ding,Ding more of a constant rate.
They are both linear springs. The rate change is the same.
At the time, I did not know that the rifle buffer system and carbine buffer system had the same travel. I assumed the rifle had more (I assumed this because people said rifle was better) but had never checked. Now that I know they have the same amount of travel and that the carbine springs have about the same stress as a rifle spring, I am content with the carbine system and an H2 buffer.
Yeah... every recoil system has the exact same travel. Otherwise the carrier key would smash into the top of the RE.
I always assumed the compression cycle of the Rifle spring, which allows a heavier buffer to work was the key.
compression cycle
What does that mean?
If the harmonics of the spring don't play a factor then it sounds like we have been sold some snake oil by vltor.
skullworks
01-04-12, 08:58
Well, the A5 receiver extension does allow for greater range of adjustability from a collapsible stock system, and the A5 buffer can have greater weight than a carbine buffer (which may be of interest when shooting standard loads out of a suppressed SBR perhaps?).
Also, with an EMOD or STR-stock the LOP is even greater than on an A2-stock - which could be desirable for bigger shooters.
I don't know if it would be feasible to use a carbine buffer with a rifle spring in an A5-tube?
I wouldn't say it is 100% snake oil.
I don't know if it would be feasible to use a carbine buffer with a rifle spring in an A5-tube?
Does the CAR buffer allow the bolt carrier to extend too far into the receiver extension?
skullworks
01-04-12, 09:22
Does the CAR buffer allow the bolt carrier to extend too far into the receiver extension?
In an A5-tube, yes it could. I would hazard to think that the A5 buffer was designed to fit the A5-tube, and not the other way around. So, if you want a longer tube then you need a longer buffer to be on the safe side of the equation.
Also, another (hypothetical?) factor that hasn't been addressed is the fact that with a longer buffer you also have more surface area for the buffer spring to friction against during compression - which also slows down the speed of the buffer. Granted, I'm not smart enough to weigh in on how much that would be a factor - but it is a factor.
If the harmonics of the spring don't play a factor then it sounds like we have been sold some snake oil by vltor.
I'm doubtful that it's snake oil. I'd guess that the Marine Corps knows a little bit about the M16 rifle. ;)
I don't know if it would be feasible to use a carbine buffer with a rifle spring in an A5-tube?
Definitely not.
Also, another (hypothetical?) factor that hasn't been addressed is the fact that with a longer buffer you also have more surface area for the buffer spring to friction against during compression - which also slows down the speed of the buffer.
That's only an issue with crappy REs that aren't mirror smooth internally.
The springs are different, the rates, original length, coil count, start force, and compressed force. That amounts to a decent difference. Compare it to an H2 with a carbine spring and there is less of a difference, but it is still there. The relevance of that difference is in the eyes of the buyer.
In the grand scheme of things most people are best served selling their A5 and buying ammo to train with, but they are not buying snake oil.
The springs are different, the rates, original length, coil count, start force, and compressed force. That amounts to a decent difference. Compare it to an H2 with a carbine spring and there is less of a difference, but it is still there. The relevance of that difference is in the eyes of the buyer.
In the grand scheme of things most people are best served selling their A5 and buying ammo to train with, but they are not buying snake oil.
Silvers is saying the above red is THE SAME for carbine if I'm reading him right.
And I don't think I've read a single A5 user's reply that said they didn't feel an improvement in cycle smoothness.... how ever subjective that may be. :confused:
Here is spring data I have...
M16 rifle:
When at rest in the rifle, it is 8.19 inches long and 5.8 lbs of force.
When at full recoil, it is 4.415 inches long and 10.9 lbs of force.
The stress as a percentage of material tensile strength is 22% (anything 45% or under is good).
Note that the A5 may compress the spring more than a rifle buffer - which may raise the stress equal to or higher than a carbine spring in a carbine tube. I think I did this calculation, but did not save the results.
The M4 spring model I have is:
5.960 lbs at rest (when 6.894 inches long).
12 lbs at 3 inches long (the shortest the buffer allows it to get).
The stress at full recoil is 24% - also very low.
Silvers is saying the above red is THE SAME for carbine if I'm reading him right.
He listed the rifle specs, not the A5. The rifle forces are different, the A5 might be a little more different. Without someone who has the means to measure the right springs in each gun with each RE we wont know exactly but it is safe to say the A5 is still different.
And I don't think I've read a single A5 user's reply that said they didn't feel an improvement in cycle smoothness.... how ever subjective that may be. :confused:
I am not on an infinite budget and would rather shoot than buy gadgets so I do not know, but people I trust have been able to blindly distinguish the differences between guns with A5's and ones without.
sinlessorrow
01-04-12, 09:50
Silvers is saying the above red is THE SAME for carbine if I'm reading him right.
And I don't think I've read a single A5 user's reply that said they didn't feel an improvement in cycle smoothness.... how ever subjective that may be. :confused:
i shot a quick email to VLTOR and they said the stock system went through testing with the USMC, USSOCOM both of which found that it increased reliability over the carbine stock, the USMC found it was more reliable than the rifle stock.
they also pointed out that it gives a consistent carrier velocity, as well as increased controllability and reduced recoil.
personally having come from a 14.5" BCM using a carbine stock to now having a lower with the A5 i can tell a reduction in recoil as well as an increase in controllability using all my uppers
I am not on an infinite budget and would rather shoot than buy gadgets so I do not know, but people I trust have been able to blindly distinguish the differences between guns with A5's and ones without.
Same here. That said, I did buy an A5 out of my pocket for full retail.
When replacing an H3 carbine buffer system, I couldn't feel a difference. On lighter carbine buffers, the cyclic rate change is huge.
When replacing an H3 carbine buffer system, I couldn't feel a difference. On lighter carbine buffers, the cyclic rate change is huge.
This mirrors my experience exactly. No, I don't think the Vltor A5 system is snake oil. Thanks to my A5 system, I was able to move a LMT receiver extension* onto a 2nd-line weapon where it was a big upgrade.
* Which, by the way, is a hell of a lot slicker internally than Vltor's A5. I'm not knocking Vltor, just observing that their hard anodizing is a very tough, matte, low reflective sort of texture. LMT's tubes are mirror shiny and dry-coated with moly. Does it make a difference? Nah, probably not as long as the rest of your gun is within tolerances.
* Which, by the way, is a hell of a lot slicker internally than Vltor's A5. I'm not knocking Vltor, just observing that their hard anodizing is a very tough, matte, low reflective sort of texture. LMT's tubes are mirror shiny and dry-coated with moly. Does it make a difference? Nah, probably not as long as the rest of your gun is within tolerances.
It does make a difference that you can feel though. I can't say I've had a gun be problematic with a rough RE, but WOW I could feel the diff on one gun that I swapped REs.
The roughness wasn't the reason, but when I worked the bolt with the charging handle is was a HUGE difference.
skullworks
01-04-12, 12:39
It does make a difference that you can feel though. I can't say I've had a gun be problematic with a rough RE, but WOW I could feel the diff on one gun that I swapped REs.
The roughness wasn't the reason, but when I worked the bolt with the charging handle is was a HUGE difference.
http://spinstage.http.internapcdn.net/Spinstage/userdocs/products/p_080608344_1.jpg (http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/pid=41630/Product/FLEX-HONE-RIFLE-POLISHING-SYSTEM)
;)
The true genius in the A5 system is in the concept, not necessarily the execution. I have duplicated the performance of A5 parts using readily available pieces, with the exception of a home-made spacer.
You see, the A5 buffer tube is nothing more than a slightly modified AR-10 carbine tube. The internal and external dimensions are comparable. In fact, you have choices using other than Vltor tubes. An Armalite tube can be used with mil-spec stocks and a RR LAR-8 tube will work with commercial stocks. I have used both.
My current iteration consists of an Armailte AR-10 buffer tube, an H3 carbine buffer, a rifle spring, and a spacer made from UHMW plastic. Since the AR-10 tubes have the same approximate internal dimension as the A5, the spacer(make sure the spacer fits inside the spring so it doesn't compress the spring) only has to be made long enough to make up the difference in the internal measurement of an AR-15 carbine tube and either 7.62 carbine tube. Voila, an A5 comparable system using some of the parts you may already have.
Now, some are going to scream to the heavens about the use of a spacer in the buffer tube. Well, I screwed mine to the bottom of the tube via the vent hole and then drilled new vent holes in the bottom of the tube. All I ended up doing was shortening the depth of the tube, which Vltor did with a longer buffer. Oh, the spacer could be made from almost any kind of round stock, Delrin, UHMW, aluminum, or even steel.
The one advantage the A5 system has over what I did, is the availability of buffers heavier than the H3, which for me is a non-problem, since I don't require anything heavier.
I know some of you are going to decry this idea, but it's working on two different carbines of mine, and in the end, that's all I care about. That, and the money I saved. :D
ETA: You see, the entire reasoning behind the A5 system was to be able to use the rifle spring in a carbine stock setup, nothing more.
http://spinstage.http.internapcdn.net/Spinstage/userdocs/products/p_080608344_1.jpg (http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/pid=41630/Product/FLEX-HONE-RIFLE-POLISHING-SYSTEM)
;)
What is that??
It's called a ball hone. They are made in a wide range of diameters and grits. The only drawback to using one in this application is that the balls will soon clog with aluminum and quit working. We used to use them for brake cylinders, wheel cylinders, cast iron valve guides and even piston cylinders. They are mainly used for the final finish on any cylindrical part.
Look here: http://www.brushresearch.com/flex-hone.php?gclid=CIWA2vmTt60CFRRZhwodzEaKTw
What is that??
Ball hone.
M90A1 beat me to it.
skullworks
01-04-12, 14:00
Click on the pic; it's a flex hone for polishing shotgun chambers.
Umm, please don't anybody run a shotgun hone inside their receiver extension. The hard anodization is there for a reason. If you ream it down to the bare aluminum you're liable to run into problems down the road.
I am not on an infinite budget and would rather shoot than buy gadgets so I do not know, but people I trust have been able to blindly distinguish the differences between guns with A5's and ones without.
Different weight buffers could account for that and lets not forget the heavy stocks that come with the A5
i shot a quick email to VLTOR and they said the stock system went through testing with the USMC, USSOCOM both of which found that it increased reliability over the carbine stock, the USMC found it was more reliable than the rifle stock.
they also pointed out that it gives a consistent carrier velocity, as well as increased controllability and reduced recoil.
Meaningless if they used different buffers.
Well, the A5 receiver extension does allow for greater range of adjustability from a collapsible stock system, and the A5 buffer can have greater weight than a carbine buffer (which may be of interest when shooting standard loads out of a suppressed SBR perhaps?).
Also, with an EMOD or STR-stock the LOP is even greater than on an A2-stock - which could be desirable for bigger shooters.
I wouldn't say it is 100% snake oil.
Good points. I think the ease in which you can get a heavier buffer is not to be taken lightly. The small spring rate differences that rsilvers measured between a carbine and rifle length springs don’t change when they are put in a A5 stock. The force just increases whatever .5” of tension is worth. Basically you can duplicate the spring tension on the A5 tube with a carbine tube with the right spring. 6oz buffers might not be so easy.
The Marines shot a mother load of ammo with the A5 and it malfed less than the Rifle buffer within a statistical margin of error. So although the h2 carbean may be no worse, you certainly don't appear to be losing anything with the A5.
Within a statistical margin of error eh? Interesting.
Different weight buffers could account for that and lets not forget the heavy stocks that come with the A5
A5 does not mean "heavy" stocks. The same stock bodies that fit a normal mil-spec receiver extension will also fit the A5 extension.
Different weight buffers could account for that and lets not forget the heavy stocks that come with the A5
The stock does not impact the cyclic mass or the spring.
The stock does not impact the cyclic mass or the spring.
No, but the overall weight of the gun will make for less felt recoil.
