Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: A5 buffer ??

  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,114
    Feedback Score
    0
    I still have limited sleep, so work with me here on this.
    Let us say we have a Colt 6921 as a baseline for this example. Using a carbine H2 with 5.56 pressure ammo can have a wide span of function.
    When an A5 or rifle like action system is added, the increased buffer mass can increase in that same span of function. The question maybe is why? Sure some is mechanically attributed to the spring alone, from a simple spring an mass balance, but that doesn't cover the rest of the mass. Where does that come from or why?
    Let us look at some basic things. Both travel the same distance in operation, but they do so in different amounts of time. The carbine completes the cycle of the action in a shorter duration of time than the rifle like action.
    Initially, when the carrier receives enough work to begin movement in its free cam length passage it does so. The action system is dumb, it just does the work that it is given work to do so. The rifle like action system can take more time to complete the distance in the free length of cam passage. That difference in time makes the required work to initiate the rotational different between the 2 systems in the rapidly depressurizing barrel. Less work is less stresses, that is a AR carbine issue.
    During the bolt caming on unlocking, the relationship is about the same as above. The carbine does it with more stress and work than the rifle like action. Again, less work is needed to unlock, that results in a higher mass in the spring vs mass variable.
    During exhausting, through the ports before the key disengages tube, more gas can be released from a system that completes that event during a longer duration. Exhausting fouling out of the gun instead of into it is a general plus.
    The increased time duration can reduce the hammer effects on the FCG and the lower, not saying that is major, but it does happen. Think about that registered lower users.
    The rifle like action system spends more time in BCG over travel of the bolt stop than a carbine type. Many presume that magazine function in time is instant, it is not. Many things can help magazine function, reducing the available time isn't one of those.
    This post isn't intended to be totally comprehensive at all. There is a lot going on.
    Feel free to call me out, running 16 hours on 4 off is draining, so I'm sure I made some errors in just typing. Spell check is not friendly to me either.
    Last edited by tom12.7; 12-01-15 at 18:49. Reason: I don't know who to blame, me or myself?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Rural PA
    Posts
    443
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    In my experience, the longer travel of the A5 system makes it less affected by buffer weight. I can run H0 to H4 in my gun with no problems. I don't think the standard carbine setup would do that, but maybe they would on this gun.

    The biggest differences for me are in recoil control. The A5 is so much softer-feeing.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,114
    Feedback Score
    0
    They both travel the same distance. The difference is in time of the duration.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Rural PA
    Posts
    443
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Oh, it hadn't occurred to me that the length increase of the A5 buffer and tube are the same, and cancel out. But of course that's what happens. Thanks.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,114
    Feedback Score
    0
    There is only limited space in the system to do work.
    Within these confines, some things can work together better than others potentially.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •