I think the HK416 cyclic data quoted above is quite good, and while it's not on a DI there's absolutely no reason to think that the results would differ in trend on a DI setup.
Two ideas for relatively low cost, relatively objective testing:
1) High-speed video an experienced shooter using the same upper on otherwise identical lowers, one with a carbine setup and one with the A5. Analyze the muzzle rise and visible recoil and determine any difference.
2) Have an experienced shooter run several standardized drills using the same upper on otherwise identical lowers, one with a carbine setup and one with the A5. Compare the split times when using the two different setups. (This doesn't directly measure mechanical effectiveness, but is an excellent indicator of real-world usefulness.)
As for me? I tried the A5 system on a lower build, since it cost only about $30 more than the quality carbine parts I would otherwise use. I have video of me shooting it in which the muzzle basically stays flat, using a lightweight upper with a non-compensating device (a phantom). In fact it stays about as flat as when running a comp on a carbine-buffer-equipped lower. Felt recoil is different - not necessarily less, but different. I was skeptical but for a trivial cost increase on a new assembly I think it's worthwhile. Of course I would also like some objective data.




Bookmarks