When I get around to testing the A5 to get quantifiable numbers I'll be eliminating that aspect.
No, but the overall weight of the gun will make for less felt recoil.
When I get around to testing the A5 to get quantifiable numbers I'll be eliminating that aspect.
Yeah, your testing will be good.
In this instance though most points of comparison are between a CAR RE and the A5 RE with the same stock. The difference in weight is close to moot and I think a full mag vs a half empty mag presents more of a concern at that point.
Yeah, your testing will be good.
In this instance though most points of comparison are between a CAR RE and the A5 RE with the same stock. The difference in weight is close to moot and I think a full mag vs a half empty mag presents more of a concern at that point.
Slightly off topic...
One of the things we see over and over again, on this site and others, is people tainting their comparisons.
"I was faster with this optic"
"were the guns identical"
"no, one was my buddy's gun"
"how was it different"
"it had a brake on it and..."
or
"I was more accurate with this barrel"
"were the guns identical"
"no, one was my buddy's gun"
"how was it different"
"his had a 4x optic on it and mine had an ML3"
I don't know if people don't know, or don't care, that these kinds of "tests" are virtually useless. At the very least it would be nice if they disclosed them when they offered up their one-line opinions. The excuse of "I don't have time to type all of that" is not valid. Hold your tongue (fingers?) until you do have time and post a complete, useful, opinion.
("you" used in the generic, not directed at YOU)
So with this buffer system it may well matter if the shooter has a CAR stock or an Emod on the receiver extension.
Yeah, your testing will be good.
The system has been tested "a la Madre" by the Marines already.
More so than any of our ammo budgets would allow. What are we missing???
Slightly off topic...
One of the things we see over and over again, on this site and others, is people tainting their comparisons.
"I was faster with this optic"
"were the guns identical"
"no, one was my buddy's gun"
"how was it different"
"it had a brake on it and..."
or
"I was more accurate with this barrel"
"were the guns identical"
"no, one was my buddy's gun"
"how was it different"
"his had a 4x optic on it and mine had an ML3"
I don't know if people don't know, or don't care, that these kinds of "tests" are virtually useless. At the very least it would be nice if they disclosed them when they offered up their one-line opinions. The excuse of "I don't have time to type all of that" is not valid. Hold your tongue (fingers?) until you do have time and post a complete, useful, opinion.
("you" used in the generic, not directed at YOU)
So with this buffer system it may well matter if the shooter has a CAR stock or an Emod on the receiver extension.
Prime example of this is triggers. People run a bunch of drills when the start and establish a baseline performance with a stock carbine and few gizmos. They take piles of training and then buy a bunch of useless shit. They then run the old drills and smoke them. Instantly it is the gear that made them faster and more accurate, not the fact that they trained away most of their flaws.
The system has been tested "a la Madre" by the Marines already.
More so than any of our ammo budgets would allow. What are we missing???
Muzzle break test with an accelerometer, will also be able to compare felt recoil of different buffers/springs.
And in regards to the Marines testing... Often times their testing is not set up to test stuff you or I might be concerned with, just what they are concerned with. I am unaware if the details and thought processes are outlined anywhere for public consumption.
I do know that when people get wild ideas they overlook too many important details in favor of minutia, I don't expect different here.
Muzzle break test with an accelerometer, will also be able to compare felt recoil of different buffers/springs.
Oh snap! You're going all mythbusters on it!
I've thought about changing the spring that came with my A5. It bothers me that it doesn't look like the USGI SS spring.
Rob is the one doing the testing. I would love the budget to do some of the testing and tinkering people have been doing as of late. Too much stuff is being missed and skipped when they dive into stuff and try to prove/disprove things.
The true genius in the A5 system is in the concept, not necessarily the execution. I have duplicated the performance of A5 parts using readily available pieces, with the exception of a home-made spacer.
You see, the A5 buffer tube is nothing more than a slightly modified AR-10 carbine tube. The internal and external dimensions are comparable. In fact, you have choices using other than Vltor tubes. An Armalite tube can be used with mil-spec stocks and a RR LAR-8 tube will work with commercial stocks. I have used both.
My current iteration consists of an Armailte AR-10 buffer tube, an H3 carbine buffer, a rifle spring, and a spacer made from UHMW plastic. Since the AR-10 tubes have the same approximate internal dimension as the A5, the spacer(make sure the spacer fits inside the spring so it doesn't compress the spring) only has to be made long enough to make up the difference in the internal measurement of an AR-15 carbine tube and either 7.62 carbine tube. Voila, an A5 comparable system using some of the parts you may already have.
Now, some are going to scream to the heavens about the use of a spacer in the buffer tube. Well, I screwed mine to the bottom of the tube via the vent hole and then drilled new vent holes in the bottom of the tube. All I ended up doing was shortening the depth of the tube, which Vltor did with a longer buffer. Oh, the spacer could be made from almost any kind of round stock, Delrin, UHMW, aluminum, or even steel.
The one advantage the A5 system has over what I did, is the availability of buffers heavier than the H3, which for me is a non-problem, since I don't require anything heavier.
I know some of you are going to decry this idea, but it's working on two different carbines of mine, and in the end, that's all I care about. That, and the money I saved. :D
ETA: You see, the entire reasoning behind the A5 system was to be able to use the rifle spring in a carbine stock setup, nothing more.
I'm pretty sure you don't need the spacer, the extra length of the a5 buffer shouldn't matter much regarding spring compression or buffer travel, while a spacer will change spring compression compared to a real a5.
Although if your spacer is slim enough that the buffer spring fits in the tube around the spacer, I imagine all you did by adding it was add some mass to the back of your weapon.
Or maybe I'm going crazy from all the meds I'm on.
I'm pretty sure you don't need the spacer, the extra length of the a5 buffer shouldn't matter much regarding spring compression or buffer travel, while a spacer will change spring compression compared to a real a5.
Although if your spacer is slim enough that the buffer spring fits in the tube around the spacer, I imagine all you did by adding it was add some mass to the back of your weapon.
Or maybe I'm going crazy from all the meds I'm on.
I believe you misunderstood what I did. I used a regular carbine H3 buffer, not the A5 buffer. Without the spacer, the carbine H3 buffer would be 3/4" too short for the extended length of the AR-10 buffer tube. Operating the rifle like that would instantly cause the destruction of the lower receiver, so do not try this.
My spacer was made to fit inside the spring, so as to not cause any compression of the spring. Too, the mass of the spacer is less than an ounce, so it made no difference, in that respect.
The system has been tested "a la Madre" by the Marines already.
More so than any of our ammo budgets would allow. What are we missing???
You yourself said in this thread the results were within the "statistical margin of error"????
rob_s can test this stuff if he wants but to what end? rsilvers established that the springs are not anywhere near stressed and we know from previous threads that they are linear so what is the point????
Myth: Rifle length buffer systems are more reliable.
Fact: Rifle weight buffers are more reliable.
IF: harmonics (AKA weight and force of a reciprocating spring)don't play a factor as that is the only thing that has yet to be accounted for.
The Marines and Vltor can't change physics.
You yourself said in this thread the results were within the "statistical margin of error"????
Yep.... They nominally had less malfs with the A5... but nothing significant enough to run through the streets screaming about...
This was how it was explained to me, mind you.. I can't remember the round count... but it was beyond anything an individual could do himself.
MikeCLeonard
01-06-12, 14:06
I'm very interested in the A5 system...but I'm having a real hard time wrapping my head around why the same effects of the A5 can't be duplicated by just using a heavier buffer in the carbine system like some of you are saying.
The bolt carrier goes back and encounters counter-force imparted by the weight of a buffer, and the force of the spring. If a particular carbine buffer/spring combo imparts an equal amount of resistance as the A5 combo on the moving bolt carrier...then what is the difference? The only thing I can think of is having the resistance from the buffer/spring applied in a more linear and consistent fashion with the A5...but even Mr. Silver's numbers show that there isn't much, if any difference.
And not to derail too much...but there was mention of stock-weight and it's affect on how a rifle recoils...leading us to attribute a perceived benefit in feel of the A5 to heavier stocks. All other things being equal, wouldn't a heavier stock increase muzzle flip since you're moving the fulcrum (center of gravity) of the rifle rearward...which would require less force to get the barrel end moving up? Seems like a front heavy, but lighter rifle might exhibit a little snappier feeling recoil...but with less muzzle jump. Am I making any sense?
You yourself said in this thread the results were within the "statistical margin of error"????
rob_s can test this stuff if he wants but to what end? rsilvers established that the springs are not anywhere near stressed and we know from previous threads that they are linear so what is the point????
Myth: Rifle length buffer systems are more reliable.
Fact: Rifle weight buffers are more reliable.
IF: harmonics (AKA weight and force of a reciprocating spring)don't play a factor as that is the only thing that has yet to be accounted for.
The Marines and Vltor can't change physics.
The springs are linear, but not the same and the rates are different enough.
As far as stress is concerned... Well both springs are acceptable for use and reasonable life. Let's worry about the rate, force, and resting force. Those all matter.
Jay Cunningham
01-06-12, 14:16
There is no muzzle flip on an AR- that phenomenon is negated by the DI system.
MikeCLeonard
01-06-12, 14:35
There is no muzzle flip on an AR- that phenomenon is negated by the DI system.
So is recoil solely a factor of the reciprocating mass inside the rifle then? What makes the dot on a RDS move in any particular direction once the rifle is fired? Granted, shooter technique plays a big part here...but aside from that...I'm just curious what factors can be adjusted to lessen the movement of the rifle during firing. Also, if there is no muzzle-flip...what forces are being addressed with muzzle-breaks and comps?
Your input is appreciated...Thank you Jay!
-Mike
So is recoil solely a factor of the reciprocating mass inside the rifle then? What makes the dot on a RDS move in any particular direction once the rifle is fired?
Consider how the gun works... There is nothing reacted until the bolt moves backwards along the bore axis. The only forces acting in other directions are those applied by the shooter supporting the gun and reacting the directly rearward recoil force. The shooter will impart some force on the stock, under the receiver extension and out of line that will cause some movement.
Draw a free body diagram of the gun in rest and just after the bullet has fired.
Jay Cunningham
01-06-12, 14:41
There is also counter torque from the bullet spinning down the rifling of the barrel.
MikeCLeonard
01-06-12, 14:58
So I'm still curious about how comps offer any improvement in recoil management. If not for keeping the muzzle from moving upward...are they designed simply to reduce the amount of rearward force?
pedropcola
01-06-12, 15:22
I just bought one to try out. In addition to the potential reliability gain and softer impulse the final straw for me was the extra length of the RE. I tend to shoot my CTR's out one or two max on my six position extension. I think the Emod fully collapsed might be just about perfect for me. We shall see.
So I'm still curious about how comps offer any improvement in recoil management. If not for keeping the muzzle from moving upward...are they designed simply to reduce the amount of rearward force?
That's the question no one asks because of what the answer will be.
When you use a brake with a suppressor to reduce baffle erosion that is a different story, not often the case though.
All right, here's something else to mull over.
Rifle receiver extension - 9-5/8" inside depth
Rifle buffer length beyond forward end of spring - 1-5/8"
Effective inside depth of rifle receiver extension - 8"
A5 receiver extension - 7-3/4" inside depth
A5 buffer length beyond forward end of spring - approx. 3/16"
Effective inside depth of A5 receiver extension - approx. 7-9/16"
Rifle buffer weighs approx. 5.2 oz.
A5 std buffer weighs approx. 5.2 oz
So, the A5 system compresses the rifle spring 3/8" more than the rifle system when both are in the "at rest" position. Whatever amount of force that amounts to, that's the difference between the two. I would think the difference in static length between two springs could account for that much, though.
So, as I stated earlier, the A5 system is one way to use a rifle weight buffer, and a rifle spring, in a carbine type receiver extension. No magic, but whatever a carbine or mid-length upper will do on a rifle lower, it will do on an A5 equipped lower and have a collapsible stock.
