Page 9 of 25 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 245

Thread: What buffer are you running in your middie?

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,474
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by tehpwnag3
    Just clarify, the ST-T2 is in between H and H2. My two samples weighed 4.0 and 4.1 ounces. I've seen them weighed as low as 3.8 ounces which is standard carbine territory. After watching the high-speed video of how they still allow some bolt bounce, I no longer use them in favor of a H or H2 buffer.
    Something that's always bothered me about that high speed vuurwhapen blog test video is that the ST-T2 they used was out of spec, weighing only 3.8oz. instead of the 4.1oz. (if memory serves) it's supposed to. Why they decided to do the test with an out of spec piece of equipment, that subsequently did not function very well (big surprise?) instead of sending it back and getting/using an in spec ST-T2 is beyond me and the resulting damning of the product should instead be a damning of the test first and foremost IMO.

    I am an ST-T2 user, I have weighed it (4.1 oz. as it should be), and have had no problems with it or the rifle it is in.

    Though, to be completely fair, I have not set up my own high speed video side by side comparison with multiple guns and buffers test, so I must admit to having only anecdotal evidence of credible performance at best

    ETA: For the record, I am in no way shape or form advocating that anyone/everyone should use an ST-T2. I am only stating that I have yet to perceive any problems with the use of my ST-T2 that would warrent it's replacement by a standard weighted type of buffer. I also wonder why people that have switched out their ST-T2s for standard weighted buffers did so if the only reason was because of the results of the (faulty) video test.
    Last edited by ColtSeavers; 03-03-14 at 18:18.

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northeast MS.
    Posts
    460
    Feedback Score
    0
    I caught the same thing (wrong weight) and also ignored the results of the faulty test video and run the ST-T2 in all of my rifles. They function perfectly.
    I have no idea why they would run the test with an out of spec piece of equipment.
    Last edited by eperk; 03-03-14 at 20:36.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,065
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ColtSeavers View Post
    Something that's always bothered me about that high speed vuurwhapen blog test video is that the ST-T2 they used was out of spec, weighing only 3.8oz. instead of the 4.1oz. (if memory serves) it's supposed to. Why they decided to do the test with an out of spec piece of equipment, that subsequently did not function very well (big surprise?) instead of sending it back and getting/using an in spec ST-T2 is beyond me and the resulting damning of the product should instead be a damning of the test first and foremost IMO.

    I am an ST-T2 user, I have weighed it (4.1 oz. as it should be), and have had no problems with it or the rifle it is in.

    Though, to be completely fair, I have not set up my own high speed video side by side comparison with multiple guns and buffers test, so I must admit to having only anecdotal evidence of credible performance at best

    ETA: For the record, I am in no way shape or form advocating that anyone/everyone should use an ST-T2. I am only stating that I have yet to perceive any problems with the use of my ST-T2 that would warrent it's replacement by a standard weighted type of buffer. I also wonder why people that have switched out their ST-T2s for standard weighted buffers did so if the only reason was because of the results of the (faulty) video test.
    Hey Colt,

    I, too, noticed the discrepancy. However, I am not sure how much difference .3oz is going to make. The H buffer is spec'd at 3.7oz and it subjectively did a better job of mitigating bolt bounce in the video.

    Speaking to your curiosity about swapping out the buffer due to the video, I'm guilty of that. The performance just didn't sit right with me. Granted, I am not using it in a full auto weapon, so maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I do see bolt bounce as being undesirable, especially in a weapon I would reach for if things went tits up. Had I not seen the video, I would probably be none the wiser but, as with their logo, once you see it, you cannot un-see it.

    Full disclosure: I do have another 16" middy with a ST-T2 still in it. It runs just fine with it's FN CHF barrel. This is not my primary, so I'm not as worried. I REALLY want to like the product. It's well made, looks great, and the concept is innovative (H&K). But, if that dog doesn't hunt....

    I guess at the end of the day, you all should run what you prefer best.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    616
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by markm View Post
    Yep... they're still slow to get a clue. rsilvers did the math and the H2 is closest one can get to the Rifle system within the constraints of the Carbine action spring and RE.

    An H is a huge leap forward from a carbine buffer, but the H2 is still better than that on a carbine with the correct gas port... and the Mathematically (not subjective) correct answer.... assuming you agree that the rifle buffer system is optimal.
    Oh, I completely agree. I was referring to a mid-length since that's what the guy was talking about buying. I have a 16" Carbine that I have ran with a H3 and stock spring or the H2 with a Red Sprinco. I couldn't get her to hold the bolt back when using low powered ammo along with the H3 and Red spring so I settled with the H2 and Red Sprinco. That combo felt pretty good and cycled everything I fed it.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    AZ-Waging jihad against crappy AR's.
    Posts
    24,902
    Feedback Score
    104 (100%)
    People probably switched because they realized that there is no real benefit to using a powdered tungsten buffer as opposed to a correctly made Creed Monarch buffer. I know some companies actually weight their buffers when they come in and send the ones back that do not meet the spec.

    Quote Originally Posted by ColtSeavers View Post
    Something that's always bothered me about that high speed vuurwhapen blog test video is that the ST-T2 they used was out of spec, weighing only 3.8oz. instead of the 4.1oz. (if memory serves) it's supposed to. Why they decided to do the test with an out of spec piece of equipment, that subsequently did not function very well (big surprise?) instead of sending it back and getting/using an in spec ST-T2 is beyond me and the resulting damning of the product should instead be a damning of the test first and foremost IMO.

    I am an ST-T2 user, I have weighed it (4.1 oz. as it should be), and have had no problems with it or the rifle it is in.

    Though, to be completely fair, I have not set up my own high speed video side by side comparison with multiple guns and buffers test, so I must admit to having only anecdotal evidence of credible performance at best

    ETA: For the record, I am in no way shape or form advocating that anyone/everyone should use an ST-T2. I am only stating that I have yet to perceive any problems with the use of my ST-T2 that would warrent it's replacement by a standard weighted type of buffer. I also wonder why people that have switched out their ST-T2s for standard weighted buffers did so if the only reason was because of the results of the (faulty) video test.



    Owner/Instructor at Semper Paratus Arms

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SemperParatusArms/

    Semper Paratus Arms AR15 Armorer Course http://www.semperparatusarms.com/cou...-registration/

    M4C Misc. Training and Course Announcements- http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=141

    Master Armorer/R&D at SIONICS Weapon Systems- http://sionicsweaponsystems.com

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NN, VA
    Posts
    2,177
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    I think that they (VWB) used the 3.8 oz buffer because Spikes was willing to send it out the door at 3.8 oz...

    If they're (Spikes) willing to have a 7% variance and still ship product out the door, then that is what you should expect from the product.
    "SEND IT" happens to be my trigger words...

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,474
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by _Stormin_ View Post
    I think that they (VWB) used the 3.8 oz buffer because Spikes was willing to send it out the door at 3.8 oz...

    If they're (Spikes) willing to have a 7% variance and still ship product out the door, then that is what you should expect from the product.
    This makes absolutely no sense. None. If a company states the specs for a product, you buy that product, and that product does not meet the stated specs... you return it for replacement or refund.

    No company is immune to producing lemons.

    Just because Vuurwhappen decided to completely ignore common sense, that should in no way affect others' ability to exercise common sense.


    ETA: I apologize if this comes across as me singling out Stormin. I am not. I simply used his post to highlight and hopefully correct a faulty consumer attitude.
    Last edited by ColtSeavers; 03-04-14 at 00:57.

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    413
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)
    Agreed.


    Quote Originally Posted by _Stormin_ View Post
    I think that they (VWB) used the 3.8 oz buffer because Spikes was willing to send it out the door at 3.8 oz...

    If they're (Spikes) willing to have a 7% variance and still ship product out the door, then that is what you should expect from the product.

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Posts
    9,209
    Feedback Score
    47 (100%)
    Exactly. It's a gimmick, at best.

    There is no reason to switch to a non-standard type buffer, other than the perception that it is superior; it isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    People probably switched because they realized that there is no real benefit to using a powdered tungsten buffer as opposed to a correctly made Creed Monarch buffer. I know some companies actually weight their buffers when they come in and send the ones back that do not meet the spec.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,743
    Feedback Score
    47 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by markm View Post
    Mine ran the H3 too when it was new.... but I've had gas tube problems. My first tube was worn down at the carrier key and was puking gas forward. I couldn't see the build up under the rail. But when I pulled the tube it had worn down to about 0.163" on a spec of 0.180". Still haven't fully figured that one out.
    Mark- I believe this happened to me as well. I discussed it in Buford's post about the 14.5/LMT Enhanced/ a5 post. My 14.5 ran perfect for a while then started choking in the good stuff. I ended up sending it back to BCM and they sent it back fixed. There was no write up on what they did but it's what I assumed they did. You don't shoot steel cases though right?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Matthew 10:28

Page 9 of 25 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... 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
  •