Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 116

Thread: 11.5” Mid Length Barrel Discussion

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    SOMD
    Posts
    870
    Feedback Score
    48 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post
    You may find little to no adjustment is required when moving up to the A5H4. This is gun to gun, so far, but there seems to be a synergy with the heavier buffer.
    You were right, it ran fine with the A5H4 using Wolf gold 55gr. The 223 stuff went 4-5 o'clock and the CBC 77gr 5.56 went at 3 o'clock.

    I suppose I am setup and won't mess with settings/parts now. Gonna leave it at setting 5, using the LMT E-carrier, AH54 buffer, and Vltor spring.
    Last edited by Rayrevolver; 02-20-16 at 15:03.

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    105
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    I hit the range with my freshly built 11.5" Faxon Mid, and SLR gas block. I was using wolf steel and had to run it on setting 7 to get it to lock the bolt back while un-suppressed(I left it at 7 while shooting suppressed as well) I'm running a standard Nib toolcraft bcg and h2 buffer with a stock spring for now. Though i'm building another SBR lower for this setup that will use a A5H4 setup.

    I brought my BCM carbine 11.5" along and shot them both with the same lower and the Faxon middy was definitely was softer shooting, though I'm sure that's all the adjustable gas block. I'll have to open the gas block up to get a decent comparison, of the mid 11.5" vs. the carbine 11.5".


  3. #73
    FaxonNathan Guest
    That is one FINE looking weapon system.

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    942
    Feedback Score
    0
    Isn't a heavy buffer less important in a small port or adj gun since it's partly a remedy for the over gassing?

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    SOMD
    Posts
    870
    Feedback Score
    48 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by JG007 View Post
    Isn't a heavy buffer less important in a small port or adj gun since it's partly a remedy for the over gassing?
    In general, that is how I understand it as well.

    I think the introduction of the LMT E-Carrier is the wild card, since it speeds up the carrier with same size gas port. This is counter-intuitive to how I thought it worked but when you read into what its doing, it makes sense why.

    I never shot the A5H4 with the normal carrier.

    To summarize, getting BHO:

    Normal carrier+A5H2
    Setting 7 - Unsuppressed
    Setting 6 - Suppressed

    LMT E-carrier+A5H2
    Setting 5 - Suppressed

    LMT E-carrier+A5H4
    Setting 5 - Suppressed

    I was not sure it would run on Setting 5 with the A5H4, but it did. This is all done with Wolf Gold. I tried the A5H4 to address where the brass was ejecting. I did not shoot it back-to-back with the A5H2 to see the affect on shootability.

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    942
    Feedback Score
    0
    interesting stuff, instead of an adjustable block I went the other option and got a very small Port Sbr made (10.6 and 069), with a standard carrier and PMC bronze ammo it still function fine , but would not lock back on a empty mag when the bolt was dry, this was with a green spring and a5h4, I just got an A5h1 to see if that changes anything, and was told that will likely be be ideal combination

    Prior to this I used the green spring a 584 and LMT carrier in an 11.5 BCM gun it's interesting that with a small port and we camo I could still run almost fine with such a heavy buffer

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    942
    Feedback Score
    0
    I probably will keep the LMT carrier for the BCM upper instead of the small port upper because I believe it is the way to mitigate / gassing, but I'm no expert at all


    If I still end up getting any gas in the face I might throw that in or put that forward assist gas vent in

  8. #78
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,114
    Feedback Score
    0
    I wouldn't call the LMT enhanced carrier a "wild card" anymore than the A5 or rifle like action system. Both can allow a time delay to allow reduced work to be done at the reduced residual operating pressures when compared to the standard M16 carrier with the conventional carbine actions. The reduced work required means for a given quantity of gas, you can add speed, mass, or a combination of both.
    The LMT enhanced carrier does tend to overspeed. For use in that part alone, less gas and/or more mass may be beneficial.
    The A5/rifle like system operates at a reduced rate compared to the conventional carbine action. The reduced rate increases the duration in time of events. The increase in time duration reduces operating work required to properly cycle the action. That means that less gas and/or more mass may bring some benefits.
    When the 2 systems are combined, both the LMT enhanced carrier with the A5/rifle like action system, the same things are true. Less gas, more mass, or a combination of both may be preferred.
    So, let's look at an example. You have a given AR platform with the addition of both the enhanced carrier and A5/rifle action system. In testing, you find that the A5H2-A5H4 buffers seem to give preferable performance, or it may be the A5H1-A5H3. For either, it doesn't matter. You would hopefully want a reliable system, that means that less reliable variables would not mean as much when those are compared to others. So what mass is the better choice? The system is a balance of compromises, its not all give or take, it's both. That is something to remember.
    So, what mass is preferred in a possible above scenario? That depends on many things, sometimes a plateau occurs when many things seem equal at first, that just means a deeper look is in order. Excess action mass can lead to more MRBS issues, insufficient mass may lead to more MRBF issues with a possible increase in MRBF problems. Excess mass for a given system may feel silky smooth, but added drag hurts it. Insufficient mass may increase the users viewed of platform stability among other things, but it can be brutal on parts.
    Ideally, the system works in harmony. The reality is that it doesn't, there's too many variables.
    An A5H4 in the above combination may run very well, but so can an A5H2 depending on actual conditions. Same could be said about the A5H1-A5H3 combo. So what is better here? If you run the possibilities, there are some things to look for? Obviously the system needs to operate. The highest mass may have drag issues in less than ideal conditions, other issues with the lowest. Even though the time delay is increased with the heavier buffer, the system may not fully support it depending on variables/ conditions.

  9. #79
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,114
    Feedback Score
    0
    Dunno what I just did, but lost 4/5 of the post. PM if interested, I'm not typing that again.

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    SOMD
    Posts
    870
    Feedback Score
    48 (100%)
    Tom, thanks for taking the time. Maybe you can write in wordpad so you can save your long posts.

    I would much rather have it tuned for the A5H2 but I don't think the SLR gas block settings will allow that. I would need it set around 4.5 clicks. Not a knock on the SLR, I like the way it works. I suppose I can get the green Sprinco but at this point, why bother. Will shoot as is and report back any issues.

    ...my next adventure is the almost gas trap (Krinkov style) Vltor FOG upper. I might try to run the suppressor on it and see how it shoots compared to the 11.5M. For all intents it is a 10.1" midlength.
    Last edited by Rayrevolver; 02-25-16 at 08:00.

Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •