|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
and ultimately the problem with those videos is that guys who can't successfully complete a 1/2 & 1/2 drill are worrying about bolt carrier bounce. Which isn't to say that's the case with the video author, or the person who posted it, but if the OP can't come up with some metrics for his current performance and how he thinks that worrying about bolt bounce is going to help him, there is probably little point in all of this.
Perfect. Thanks for answering that for me. And no, it wouldn't. Just the time it took to get there (a crazy short amount of time) and given the rates of free-fall, would be insignificant as a separate "event". I'm only saying that because in your example you are saying there are two impacts as I'm reading it.
I asked you your perception of your understanding of physics, not to be dick, but to see at what reasoning led you to such an odd statement ("It is a neat idea until you realize that the weight inside can be floating in air and not "engaged" so to speak and effectively have too little active mass to do what the buffer is supposed to do.").
I'll use the elevator analogy if you don't mind. When asked about it you replied that you could lessen the force if you jump at the end. The issue here is if the BUFFER is the elevator car, the TUNGSTEN/WEIGHTS is you, then the GROUND has to be the end of the carrier. You took that question and looked at from the perspective of the force upon YOU (weights/media), when really you would be concerned with the force on the GROUND (carrier).
In that case, NO. Jumping right before the end of the fall does not change the force on the GROUND (carrier). If you were to jump you would both be accelerating the elevator shaft downwards and yourself up equally. The result is that while you could (infinitesimally) reduce the impact on YOU, you accelerated the elevator car (buffer) in the opposite direction. Making the net impact on the ground (carrier) the exact same. You're all falling and unless you can jettison mass, the force will not change.
That brings me to a quick smart-ass question... Did your Spikes buffer leak it's powder out during use?
Being serious again... The powder inside the Spikes buffer can not "Jump" it can also not "be engaged" as mass at any point. What you are thinking is that since it's "floating" around, that at some point it is weightless and does not count as "mass". This is absolutely incorrect. The part I'll concede with you on is that during the instant the spring stops the buffer there is a moment that the powder is traveling from one end of the buffer to the other (full back on the carrier) the recoil impulse will change but the net force will not. This modified impulse is why HK carriers are filled with Tungsten, same with dead-shot hammers.
I'm not saying the Spikes product is good. I have one, and while it's never given me any issues and I saw it work under highspeed and this particular example had no more bounce than an H2 we were using, I wouldn't buy one again. I'm not saying they don't have the potential for more bolt bounce. I'm just saying that why you think it's not working is not really why it's not working.
Last edited by Noodles; 04-25-12 at 12:27.
I did not say you could lessen the force on impact, you could alter the impulse.
There would be two impacts in the elevator analogy. First the car and then the person. The net force once both bodies were stopped would be the same though the impulse would be different as there would be 2 possible impacts, the car and the person, say 2000# and then 200# or a net 2200# force. Since the bolt/carrier/buffer/spring all act as a system and altering this weight and spring force can have negative impacts and the buffer was constructed to allow a variation in weight, though small, issues did arise (mainly feed). My issue with it appeared to be slowing of the bolt as it stripped the round off the top, other buffers did not exhibit this behavior.If I were to jump just before impact the impulse of the impact would be altered as there is less mass initially slamming on the ground.
The Spikes buffer I used felt to be half full of powder thus allowing it to float. If that is not how they are intended to be then the one I had that was bad and my thoughts based on that do not translate to a proper ST-T2.
My thoughts were that the half full powder was floating and while the net impact would be the same under rapid fire the inconsistent weight that was overcome to intiate movement was varying as some of the powder was floating. Once it reached one end or the other it would act as a normal buffer. And again, if the intent was for it to be full my statements do not apply to the ST-T2 as a whole, just the one I had in my possesion.
If they are supposed to be full and the powder cannot shake I see little difference to the consumer and possibly a lower cost to the manufacturer.
Ok, the impulse is SUPPOSED to be different though. That's the HK and hammer references I added. Spikes will tell you this I'm sure. The idea is that the amount of time we're talking between particle sorting of the powder and the time difference of "full force" to be applied should be so small it can be discounted.
In the elevotar example, you can't use 2000 and 200. You can use 2100 and 100 or 2200 and 0 or whatever. Since when you jump you are accelerating the car in the opposite direction as yourself. I'll just state again this is for reference as I don't see how the tungsten can "jump" anywhere.
My ST2 buffer seems to me, just guessing here, to be about 80-90% full. There is a little shake in there, but really not that much. I wonder if you did get a bad one?
That's the thing though... The powder is only floating at one point in the cycle. The point at which the direction of the buffer changes. In the full back position. There is that moment where all the mass is packed against the carrier side of the buffer, the spring compresses and then all the powder moves to the stock side of the buffer. It "shouldn't" ever be floating other than this one time. This is the weightless moment but it's very brief and the spring is doing all the work at that point. Shouldn't effect anything during the rest of the cycle.
Yea, I don't know... Perhaps they have awful quality control. I'm less than pleased with their mil-spec parts I bought years ago before I knew better. But, the tungsten idea is solid. Afaik, all the HK carriers in rifles and smgs have been tungsten filled from the 50's to today. And fwiw, my MP5 carrier does have a little shake to it (very tiny though).
Without having it in hand and having never taken it apart I would guess no more than 60% full for me. Without having it in front of me now my thoughts then were that once the carrier hit the top round and it met resistance the mass of tungsten powder moved forward while that was happening the carrier slowed enough to cause an issue. If it were more full, even 80-90% I would see this not happening. I have never handled any of the HK stuff but I imagine none of them are half full and if they are the weight otherwise is more significant than the ST-T2.
I wouldn't suspect "that" much force from the top round... It would be interesting to see bolt bounce with the spikes part under highspeed when chambering a round, vs closing on an empty chamber. If only one bounces then that would be interesting.
Either way, the "idea" of the tungsten is that even if it hits a bump in the road on the way, it barrels through it because of the increased mass of the dense tungsten.
One thing I'd have to look into to comment more about is that I do know the density of tungsten powder is less than a tungsten puck for the same volume (of course) but tungsten shot is far less than both, I have no idea what size shot/powder Spikes is using vs HK. I suppose overall weight is what we're going for here though.
Last edited by Noodles; 04-25-12 at 13:01.
Yes, the mass is there to have the inertia to power through the stripping and chambering. I suppose if we took a standard buffer, empty, and then one with partial powder or one ball we could see what happens. I'm not gonna buy a Spikes to find out.
Would not a smoother, flatter, faster shooting rifle help ANYBODY no matter their skill? Would strapping an SRB from the space shuttle on a car make the driver faster no matter the drivers ability to win the indy 500? My performance is sufficient. There. I said it. Now, can you just answer the question about whether an extra power spring would solve the issue of the gun failing to feed? Or should I post my SAT, ASVAB and DLAB scores before you will allow yourself to speak english to me? I'm not trying to get personal here, but you posted a thread asking the same general questions about a "go faster" gun and you somehow find it acceptable to crap in my thread. Answer the intended question or don't.
Everybody behave, please.
Stop trying to play Sheriff, yourselves. The Report Post button is thataway---------->
Contractor scum, AAV
Bookmarks