A Tale of the Fives. A5 that is.

[Falar]

A spring does neither.

Buffer construction counteracts/damps bolt bounce.

Overall bolt system mass slows rearward acceleration and therefore delays extraction.

I don't get it. A stronger dpring should send the bolt home with more force as well as resist the rearward bolt movement more.

[SteveL]

I don't get it. A stronger dpring should send the bolt home with more force as well as resist the rearward bolt movement more.

There's more to the A5 system than just a stronger spring and heavier buffer. Spring rate is also a factor as well as how the A5 buffers are constructed. They have a spring inside them acting on the weights that standard style buffers don't have and this plays a big role in reducing/eliminating bolt bounce.

[readyfireaim]

As most many M4C members know, I am a big fan of the Vltor A5 receiver extension/buffer system. I got my first one sometime in 2010 as I recall and every single AR that I have has a a version of an A5.

The Vltor A5 can be had in a 6 position or 7 position version.

Not too long ago, BCM started making it's own version the Vltor A5 which has some design changes and uses 8 positions.

Now more recently Magpul Industries which is no stranger to the stock game has started to produce a 6 position MILSPEC standard extension and their version of the A5 which has 10 positions.

One can only guess that this is being done due to meet the demand of the A5 which seems to have picked up steam over the last couple of years and often times listed as "out of stock" in many places.

The Magpul version which I received recently is nicely made. The dry film lubricant applied inside the tube is evident. The installation into the receiver was as tight and solid as any other quality receiver extension I have installed.

Top to bottom. Vltor, BCM and Magpul A5 versions.





Vltor 6 position extension. Stock fully collapsed.



BCM 8 position extension. Stock fully collapsed.



Magpul 10 position extension. Stock fully collapsed.

out of all 3 designs,which do you consider the best set up for all around durability and reliability?

[SmugPePe]

I dont really see the reason to get A5 system, would somebody be so nice to grant me enlightenment on this matter if im wrong in following explanation of my understanding? Only thing i seemly understand is that the tube is longer and buffer itself is bit longer to prevent rear of gas key on bolt carrier from impacting the buffer tube hood on lower. So the action doesnt receive increase in cycling length which would infact increase reliability due to giving bolt catch and magazine more time to operate. But instead, seemly all a5 is to contribute is reducing the amount of workload spring does. Buffer spring workload is already very low, lending to very long life if quality spring is used.

Or is it just really about getting more adjustment positions for the stock and bit longer fully extended position?

Am I missing anything?

[Falar]

I dont really see the reason to get A5 system, would somebody be so nice to grant me enlightenment on this matter if im wrong in following explanation of my understanding? Only thing i seemly understand is that the tube is longer and buffer itself is bit longer to prevent rear of gas key on bolt carrier from impacting the buffer tube hood on lower. So the action doesnt receive increase in cycling length which would infact increase reliability due to giving bolt catch and magazine more time to operate. But instead, seemly all a5 is to contribute is reducing the amount of workload spring does. Buffer spring workload is already very low, lending to very long life if quality spring is used.

Or is it just really about getting more adjustment positions for the stock and bit longer fully extended position?

Am I missing anything?

Carrier travel is unchanged due to the longer buffer.

It's all about recoil impulse, extraction timing, feeding, and bolt bounce.

[skimbleshanks]

I could really care less about the extra adjustment positions. Some people will. I like the proven reliability the system has with reduced wear and smoother feel than the regular carbine buffer system.

[SmugPePe]

I doubt that the increased space for the longer spring to work is what responsible for those. It would be rate poundage and quality material and work went into the making of the spring thats responsible plus the weight of buffer.

I wager I can match the recoil impluse you find pleasant with combo of various spring offering from springco and various buffer weights.

It seem that most folks who went for a5 system never fully tried various combos of buffer weights and high quality spring poundage. Seem most of folks went to a5 from common L.W. Schneider milspec carbine buffer and buffer spring. Of course with higher quality spring and heavier buffer the benefit would be felt.

But now it just came to me as i type, when I focus my mind at the buffer itself. About the a5 buffer... Because its longer which it would be able to gain more movement for the weights inside the buffer which would spread the impact force at end of cycle and same for intial rearward unlocking travel than more sharp felt recoil impluses especially in heavier buffers.

[SmugPePe]

This also just came to me. Why not have buffer as long as rifle buffer and use tungsten weight (to save space) with stiff spring at each side ideally the spring at each side would have nice long travel as the weight smoothly depress it with its interia at each end of the cycle impact.

Now thats smooth recoiling rifle!

[skimbleshanks]

While I'm sure a standard length carbine spring of the correct rate and buffer weight assortment could come close to the feel of the a5 system. However the a5 system is a ready made system all put together that can net what lots of people are looking for with very little dickering. Sometimes convenience is a feature. Especially if building from scratch and all the parts need bought anyway.

[El Pistolero]

Count me in with the group that doesn't see the point in the A5.