G&R Tactical
Page 3 of 27 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 267

Thread: Long stroke SureFire Carrier

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    FL -Where it's summer 10.5 months out of the year
    Posts
    4,066
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by m4hk33 View Post
    interesting design, now how dose this compare to say gemtechs adjustable bolt carrier? wondering what would be theoretically, a better way to address suppressed reliability,

    currently running a 10.5 MRP, with JP silent capture spring and have no issues, good ejection patterns, reliability with LMT EBCG

    now the MWS with 16 inch CL, runs hot and hard, but dead reliable, even with a can, with 18inch SS, runs little smoother, ejection goes from 1 o'clock to 3 o'clock. would love to get a little smoother with the 16 inch barrel

    thinking I may want to give the gemtech SBC a try for the 16 inch barrel, (love velocity), or maybe just say **** it and cut the 16 back to 13.5 and reprofile. should address some of the overgassing issue
    So, the 16" is a piston or a DI upper?
    "That thing looks about as enjoyable as a bowl of exploding dicks." - Magic_Salad0892

    "The body cannot go where the mind has not already been."

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,114
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post
    Agreed. I seem to recall some type of sprung mass as well. Not sure if it was contained in the carrier like SF or in the buffer assembly.
    It was in the carrier for both.
    The question about keeping the speed in check was in reference to being suppressed or not. The added internal mass does help. The added over travel can help. There's a few other possible options to do so as well. I was looking into what methods that they chose to utilize.
    I really hope to see an inclusive Sullivan improved carrier.
    Let's hope that this doesn't end up being an just an M16 carrier with a version of rail and key trimming with a shortened OAL buffer and an internal to the carrier buffer mass to maintain total mass. Those '90's versions with their required altered action springs needed to cycle without extra stress for longevity are not ideal. A couple of interesting possible additions have happened since then. Let's see what SF offers.
    There does seem to be a limit of what you can gain with the carrier without altering other components, but there are possible gains to be made without those alterations as well.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    165
    Feedback Score
    0
    The 16 inch is a DI, for their 7.62/308 rifle.

    Never had any 5.56 issues regardless of the barrel I drop into it.

    Run the silent capture spring for smoothness.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    879
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bruin View Post
    Thanks for your reply; I'm still trying to wrap my head around it. Dealing with bolt bounce, different ways to skin a cat I guess. I seem to recall Sullivan not being satisfied with the carbine buffer construction to address the issue. Since suppressors increase the cyclic rate, bolt bounce would be more of an issue in full auto. Curious what's inside that shorter buffer and the total mass of the reciprocating elements.

    Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
    You can slow down the cyclic rate by changing the nature of the "bounce" at the back end of the stoke as well.

    When the bolt carrier group/buffer bottom out in the receiver extension, the BCG will rebound off the elastic tip of the buffer, having a few weights impact the back of the buffer (or inside the BCG, or both) a few milliseconds after the initial bottoming out of the BCG/buffer will neutralize the forward motion. Similar in concept to a hydraulic buffer, only less messy...
    Last edited by lysander; 06-09-16 at 20:30.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    CONUS
    Posts
    3,931
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by lysander View Post
    You can slow down the cyclic rate by changing the nature of the "bounce" at the back end of the stoke as well.

    When the bolt carrier group/buffer bottom out in the receiver extension, the BCG will rebound off the elastic tip of the buffer, having a few weights impact the back of the buffer (or inside the BCG, or both) a few milliseconds after the initial bottoming out of the BCG/buffer will neutralize the forward motion. Similar in concept to a hydraulic buffer, only less messy...
    This is the pretty much the way the Ferfrans rate reduction bolt carrier worked (it's been out for at least a decade). it had a reciprocating weight at the rear of the carrier with a spring detent.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    879
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by militarymoron View Post
    This is the pretty much the way the Ferfrans rate reduction bolt carrier worked (it's been out for at least a decade). it had a reciprocating weight at the rear of the carrier with a spring detent.
    It's how the post-1966 M16/AR15 buffers work....

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    FL -Where it's summer 10.5 months out of the year
    Posts
    4,066
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by m4hk33 View Post
    The 16 inch is a DI, for their 7.62/308 rifle.

    Never had any 5.56 issues regardless of the barrel I drop into it.

    Run the silent capture spring for smoothness.
    I'm not familiar with the buffer design or weight the MWS uses (std CAR buffer size or truncated AR10 buffer). I would first experiment with higher buffer weight since modifying the gas system tends to be a no go due to cost and proprietary parts in your case.
    "That thing looks about as enjoyable as a bowl of exploding dicks." - Magic_Salad0892

    "The body cannot go where the mind has not already been."

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    FL -Where it's summer 10.5 months out of the year
    Posts
    4,066
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by militarymoron View Post
    This is the pretty much the way the Ferfrans rate reduction bolt carrier worked (it's been out for at least a decade). it had a reciprocating weight at the rear of the carrier with a spring detent.
    I recall the ROF on their system was ridiculously low even though it functioned 100%.
    "That thing looks about as enjoyable as a bowl of exploding dicks." - Magic_Salad0892

    "The body cannot go where the mind has not already been."

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    866
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post
    I recall the ROF on their system was ridiculously low even though it functioned 100%.
    Yup:

    Sent from the future using Squid Telepathy

    Quote Originally Posted by MistWolf View Post
    If we could control all the variables, we'd just put all the bad luck on our enemies and stay home.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,114
    Feedback Score
    0
    Without looking for my notes that I probably couldn't find, the early buffered carrier started as a standard carrier with a 9mm added mass insert. If I recall correctly, that is probably less than 100% correct, an older concept was made available to me. It was not new when I saw it, I would guess 5 years plus at that time in the early 90's.
    The Insert fit tightly a standard carrier, so the carrier I.D. was rigid honed for clearance. The weighted insert was center drilled to accept an off the shelf ejector springs and retention on both sides to center it around the coiled spring retention to the carrier. The roll pin hole in the weight was elongated to allow movement axially. I don't recall the preload on the ejector assemblies, but it was less than normal ejector tension. The weight was less than a normal 9mm insert due to cutting off some length for movement and bore drilling.
    While that offering seemed to offer some promise, there was no choice to do so for the market at that time, it could not sell.
    Maybe? In today's more informed market this concept could be sold with other inclusions?
    Let's see what happens..

Page 3 of 27 FirstFirst 1234513 ... 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
  •