Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 56

Thread: Tubb 42 coil spring in 5.56 guns and why it runs almost everything

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    85
    Feedback Score
    0

    Tubb 42 coil spring in 5.56 guns and why it runs almost everything

    This posting is two parts. First, why I'm using the Tubb 42 coil spring in everything now, and secondly a bit deeper dive into the physics of what's happening that allow it to work well and why it might be a good choice for several applications. I'll assume you've seen Tubb's promo video on these flat springs comparing them to some mil spec and Sprinco springs. I have no affiliation in any capacity with David Tubb or any reseller of his products, FYI.

    I've taken to using the 42 coil Tubb flat spring (his ".308 spring") in just about everything 5.56. I bought it initially to test in my #1 rifle, my DDM4 V11 pro (18" rifle gas), expecting to have to trim it back (to ~36 coils) to get it to function properly. After all, Tubb sells at 36 coil version of this spring he intended for carbine and rifle use in 5.56 guns. Turns out my 18" rifle gas upper loves it with all 42 coils in a carbine lower with an H1. Smooth and reliable. Turn out my 16" middy loves it with the same lower.

    And it turns out that it runs great in my two different A5 lowers with either A5H2 or A5H3 buffers with the same uppers. How can the same spring work so well in such different applications? ("working well" here means it provides excellent power to cycle the gun, has a smooth recoil impulse without inducing functional issues or screwing up timing).

    As many of you already know, it is a very long spring:



    The question: why does this "too stiff" spring work so well in both carbine and A5 5.56 guns? Some basics about springs will help us understand. A spring works like a coiled torsion bar. You might remember torsion bar suspension from old Mopars in the classic muscle car era. Instead of the spring being coiled up, the torsion bar spring was essentially just twisting a solid steel rod. But if you were to wind this rod around a cylinder, you'd find you had a coiled spring that experienced stresses pretty much the same way. A coil spring works by inducing a twisting force on the wire of the spring.

    A longer spring experiences less change in load with distance than the same spring at a shorter length-- this is because the same twist is distributed across a longer run of wire. So if I have two otherwise identical springs-- one 12" long and the other 24" long, we'd find that compressing them the same distance (say, 3.5" or so) would show the shorter spring to get "stiffer" at a much faster rate. In engineering terms, has has a different spring rate (F=kx, force as a function of spring rate and displacement/distance). They have different rates EVEN THOUGH the wire is exactly the same, the diameter is the same, and all other features are the same.

    The comically long 42 coil Tubb spring ends up being very linear in force because of its length. This lets you have more force to hold the bolt closed, more force to strip a round from a magazine, and more reserve to cycle the gun but NOT have so much spring force at the rear of the gun that the timing of the rifle is affected and inducing short stroking or having the bolt cycle so fast it outruns the mag springs. It preserves the "dwell" at the rear necessary to let the next round present itself.

    The Tubb video shows this rather strikingly. The 36 coil version of the spring has 10.5# bolt closed, 16.3# bolt open. This compares to a new carbine spring at ~8# bolt closed and 16.5# bolt open. The long 42 coil spring has 13# at bolt closed, but still just 16.7# at bolt open. Not even 4# difference between open and closed.

    Takeaway: the 42 coil spring has a lower spring rate (change in load with change in distance) even at higher applied force. This is a good thing. We want the rate as flat as possible.

    So now for the theory part:

    While both buffer weight and spring force resist the rearward travel of the bolt, they do so very differently. The spring directly applies force, regardless how fast the bolt is moving (putting aside spring dynamics for the moment). It resists the bolt based on *position*.

    The buffer, on the other hand, can only apply inertial force as a function of bolt acceleration. F=MA. No acceleration on the buffer, no force!

    So when we start with higher spring preload holding the bolt closed, we not only gain more time in bolt closed dwell (time for blowdown and extraction), we also make the rifle less sensitive to differences in buffer weight because the bolt isn't moving to the rear as quickly.

    If I double the spring force holding the bolt closed, then the initial acceleration of the bolt to the rearward would be cut in half. If the bolt has half the acceleration rearward, then the "apparent weight" of the buffer is less. Let's say for illustrative purposes that in one case, the bolt accelerates rearward at 20g and in the other, it heads rearward at 10g (where "g" is acceleration of gravity at ~ 32.2 ft /sec^2).

    In the 20g case, an H buffer that weighs 3.8oz can actually apply a force of (20x3.8 oz=) 76 ounces. An H2 at the same acceleration would appear to apply a force of (~4.6ox x20g=) 92 ounces. This is a difference between buffers of 16 ounces.

    But if I slow the bolt down to 10g acceleration, now the apparent forces for the H1 and H2 are 38oz and 46 ounces, respectively, a difference of just 8 ounces.

    By some simple math, in order to produce the same retarding force at bolt closed that the Tubb 42 coil spring does (13#), an H2 carbine buffer would have to be accelerating at ~ 45g. Obviously it will only exceed this acceleration value (if it does at all) very briefly because immediately after the gas key disengages the gas tube, the BCG is slowing very quickly.


    So why does it work in an A5 setup so well? This goes back to the long length. Being just 3/4" longer, the A5 doesn't drastically change the operating environment of the spring relative to carbine. It will have slightly less force at bolt closed and bolt open, but still quite a bit more than an A2 rifle spring, and also be more linear in terms of spring rate (force gain, if you will). Because it's applying load to the BCG even at zero acceleration, it is making the apparent differences in buffer weights seem less.

    If you want more closed bolt dwell time, a stiffer spring is far more effective than a heavier buffer because the latter can only be relevant AFTER the bolt has started moving. By definition, this is after the "dwell" time is over and we've proceeded to unlock and extraction.

    This approach -- more spring, more spring linearity, less buffer-- should have a broader operating envelope and provide better margin across loads and also suppressed vs not. My informal testing isn't really scientific, but it strongly suggests this is the case.

    Remember, all of the energy available to cycle the gun comes from the spring. A buffer that's too heavy will deprive the spring of its full energy capacity by not compressing it all the way. A buffer that's too light will let the excess energy arrive at the shooter's shoulder when the buffer bottoms out hard in the tube-- it is attempting to deliver more energy than the spring can store.

    This is why the big 42 coil spring can allow the same uppers to run great with something as heavy as the 6oz A5h3 all the way down to my 3.8oz H1 carbine setup.

    Ejection with all lowers was pretty much the same spot at 4:00 with Geco .223 factory and even my weak 8208XBR hand loads, and it didn't seem to matter which lower or buffer weight was in use. Both carbine and A5 lowers ejected to the same spot and locked back on empty mags.

    I point that out not that 4:00 ejection is evidence of perfection. Rather, the *consistent* ejection across buffer weights, across carbine vs A5, across factory load vs weak hand load, appears to confirm that the spring makes the gun much less sensitive and less sensitivity means a broader operating envelope.

    This is why I think the 42 coil Tubb spring might be a good choice overall for almost any carbine or A5 setup. It should be kinder to your brass and enhance extraction by giving more closed bolt dwell, give you extra force to strip a round when its more difficult (debris, dirty mag) and overall have more effective operating envelope.


    That has been my experience so far, admittedly with only basic function tests with A5 and about two years and ~1000 rounds in a carbine lower with H1. Perhaps a higher volume shooter has more insight? I think a lot of guys using the Tubb springs are using his 36 coil version and missing out on the virtues of the 42 coil one.

    H

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Mid-West, USA
    Posts
    2,810
    Feedback Score
    63 (100%)
    I've been using the 42 coil spring in a suppressed mid-length for a while. While this particular setup doesn't get shot too often, I've been very happy with it. I tried it at the suggestion of someone here on the forum, and compared it to the Springco Green spring. I found the Tubb spring had less dot movement while functioning as well as the Sprinco. Prior to that, the Springco has always been my go to.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Lowcountry, SC.
    Posts
    6,171
    Feedback Score
    30 (100%)
    If anyone has experience tuning motorcycle racing suspension, the analogy here is: lower spring rate, but more preload. Kinda like A5 vs carbine.

    I’ve also been experimenting with Tubb springs (again), but the 556 one. I’ve been measuring it in comparison to others. I like it in the A5, but it seems a little much in carbine RE’s. Too much preload.

    Little known thing about springs is that removing coils increases, not decreases, spring rate. Given identical space to work with, that means the shorter spring (of same material and diameters, etc) has less preload, but higher rate. Something to consider if you are burning brain-calories comparing carbine to rifle to A5 REs.

    Its the only non-Colt spring I like, really. I tried to like the lighter Sprincos, but they rust too fast. I wouldn’t swap a working Colt spring for one.
    RLTW

    Former Action Guy
    Disclosure: I am affiliated PRN with a tactical training center, but I speak only for myself. I have no idea what we sell, other than CLP and training. I receive no income from sale of hard goods.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    I've never had a chrome silicone spring rust, but I lightly lube all my springs, so that may be why. That said, I found the Sprinco blue to be unnecessarily heavy for my middys.

    Have a Tubb flat wire in my 308, and I think I'm going to try it in my 5.56s and see if I like it. The OP is compelling, and I'll probably order one for each of them.
    “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.” -Augustine

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,434
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    I think the spring and buffer stuff is interesting but I have a 6920 that’s 13 years old and is functionally stock and has digested untold amounts of ammo, everything from Wolff steel case and PMC Bronze to hot IMI that blew primers.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by 17K View Post
    I think the spring and buffer stuff is interesting but I have a 6920 that’s 13 years old and is functionally stock and has digested untold amounts of ammo, everything from Wolff steel case and PMC Bronze to hot IMI that blew primers.
    This isn't primarily about reliability, but about flatter shooting whilst maintaining reliability.
    “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.” -Augustine

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    85
    Feedback Score
    0
    One thing interesting about 42 coil Tubb is no matter how slowly I ride the charging handle forward, it has the power to strip and chamber a round cleanly with my carbine lower. Even a full 40rd PMAG or a full ASC with rough lips. That might be a potential reliability enhancement or nothing at all.

    Reliability overall is easy to achieve. Just use mil spec parts and change as frequently as needed. The appeal of the 42 coil is that it might be something of a free lunch— less recoil without a reliability penalty or margin reduction.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    85
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 1168 View Post
    If anyone has experience tuning motorcycle racing suspension, the analogy here is: lower spring rate, but more preload. Kinda like A5 vs carbine.

    I’ve also been experimenting with Tubb springs (again), but the 556 one. I’ve been measuring it in comparison to others. I like it in the A5, but it seems a little much in carbine RE’s. Too much preload.

    Little known thing about springs is that removing coils increases, not decreases, spring rate. Given identical space to work with, that means the shorter spring (of same material and diameters, etc) has less preload, but higher rate. Something to consider if you are burning brain-calories comparing carbine to rifle to A5 REs.

    Its the only non-Colt spring I like, really. I tried to like the lighter Sprincos, but they rust too fast. I wouldn’t swap a working Colt spring for one.
    I absolutely agree that the 42 coil in a carbine seems a bit much on preload. But other than the subjective feeling associated with an “authoritative “ shall we say bolt drop, I see no evidence of it being excessive in terms of function. You absolutely don’t want your fingers in there when the bolt drops because it’s going home come hell or high water. It’s notably stiffer when charging, yet you can feel the linearity.

    Your experience with the 36 coil spring would be especially noticeable with another 3# of bolt closed preload.

    Did you observe any actual problems with the higher preload or was it a subject impression of it being excessive?

    I initially got it to try to take better care of my match brass— less damage to brass and ease of recovery of brass was honestly all I expected when I bought it to try.

    The dry film coating they ship with gets brittle and flakes off. I grease my spring and buffer lightly with synthetic grease. So far, so good.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    265
    Feedback Score
    0
    I would be interested in others thoughts about effect of Tubb 42 vs 36 used in a:
    1) 6.8 SPC rifle, and
    2) 6.8 SPC carbine
    Thanks in advance for replies.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    320
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)
    I've been running the Tubbs 42 coil springs in the A5 RE since they were released. I agree that the range of operation is more broad than a traditional setup. Functionality is greater through out the spectrum of cleanliness, temperature, ammo types, lube, etc.
    In 5.56 I'm running an 11.5 suppressed, a 13" with a K can, and a 16" suppressed. My 11.5 is my work gun, and has 15k+ through it's 3rd barrel. So, quite a few rounds with the flat springs. I am a fan of the setup.

    I also run a 42 spring in a 14.5" 308 with a K can.
    Last edited by MQ105; 01-02-21 at 10:07.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •