Long stroke SureFire Carrier

[mig1nc]

Anyone have any idea how well this performs with the A5 system? Being that it requires a shorter buffer for a standard carbine receiver extension, would it require a shorter buffer for the longer A5 extension?

This looks like a genuine improvement. It'd be an insane improvement if you also added a KAC E3 bolt.

A shame that it's $400, though...

Indeed, if Stoner was still alive I believe the SR15 Mod 2 with the Surefire carrier and buffer could be their penultimate collaboration.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[BufordTJustice]

Anyone have any idea how well this performs with the A5 system? Being that it requires a shorter buffer for a standard carbine receiver extension, would it require a shorter buffer for the longer A5 extension?

This looks like a genuine improvement. It'd be an insane improvement if you also added a KAC E3 bolt.

A shame that it's $400, though...

Not sure how the biasing weight in the SF carrier wild interact with the biasing spring in the A5 buffer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[justin_247]

Not sure how the biasing weight in the SF carrier wild interact with the biasing spring in the A5 buffer.

This is a good point! I retract my question.

[BufordTJustice]

This is a good point! I retract my question.

To be clear, I’m not saying it wouldn’t work. It’s just a stack of variables that nobody has calculated or tested.

I do know that, when putting different sprung masses IN SERIES, oscillations can develop if the masses and spring rates aren’t PERFECT. It becomes especially difficult to predict/model behaviors if the masses are not identical or if they are sprung differently. And nearly impossible if both are non identical.

What I’m saying is what happens if the sprung masses began to fight each other, in a developing oscillation? It may not show up for every cadence of fire, Maybe not even in select fire. Could show up as a mystery malf depending on ROF in semi.

The most yummy kind of malfs. Lulz.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WS6]

Not sure how the biasing weight in the SF carrier wild interact with the biasing spring in the A5 buffer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Should be fine. A5 is just biased t o keep the weight stack identical shot-to-shot. Not necessarily a "dynamic" device like the SF.

[MQ105]

A SF carrier owner needs to take one for the team and test this...

Is the SF buffer shorter than a standard carbine buffer? If so, what is the length difference?

[justin_247]

If you're looking for a review, whatever you guys do, don't bother going over to TOS looking for it. I checked it out so you don't have to.

There isn't a review to be found, and the sheer idiocy in all of the threads is a good reminder why I avoid the place.

I feel dumber now.

[WS6]

What it ACTUALLY is, is a 60% increase in the amount of distance that the BCG over runs the round stack.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which I really like. From the get-go, I've felt the AR/M4 system doesn't have enough over-run.

That said...this counter-weight and springs...what happens when a boatload of carbon gets in there? Is it removable? How does this work for cleaning?

[Clint]

Yes, anything that adds over-run time is a good thing for feeding.

What it ACTUALLY is, is a 60% increase in the amount of distance that the BCG over runs the round stack.

Which I really like. From the get-go, I've felt the AR/M4 system doesn't have enough over-run.

[Tokarev]

Haven't seen this linked yet. My apologies if it is a repeat:

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...fire-obc-ar15/