Additionally, an Armalite AR-10 carbine receiver extension has a 7/3/4" inside depth, so it would more closely approximate the A5 receiver extension, whereas the RR LAR-8 tube has a full 8" inside depth, which would be more like a genuine rifle extension, for whatever that's worth.
There is no muzzle flip on an AR- that phenomenon is negated by the DI system.
:confused:
This is interesting but needs a different thread.
jonconsiglio
01-06-12, 16:54
I'm very interested in the A5 system...but I'm having a real hard time wrapping my head around why the same effects of the A5 can't be duplicated by just using a heavier buffer in the carbine system like some of you are saying.
The bolt carrier goes back and encounters counter-force imparted by the weight of a buffer, and the force of the spring. If a particular carbine buffer/spring combo imparts an equal amount of resistance as the A5 combo on the moving bolt carrier...then what is the difference? The only thing I can think of is having the resistance from the buffer/spring applied in a more linear and consistent fashion with the A5...but even Mr. Silver's numbers show that there isn't much, if any difference.
I posted the answer to this earlier in this thread with a link as well. The rifle action spring is more consistent than the carbine RE. This means the carrier will be traveling at a much more consistent velocity from shot to shot.
With a carbine RE there will be much more variance in carrier speed from shot to shot. If it's already on the edge, a little bit faster than the time before can cause issues with extraction, for example.
I can't get into the technical aspects of this. I have a very vague understanding at this point, but not enough to try to explain it.
I understand Ron's explanations, but I don't think it can take into account consistency and variation in carrier velocity. The rifle system (and A5) has shown to be a more reliable system in the Marines testing, Vltor's testing and even in my own experience, which is nothing in comparison. I've run it on many different rifles and pretty much all showed sme improvement.
Now, someone posted earlier that either the A5 or rifle system wasn't as snappy as the carbine RE felt. I've noticed that too, as I'm sure most users of a rifle system have. I understand that, we'll all have different experiences by the gas systems we use, barrel lengths, weight of components, ammunition, weight of the buffer, etc.
For now, I've decided I'll run it n every rifle I own except my 14.5" mid length. My 14.5" mid length BCM has been 100% reliable in a couple thousand rounds with the A5, but a carbine RE and H buffer just feels better to me as the A5, even with one tungsten replaced with a stainless, feels sluggish and on the verge of short stroking with weaker ammo and even 223 75gr TAP. It feels great with all 5.56 from 55gr 193 to 75gr TAP 5.56.
jonconsiglio
01-06-12, 17:01
So I'm still curious about how comps offer any improvement in recoil management. If not for keeping the muzzle from moving upward...are they designed simply to reduce the amount of rearward force?
Recoil felt in an AR will be moving parts (which will vary by the amount of force moving the bolt carrier group - ie. gas), bullet torque, etc. A comp or brake will jet gas out the top and sides, the gas coming out of the top will push the barrel down.
Take an AR and lock the bolt to the rear without a mag. Take a firing grip as best you can and release the bolt with your left thumb (if right handed). You'll see your dot move around...and it won't be much more than when firing live ammo.
This is just a basic explanation, I can't get into physics on this one since it's not my area.
I think a lot of the muzzle flip everyone refers too is actually rifle shake. Try a bolt action with the same load in your AR and you'll see some of what I'm referring too.
:confused:
This is interesting but needs a different thread.
Why does this need a different thread? It has a lot to do with what we're talking about.
Eurodriver
01-06-12, 18:19
I just shot my 10.3" SBR with an A5 system for the first time today....
And experienced my first failure with this rifle ever. :confused:
It was a double feed and it was the last two rounds in a mag. I have since marked it. I fired about 120 rounds prior to that with no issues but given that it was the last two rounds of the day I'm kind of...you know.
Anyway, felt recoil seemed a tad different and the ejection pattern was definitely different (about 5:00 when it used to be 2:00)
The double feed left a bad taste in my mouth. I need to run a few hundred more rounds through it.
I posted the answer to this earlier in this thread with a link as well. The rifle action spring is more consistent than the carbine RE. This means the carrier will be traveling at a much more consistent velocity from shot to shot.
With a carbine RE there will be much more variance in carrier speed from shot to shot. If it's already on the edge, a little bit faster than the time before can cause issues with extraction, for example.
I can't get into the technical aspects of this. I have a very vague understanding at this point, but not enough to try to explain it.
The link you provided only says the following concerning the spring of the A5
The use of a rifle spring provides consistency that the carbine-length spring does not. It was found that the more coils that a spring has, the more consistent the spring rate upon each compression.
http://www.militarymorons.com/weapons/ar.furniture2.html
This is a patently false statement. Military Morons may be living up to their name. The number of coils has NO bearing on how consistent the spring rate is. (And if it is build a carbine spring with more coils:rolleyes:) The only thing increasing the number of coils might do is increase the weight of the spring. The only thing increasing the weight of the spring does is increase the effective weight of the buffer.
jonconsiglio
01-06-12, 19:01
The link you provided only says the following concerning the spring of the A5
http://www.militarymorons.com/weapons/ar.furniture2.html
This is a patently false statement. Military Morons may be living up to their name. The number of coils has NO bearing on how consistent the spring rate is. (And if it is build a carbine spring with more coils:rolleyes:) The only thing increasing the number of coils might do is increase the weight of the spring. The only thing increasing the weight of the spring does is increase the effective weight of the buffer.
We're not so much worried about increasing the weight of the spring, it has to do with coils per length that allows a consistent compression where the shorter carbine action spring will vary its speed per cycle.
So, you're saying it's not more consistent as Vltor has stated?
So, you've called out a well respected senior member, called the A5 snake oil and now you're saying the rifle action spring does not produce more consistent velocities than a carbine action spring?
No but I'm thinking about calling you out for reading comprehension.
-I asked if the claims VLTOR made were snake oil I never stated that it was.
-I never said that that VLTORs claims for more consistent carrier velocity were false just that those results were not attributed to the spring IF what rsilvers mentioned was true AND if spring harmonics did not play a factor.
Who did I call out?
jonconsiglio
01-06-12, 19:15
Edit -
jonconsiglio
01-06-12, 19:24
I just did a Google search on rifle vs carbine action spring and carrier velocity and a number of results came up showing the consistency of the rifle action spring over the carbine with actual test results and method of testing by numerous sources.
I just did a Google search on rifle vs carbine action spring and carrier velocity and a number of results came up showing the consistency of the rifle action spring over the carbine with actual test results and method of testing by numerous sources.
Interesting what a little research does BEFORE an opinion.
Yes I saw the google first page results. Those differences appear to be due to buffer weight differences. If you have data with identical buffer weights I'm interested.
Yes I shoot a NM A2 for highpower. Works great.
jonconsiglio
01-06-12, 19:35
Yes I saw the google first page results. Those differences appear to be due to buffer weight differences. If you have data with identical buffer weights I'm interested.
Yes I shoot a NM A2 for highpower. Works great.
Let me edit my posts here and I'll get back to you. I found out my Dad is in stage 4 today and I'm in a pissed off mood.
I have some links saved and I'll try to find them. The consistent velocity definitely has to do with the spring according to the tests, and the velocity itself has to do with the buffer weight.
I'll post back when I find them..
The link you provided only says the following concerning the spring of the A5
http://www.militarymorons.com/weapons/ar.furniture2.html
This is a patently false statement. Military Morons may be living up to their name. The number of coils has NO bearing on how consistent the spring rate is. (And if it is build a carbine spring with more coils:rolleyes:) The only thing increasing the number of coils might do is increase the weight of the spring. The only thing increasing the weight of the spring does is increase the effective weight of the buffer.
The number of coils, free length, resting length, and all the other stuff adds up. I would not doubt one spring with more coils than another has a different velocity as the speed in which it propels the reciprocating mass will vary. What that means here I can't exactly say as I don't have all 3 in front of me, but I have my suspicions.
Again though, and this has been said since page 1, practical differences are negligible. It might not be for you, but it is not snake oil either. I find if I don't like something or think it is not for me I just don't purchase it.
Let me edit my posts here and I'll get back to you. I found out my Dad is in stage 4 today and I'm in a pissed off mood.
I have some links saved and I'll try to find them. The consistent velocity definitely has to do with the spring according to the tests, and the velocity itself has to do with the buffer weight.
I'll post back when I find them..
Sorry to hear about your Dad. Lost my mom a few years ago to cancer. I can't really say anything more helpfull than I'm sorry and I understand.
This is interesting but needs a different thread.
Why does this need a different thread? It has a lot to do with what we're talking about.
If we are talking about recoil mitigation yes it is related. I thought we were talking about the reasons behind the proposed advantages of the A5 system. This is the best thread I’ve seen yet on the subject and is a testament to the ability of a well run forum to rise above the normal internet fluff.
The insistence that you can’t mimic the pre-load force, rate of increased force during compression, and consistency of those forces from cycle to cycle with a different spring is incorrect. I’m surprised it keeps coming up. I thought the mental gymnastics required in this line of thinking were at least somewhat intuitive. I’m not saying your average rifle spring will have the same preload force and spring rate as you average carbine spring but from what rsilvers has posted I would hazard to say that they are close.
The ¾” of additional preload that you see on the A5 vs the rifle preload seems to be throwing people off also. All that does is increase the preload force. It does not change the spring rate. It still increases the same amount for every inch it is compressed. Want to mimic A5 preload on your rifle length RE? grab the spring and pull it apart so it sits at rest ¾ longer than it did before you stretched it. (Technically that will change the spring rate also but only a very small amount.)
All of my above posts are assuming the springs are linear in spring-rate. I posed the question about progressive rate springs on another thread on this board and was informed that it had been tried and was a bad idea.
In conclusion it looks like the A5 system is a great way to get something heavier than a H3 buffer in your gun. It also is a good way for tall (real tall) people to have a longer stock on their gun. If rob_s wants to compare these systems I encourage him to do it right. He needs identical buffer weight (really hard to do if you take into account half the weight of the spring), similar wear and “slickness” in the moving parts, same ammo and atmospheric conditions. I think more testing 5-7oz buffers on carbine RE would be more useful though. Otherwise he is just testing whether different looking springs can place the same force on a buffer through its specified range of travel.
Again though, and this has been said since page 1, practical differences are negligible. It might not be for you, but it is not snake oil either. I find if I don't like something or think it is not for me I just don't purchase it.
It's getting to be like there should be a test for these topics. :ph34r:
Can you clean the MEU(SOC)?
Can you shoot a 0 on the MNQ?
Time on the 9-hole?
Time on the 1-5?
Do you even know what these things are?
:jester:
(again "you" used generically, not to refer to orion)
FWIW - I am putting together a LW SS 16" Midlength gas rifle. I will be using the A5 for the first time. I am wanting to see if I "feel" or notice any appreciable differences in the A5 set up. I plan on running a carbine tube set up for a period of time and the A5 set up on the exact same lower/rifle and just swapping out the tubes and the A5 spring / buffer. Will probably also use various Heavy Buffers when the carbine tube is installed just because. I will post my non-scientific impressions down the road a bit and maybe some various split times or drill times. I will however take a guess that I will probably not see a lot of differences in overall splits or drill times that I could probably effectively proclaim to be due to the A5 as the deciding factor. The times I am quite sure will be too close. I would guess that a more positive "seat of the pants" feel for the weapon may be noticed if I notice any difference at all. The final parts are waiting at the Post Office and I can't get them until Monday. :mad:
FWIW - I am putting together a LW SS 16" Midlength gas rifle. I will be using the A5 for the first time. I am wanting to see if I "feel" or notice any appreciable differences in the A5 set up. I plan on running a carbine tube set up for a period of time and the A5 set up on the exact same lower/rifle and just swapping out the tubes and the A5 spring / buffer. Will probably also use various Heavy Buffers when the carbine tube is installed just because. I will post my non-scientific impressions down the road a bit and maybe some various split times or drill times. I will however take a guess that I will probably not see a lot of differences in overall splits or drill times that I could probably effectively proclaim to be due to the A5 as the deciding factor. The times I am quite sure will be too close. I would guess that a more positive "seat of the pants" feel for the weapon may be noticed if I notice any difference at all. The final parts are waiting at the Post Office and I can't get them until Monday. :mad:
I'm hoping to come up with a way of doing a blind test, by putting the A5 with Emod on one lower and carbine with Emod on another. I think this should result in no outward physical difference, and I want to let shooters put their own uppers on them to see if they can tell a difference when shooting the two, as well as record their performance on something like the 1-5 drill.
jonconsiglio
01-07-12, 13:35
Dpaqu, have you been able to run the A5 yet? I know you said something about having an A2. If not, I think you should give it a try. I think anyone interested should give it a try. You can easily compare it side by side with a carbine RE with the same stock in the same position.
