Educate me-Flat wire vs round spring technical data...

[tom12.7]

I filmed rifles in slow motion suppressed and unsuppressed using all manner of springs. I found the Tubb Flatwire springs to "feel" good to me, the shooter, but they were very erratic in ejection performance, which leads me to believe carrier velocity was also erratic, and they also caused much more "muzzle dip" than any other combination I tried, upon return to battery.

You'll get erratic carrier speeds with these using lower action masses and systems with more drag. Using the A5H4ish in a low drag system, the carrier velocities get more consistent. Besides, with lower masses you can end up distorting the round from stripping the round from the magazine to chambering. You want to keep the carrier velocity in check.
As for the "muzzle dip", you'd have to accept that to run the A5H4, Tubb .308 spring combination. You can gain in operational span range of function going this route, but there are pros and cons.
It can help to reduce drag when using these to alter some buffer dimensions. The spring seat area of the buffer can improve by slight reduction in diameter, seating diameter length, and a shallower transition angle with a radius to that. The combination can have drag induced from the spring OD and ID areas. Changing the buffer dimensions is not a requirement, but you can reduce drag by doing so before the buffer body gets anodized.
There's more we can discuss on these if anybody is interested.

[03Ryan]

Gentlemen,
Long time lurker. I'm interested to see where this topic goes, if the handful of individuals that have a handle on this (or similar) type of setup have the time. I've started down this same road myself due to the information passed here on similar threads.

Semper Fi
Ryan

[caveman74]

I recently assembled an AR with an 18” Ballistic Advantage heavy barrel with rifle length gas system.

It is only been out on two range trips so far, however I had several failure to feeds which I attribute to the buffer and or spring. As soon as I put that upper on my A4 (with A2 stock); clone lower, the problems went away.

Since than I got a Superior Shooting Systems (David Tubb) flat wire buffer spring.

I may make it out to the range this coming weekend or two weeks from now.

I’ll post here whatever results.

[Clint]

So which buffer system was in in the problem lower and has that lower been verified with another upper?

I recently assembled an AR with an 18” Ballistic Advantage heavy barrel with rifle length gas system.

It is only been out on two range trips so far, however I had several failure to feeds which I attribute to the buffer and or spring. As soon as I put that upper on my A4 (with A2 stock); clone lower, the problems went away.

Since than I got a Superior Shooting Systems (David Tubb) flat wire buffer spring.

I may make it out to the range this coming weekend or two weeks from now.

I’ll post here whatever results.

[opngrnd]

You'll get erratic carrier speeds with these using lower action masses and systems with more drag. Using the A5H4ish in a low drag system, the carrier velocities get more consistent. Besides, with lower masses you can end up distorting the round from stripping the round from the magazine to chambering. You want to keep the carrier velocity in check.
As for the "muzzle dip", you'd have to accept that to run the A5H4, Tubb .308 spring combination. You can gain in operational span range of function going this route, but there are pros and cons.
It can help to reduce drag when using these to alter some buffer dimensions. The spring seat area of the buffer can improve by slight reduction in diameter, seating diameter length, and a shallower transition angle with a radius to that. The combination can have drag induced from the spring OD and ID areas. Changing the buffer dimensions is not a requirement, but you can reduce drag by doing so before the buffer body gets anodized.
There's more we can discuss on these if anybody is interested.

I'm interested. What does it look like and does it reduce drag between the buffer and the spring?

[tom12.7]

If you are talking about the buffer body, it looks very similar to a normal one. Not like some of the other stuff out there, like HK using something unique to help deal with their carrier tilt issues.

[03Ryan]

If you are talking about the buffer body, it looks very similar to a normal one. Not like some of the other stuff out there, like HK using something unique to help deal with their carrier tilt issues.

Is this something that is commercially available or one off skunk works stuff?

I am also interested in how you ended up with the A5H4/Tubbs 308 combo. I went as far as the Tubbs 308 and A5H2. I found this combo to be extremely violent in comparison to both the tubbs car/A5H2, and a carbine RE w/ an H2 and the Tubbs spring. The latter honestly having the best feel of all of them.

Rifle:
Nov gen III
Nov 14.5 Mid CHF w/SF brake
SLR Sentry 7
LMT E-BCG
64gr GDSP as function baseline

Semper Fi
Ryan

[tom12.7]

You can't keep the carrier velocity down low enough with the Tubb .308 spring with an A5H2. You would really want to use an A5H4.
Again, this setup is not for all by any means, but it can be used by some to get some gains.

[03Ryan]

You can't keep the carrier velocity down low enough with the Tubb .308 spring with an A5H2. You would really want to use an A5H4.
Again, this setup is not for all by any means, but it can be used by some to get some gains.

That makes sense. Right now with the Tubbs car spring and A5H2 I am in between gas settings with the SLR block. One down and I have failures to lock back consistently. At the current setting there is enough gas drive that the buffer is impacting the RE with some force. This same setting with the car RE was perfect. I believe that changing the installed length of the spring with the A5 RE has lowered the L1/L2 values. I think a 39ish coil spring would be ideal if one didn't want to commit to the .308 spring, however I don't like the idea of cutting springs. I would like to do so to test my theory, but I would not keep it long term. I currently have an A5H3 to test. I'm hoping this solves the velocity issue enough to minimize the buffer bottoming out without going another click open on the block.

S/F
Ryan

[Motivated1]

I presuppose that's with the LMT-E carrier? That being, carrier velocity increases with the LMT-E carrier?