Indeed, just illustrating the point that adjustable gas systems in and of themselves need not be considered a negative.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Indeed, just illustrating the point that adjustable gas systems in and of themselves need not be considered a negative.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
You are generally correct. Most people do not like either A) the added expense -or- B) the added mechanical complexity. Both of these can be argued to death and ultimately boil down to preference.
From a purely mechanical standpoint, we can see merit in the claim that adjustable is better than a fixed gas port. While we can (and do) manufacture barrels with fixed ports, over time the port will erode and the gas to the system will increase at the same time that parts are breaking in and making the firearm easier to cycle.
An adjustable gives the user the option of re-adjusting and keeping a firearm nominal throughout its entire lifespan.
Last edited by FaxonNathan; 11-13-15 at 13:38.
With no negative intent, but asking how in general. If an end user group, be it an agency, .mil user group, or next door joe, or whatever is looking for the best or better application to fit their requirements, how can a possibly over or under gassed barrel be beneficial?
If given a set of operating parameters, normally in a specified range, an adjustable gas block is not preferred. Given that the span of operation is in a "u" shaped curve" with the vertical lines being negatives. How can an end user properly adjust an adjustable block knowing that an end user would prefer the bottom of the "u" as a setting by the seat of their pants, instead of an adjustment that descends into a higher level of function? When a user sets an adjustable gas block at the bottom of the "u", they descend into reduced function.
A solid point, but this assumes the user is putting the adjustable gas block at the bottom of the "U" for only one specific configuration. While very bottom of the U would be optimal for a very specific combination of parts, it is generally advisable that the setting still be on the middle-bottom curve (to use your analogy) of the "u" but not the bottom itself for the very reasons mentioned.
When set there, the weapon system is optimized for the majority of applications and has room below that for sub-optimal instances. When done correctly the weapon system will function 100% of the time, even under adverse effects.
In anticipation of a likely response, yes a set gas hole can accomplish the same thing, but it is very difficult to do on a production basis (each gun is unique). As such, most gas ports are actually set on middle of the "high" portion of "u" curve of the from many manufacturers as they do not want a customer to claim no function.
Yep, that all makes sense to me. You have to consider the maker and end user situation. If you could place an order for a specific situation for a large group of people that just want it to work as long as possible with no issues you might choose one thing. If you have an end user that likes to tweak things and has the knowledge to do so, then adjustable might be better. ... and if you are simply making rifles for the masses, you damn sure don't want it non-adjustable and under gassed.
It is possible to have a rifle with a wider user span without being as under or over gassed, given the same circumstances. Selecting a shorter than mid gas for an 11.5" 5.56 can do this.
I agree that a 11.5" mid gas can run well with a can only. A 11.5" carbine gas can work well that never sees a can. For a gun that sees use with and without a can a trait can become clear or clearer. Using a gas system that reduces the span of range in buffer mass or total action mass to keep the carrier velocity in spec would be preferable to a system that requires an increased difference in total action mass to keep the span in check when the possibility of adding a can is involved. A 11.5" mid gas doesn't do this, a 11.5" carbine gas doesn't do this. Adding 1" to the carbine gas system comes close, or closer than the conventional carbine and the mid gas.
Forgive us, but we do not understand what point you are trying to make.
If the point is that 11.5" mid is not as ideal as a carbine gas system due to the post-gas port dwell, yes, the case can be made that the carbine gas system is "better". However, that is like arguing how much reliable than 100% is someone wanting?
An 11.5" Mid will work both suppressed and unsuppressed without issue. We have many OEMs using the new barrels and report them functioning well across various masses, coatings, etc. As previously stated, its all about pressure, flow, and gas port size. In our case, we opted to leave the hole large and allow someone to choose their own flow via an adjustable block.
We understand that this will not be for everyone, as they may have similar reservations as yourself. If that is the case, don't buy a 11.5" mid barrel. For those willing to push boundaries, this is a nice option that will perform without issue.
OK, I can be done here if you like. I really don't have a stake in the defense market game anymore, theres more options that have treated myself personally better. If you think the "Big ARMY" would buy this, go ahead. If you think a that smaller "units" would buy this, go ahead, there is a "niche" market for those.
On the contrary, no offense was intended. Alas, tis' the bane of the internet, where no emotion can flow through words easily.
If one of our barrels (any of them), could ever meet your needs, drop me an e-mail. Will send a coupon code your way for being such a great sport and for the lively conversation.
Yeah, as far as my questions, I'm still just trying to figure out what I don't know. I think everyone was making valid points from what I can perceive.
So tom12.7 it sounds like you would favor a 'suppressor' length gas system that should function in the sweet spot for both suppressed and non-suppressed for the masses? While Faxon has a system for the DIY individual?
If I'm even close, both sound like good deals to me.
Bookmarks