Regardless of anything else, there is a difference. I have roughly 8,000 to 10,000 rounds on the A5 over the past 10 or 11 months on all different rifles. I had the bolt locking back where it wouldn't with a carbine RE whether the carbine RE had an H, H2 or H3.
from everything I've read, talked to others about and have experienced, a equally weighted buffer n a carbine RE does not perform the same as the same weight A5 buffer with the rifle action spring.
Again, even though the buffer weights may be the same, the buffer velocity appears to be different due to the spring. According to testing done (I can feel the difference, but tedhnical testing was not by me, mind you), the carrier velocity is more consistent with the rifle action spring than it is with the carbine action spring, all else being equal.
I believe the differences are small in some cases and very noticeable in others. My 10.5 will run berthing from the weakest 223 to the hottest 5.56, suppressed or not, and I will not notice anywhere near the variation that I do when running a carbine RE with an H2, for example.
Now, as much as I appreciate the system, when it doesn't work with a particular upper, it doesn't work and it may not be the best option. As Rob mentioned earlier, the 14.5" mid length may already do what the A5 would do, so it may be too much. That makes sense and I'll soon be switching to an H buffer and carbine RE.
This may all be a small difference unless a rifle is overgassed. We'll notice the most difference when firing full auto.
No matter how you look at it or how much it really matter, there is a difference when using the carbine RE vs the A5, even if the buffers were weighted exactly the same. The only possible conclusion at that point would be it has to do with the action spring itself.
A little while ago I emailed this question to a physicist buddy of mine at DuPont. I hope to have some type of answer from him that may help a bit.
Dpaqu - I appreciate the comments about my Dad. It's going to be a rough time ahead.
I'm hoping to come up with a way of doing a blind test, by putting the A5 with Emod on one lower and carbine with Emod on another. I think this should result in no outward physical difference, and I want to let shooters put their own uppers on them to see if they can tell a difference when shooting the two, as well as record their performance on something like the 1-5 drill.rob that would be an interesting blind test no doubt and I would love to hear some results. Back to back blind testing for as many shooters as you can get is probably the most ideal provided the lowers maintain the same FCG set up. For myself however I seem to notice small differences in variables between lowers and lower parts kits in how the rifle "feels" even between similar branded parts kits. Maybe it is a mental thing but I can pick up two separate and completely factory rifles (same model) and they may very well "feel" different in regards to the lower and the operation of the FCG or overall action. Maybe it is a mental thing for me, but that is why I actually want to run the A5 and a carbine tube on the same lower to keep as much similarity as possible. I know this may sound a bit strange or excessive, but it will probably be the best way for me to appease my own OCD tendencies. ;)
Keep us posted if you do further testing.
Jon - Hope all goes well with your Dad, my mother continues to struggle with cancer.
jonconsiglio
01-07-12, 13:48
Thanks Surf, I wish you the best with your Mother as well.
rob that would be an interesting blind test no doubt and I would love to hear some results. Back to back blind testing for as many shooters as you can get is probably the most ideal provided the lowers maintain the same FCG set up. For myself however I seem to notice small differences in variables between lowers and lower parts kits in how the rifle "feels" even between similar branded parts kits. Maybe it is a mental thing but I can pick up two separate and completely factory rifles (same model) and they may very well "feel" different in regards to the lower and the operation of the FCG or overall action. Maybe it is a mental thing for me, but that is why I actually want to run the A5 and a carbine tube on the same lower to keep as much similarity as possible. I know this may sound a bit strange or excessive, but it will probably be the best way for me to appease my own OCD tendencies. ;)
Both will be GI triggers, both will be same make of lower, etc. I think that simply by the shooter using two unfamiliar lowers the familiarity will be negated, and while the two may be slightly different I suspect they'll both have minute advantages and disadvantages that are a wash overall.
and then there's the fact that most shooters can't take advantage of the kind of minutiae we're talking about anyway. :D
militarymoron
01-07-12, 13:52
This is a patently false statement. Military Morons may be living up to their name. The number of coils has NO bearing on how consistent the spring rate is. (And if it is build a carbine spring with more coils:rolleyes:) The only thing increasing the number of coils might do is increase the weight of the spring. The only thing increasing the weight of the spring does is increase the effective weight of the buffer.
i'm always open to the possibility that i'm wrong, and when proven so, will readily and openly admit it. in my writeups, i do two things:
1. provide/relate manufacturer-supplied information about their product.
2. relate my own experience/opinion of the product from my limited point of view.
for #1, there's usually no way to verify certain claims (like X material is more durable than Y material) without independent testing results and info etc. i'm not a lab - i don't have access to test equipment, but i do have a good understanding of the scientific method and what's required to perform a valid test (i'm an aerospace/mechanical engineer/scientist in the defense industry). so, all i can do is provide information, and trust that what the manufacturer claims is true (to the best of their knowledge). being an engineer, i'm a natural skeptic, and if something smells fishy, i question it, and if you talk to most of the manufacturers i've written product reviews for, i can be a pain in the ass. i'm definitely no expert, but if something can't be explained to me that makes sense, i'm going to doubt it.
for #2 - i report what i find. like some others here, installing the A5 system has 'cured' a couple of slightly finicky uppers of mine. sure, there may be other factors involved, but the only thing i swapped out was the carbine system to the A5, nothing else. whether it works for anyone else, that i can't say.
anyways, you bring up good questions, and i'm going to ask vltor to address them, as i don't have the expertise to. skepticism is good, especially when it's based on logic and reason. it keeps manufacturers on their toes, and people like me who write reviews.
One thing I don't think has been mentioned is buffer construction. I have no idea how you would characterize the differences but maybe the weights are set up and timed to move differently within the buffer. Didn’t spikes claim that the hollowed out buffer with powdered metal inside made things more reliable?
Another question. Can you even get a carbine legth buffer to weigh like the 7oz A5H4. Never mind apparently www.heavybuffers.com has carbine buffers up to 11.5oz.
What spring are people useing in the A5. Colt, Tubs Wolf, sprinco?
sinlessorrow
01-07-12, 14:20
One thing I don't think has been mentioned is buffer construction. I have no idea how you would characterize the differences but maybe the weights are set up and timed to move differently within the buffer. Didn’t spikes claim that the hollowed out buffer with powdered metal inside made things more reliable?
Another question. Can you even get a carbine legth buffer to weigh like the 7oz A5H4. Never mind apparently www.heavybuffers.com has carbine buffers up to 11.5oz.
What spring are people useing in the A5. Colt, Tubs Wolf, sprinco?
$100 for a buffer???? he can keep them
the A5 system uses a standard Rifle spring
jonconsiglio
01-07-12, 15:40
One thing I don't think has been mentioned is buffer construction. I have no idea how you would characterize the differences but maybe the weights are set up and timed to move differently within the buffer. Didn’t spikes claim that the hollowed out buffer with powdered metal inside made things more reliable?
Another question. Can you even get a carbine legth buffer to weigh like the 7oz A5H4. Never mind apparently www.heavybuffers.com has carbine buffers up to 11.5oz.
What spring are people useing in the A5. Colt, Tubs Wolf, sprinco?
The one in the kit is a standard rifle action spring and that's all I've used since.
MM is right, you, and a couple others, do bring up some good points. I'll admit that at first I wrote the questions off as just trolling a bit, but that likely had to do with my mood as well. Now, it's made me think even more about it.
I'm still confident in what it does for most rifles out there, but I do have more questions about the how.
As for buffer construction... Rifle buffers have weights moving freely inside, surely for a reason. The A5 is set up the same way except there's a small spring on the removable buffer pad that holds the weights against the front. If you rotate it, they don't move, butif you shake it they will.
I don't know what this has to do with anything, but when Robb called Vltor about going lighter, they told him to replace one or both tungsten weights with the stainless and position the one tungsten to the front of the buffer. If there's a reason, I'm to sure, just repeating what he mentioned a while back in another thread.
So, do freely moving weights or those slightly held forward by a small spring do anything for reliability? I have no clue, but it's likely that way for a reason. Something I'd like to know.
I look forward to heating some more from MM or Vltor on all of these questions.
militarymoron
01-07-12, 19:55
Here's the reply from Vltor's engineer:
"There are many variables in the design of a compression spring. Wire diameter, coil diameter, free length, slenderness ratio, number of coils, and whether a spring is closed or has ground ends.
The carbine spring is a compromise. It has fewer coils than the rifle spring, but retains the same wire diameter and is shorter in length. The amount of compression it experiences is the same as a rifle spring, though. This means that there is less total material (the easiest way to think of it) in the carbine spring, and so when it is deflected by the same amount, it will experience a higher stress. Also, because the buffer has been reduced in length (the portion over which the spring will be compressed), and sees a higher stress, it will see a greater differential in the pre-load and fully-loaded condition than a comparably loaded rifle spring. The math proves this out.
The VLTOR A5 system uses a rifle spring on a lengthened (proprietary) buffer. The tube is similar (not exactly the same as) an AR10 tube and uses a rifle spring. The rifle spring is installed with a greater preload, and sees slightly more compression in the A5 than it would in an A2 configuration.
However, the differential in the pre-load and fully-loaded condition is reduced when compared to the carbine system, and the same as in an A2. This reduced differential, which is a function of the free length and pre-load of the spring versus it's unloaded length, allows for a less variable system. The amount of force resisting the movement of the bolt carrier group and buffer is more consistent, meaning that over a range of manufacturing tolerances and operational variables the bolt carrier group will displace a more consistent amount. This means that the weapon require less 'over gassing' to function reliably. This equates to reduced felt recoil, reduced carrier velocity (equating to a reduction in the rate of fire) and also reduces the likelihood of malfunctions as things aren't happening at as blinding a speed as in a carbine configuration.
Now, many many folks have asked:
why not just make a new carbine spring? Why not use chrome silicon? etc etc etc. Here's the thing: you can't simply add coils to a carbine spring, there isn't enough space in the gun. You can't reduce the wire diameter to accomodate those coils, because then the spring gets TOO soft. Also, with a FIXED compressed length, and a FIXED installed length, there is NO way to decrease the pre-load and fully-loaded force differential without negatively impacting the maximum stress in the spring - it's simple math. VLTOR tried to design this spring, but the problem is that it's life expectancy would be literally half that of a carbine spring - no good. The rifle spring experiences a much reduced maximum stress in the wire, which means longer life, which equates to a more consistent operation of that same part over it's lifespan. That's also simple solid mechanics.
Why not just run a heavier buffer? Because a heavier buffer is not the same, and doesn't offer the same tangible benefits. Sure, it slows the rate of fire - how? By making it more difficult to displace the reciprocating system.
Here's the thing: heavier means it's harder to accelerate, but it still begins to move at the same applied force. The A5 system changes the pre-load, meaning that it now requires more force to begin unseating the bolt carrier group. With that, the buffer weight was then tailored to give the reduced acceleration of a heavier buffer system in concert with the delay in the beginning of the cycle. Together, this behaves in a similar manner of a gun with a longer barrel and a heavier buffer. The additional internalized improvements were made to eliminate bolt bounce, a contributing factor to out-of-battery fire and to inconsistency of rapid-fire. Bolt bounce not only increases the likelihood of out-of-battery-fire, it increases the likelihood of a failure to fire. If the timing is just wrong, the hammer actually comes down on the bolt carrier and forces it back closed, but does not retain enough energy to fire the round - not good. Even if a failure to fire doesn't occur, the chambering, then unseating, then seating of the bolt doesn't do any favors to an accurized platform either! In this context, VLTOR has observed increased accuracy of specific rifles after installing the A5 system.
Common wisdom cannot be applied to the A5 system, because too many things were changed. All those changes weren't made blindly; they were calculated and engineered for the desired performance. VLTOR spend countless hours running the numbers of various solid heights of the spring, various buffer weights and lengths, as well as various receiver extension tube lengths.
In the end, the testing done by multiple military entities proved that the A5 system does just what it claims: puts a collapsible stock onto a RIFLE without sacrificing reliability. Reliability compared to an A4 was the same if not slightly improved.
Before negating the ENGINEERING of the A5 using non-applicable offhand comparisons it would be advantageous to run some numbers through a spring design program to compare the rifle and carbine springs and their respective differences in the operating parameters of their host weapons and then compare to the A5 - it becomes obvious why the system works."
I would hate to see what would happen if a copy of ANSYS got into the wrong hands...
Here's the reply from Vltor's engineer:
End of story.
This may not mean much to you guys, but here is what I've experienced. I have run the standard A5 setup on a DD 16" mid length gas upper and a BCM 12.5" carbine length gas upper. With both of those, I've used a range of ammo including very weak hand loads. I have had no issues at all. Normally I run both of those with a carbine H buffer setup so that they will still function with weak ammo.
I don't have an H3 buffer (which I think is comparable in weight to the A5 standard buffer), but I'm almost positive these carbines would not function on the carbine H3 setup with the same weak ammo that does function on the A5 setup. I can feel an obvious difference in the recoil of the weapon but that's not really why I think I prefer the A5. I can't say for sure, but it does seem to me that the A5 setup can work more reliably across a wider range of combinations of ammo, gas ports, gas systems, etc with one particular buffer weight. I also noticed that on the 12.5" upper, the ejection pattern seems to be more similar between suppressed and unsuppressed. Does that mean anything or matter at all? I don't know, but I think it's interesting.
Thank you MM, that was a good read :smile:
I would hate to see what would happen if a copy of ANSYS got into the wrong hands...
In the wrong hands it would give very bad info :P
I'm the one who penned that response. In a nutshell, it's not possible to do all that the A5 does with currently available carbine buffers and springs. We tried. I tried. We tried to make a 'new' carbine spring that does this - it doesn't work - the stresses are too high for a successful design, and it's too 'sensitive'.
The A5 alters the pre, transient, and fully compressed loads of the action spring during cycling. It also does it with components that are operating at lower stress levels. This doesn't mean other springs have stress problems - only that the carbine spring did increase the stress in the action spring considerably in comparison to the rifle system. Less stress is often a good thing.
The buffer offers additional advantages when it comes to bolt bounce which is often only seen as a problem for FA guys, but it can't be a bad thing to eliminate for everyone. It's one of those 'consistency' things.
When it comes to accuracy, we've seen it - as I said in VERY SPECIFIC instances - don't count on it curing your $300 poodle shooter. It's never hurt accuracy, but increases are very dependent on the specific rifle.
As far as testing and side-by-sides: we've got the data and we're impressed - as were the testers. I'll say it again: you can't buy off-the-shelf parts today that will do the same thing as the A5 (if you want an adjustable stock) or as reliable as the A5.
All the results that have been observed have been backed up by the engineering data. This isn't a gaggle of parts tossed in that just happened to work that we're hoping works in other guns too.
If anyone has specific curiosities, I'm more than happy to respond via PM.
PS: Yes, I run an A5 on my own rifle.
The AR must attract the most OCD people on the planet. I especially get a kick out of those who poopoo the A5 when they haven't used it. I let someone shoot my A5 equipped lower who knew nothing about the A5 system and he couldn't understand why mine felt so much different. Then I actually went and showed him the difference and he was like- wtf? I have yet find a person who has tried a standard set up and an A5 together who didn't feel the difference almost immediately. When shooting an SBR its even more noticeable.
The AR must attract the most OCD people on the planet.
2nd End of Story!!!
The AR must attract the most OCD people on the planet.
OCD, or wanting a full picture?
I for one would like to see more OCD people as perhaps we'd get more complete responses. This thread is long on mk1mod0 shoulder meters and rather short on quantifiable data.
Which is something I hope to be able to rectify shortly, but since the A5 I have is currently mounted on an AXTS AX556 for an article, it's going to be awhile before I'm able to pull it off there and build my two identical lowers. FWIW, my plan is to attach it to an SBR lower and have my non-A5 Emod also mounted on an SBR lower. Both come from factory Colt 6933s with big pins so the triggers are as near to identical, and tamper proof, as possible.
We need more accountability in posting as a general rule, not less. OCD people are what leads us to quantifiable data and answers. Non OCD is what leads us to "feeling" which, while quantifiable across a spectrum of people, is kind of useless as a standalone.
Guns are machines, and as such attract people like engineers who are into machines and how things work and WHY they work the way they do. It's just a fact of life. I'd like to see more of said engineers get out on the range and away from the bench to test their practical applications, but I'm glad to have MORE information over less.
The AR must attract the most OCD people on the planet.
I'm not sure that's the case. In my experience, the internet simply attracts the most cynical and skeptical on the planet.
Though the arguments would be shorter if folks would keep their mouths shut until they or others test and report.
Engineered systems are not easily dissected by observation, and often that is what some folks try to do.
militarymoron
01-08-12, 11:07
i'm one of those people who want more info, and want to understand the WHYs behind everything. but as a consumer, we also have to consider the fact that the manufacturer may want to keep certain information close-hold (materials, processes, etc) from the competition, or is not allowed to disclose testing data especially if it's performed by the military. it's nice to have the full picture, but the customer isn't always entitled to it (unless withholding certain data can result in damage).
at work, there is a lot of information that is not to be shared with the customer. what is shown to them is the data that shows that the product has met their specifications and performance given the testing protocol that everyone has agreed on. what's not always disclosed is how we've achieved that (trade secrets, transfer of technology etc).
even if a manufacturer discloses everything, there's no guarantee that said product will work for you. there are too many variables for testing can't cover everything. all the test data and internet experience becomes irrelevant to me when that item doesn't work in my rifle.
as a consumer, i don't put all my trust in information provided by the manufacturer - i also consider the anecdotal info posted on forums such as this, from reliable independent sources. although each person's experience is a 'sample of one', with many different variables, the more personal experience is shared, the larger the sample size becomes, and patterns can then emerge.
my bottom line is 'does it work for me?' - no matter what the manufacturer says, or folks on the internet say. and while i'm probably one of those OCD people who want to know everything, i respect the manufacturer's right to keep some info confidential, or take into account that they may not be able to release certain testing data publicly.
MikeCLeonard
01-08-12, 12:00
the A5 I have is currently mounted on an AXTS AX556 for an article, it's going to be awhile before I'm able to pull it off there and build my two identical lowers.
I'm really excited to hear this Rob...as that is the exact same lower receiver combo I have planned for an upcoming build. Any eta on your article? I'd very much like to hear your take on both those products.
Also, great info guys! This has been a very interesting read!
-Mike
CS Flat wire springs from Shooting Systems are rifle length and will work effectively in Carbine buffer tubes. Installed length is less due to the flat profile and offers 10-20% increase resistance to bolt unlocking. From what I can tell it gives you the advantages of a rifle length spring in a carbine system since its flat and occupies less space than a standard round spring. When fully compressed in a carbine buffer tube it does not reach solid height which makes BC velocity more consistent.
Something to consider vs buying a new buffer tube and buffer.
DT
CS Flat wire springs from Shooting Systems are rifle length and will work effectively in Carbine buffer tubes. Installed length is less due to the flat profile and offers 10-20% increase resistance to bolt unlocking. From what I can tell it gives you the advantages of a rifle length spring in a carbine system since its flat and occupies less space than a standard round spring. When fully compressed in a carbine buffer tube it does not reach solid height which makes BC velocity more consistent.
Something to consider vs buying a new buffer tube and buffer.
DT
I'm no engineer but if I remember correctly that is called "coil bind". A relic of information rattling around my head from my small block chevy building days.
More information is great but it is happening more often that those who have no idea what they are talking about are speaking from some perceived level of authority on the subject.
skullworks
01-08-12, 13:37
In the wrong hands it would give very bad info :P
I'm the one who penned that response.
Thanks to you and to Military Morons for passing on that intel.
A quick question; what spring do you use in the A5 (aside from it being a rifle-length spring)?
More information is great but it is happening more often that those who have no idea what they are talking about are speaking from some perceived level of authority on the subject.
Welcome to the internet.
Those that see this are going to be responsible for calling the others on it, otherwise we will continue to circle the drain.
CS Flat wire springs from Shooting Systems are rifle length and will work effectively in Carbine buffer tubes. Installed length is less due to the flat profile and offers 10-20% increase resistance to bolt unlocking. From what I can tell it gives you the advantages of a rifle length spring in a carbine system since its flat and occupies less space than a standard round spring. When fully compressed in a carbine buffer tube it does not reach solid height which makes BC velocity more consistent.
Something to consider vs buying a new buffer tube and buffer.
DT
Those are potential advantages of a flat-wire spring, but I calculated a bunch of springs for stress - and it was the highest stress level - above normal engineering limits of 45% of MTS when used in a carbine.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=94336
i'm one of those people who want more info, and want to understand the WHYs behind everything. but as a consumer, we also have to consider the fact that the manufacturer may want to keep certain information close-hold (materials, processes, etc) from the competition, or is not allowed to disclose testing data especially if it's performed by the military. it's nice to have the full picture, but the customer isn't always entitled to it (unless withholding certain data can result in damage).
at work, there is a lot of information that is not to be shared with the customer. what is shown to them is the data that shows that the product has met their specifications and performance given the testing protocol that everyone has agreed on. what's not always disclosed is how we've achieved that (trade secrets, transfer of technology etc).
even if a manufacturer discloses everything, there's no guarantee that said product will work for you. there are too many variables for testing can't cover everything. all the test data and internet experience becomes irrelevant to me when that item doesn't work in my rifle.
as a consumer, i don't put all my trust in information provided by the manufacturer - i also consider the anecdotal info posted on forums such as this, from reliable independent sources. although each person's experience is a 'sample of one', with many different variables, the more personal experience is shared, the larger the sample size becomes, and patterns can then emerge.
my bottom line is 'does it work for me?' - no matter what the manufacturer says, or folks on the internet say. and while i'm probably one of those OCD people who want to know everything, i respect the manufacturer's right to keep some info confidential, or take into account that they may not be able to release certain testing data publicly.
More information is great when it is correct.
Welcome to the internet.
Those that see this are going to be responsible for calling the others on it, otherwise we will continue to circle the drain.
I see circling the drain in some instances as there are financial matters at play that prevent anything from happening.
Honestly- I think it's the OCD thing. All the time we have people wanting to change buffers, change springs, do this and do that without understanding what it is they are doing or trying to accomplish.
I'd be willing to bet that if you took a standard carbine lower with buffer and spring and then an A5 the average person looking at them wouldn't recognize the difference, until they fired it.
I don't think a double blind "taste test" is necessary to be honest. I guess in someways I am a simpleton. I don't question why a certain lube is good or why a certain lower set up is better. I just like that it does what I want it to do.
OCD, or wanting a full picture?
I for one would like to see more OCD people as perhaps we'd get more complete responses. This thread is long on mk1mod0 shoulder meters and rather short on quantifiable data.
Which is something I hope to be able to rectify shortly, but since the A5 I have is currently mounted on an AXTS AX556 for an article, it's going to be awhile before I'm able to pull it off there and build my two identical lowers. FWIW, my plan is to attach it to an SBR lower and have my non-A5 Emod also mounted on an SBR lower. Both come from factory Colt 6933s with big pins so the triggers are as near to identical, and tamper proof, as possible.
We need more accountability in posting as a general rule, not less. OCD people are what leads us to quantifiable data and answers. Non OCD is what leads us to "feeling" which, while quantifiable across a spectrum of people, is kind of useless as a standalone.
Guns are machines, and as such attract people like engineers who are into machines and how things work and WHY they work the way they do. It's just a fact of life. I'd like to see more of said engineers get out on the range and away from the bench to test their practical applications, but I'm glad to have MORE information over less.
I too like a lot of information and since I opened the OCD door in this thread as a tongue in cheek term I will explain at least how I like to look at new things. I look at new things with a great deal of skepticism. In my nature I am a curious person about how things work and I also want to know as much about the science / background / history etc of the item itself. I do a ton of T&E work for my own full time employer so I get a lot of crap to look at. From my perspective when someone suggests or recommends an item, perhaps being almost as great as sliced bread (not necessarily speaking about the A5) I tend to say to myself, "well that is a load of bullshit". So I like to get an item and put it through a testing process in hopes of making the item fail or not live up to the claims that may be associated with the item. Unfortunately the www can give certain items almost mythical or cult like followings for reasons that seem to be non performance oriented but get acclaim due to a herd like mentality. I don't buy an item and then just follow along by saying it is great. Instead I want to buy something and see it fail, miserably, then laugh. Now if the item doesn't fail horribly, then I have the ability to now determine how it may be of practical use for my given applications where cost, performance gain, practicality etc all factor into the big picture.
As for how I test, I do come from an educational background in the sciences and show some OCD tendencies about how I like to test things or even how I go about trying to make performance gains in my own abilities. While I don't go overboard on testing equipment etc, etc, I do at least go to the point where I can place some tangible controls on the test that will at least satisfy my own standards to be able to come to a decision on how I personally feel an item performs. Now I admit that the results might contradict the entire science thing where hard data is often the goal but I often go with my gut and my own feelings to come to conclusions about how something performs. "Seat of the pants" feel for something is just as important, sometimes more important as hard written data accumulated and put on paper and if something works, then well it works. That does not mean that I don't like to have all of the information from hard science, tests, controls and data, all the way to someones personal opinions on how an item felt and performed in their own hands if I can get it. Of course I have used things and don't know why it works, just that I know it does. I usually just chalk that up to voodoo. :p
More information is great but it is happening more often that those who have no idea what they are talking about are speaking from some perceived level of authority on the subject.
yes. and the plague of the mediocre.
ah, thread drift........... Im guilty.
On the A5 , Id like to try one sometime. Im one of those guys who buys doo dads, gets caught up in trends, and then later recants on some things. But I do always learn a lot along the way. At the moment Im way over on gun money and under on training/ammo , and so priorities what they are I will be selling stuff so I can learn/practice but when that ratio gets back to solid Id like to try one of these out.
jonconsiglio
01-08-12, 17:43
Since the beginning of the A5 threads and the beginning of this thread, I've been saying how positive my experiences are and how there is a difference in reliability and feel and that there is in fact a benefit to using a rifle action spring instead of a carbine spring.
I never really cared too much about why and was content with the basic understanding I had. Then this thread came up and info was posted that didn't seem correct. Of course if I'm to say its incorrect, it would probably be a good idea if I could back that up in some way or at least link to it.
Things started to get more technical and I can see how some would consider it OCD. I'm glad that some of the questions that were asked came up as this seems to be thE there'd to link too should anyone ask exactly what the A5 accomplishes and how.
I've known for nearly a year that there are advantages to the A5. They may not be very pronounced on the SR15, for example, but the benefit is hard to miss on something like a 10.5".
I don't necessarily think a technical test will change much other than giving some of us more info and others something else to argue about and discount without ever actually using the system.
I think thread has provided a lot of information and cleared up a lot of questions.
Right now the way I read through the thread, I see the nay-sayers with math, and the proponents with... "trust me"? I do not mean this in an antagonistic way, I haven't made up my mind on the A5 yet, so I'm open to either argument.
But if it DOES do the things that many people claim then there must be a reason for it, and math to back it up. I, for one, would like to see that math. I may not understand it at first, but I'd like to see it so I can go looking for someone that can explain it to me.
I've seen too much snake oil in the AR market, snake oil that fools some of the most qualified people in the industry, and while I mean no disrespect to any one person, we are all subject to bias generated by one thing or another, from simply wanting to justify a purchase to having financial ties with a company to just being buds with guys that work there. I want quantifiable results, and it's not rocket surgery to get them in most cases.
Trust, but verify.
While hard data may just give people something (else) to argue with, who comes down on the side of proof and who comes down on the side of "nuh uh!" will become real clear real quick.
jonconsiglio
01-08-12, 18:19
I think there's a fair amount of proof in the thread and the math really can't take into account consistency of carrier velocity.
If that's not enough for you Rob, maybe you should just "trust me" on this one..! :D
The math that the naysayers have is not the whole answer but it does show the differences expounded upon by VLTOR.
I wish I had time, a few tools, and all three systems in hand.
The math that the naysayers have is not the whole answer but it does show the differences expounded upon by VLTOR.
but when the only reply to it is "nuh uh!" it makes it kind of hard to understand the benefits.
:D
Very true, but when you lay out the nay-sayers argument it is that there is little difference. The data provided by RSilvers shows that there is a difference. I contest his understanding of the differences is not what he believes and that it is a bigger deal. The coil count of the spring plays a part in the velocity as well. All of this confirmed by VLTOR.
Now, VLTOR has not provided fancy pics but their explanation was useful. Now the question becomes is my understanding of their response skewed a bit because of my frame of reference?
Well, all of this has me far more interested in getting out there and putting the accelerometer on it than ever before. While I'm a numbers guy, I'm not a design-side guy, and I'm much more of a performance guy. I want to know if I can quantify the alleged performance gain.
To that end, I wonder if putting a spacer in the bottom of the A5 tube to make it the same internal length as the carbine receiver extension and then using the carbine buffer(s) and spring wouldn't be the best way to go about this...
You would need to shoot a good bit to get the big picture.
You would need to shoot a good bit to get the big picture.
I don't know if that's true, and if it is it would seem to indicate that either system are so inconsistent and the differences so minute that:
a) it doesn't matter and
b) nobody would be sensitive enough to feel it at the shoulder
Depends on what aspect you choose to look at. There is felt recoil, reliability, function, and accuracy improvements being claimed.
I will take he word of a few trusted M4C SME/mods and other people I know well. Lets assume the accelerometer will show an improved recoil impulse.
Reliability... Tricky, I think an FA gun would be needed to really tell.
Function, no brainer, they work.
Accuracy can't really be proven nor has it been explicitly claimed. The theory behind it says it works.
I think in most cases a mil-spec carbine with a 14.5 barrel and .062 port is under-sprung and BC/Buffer mass is to low. Just my opinion.
Always fun to read about the various opinions, theories, and technical details on what makes our favorite system run.
DT
I don't want to "jump the gun" so to speak as I haven't put out a ton of rounds through my newest build, Noveske 16" SS LW midlength plus Vltor A5 set up, but my initial impressions are less than stellar or what I had hoped for. Again it is early in the game but my "seat of the pants" feel for the weapon and another standard 16" carbine length, standard carbine receiver extension set up shot back to back and I couldn't tell any difference. And I am DEFINITELY one of those uber anal, OCD types that notices every little difference (clocks his comps) in the feel of my weapons and how they handle.
I will be clear it is of no fault or hype that I read from Vltor in regards to the A5 and how it handles as far as felt recoil but more so from the information claims that I have read on the www. Again I will do more shooting, but if I said that I wasn't a bit let down, I would be lying. But heck I am a cynic anyway. :)
BTW, I understand the reason for the development of the A5 and good on that.
CS Flat wire springs from Shooting Systems are rifle length and will work effectively in Carbine buffer tubes. Installed length is less due to the flat profile and offers 10-20% increase resistance to bolt unlocking. From what I can tell it gives you the advantages of a rifle length spring in a carbine system since its flat and occupies less space than a standard round spring. When fully compressed in a carbine buffer tube it does not reach solid height which makes BC velocity more consistent.
Something to consider vs buying a new buffer tube and buffer.
DT
I wouldn't do it - even if it doesn't bind, that doesn't mean it won't 'take a set' (meaning: yield) and destroy the spring. It would also have a VERY high load at full compression, assuming of course that it has a similar/same spring rate.
This spring alone also wouldn't result in an 'A5 equivalent' due to the internal changes we've made to the buffer itself (and not just the silencing spring). I would guess that bolt bounce would be more significant, or at least counter-recoil would be more significant due to the greater compressed load.
Thanks to you and to Military Morons for passing on that intel.
A quick question; what spring do you use in the A5 (aside from it being a rifle-length spring)?
We use a 'mil-spec' spring that conforms to contractual requirements for gov't procurement. Not an 'equivalent'. We've found too many inconsistencies with the 'equivalents'.
I don't want to "jump the gun" so to speak as I haven't put out a ton of rounds through my newest build, Noveske 16" SS LW midlength plus Vltor A5 set up, but my initial impressions are less than stellar or what I had hoped for. Again it is early in the game but my "seat of the pants" feel for the weapon and another standard 16" carbine length, standard carbine receiver extension set up shot back to back and I couldn't tell any difference. And I am DEFINITELY one of those uber anal, OCD types that notices every little difference (clocks his comps) in the feel of my weapons and how they handle.
I will be clear it is of no fault or hype that I read from Vltor in regards to the A5 and how it handles as far as felt recoil but more so from the information claims that I have read on the www. Again I will do more shooting, but if I said that I wasn't a bit let down, I would be lying. But heck I am a cynic anyway. :)
BTW, I understand the reason for the development of the A5 and good on that.
If you had a very well setup carbine system, you may notice the recoil reducing effects of the A5 in it's standard form.
'Very well setup' varies depending on specific components and gas port sizes, alignment of gas system components, etc..
That said, you should be able to successfully run a heavier buffer with the A5 than with that same carbine system, which could help reduce that felt recoil. I'd suggest maybe picking up the next heavier buffer to re-test. I've installed several, and played with the various weights - we were always able to reduce the felt-recoil in way that was apparent to even the non OCD :D
Even without a reduction of felt-recoil, you are still running a far more reliable system. This has been proven with 10's of thousands of fired rounds side-by-side. Unfortunately, reliability isn't something that is observed/experienced quickly, or readily. The main objective of the A5 system was this reliability enhancement, the secondary objectives being reduced felt-recoil and increased ergonomics (Emod). Remember, this system's original intent is to convert A2/A4 style rifles to collapsible stocks without the inherent carbine system reliability issues.
I have had good success with the A5 in reducing failure to feeds from recent producion over-gassed hk416's and mk262mod1 & optimized. I have noticed a bit less dot jump as well.
Do note you get increased recoil impulse, at some point, with the 416 by going to a heavier buffer.
I think VLTOR makes a few more choices in weighted buffers now & would like to try the full range available.
My results, on cyclic rate, roughly correspond with the below info I was forwarded.
H&K 416/Vltor A5 Stock System Test / Observations
Test Rifle:
H&K 416, 10.5-inch barrel
H&K 416, 14.5-inch barrel
Test Suppressor:
Gem Tech HALO
Test Ammunition:
Lake City M855, Mfg Date 2008
Test Conditions:
Clear, 75 degrees F, 5% humidity
Buffer Types/Weights:
Model Weight Construction
A5 5.3 oz (standard weight with two steel and two tungsten weights)
A5H3 6.1 oz (heavy weight with one steel and three tungsten weights)
A5A4 6.8 oz (heavy weight with four tungsten weights)
Test Data H&K 416 (10.5-inch barrel)
Below are the cycle rates as Rounds Per Minute (RPM) measured on a shot timer for the H&K 416 10.5 inch barrel configuration:
H&K 416 stock spring & buffer (unsuppressed) = 923 RPM
H&K 416 stock spring & buffer (suppressed) = 1106 RPM
H&K 416 A5 Kit (standard weight buffer) (unsuppressed) = 850 RPM
H&K 416 A5 Kit (standard weight buffer) (suppressed) = 1026 RPM
H&K 416 A5H3 Kit (specialty buffer) (unsuppressed) = 801 RPM
H&K 416 A5H3 Kit (specialty buffer) (suppressed) = 1004 RPM
H&K 416 A5H4 Kit (specialty buffer) (unsuppressed) = 774 RPM
H&K 416 A5H4 Kit (specialty buffer) (suppressed) = 973 RPM
Test Conclusions H&K 416 (10.5-inch barrel)
The test data indicates the following:
• The H&K 416 10.5-inch barrel with the stock spring & buffer exhibits a high cycle rate increase when suppressed from 923 RPM to 1106 RPM (+ 179 RPM).
• The A5 Kit (standard weight buffer) decreases the cycle time of the H&K 416 from 923 RPM to 850 RPM (- 73 RPM) unsuppressed and from 1106 RPM to 1026RPM suppressed (- 80 RPM).
• The A5H3 decreases the cycle time of the H&K 416 from 923 RPM to 801 RPM (- 122 RPM) unsuppressed and from 1106 RPM to 10046RPM suppressed (- 102 RPM).
• The A5H4 decreases the cycle time of the H&K 416 from 923 RPM to 774 RPM (- 149 RPM) unsuppressed and from 1106 RPM to 973 RPM suppressed (- 133 RPM).
Test Data H&K 416 (14.5-inch barrel)
Below are the Cycle rates as Rounds Per Minute (RPM) as measured on a shot timer for the H&K 416 14.5 inch barrel configuration:
H&K 416 stock spring & buffer (unsuppressed) = 941 RPM
H&K 416 stock spring & buffer (suppressed) = 1101 RPM
H&K 416 A5 Kit (standard weight buffer) (unsuppressed) = 819 RPM
H&K 416 A5 Kit (standard weight buffer) (suppressed) = 970 RPM
H&K 416 A5H3 Kit (specialty buffer) (unsuppressed) = 801 RPM
H&K 416 A5H3 Kit (specialty buffer) (suppressed) = 939 RPM
H&K 416 A5H4 Kit (specialty buffer) (unsuppressed) = 788 RPM
H&K 416 A5H4 Kit (specialty buffer) (suppressed) = 914 RPM
Test Conclusions H&K 416 (14.5-inch barrel)
The test data indicates the following:
• The H&K 416 14.5-inch barrel with the stock spring & buffer exhibits a high cycle rate increase when suppressed from 941 RPM to 1101 RPM (+ 160 RPM).
• The A5 Kit (standard weight buffer) decreases the cycle time of the H&K 416 from 941 RPM to 819 RPM (- 122 RPM) unsuppressed and from 1101 RPM to 970 RPM suppressed (- 131 RPM).
• The A5H3 specialty buffer decreases the cycle time of the H&K 416 from 941RPM to 801 RPM (- 140 RPM) unsuppressed and from 1101 RPM to 939 RPM suppressed (- 162 RPM).
• The A5H4 specialty buffer decreases the cycle time of the H&K 416 from 941 RPM to 788 RPM (- 153 RPM) unsuppressed and from 1101 RPM to
If you had a very well setup carbine system, you may notice the recoil reducing effects of the A5 in it's standard form.
'Very well setup' varies depending on specific components and gas port sizes, alignment of gas system components, etc..
That said, you should be able to successfully run a heavier buffer with the A5 than with that same carbine system, which could help reduce that felt recoil. I'd suggest maybe picking up the next heavier buffer to re-test. I've installed several, and played with the various weights - we were always able to reduce the felt-recoil in way that was apparent to even the non OCD :D
Even without a reduction of felt-recoil, you are still running a far more reliable system. This has been proven with 10's of thousands of fired rounds side-by-side. Unfortunately, reliability isn't something that is observed/experienced quickly, or readily. The main objective of the A5 system was this reliability enhancement, the secondary objectives being reduced felt-recoil and increased ergonomics (Emod). Remember, this system's original intent is to convert A2/A4 style rifles to collapsible stocks without the inherent carbine system reliability issues.Thanks for the reply phreakish. Again I will stress to anyone reading this thread that I completely understand and agree with the actual intended purpose for the A5 was meant to accomplish and that is a fantastic option or solution for many! I will also say that I am not really that overly concerned about the felt recoil issue but I have to admit that I am that OCD guy who tinkers with EVERYTHING. Why? Well, just because its there and I can. ;)
As much as I don't need to, I must admit that my interest is piqued and I will probably start experimenting with some various combinations and probably not just this particular rifle. If for nothing else, my OCD'ness is going to give you fella's more business. Not that I don't already give you guys a ton of it already. :D
I have had good success with the A5 in reducing failure to feeds from recent producion over-gassed hk416's and mk262mod1 & optimized. I have noticed a bit less dot jump as well.
I think VLTOR makes a few more choices in weighted buffers now & would like to try the full range available.I am right there with you Dano in the thought that I would like to see what happens in various configurations where the rifle is not optimized on the gas system and see what just the A5 set up with varying weighted buffers will do for them.
Interesting to read the results, thanks.
Thanks for the reply phreakish. Again I will stress to anyone reading this thread that I completely understand and agree with the actual intended purpose for the A5 was meant to accomplish and that is a fantastic option or solution for many! I will also say that I am not really that overly concerned about the felt recoil issue but I have to admit that I am that OCD guy who tinkers with EVERYTHING. Why? Well, just because its there and I can. ;)
As much as I don't need to, I must admit that my interest is piqued and I will probably start experimenting with some various combinations and probably not just this particular rifle. If for nothing else, my OCD'ness is going to give you fella's more business. Not that I don't already give you guys a ton of it already. :D
I am right there with you Dano in the thought that I would like to see what happens in various configurations where the rifle is not optimized on the gas system and see what just the A5 set up with varying weighted buffers will do for them.
Interesting to read the results, thanks.
I know you're not nit picking, I just like to cover too much of the info rather than too little - I know not everyone has the attention span to read an entire thread, so for the sake of those that come in late, I tend to repeat myself.
Isn't that the reason we all tinker? Because we CAN. I'm betting that with some more tinkering, you'll find a reduction in recoil that suits you.
Dano: do you remember where that info was from? It looks to match our testing pretty well. The difference with the 416 was like night and day - ours actually works with the same tired mags the rest of our rifles use once the A5 is installed with that heavy buffer.
I wouldn't do it - even if it doesn't bind, that doesn't mean it won't 'take a set' (meaning: yield) and destroy the spring. It would also have a VERY high load at full compression, assuming of course that it has a similar/same spring rate.
This spring alone also wouldn't result in an 'A5 equivalent' due to the internal changes we've made to the buffer itself (and not just the silencing spring). I would guess that bolt bounce would be more significant, or at least counter-recoil would be more significant due to the greater compressed load.
I hear what you are saying. I still need to get some rounds on this spring in my mid-length to see how it performs but it sounds like a promising option.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZQUYGbGmr4&feature=player_embedded
Thomas M-4
01-21-12, 19:33
I hear what you are saying. I still need to get some rounds on this spring in my mid-length to see how it performs but it sounds like a promising option.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZQUYGbGmr4&feature=player_embedded
That video is a joke the round wire spring will never see's coil bind [look for your self were how far they have the spring compressed on the buffer] It can never get that compressed. And for the ejection pattern which is highly debatable doesn't in its self say much my LMT shucks the shell consistently at 4:00 position with an H-buffer with .223 pressure ammo 5.56 pressure it is constant at 3:30 position.
We use a 'mil-spec' spring that conforms to contractual requirements for gov't procurement. Not an 'equivalent'. We've found too many inconsistencies with the 'equivalents'.
Oh good! I almost pissed myself thinking I had some homo CS rainbow spring in my guns.:eek:
SeriousBRD
01-22-12, 15:10
If you had a very well setup carbine system, you may notice the recoil reducing effects of the A5 in it's standard form.
'Very well setup' varies depending on specific components and gas port sizes, alignment of gas system components, etc..
That said, you should be able to successfully run a heavier buffer with the A5 than with that same carbine system, which could help reduce that felt recoil. I'd suggest maybe picking up the next heavier buffer to re-test. I've installed several, and played with the various weights - we were always able to reduce the felt-recoil in way that was apparent to even the non OCD :D
Even without a reduction of felt-recoil, you are still running a far more reliable system. This has been proven with 10's of thousands of fired rounds side-by-side. Unfortunately, reliability isn't something that is observed/experienced quickly, or readily. The main objective of the A5 system was this reliability enhancement, the secondary objectives being reduced felt-recoil and increased ergonomics (Emod). Remember, this system's original intent is to convert A2/A4 style rifles to collapsible stocks without the inherent carbine system reliability issues.
Thanks for all the great info and contributions to this thread. It has been very informative for me. I realize that tinkering & OCD is just what happens in the AR world and it is part of what makes the platform so much fun. For less experienced guys such as myself remembering why a certain product was introduced in the first place is very important to remember before running out to buy said product.
sinlessorrow
01-22-12, 18:25
VLTOR just want to say i love my A5, then again im running a 20" upper
BufordTJustice
02-04-12, 13:36
I'm not a scientist.
BUT, I have been able to detect a tangible difference in felt recoil and the overall movement of the gun after I installed my A5 earlier this week. My wife was also able to tell an immediate difference even though I lied to her about only replacing the stock with an EMOD (She liked the LMT Crane better).
The gun just moves less. Less muzzle rise, less axial 'torquing', less shove into my (or my wife's) shoulder. Have yet to test on weak Russian stuff yet, but I am certain that there is a difference. So is my 115lb 5'04" wife.
Her exact words after firing a few rounds were, "Are you SURE this is full power ammo?" She refused to believe we were shooting my normal NATO pressure M193 till I busted open a fresh box and we shot some rds from that one. It was at that point that she asked me, "So, what did you do to the gun?"
Again, I'm no scientist...it's a sample of 2.....yadda yadda. I'm sold. I ain't rich, but I feel like my monies were well spent on the A5. I dig the EMOD too. Helps balance-out the gun for me.
The wife was extra happy when I told her she was getting the Crane stock for her AR I'm building (she thought she was stuck with an MOE for the time being)...so this was def a win-win for me in terms of quality-of-life. ;)
jonconsiglio
02-04-12, 13:49
My A5's are still running well. Yesterday, while installing an A5 on forum member SAMUSE's Colt 14.5" (since he didn't have the wrench), I decided to run my BCM 14.5" on my Colt lower with a carbine RE and H buffer. I hardly noticed a difference, though it felt more solid with stronger ejection.
So, of all the rifles I've run the A5 on, the 14.5" mid length BCM is the only one that I've decided, for me, that the carbine RE and H buffer is the better choice. If it was a 14.5" BCM with a carbine gas system, I'd stick with the A5.
I'm sure samuse will comment on his rifle, but he said it was a considerable improvement and was glad he made the swap.
I'll continue running mine on all of my other rifles, especially the SBR's. My 10.5" LMT has shown the most improvement.
skullworks
02-04-12, 16:49
Right now I'm kinda pissed at USPS; my STR has not left Chicago since the 20th...
Sent using Tapatalk
BufordTJustice
02-04-12, 18:40
Right now I'm kinda pissed at USPS; my STR has not left Chicago since the 20th...
Sent using Tapatalk
Brother that sucks. You having it shipped to an international address?
Also, you gonna do an AAR once you get it in? I'm interested to hear your thoughts on it. I very nearly ordered one of those instead of an EMOD.
skullworks
02-05-12, 02:35
Brother that sucks. You having it shipped to an international address?
Yup, I have at least two Brownells orders shipped here every month, but this is the first time I've run into a delay like this.
Also, you gonna do an AAR once you get it in? I'm interested to hear your thoughts on it. I very nearly ordered one of those instead of an EMOD.
Probably so.
BufordTJustice
02-05-12, 19:52
Yup, I have at least two Brownells orders shipped here every month, but this is the first time I've run into a delay like this.
Probably so.
3rd quarter superbowl post!
Yeah, I have ordered quite a few things from Brownells and they have always taken really good care of me. That is strange.
skullworks
02-07-12, 11:10
And today, with a completely new tracking number:
http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/7831/strsh.jpg
skullworks
02-07-12, 11:13
Oh, yes the total surpasses the $100 DDTC limit, but I had a 10% X-mas sale discount, so it's all good. :thank_you2:
skullworks
02-07-12, 13:57
Done for now:
http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/1667/magpulstr001.th.jpg (http://img802.imageshack.us/i/magpulstr001.jpg/) = http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/6443/magpulstr022.th.jpg (http://img706.imageshack.us/i/magpulstr022.jpg/)
• The H&K 416 10.5-inch barrel with the stock spring & buffer exhibits a high cycle rate increase when suppressed from 923 RPM to 1106 RPM (+ 179 RPM).
• The H&K 416 14.5-inch barrel with the stock spring & buffer exhibits a high cycle rate increase when suppressed from 941 RPM to 1101 RPM (+ 160 RPM).
Did you use HK tungsten buffer and HK recoil spring in this tests? HK buffer is heavier than standard A5 buffer. I want to put A5 system in my HK and would like to know what can I expect running ligher (A5) buffer in it.
Mark, why do you not like the CS springs?
.....VLTOR makes a middy buffer for the A5 now as well.....
What part number is that?
sinlessorrow
02-09-12, 15:14
Did you use HK tungsten buffer and HK recoil spring in this tests? HK buffer is heavier than standard A5 buffer. I want to put A5 system in my HK and would like to know what can I expect running ligher (A5) buffer in it.
The A5 is more than just a buffer, its the combined package of the RE, spring, and buffer that allows it to work better than the rest
skullworks
02-09-12, 15:34
VLTOR has already stated that the spring is a standard rifle spring though, just so we're all on the same page.
The A5 is more than just a buffer, its the combined package of the RE, spring, and buffer that allows it to work better than the rest
I was asking if HK was used with HK buffer and HK spring for initial measurements of rpm speed. I know what Vltor A5 is.
sinlessorrow
02-09-12, 16:28
I was asking if HK was used with HK buffer and HK spring for initial measurements of rpm speed. I know what Vltor A5 is.
I gotcha, yeah im sure the HK 416 was tested like it comes from HK
Does this system work well with a sbr? or am I better off just sticking with an h2?
sinlessorrow
02-10-12, 15:51
Does this system work well with a sbr? or am I better off just sticking with an h2?
Its very good for sbr's it will slow down cyclic rate and increase dwell time allowing the pressure to go down some
I don't understand why there are so many questions about the same old dilemma of reducing carrier contact speed at rear of receiver for sake of feeling softer vs. loss of potential reliability, the stroke isn't increased by the addition of length for the tube. The only advantage is the extended condition of the buttstock.
The main spring in a firearm is compressed pretty far, this is not good for a spring if you want it to keep its stiffness. Increasing the length so the spring doesn't come as close to its solid height (fully compressed) is the only advantage I see.
*At fully extended, the stock can take more of a wack perpendicular to the axis and would be interesting to see it loaded at that point, I've heard all good of Vltor stocks in tough tests though.
Those flatwire springs suck, I don't think they are all the same length and the thing needs to be thrown in a tumbler for a week to remove the really sharp outer edge of the spring to prevent scraping/gouging. Springco is good stuff.
Increasing the mass of any buffer makes it shoot softer, it also makes it one beat closer to shitting itself with being dirty, weak ammo, or otherwise weak gun ejecting already at 5 with slow rpm.
So any heavy buffer is going to do the shooting soft aspect, if I were testing this I would be concerned about mirroring the carbine performance. The near solid height of the carbine spring provides for a great force to jump from the bolt catch. So full magazines on bolt catch would be the test. I have a massive test magazine that will very clearly do a fully loaded bolt catch drop on carbine but not full length stock systems.
The only software I have seen for springs are simple. If you work with spring designers they have more advanced software, flatwound springs are an entire different ballgame. Springs are ideally linear with force except near the runout conditions of solid height and free length.
So there is no way you cannot mimic the A5 shooting with a change in your existing system:
1)You can get a buffer so heavy your gun can't cycle in the already used envelope of the standard tube. So you can certainly get one that lets the carrier get really really close to the rear of the receiver, or maybe letting the elastomer just barely touch.
2)You can get a stronger spring, or weaker spring inside the envelope of the tube of the standard.
*buffer and mass*
potential and kinetic energy
When the bg is at full rear stroke, its energy is all in potential and is calculated by the spring and mass. You need ample mass to provide enough momentum to get cartridges from magazines. So as you go from very light to very heavy you will find a point where the spring eventually just can't do crap with the heavy mass. There is also so light you're just not delivering enough momentum.
I've been on designs of belt feeds, and other high cap systems and you always want more energy than a traditional AR, Belts hold rounds tightly, you've gotta wack them out, big mags have more force and you can't have something that will peter out on you. The farther you get away the wierder things get. H2 + new spring is the best thing going for nearly everything.
I like the PWS system with a pad at the rear of the tube.
Pigtails and Fatboy tubes do what most of you are describing, or even an H3. Has anyone that has tested this ever tested a FERFRANS system, I know it isn't even remotely the same but I like its merits.
sinlessorrow
02-10-12, 17:48
Well armatac, im glad u know more than VLTOR
I would not get the A5 because once you shoot it you'll want one for your other ARs they are kind of like Doritos.
Well armatac, im glad u know more than VLTOR
I do not see a word against VLTOR design in armatac's post. But it may be my poor English. But I see arguments against randomly putting "magic springs" and "super-duper heavy buffers" in carbine tube to "emulate" A5.
sinlessorrow
02-11-12, 13:28
I do not see a word against VLTOR design in armatac's post. But it may be my poor English. But I see arguments against randomly putting "magic springs" and "super-duper heavy buffers" in carbine tube to "emulate" A5.
unless im reading it wrong, hes basicaly saying you can take a H3 buffer and a stronger spring and it will give you the A5 system?
BufordTJustice
02-11-12, 14:26
From Phreakish's post (#183) on page 10 of this thread:
"This spring alone also wouldn't result in an 'A5 equivalent' due to the internal changes we've made to the buffer itself (and not just the silencing spring). I would guess that bolt bounce would be more significant, or at least counter-recoil would be more significant due to the greater compressed load. "
Also see this post:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=1190419&postcount=149
And this post:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=1190545&postcount=154
It is abundantly clear that one cannot replicate the A5 system using a carbine receiver extension.
I've experimented with all springco springs (White, Blue, Red), H->H3 buffers, and I actually bought a SS buffer from Heavy buffers (with 3 internal tungsten weights, it weighs 7.1oz).
I now have the A5 and I can tell you definitively that the A5 does things that the above carbine combos DO NOT do. I tried to get this level of performance in a carbine RE...it's just not possible.
Either with recoil reduction OR with reliability.
Example, the HB dot net SS buffer with 2 internal tungsten weights weighed 6.5oz. Using this with a Springco Blue spring meant I would not be able to reliably cycle almost any type of .223 pressure ammo. NATO pressure was fine. However, I have been able to run the Vltor A5H3 6.1oz buffer and A5H4 6.85oz buffer on ALL ammo types and 100% reliability. And the A5 system still manages to shoot noticeably smoother even running with the lighter 6.1oz buffer. I even think the stock ~5.4oz A5 buffer was smoother than any other buffer setup in a carbine RE.
I personally deviate from most reviewers in that I am now running the A5H4 buffer with 100% reliability, like Andrew over at Vuurwapen Blog. However, both he and I are using NiB carriers.
I can tell you that the A5H4 setup is a revelation. I am familiar with the laws of physics and of the law of energy conservation. However when my petite little wife shoots my gun with the A5, SHE just doesn't move as much. And boy does she notice this as well. :)
I think vltor makes the greatest gear. I didn't mean to be anti vltor by any means. I had really never read into the a5 and was hoping vltor came out with the mass adjustible buffer.
I think this system has merit because a spring has more room so it can operate in the normal stroke with appropriate force and not approach solid height which is harmful to spring life. I think more main springs are run past their limits and their limits are lower than they seem.
If there was significant statistical evidence on accuracy increase I am sure its related directly to mass increase and spring pre-load.
if you can take the mass of the bc and the total mass of the buffer and have a bc and buffer with same mass without some of it reciprocating internally,and capable of FA without bolt bounce you have improved the ar.
If you increased the stroke, ultimax once again, you'll see great advantages.
John_Burns
02-15-12, 21:05
I have the A-5 on my goto carbine and it is the most forgiving collapsible stock AR I have ever seen as to ammo and operation conditions such as hot to cold temps. Runs anything you can fit in the magazines.
Not only do you get to use the rifle weight buffer but the spring preload is higher with the A-5.
Keep in mind the gas hits the carrier sooner with the carbine or middy system vs the rifle system and the heavier buffer combined with the increased spring preload keeps the carrier in battery longer and this is a good thing.
Once the bolt carrier is in the feeding part of the cycle the increased mass helps overcome resistance from a dirty gun and ensures the round will be fully seated in the chamber and the carrier will return to battery.
While I would not say the A-5 will cure acne it is an improved system over the standard carbine setup in reducing cyclic rate and increasing reliability over a broad spectrum of operating conditions and ammunition.
sinlessorrow
04-03-12, 18:23
figured i would post this for those to see the insides of the buffer
A5 buffer, 5.33oz. 2 tungsten, 2 steel.
http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa273/SinlesSorrow/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_3584.jpg
I got mine the other day and wanted to put it on my Sr15 but I cannot get the castle nut loose so I put in on one of my other lowers. Now just to get to the range and try it out.
I believe that KAC puts Loc-Tite on there so you will have to apply low heat and loosen it first.
I got mine the other day and wanted to put it on my Sr15 but I cannot get the castle nut loose so I put in on one of my other lowers. Now just to get to the range and try it out.
Ahh, thanks, I'll have to try that.
I believe that KAC puts Loc-Tite on there so you will have to apply low heat and loosen it first.
They didn't loctite any of the three that I have owned.
I think someone else reported it or had it happen.
They didn't loctite any of the three that I have owned.
militarymoron
04-05-12, 10:08
my KAC SR-15 M4 lower had loctite on the receiver extension and castle nut from the factory.
Exiledviking
04-06-12, 12:44
FWIW, I have had good results using acetone to loosen up Loctite. That was on the blue loctite and if recall correctly that is what Loctite recommends.
From what I understand, and witnessed on my SR-15, is that all of the regular 16'' SR-15's of recent production do not have loctite. If I remember right, only a certain run of some type had the loctite. My castle nut was torqued properly, very tight and required a little muscle to get it to break loose and then turned freely. I could see how someone might think it had loctite. I bet that it does not.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.