Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: Wont lock back on empty magazine with overgassed upper

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    9,532
    Feedback Score
    45 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MistWolf View Post
    Recoil is sharper with a carbine weight buffer. I experimented with an upper equipped with an adjustable gas block, suppressed and unsuppressed, with carbine, H and H2 buffers. After all the internet chatter about using different buffer weights to control over gassing, I was surprised fo find out all three buffers used the same gas setting. The difference was how recoil felt. Recoil with the carbine buffer was uncomfortably sharp. You can feel the reciprocating mass hit the end of the RE harder.
    Translating into unnecessary abuse on your weapon.
    Gettin' down innagrass.
    Let's Go Brandon!

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,756
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by titsonritz View Post
    Translating into unnecessary abuse on your weapon.
    For the first ten years they ran fine with standard weight buffers.

    There is no mention of any change in parts breakage between the early standard weight and later H2 buffer.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    59
    Feedback Score
    0
    From experience running the optimized gas port of the bcm 14.5, i find the lighter carbine buffer gives a smoother cycle, less harsh, faster follow up shots due to the lighter mass of the buffer. I think thats why some companies like JP make low mass bcgs etc. For their race guns.

    Running a carbine and/or low mass bcgs on an overgassed gun can be a problem though which is the problem i might be facing now with a particular upper.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    9,326
    Feedback Score
    28 (100%)
    I'm not saying that it's not the magazine, but you have to be running super fast to outrun a good condition magazine.
    The M321 port firing weapon has a cyclic rate of over 1200 rounds per minute, which is about 200 rounds per minute faster than a rifle that would show issues with cleanly ejecting the fired cartridge (leading to intermittent "stove-pipes"). The Mk18 (depending on generation) runs at around 850-900 rounds per minute, which can bump up to around 1,000 rpm or more when suppressed, and magazines are *usually* not the failure point if they're up to snuff. If you are using PMags, you're probably safe up to 1500 rounds per minute, but you're likely to find the mechanical limit of the Stoner operating system before you hit the limit of the PMag.
    Jack Leuba
    Director of Sales
    Knight's Armament Company
    jleuba@knightarmco.com

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,756
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Failure2Stop View Post
    I'm not saying that it's not the magazine, but you have to be running super fast to outrun a good condition magazine.
    The M321 port firing weapon has a cyclic rate of over 1200 rounds per minute, which is about 200 rounds per minute faster than a rifle that would show issues with cleanly ejecting the fired cartridge (leading to intermittent "stove-pipes"). The Mk18 (depending on generation) runs at around 850-900 rounds per minute, which can bump up to around 1,000 rpm or more when suppressed, and magazines are *usually* not the failure point if they're up to snuff. If you are using PMags, you're probably safe up to 1500 rounds per minute, but you're likely to find the mechanical limit of the Stoner operating system before you hit the limit of the PMag.
    The acceptable cyclic rate for the M16A1 was 700-900 rpm.

    The M4A1 is 700-1025 rpm

    The M231 was 1000 to 1250 rpm
    Last edited by lysander; 03-09-21 at 10:18.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    32,834
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Failure2Stop View Post
    I'm not saying that it's not the magazine, but you have to be running super fast to outrun a good condition magazine.
    I've had it for sure. My first SBR (20 plus years back), there weren't many options on short barrels. I got a Sabre Defense 11.5 with a port over .080. This was so far back it was pre retard o-ring in the extractor patch for these nightmare ports.

    I was probably running a carbine buffer to make things worse because heavier buffers were just starting to pop up. That gun was so brutal to shoot. It would regularly outrun the mag follower.
    "What would a $2,000 Geissele Super Duty do that a $500 PSA door buster on Black Friday couldn't do?" - Stopsign32v

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    8,431
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Colt 20 round mags have weak springs , right out of the box, FYI. Gen 3 Pmags in 20 rounders solved my problem one time in one such issue. And who knows with other no name mags. I cheat and run A5 buffer system and feel they are the holly grail of buffer systems. Probably overkill in many situations, but no downside other than spending $100 vs $35 or whatever.

    PB
    "Air Force / Policeman / Fireman / Man of God / Friend of mine / R.I.P. Steve Lamy"

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,799
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by lysander View Post
    For the first ten years they ran fine with standard weight buffers.

    There is no mention of any change in parts breakage between the early standard weight and later H2 buffer.
    Yes. I've never had anything break because I was running a carbine buffer (but I suspect they cause premature extractor spring failures). But bloody hell! They hurt my shoulder!
    The number of folks on my Full Of Shit list grows everyday

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,756
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MistWolf View Post
    Yes. I've never had anything break because I was running a carbine buffer (but I suspect they cause premature extractor spring failures). But bloody hell! They hurt my shoulder!
    Well, the new extractor spring was introduced around the same time as the heavy buffer.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    9,326
    Feedback Score
    28 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by lysander View Post
    The acceptable cyclic rate for the M16A1 was 700-900 rpm.

    The M4A1 is 700-1025 rpm

    The M231 was 1000 to 1250 rpm
    Acceptance range and average performance are different things, and basing the cyclic rate on a full 30-round magazine (fixture dependent as well) will give a different implication of carrier velocity than directly measuring carrier velocity. Part of the issue is that people don't think about carrier velocity, so it's easier to base the observation/discussion on cyclic rate, since the average reader would basically need to mentally equate the relative speed.
    I was giving general reference numbers with systems in current service.
    The M4 ejector has issues if running over a relative 1,000 RPM.
    Jack Leuba
    Director of Sales
    Knight's Armament Company
    jleuba@knightarmco.com

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •