Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Carbine vs Rifle Buffer System

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    The New Dark Age
    Posts
    1,600
    Feedback Score
    0

    Carbine vs Rifle Buffer System

    Why was the carbine buffer system developed/engineered when the rifle buffer system works well across the spectrum as the VLTOR A5 system has proved?

    The VLTOR A5/rifle RE is only 3/4" longer than a carbine RE so being more compact is kind of insignificant.
    Big brother is watching...and listening.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    North Alabama
    Posts
    3,721
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by prepare View Post
    Why was the carbine buffer system developed/engineered when the rifle buffer system works well across the spectrum as the VLTOR A5 system has proved?

    The VLTOR A5/rifle RE is only 3/4" longer than a carbine RE so being more compact is kind of insignificant.
    No offense, but are you seriously asking that question? See Tom 12.7's answer on page 2. https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread...ffer-Only-3-oz

    Andy
    Last edited by AndyLate; 07-24-21 at 10:21.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,409
    Feedback Score
    0
    Development of the carbine with the collapsible stock started the carbine buffer train rolling. Colt spent a lot of time, effort, money tweaking the design before it hit the wild. Everybody else just ran with it.

    That said, the VLTOR A5 ain't simply the rifle system. The rifle buffer has about 2 inches of spacer built into it. The spacer is to allow the rifle buffer tube to match the designed stock length. VLTOR didn't start down the A5 path looking to improve the carbine system. They were looking to shorten USMC rifle stocks to better suit modern armor use. The eventual end product was the A5 collapsible stock system.

    Colt designers started with a blank page and built the carbine system from scratch. VLTOR was intending to modify the rifle system. That they created a hybrid that works so well is 1 part accident 9 parts ingenuity.

    Looking at it now it seems obvious, but often the so called "obvious" solutions are the hardest to see. Hindsight blah, blah.
    High speed floor buffer operator. For that low drag shine.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    North Alabama
    Posts
    3,721
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    Deleted

    Andy

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    The New Dark Age
    Posts
    1,600
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by AndyLate View Post
    No offense, but are you seriously asking that question? See Tom 12.7's answer on page 2. https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread...ffer-Only-3-oz

    Andy
    Quote Originally Posted by tom12.7 View Post
    About, 25 years ago, I asked some of the decision makers about this, the same thing. They knew that the carbine uppers could run with a wider span with a rifle action system on the lower compared to the carbine type system on the lower. It wasn't a secret then more than it is now. The rifle like action system worked better overall in function. It is a function of timing of events.
    When asked specifically about the spring, RE length selection, and buffer mass, some interesting things came up.
    The buffer mass was pushed as the most viable option at that time. I get conflicting reports of suitable tungsten weight inserts during those times being available for small or large production. Anyways, steel was accepted at the time knowing that is has the lower span of function when compared to a heavier one that may not have the ability to supply as components.
    The RE length was meant to fit an AOL requirement that some wanted. I do not know where that came from, but it was a requirement at some time. On the base gun, the rifles ran worse for the requirement with less barrel length than less RE length. It was an consensus that to have more barrel length and less RE length. I do not know if this happened before or after the choice of tungsten weights was eliminated?
    As for the spring? It was a modified rifle spring intended to work within the shorter RE dimensions. That functioned well enough, but less than ideal.
    This was all done knowing that the rifle like action system performed better. They ended with a functional system, but with the addition of issues. I really think that the 3 ounce carbine action is a mistake for most. Even with proper porting, a 3 ounce buffer may have a lower range or span on function when considering the alternatives we have now.
    Some AR's have longer gas systems to help address some base timing of events issues. A better way may or may not include that with a rifle like action system. The idea of the commercial A5, minus the internal spring, has been around since before my inital question a quarter century ago. Many different versions have been around in at least limited circulation from before my time.
    I can not see in any way that the properly gassed 3 ounce carbine buffer action system can have any more of a range in function than a properly gassed version of the A5H2 system.
    Toms inquiries didn't reveal any definitive conclusions
    Big brother is watching...and listening.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    North Alabama
    Posts
    3,721
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by prepare View Post
    Toms inquiries didn't reveal any definitive conclusions
    Its unlikely you will find definitive conclusions backed with verifiable documentation by asking a question on the internet.

    The first carbine REs were two position - fully collapsed, meeting an OAL target, and fully extended, equal to an M-16 LOP.

    A longer RE would not meet the OAL target without a shorter barrel. A shorter RE would not allow an M-16 LOP.

    Andy
    Last edited by AndyLate; 07-24-21 at 12:24.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    The New Dark Age
    Posts
    1,600
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by AndyLate View Post
    Its unlikely you will find definitive conclusions backed with verifiable documentation by asking a question on the internet.

    The first carbine REs were two position - fully collapsed, meeting an OAL target, and fully extended, equal to an M-16 LOP.

    A longer RE would not meet the OAL target without a shorter barrel. A shorter RE would not allow an M-16 LOP.

    Andy
    Thanks for the info and the link to Tom12.7

    He doesn't appear to be around anymore?
    Big brother is watching...and listening.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    North Alabama
    Posts
    3,721
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by prepare View Post
    Thanks for the info and the link to Tom12.7

    He doesn't appear to be around anymore?
    I have not seen him post for a while, no activity since 2018.

    Andy
    Last edited by AndyLate; 07-24-21 at 14:34.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,481
    Feedback Score
    11 (92%)
    I'll stick my neck out... Why would you change gas from or to carbine, mid or rifle if your rifle works as it is? Maybe I am not smart enough to see the benefit of one over the others.
    Last edited by GH41; 07-24-21 at 19:39.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    The New Dark Age
    Posts
    1,600
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GH41 View Post
    I'll stick my neck out... Why would you change gas from or to carbine, mid or rifle if your rifle works as it is? Maybe I am not smart enough to see the benefit of one over the others.
    The question I was asking is why didn't the engineers stick with the rifle length buffer system? Nobody mentioned gas system.
    Big brother is watching...and listening.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •