Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 63

Thread: A5 Annecdotes backed up with something other than "Feel"?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    9,246
    Feedback Score
    28 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Noodles View Post
    I like brass location, because it's objective. No amount of of buyers remorse or excited unscientific new toy giddiness forcing me to "feel" a difference can fake where the brass is landing. It's either all over the place, in the same place, or in two completely different places suppressed or not. It's not a great indicator, but it's one that everyone has the tools to record in an unbiased fashion if they choose to look at it.
    If you are looking at erratic ejection then I am more inclined to agree with you. My issue with the ejection pattern thing is when people try to diagnose by departure/pile direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by orionz06 View Post
    I like to pair *good* testing data with actual use. The problem is we see so much bad testing or bad tests that it is often useless to bother with many of the threads.
    Preach it brother.
    Jack Leuba
    Director, Military and Government Sales
    Knight's Armament Company
    jleuba@knightarmco.com

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    149
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    Did it ever occur to you to read the A5 thread that is probably over 30 pages? Though I suppose that everyone who had something good to say was probably full of shit in your eyes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Noodles View Post
    I looked over that thread, then started this one. Do you have any metrics or interesting annecdotes that are objective and on topic?
    Quote Originally Posted by Noodles View Post
    I would rather see some data. The whole idea above that "it's just better, you dot need data" is insane to me. I am a researcher, it does not compute to me.

    The A5 could be great, but I would like something better than someone's subjective opinion of feel. Do you want to see proof or listen to fanboys and haters?

    Well it took me all of 58 seconds (I timed it) to go back to that A-5 thread and find real cyclic rate data. I copied the post to the bottom of this post. You might want to practice up on your researching abilities or maybe you could actually read the thread instead of just look it over.

    I have a little over 10K on my A-5 and there are a few other things I like beyond lack of bolt bounce and consistency between full power 5.56 and cheaper .223 practice ammo.

    I like that the extension is slightly longer. This means you have more extension in the stock when you extend the stock to shooting LOP. This adds strength to the joint and reduces the wobble at the joint.

    Another point is that Vltor unquestionably makes good stuff. If you have to buy a receiver extension you know that they have not skimped on material selection and it will be properly manufactured. Having seen a receiver extension break at the thread relief from a fellow trying to mortar a stuck case out of the chamber I like to know my personal extensions are top of the line.

    Not sure I would replace a carbine extension on a gun that was running great but with all the data out there I will always choose the A-5 if I need to buy an extension. The difference in cost between a good quality carbine extension, spring, H2 buffer and the A-5 setup is pretty minimal.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dano5326 View Post
    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

  3. #43
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas
    Posts
    2,251
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Noodles View Post
    I like brass location, because it's objective. No amount of of buyers remorse or excited unscientific new toy giddiness forcing me to "feel" a difference can fake where the brass is landing. It's either all over the place, in the same place, or in two completely different places suppressed or not. It's not a great indicator, but it's one that everyone has the tools to record in an unbiased fashion if they choose to look at it.

    Adding the suppressor makes little difference is actually a helpful statement. It's still feel, but I know that adding a silencer to an SBR can make a big and truly noticeable change. It's a better comment than something like softer shooting, because really, we're talking 556 here. The difference in already soft recoil to softer recoil can only be subtle at best.
    The location in terms of distance like I mentioned in my last post, yes. The clock location means very little on its own. If its ejecting to 1 o'clock then 4 o'clock on the next round, then I can see that as an indicator that you may need to look into. But, two identical rifles both ejecting consistent piles at 7 feet, but one at 2 o'clock and one at 4 o'clock would mean little on its own.

    I noticed with my 14.5" using a lighter A5 that the empty case never contacted the shell deflector, but switching to the H and carbine RE, it did. Both were consistent in their ejection, so it's not a concern.
    Proven combat techniques may not be flashy and may require a bit more physical effort on the part of the shooter. Further, they may not win competition matches, but they will help ensure your survival in a shooting or gunfight on the street. ~ Paul Howe

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    110
    Feedback Score
    0
    the data would back up the shooting feel, it would also support the fact that you can achieve the same kinematics in the normal tube length with matched mass and spring.

    I really think that some people might mis-understand the differences in the full length rifle vs carbine and by some wierd association think this is somehow a step in that direction, kind of like a mid-length gas system except that is a step in the right direction because it is actually changing a parameter of the system. If this was a magic step, why is rifle length with same buffer mass and spring constant not an even better one? It is either the mass, the spring rate, that extra length on the tube I would bet doesn't do that much except extend spring life.

    The data collection on the test will have to be good, because if it is changing the spring rates near the end of the stroke only that will have to be sampled at a high frequency by maybe video to pick up acc/vel changes.

    accuracy increase is also claimed, but again I think that may be how it seems, and if it is so, then that would truly shock me. (must also test against heavy buffer and its correlation with increase in accuracy due to......)

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    110
    Feedback Score
    0

    ejection

    I consider my guns slightly underpowered when not hitting the deflector, they shoot awesome and soft, the brass goes back like and M60, it is the best when its good. But over lots of shooting, maybe just in ammo variation, but in extended full auto you will "hear" a slight change in the cadence, and sometimes I am sitting with a bolt just sitting behind a cartridge that didn't have the energy to get the round all the way in(because it had a slightly short stroke). If you're shooting until you're lube is gone you'll have more and more problems it seems to me if you're not atleast using the little piece on the buffer as a spring to rebound some energy(not too much obviously).

    Very Very tight line, I think most are not like me and don't have issues with that area of ejection. But I named it "DEAD MAN'S LAND". I need to post a video but I compiled some shooting with every type of thing and you get to see the ejections and how the dead man's land can get into an issue.



    Quote Originally Posted by jonconsiglio View Post
    The location in terms of distance like I mentioned in my last post, yes. The clock location means very little on its own. If its ejecting to 1 o'clock then 4 o'clock on the next round, then I can see that as an indicator that you may need to look into. But, two identical rifles both ejecting consistent piles at 7 feet, but one at 2 o'clock and one at 4 o'clock would mean little on its own.

    I noticed with my 14.5" using a lighter A5 that the empty case never contacted the shell deflector, but switching to the H and carbine RE, it did. Both were consistent in their ejection, so it's not a concern.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,397
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by John_Burns View Post
    Well it took me all of 58 seconds (I timed it) to go back to that A-5 thread and find real cyclic rate data.
    Yea, thanks I've seen that plenty. And when I talked about it in another thread was accused of cherry picking data. And then how a 10.5" 416 is a completely different weapon than a 10.5 AR (yea... Ar pattern, 556, 10.5"... completely different alright).

    If you read my original post, I'm looking for info on how it effects DI guns in SBR and SPR styles. I am sold that it lowers the cyclic rate on the 416. I am looking to see if it reduces rpm and increases dwell time enough that there is an obvious advantage to using the A5 system suppressed.

    It's very like to follow the 416 numbers since they aren't "completely different weapons" but I'd like to see that test run with the Mk18 and Mk12 before I jump all over the A5-bandwagon.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Way out!
    Posts
    154
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    [QUOTE=armatac;1258306]the data would back up the shooting feel, it would also support the fact that you can achieve the same kinematics in the normal tube length with matched mass and spring./[quote}

    Are you stating that it is possible to make a carbine length spring that would absolutely duplicate the operating characteristics of a rifle length spring? If so, why hasn't someone done so, paired it with an H3 carbine buffer, undersold Vltor's A5, and made a fortune?

    [QUOTE=armatac;1258306]If this was a magic step, why is rifle length with same buffer mass and spring constant not an even better one? It is either the mass, the spring rate, that extra length on the tube I would bet doesn't do that much except extend spring life./[QUOTE]

    I guess I'm dense, but exactly what are you trying to say here?

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    149
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Noodles View Post
    It's very like to follow the 416 numbers since they aren't "completely different weapons" but I'd like to see that test run with the Mk18 and Mk12 before I jump all over the A5-bandwagon.
    You want someone else to run an independent test involving 10 of thousands if not 100s of thousands of rounds in enough guns to have a valid sample before you “jump on the bandwagon” for a $100 buffer system.

    Does that seem realistic?

    Let’s look at this another way, if the $100 for a high quality extension/spring/buffer seems expensive put it in the context of ammo. $100 is 20 boxes of 20 rounds or 400 rnds. Pretty easy to use that up in a good day of practice.

    If you are on a budget then I suggest the 400 rounds.

    If you do not own a shooting timer then spending the $100 on a timer will do way more for your split times than switching a carbine extension for the A-5 in a gun that is running.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Noodles View Post
    Yea, thanks I've seen that plenty. And when I talked about it in another thread was accused of cherry picking data. And then how a 10.5" 416 is a completely different weapon than a 10.5 AR (yea... Ar pattern, 556, 10.5"... completely different alright).

    If you read my original post, I'm looking for info on how it effects DI guns in SBR and SPR styles. I am sold that it lowers the cyclic rate on the 416. I am looking to see if it reduces rpm and increases dwell time enough that there is an obvious advantage to using the A5 system suppressed.

    It's very like to follow the 416 numbers since they aren't "completely different weapons" but I'd like to see that test run with the Mk18 and Mk12 before I jump all over the A5-bandwagon.
    Di or piston, it makes no difference.

    The A5 reduces the cyclic rate and increases dwell time of both pistons and DI rifles.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    110
    Feedback Score
    0
    [QUOTE=M90A1;1258350][QUOTE=armatac;1258306]the data would back up the shooting feel, it would also support the fact that you can achieve the same kinematics in the normal tube length with matched mass and spring./[quote}

    Are you stating that it is possible to make a carbine length spring that would absolutely duplicate the operating characteristics of a rifle length spring? If so, why hasn't someone done so, paired it with an H3 carbine buffer, undersold Vltor's A5, and made a fortune?

    [QUOTE=armatac;1258306]If this was a magic step, why is rifle length with same buffer mass and spring constant not an even better one? It is either the mass, the spring rate, that extra length on the tube I would bet doesn't do that much except extend spring life./

    I guess I'm dense, but exactly what are you trying to say here?
    what I am saying is what I said, you can take anything that involves a mass and a spring that only returns said mass over the stroke of 3 3/4 of the AR and match it with another identical mass(both static and dynamic in the case of a buffer with internal weights) called something else, and with identical spring rates you are going to have the same response to excitation. If the H3 matched the A5 buffer in its body and internal weight mass, then your spring would have to match the A5 in preload and spring constant. Then you have identical systems-identical. Who cares if the stock tube is longer, you can run that baby out to China becuase it doesn't do much of anything except help the life of the spring.

    If extending the spring tube did something truly profound, the full length kit would do it better, so if you wanted to create the ultimate configuration based on this logic you would find a spring that is as long as the rifle spring but much stronger and preloads to the condition of the A5 carbine, and run a buffer close to the A5 mass. The bolt carrier doesn't know anything besides the mass its moving and the spring resistance and since its only effected by those 2 things for the given stroke distance there is really no point in extending it.


    Max Atchisson and others have tried true attempts but spring and mass change in the distance allowed has been certainly been done in nearly every imaginable shape.

    http://www.google.com/patents?id=eAQ...page&q&f=false

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •