Centurion Arms Barrels

[AAMP84]

I suspect it’s primarily to prevent negative reviews about their rifles not cycling. That and they haven’t done their own T&E on properly sized gas ports that cycle quality ammo without being over gassed.
I don’t mean that negativity, that’s just my opinion.

With carbine length barrels the T&E and the actual data is already out their.

Baseless accusations like this don't add anything to the discussion and can be detrimental to a company's rep.

Also, considering Monty's rep as a highly knowledgeable gun nerd it's an ignorant statement.

[MegademiC]

My 14.5” mid would not cycle tula with a spikes t2 with powdered W in extreme cold.
I would hardly call that overgassed. Not sure what the port is as Ive never pulled it, but its from the 2013-ish timeframe.

[Pat.c]

Yup. It’s happened to several companies already so to say it won’t continue to happen or isn’t part of a company’s decision when designing a barrel is silly.

I don't think most fudds are likely to drop $300 on a CHF barrel... I bought mine with the belief that the barrel was produced to optimal specifications. Having a over gassed barrel isn't just about a gun that doesn't cycle smoothly. It means you are prematurely wearing out parts and reducing the service life of the weapon. Adding a suppressor to the equation makes it that much worse...

[alx01]

I don't think most fudds are likely to drop $300 on a CHF barrel... I bought mine with the belief that the barrel was produced to optimal specifications. Having a over gassed barrel isn't just about a gun that doesn't cycle smoothly. It means you are prematurely wearing out parts and reducing the service life of the weapon. Adding a suppressor to the equation makes it that much worse...

It is highly unlikely that you'll see any difference in durability or wear between gas port size of 0.07" and 0.08", let alone a smaller difference. If you go from 0.05" to 0.08" - maybe. Most people overthink gas ports and "smooth weapon" to the point of being either unreasonable or simply not making any scientific sense.

[Pat.c]

It is highly unlikely that you'll see any difference in durability or wear between gas port size of 0.07" and 0.08", let alone a smaller difference. If you go from 0.05" to 0.08" - maybe. Most people overthink gas ports and "smooth weapon" to the point of being either unreasonable or simply not making any scientific sense.

Okay... So where does that excess gas go? What does that excess gas do to the components of the gun? Did you read the part where I said it's not just about smooth cycling?

[mmradio4]

I think at one time, when choices in barrels/manufacturers were small, having a larger gas port would be a good business decision. Seeing various forums over the years (here, TOS, reddit, etc.), most people are buying full powered ammo and using some kind of buffer/spring/adjustable gas block combination to reduce the effects of over-gassed barrels. The majority of people these days are buying cheap nitride barrels from various sources and wouldn't even consider a CL barrel no matter what the gas port size is or manufacturing technique/QC/price etc., so I don't see the reasoning in keeping it on the larger size. With that being said, I only shoot full power stuff with CL barrels and will be purchasing a CA 14.5 middy and will make adjustments as I see fit with a BRT gas port (if needed).

[17K]

It is highly unlikely that you'll see any difference in durability or wear between gas port size of 0.07" and 0.08", let alone a smaller difference. If you go from 0.05" to 0.08" - maybe. Most people overthink gas ports and "smooth weapon" to the point of being either unreasonable or simply not making any scientific sense.

I say the opposite.

The gas port size is one of the most critical dimensions on an AR.

[MegademiC]

I say the opposite.

The gas port size is one of the most critical dimensions on an AR.

What % of increase in wear do you see going from a 0.07" to a 0.08" gas port... all things equal?
(this is assuming carbine gas system, 14.5" barrel, and 0.75" barrel diameter)

[17K]

What % of increase in wear do you see going from a 0.07" to a 0.08" gas port... all things equal?
(this is assuming carbine gas system, 14.5" barrel, and 0.75" barrel diameter)

It's not all about wear. It's about being built right and running well without dickin around with stupid gas blocks and springs and buffers.

I have a safe full of 16" carbines with stock springs and H buffers that shoot just as soft as most, and softer than many mid-lengths.

[alx01]

I say the opposite.

The gas port size is one of the most critical dimensions on an AR.

Gas port is important - I don't dispute that. What I find silly is that some people argue that, for example, a gas port 0.072 is better than 0.076. Why they argue that and what data points they have - absolutely nothing. Not only, that most folks haven't measured gas ports at all.

Then they start going into even deeper theoretical discussion of throwing into the equation things like all sort of ammo from handloads and steel case to M855A1, A5 or rifle setup, different springs, different buffer weights, what if they want to cut down barrel in the future. But it does not stop here, no. They also start postulating reliability with 6 different brands of suppressors (most, if not all, of them they don't own), etc. etc.

Matter of fact - most trusted brands will have proper sized ports. Even PSA will be fine, it might be on the larger side, but it will work fine for most people.

Here is an interesting point - there was a thread in the Technical Section here, where a member claimed that 2(or 3) different Mil-Spec BCGs produced a drastically different recoil characteristics in the same gun. More knowledgable members than I, accurately pointed out that was due to a different cam path on BCGs - which was later confirmed. How many people who like to theorize about recoil and minor gas port difference considered that fact? I suspect - very few, if any.

Gas port is important, but it does not alone define reliability, durability or recoil characteristics of the weapon. Saying that an AR with the gas port size 0.08 will beat itself to death vs 0.07 (or 0.074) is simply, absolutely, positively NOT TRUE. Suppressor might change variables, but then you start going into what brand and what kind of back pressure and etc. If you want to run a can - you might have to do a custom port size. Do your own testing with the barrel length, port size, and buffer setup you like and let us know - i'd be interested in what works for other members.