Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Mid-length upper on a rifle lower?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    43
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    I finally put together my rifle, a Noveske Chainsaw Gen 2 lower, Fulton Armory A1 stock with rifle tube, rifle buffer and spring, and the Spikes 14.5 mid-length upper. I took it to the range on Sunday to sight it in and test function, and shot 60 rounds of PMC 223 through it slow-fire with only one feeding/extraction incident. But what an incident it was. The fired case did not extract. The new round was halfway forced in the chamber. The charging handle would not budge. I ended up having to use an aluminum rod and mallet to force back the bolt and clear the jam. At this point I am going to just keep shooting 223 and 5.56 though it and see how things go. I don't think there is anything you could do with a rifle buffer (7 steel weights) short of removing one of the steel weights. I suspect I am going to have to make a wood dowel spacer to put in the tube, and go with a carbine spring and buffer. We shall see. As always, any suggestions would be appreciated.
    Last edited by Lunker; 08-27-12 at 09:35.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Land of Lincoln (Illinois)
    Posts
    402
    Feedback Score
    0
    I run a 16" Noveske mid-length upper on an A2 with no problems.
    By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest. - Confucius

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    43
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by lifebreath View Post
    I run a 16" Noveske mid-length upper on an A2 with no problems.
    Thanks. It makes me think that extra 1.5" of dwell time you have is significant.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    27,217
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lunker View Post
    Thanks. It makes me think that extra 1.5" of dwell time you have is significant.
    The extra 1.5 is ALL THE DIFFERENCE in the world.

    not even comparible to the 14.5. You need to have every part just right to run a rifle buffer reliablely.

    I just got through changing the gas tube on my 14.5 middy. The part the tube that the gas key slides over was .010" too narrow and it was giving my carbine lock back fits. I could see a lot of carbon fouling on the tube forward of the upper receiver.

    No misfeeds, but almost constant failures to lock back. My 14.5 BCM middy will run a rifle buffer system as long as I'm not losing gas ANYWHERE in the system. It's borderline... and H buffer is optimal.
    Last edited by markm; 08-27-12 at 11:37.
    "You people have too much time on your hands." - scottryan

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    43
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Do you mean an H buffer with the rifle spring? Thanks.

    Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    27,217
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lunker View Post
    Do you mean an H buffer with the rifle spring? Thanks.

    Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2
    No. An H buffer should not be used with a rifle spring.

    They do make a spacer for the rifle buffer tube.... and the 14.5 middy is the only acceptable reason to deploy it. In all other cases, the rifle buffer is the more reliable system.
    "You people have too much time on your hands." - scottryan

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    43
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by markm View Post
    No. An H buffer should not be used with a rifle spring.

    They do make a spacer for the rifle buffer tube.... and the 14.5 middy is the only acceptable reason to deploy it. In all other cases, the rifle buffer is the more reliable system.
    Thanks. I wanted to be sure.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    3,459
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lunker View Post
    Thanks. It makes me think that extra 1.5" of dwell time you have is significant.
    It depends on how the gas port was designed. If it's designed for minimal cyclic rate with a carbine buffer the rifle system may cause issues.

    The 14.5" mid length can be reliable with any set up, if it's designed for it.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    27,217
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd.K View Post
    It depends on how the gas port was designed. If it's designed for minimal cyclic rate with a carbine buffer the rifle system may cause issues.

    The 14.5" mid length can be reliable with any set up, if it's designed for it.
    This is true. I've even seen a 16" upper with a rifle gas system that worked using a .090" port.
    "You people have too much time on your hands." - scottryan

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Land of Lincoln (Illinois)
    Posts
    402
    Feedback Score
    0
    If you can't cycle reliably with the standard rifle buffer, you could use the JP Enterprises low-mass buffer, which is 3 oz (equivalent to carbine buffer). If you still can't cycle, you could try the JP low-mass bolt carrier, which would knock off another 2.5 oz. However, the forward assist will not be operative with their bolt carrier.
    Last edited by lifebreath; 08-27-12 at 13:04.
    By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest. - Confucius

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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
  •