Help me decide / educate me on buffers.

[okie]

A standard spring and an H2 does what the A5 claims to do. Always has.

What's always appealed to me about the A5 was the ability to use an M16 recoil spring and only adding an inch to the length. To me, that's a winning trade all day every day.

[markm]

What's always appealed to me about the A5 was the ability to use an M16 recoil spring and only adding an inch to the length. To me, that's a winning trade all day every day.

Absolutely. RSilvers did a bunch of analysis years back. And he quantified the H2 with carbine action spring to be a relatively close second to the Rifle/A5 buffer system. H2 is close enough to A5/Rifle that I don't replace it on existing guns.

[okie]

Absolutely. RSilvers did a bunch of analysis years back. And he quantified the H2 with carbine action spring to be a relatively close second to the Rifle/A5 buffer system. H2 is close enough to A5/Rifle that I don't replace it on existing guns.

It's the better compression rate of the rifle spring that appeals to me.

[17K]

I'd say that goes against conventional wisdom on this site, as well as mine and thousands of other's experiences. If it did nothing, BCM wouldn't have pushed it since inception and wouldn't have developed their own version.

But you do you and I'll do me.........

Conventional A5 fans on this site are nothing more than an internet peanut gallery that lap up the products that the owners of this site advertise to them.

If you think the A5 fixes a problem, then it does. It’s that simple.

[Disciple]

Conventional A5 fans on this site are nothing more than an internet peanut gallery that lap up the products that the owners of this site advertise to them.

You are calling out all these members as shills or mindless drones? https://www.m4carbine.net/poll.php?p...do=showresults

26 Inf, 556BlackRifle, aap3535, Abull, alx01, archad, Azraeyl, bad aim, Biggy, biohazard1717, BL1, bmg, Boba Fett v2, BoringGuy45, C-grunt, Chuc, Clint, Code3Patriot, CoryCop25, cutamerc, dlraymond30, docsherm, DPTX25, Duffy, El Cid, Freelance, Furbyballer, glocktogo, graffex, grizzman, Hammer_Man, HardRice, Henry Porter, HKGuns, hk_shootr, Hmac, IKnowNotEverything, Iraqgunz, Jar_Head, JediGuy, jwfuhrman, Jwknutson17, kaltesherz, Korgs130, m1a convert, mack7.62, masakari, maximus83, Metric Matt, mpom, Mr McSimon, msstate56, MWAG19919, nate89, nightchief, ninpo_student, noonesshowmonkey, NWshooter, NYH1, ODgreenpizza, opngrnd, PatrioticDisorder, patrolman, PhoPoweR, PrivateCitizen, QuickStrike, R0C, Randall, Rayrevolver, Renegade04, RHINOWSO, RKB Armory, RobertTheTexan, sdacbob, Skeeter98, SomeOtherGuy, Sry0fcr, STAMarine, SteveL, Stickman, tb-av, tehpwnag3, The Rat, thei3ug, themonk, titsonritz, tmcgahe2, TMS951, Todd.K, uffdaphil, USAF VET, utahjeepr, Vegas, vicious_cb, VIP3R 237, vvhiskey

And SOLGW who commented without vote.

The A5 system is great in that it's more forgiving and less sensitive to input.

There has been a single type of failure associated with the A5 system and it doesn't present when using PMAGs. That alone does not invalidate the entire system.

[17K]

You are calling out all these members as shills or mindless drones? https://www.m4carbine.net/poll.php?p...do=showresults

26 Inf, 556BlackRifle, aap3535, Abull, alx01, archad, Azraeyl, bad aim, Biggy, biohazard1717, BL1, bmg, Boba Fett v2, BoringGuy45, C-grunt, Chuc, Clint, Code3Patriot, CoryCop25, cutamerc, dlraymond30, docsherm, DPTX25, Duffy, El Cid, Freelance, Furbyballer, glocktogo, graffex, grizzman, Hammer_Man, HardRice, Henry Porter, HKGuns, hk_shootr, Hmac, IKnowNotEverything, Iraqgunz, Jar_Head, JediGuy, jwfuhrman, Jwknutson17, kaltesherz, Korgs130, m1a convert, mack7.62, masakari, maximus83, Metric Matt, mpom, Mr McSimon, msstate56, MWAG19919, nate89, nightchief, ninpo_student, noonesshowmonkey, NWshooter, NYH1, ODgreenpizza, opngrnd, PatrioticDisorder, patrolman, PhoPoweR, PrivateCitizen, QuickStrike, R0C, Randall, Rayrevolver, Renegade04, RHINOWSO, RKB Armory, RobertTheTexan, sdacbob, Skeeter98, SomeOtherGuy, Sry0fcr, STAMarine, SteveL, Stickman, tb-av, tehpwnag3, The Rat, thei3ug, themonk, titsonritz, tmcgahe2, TMS951, Todd.K, uffdaphil, USAF VET, utahjeepr, Vegas, vicious_cb, VIP3R 237, vvhiskey

And SOLGW who commented without vote.




There has been a single type of failure associated with the A5 system and it doesn't present when using PMAGs. That alone does not invalidate the entire system.

I did my own testing and came to my own conclusions. People really can’t feel a difference if they don’t know what buffer is in the gun, and reliability is not as good.

[markm]

It's the better compression rate of the rifle spring that appeals to me.

This is why I used to have an 11.5 with an A1 rifle stock. Damn it. I miss that set up.

[Disciple]

I did my own testing and came to my own conclusions. People really can’t feel a difference if they don’t know what buffer is in the gun, and reliability is not as good.

There are many members who have reported an improved operating range, versatility with more uppers, ammo, temperature, suppressors, etc. You have identified a problem but if it may be resolved either by using PMAGs or removing the bias spring there remain benefits from the A5 system. It is not justified to dismiss all of these people as "an internet peanut gallery."

The A5 system was developed to address a reliability issue with the collapsible stock on the M16 Rifle - and yes, during independent testing involving many, many thousands of rounds and a controlled group of test weapons, the A5 system did improve reliability significantly.

The other benefit is increased consistency from the spring biased weights, more weights (4 vs 3) and using the longer rifle spring.

Most configurations will run with just an H buffer.

However, the A5 will not only run, but it is extremely consistent with different loads.

Whereas with standard buffers you will see the ejection change and feel the cycle change with hotter and weaker loads, with the A5 it seems much less sensitive to this and seems to cycle about the same no matter what.

I run all A5's now: the main benefit is the increased reliability and consistency running many types of ammo. I think I can detect that the recoil pulse is smoother as well, but that's subjective and not something that in itself, I'd upgrade to A5 for. Ultimately, it's about one thing: reliability with many types of ammo whether running suppressed or unsuppressed.

The purpose of the A5 system is not to reduce felt recoil.
That may be one of the byproducts, but not it's purpose.
The A5 system distributes that load over more wire...again, making it less sensitive to input. And by input I mean adding a suppressor or changing uppers etc.
The biasing spring in the buffer itself keeps the mass in the same position...so, when your bolt unlocks and the carrier begins to overcome that mass it's more consistent.

My approach to the rifle is that it works suppressed or unsuppressed without the need for adjustable anything, and to work in less than ideal scenarios. Worn rings, dry, fouled, debris, etc...
I also believe that everything starts at the gas port... you don't want the gun so overgassed that it's beating itself to death or creating issues suppressed..but you need enough gas to drive the gun even during those less an ideal scenarios. The A5 with a good port is really opening up the operational window of that rifle.

As an example... if you have a well tuned 16" mid gas gun, with a good gas port...and that's the config you intend to always run it, then you probably won't see much of a benefit from the A5 if you're running an H/H2 buffer.

If you're changing uppers, and adding and removing cans etc... I think you will.

I use the A5 buffer system because a single buffer weight and spring combination works across a wider variety of variables that affect function. I'm always swapping lowers and uppers, shooting suppressed and unsuppressed, shooting different ammo, etc. The A5 system just works for me no matter what. I even use my 9mm setup with the standard A5 buffer and have no issues at all.

Not needed? That's something that each user needs to decide for themselves. To me the A5 most definitely serves a purpose.

But, the A5 when done correctly will allow you to use a wide variety of uppers on one lower. In my experience with it, it almost guarantees that you will have more reliability and control.

That said, why do I prefer the A5 system? In short, it enlarges the pressure and time envelope that the M4 type rifle will function within. It will allow you to run hotter ammunition with a reduced cyclic rate, and it will allow you to run low pressure ammunition and still afford positive function.

Although the heavier buffered carbine action systems can work well in rifle gassed uppers, I've been less than convinced that they posses as wide of a range of operation that the A5 system can offer, given proper porting, etc.
I agree with Clint that the A5 is what the carbine action should have been.

Changing to the rifle like or A5 over the carbine type of action is probably one of the best upgrades you can do to the carbine like action system for function for most users.

Most any company can invest relatively little capital money to study the versatility of the carbine type action system to the rifle type/ A5 action system. I seriously doubt that any that do so would come to the conclusion that the carbine action system could be utilized in an equal role for as wide of a range of the rifle type/ A5 system. The curve of operation supports the higher mass with less spring over carbine type action.

Even minus the internal buffer spring, the rifle like and/or A5 action is well proven in the timing of events during the action cycle for proper function over the conventional carbine action system. Some tests do focus more on certain sand tests that do not prefer it, but those tests are not normal for most. The 7.62 RE with a lengthened buffer with the rifle action spring to accommodate are not new, It can improve function over the carbine action. The possible internal buffer spring is icing on the cake in function.

[17K]

There are many members who have reported an improved operating range, versatility with more uppers, ammo, temperature, suppressors, etc. You have identified a problem but if it may be resolved either by using PMAGs or removing the bias spring there remain benefits from the A5 system. It is not justified to dismiss all of these people as "an internet peanut gallery."

Nope. There’s no benefit. There’s no increased operating range, or bigger window, or whatever people think it does. I have never seen it in 14 odd years of having at least lower setup with an A5. If the gun will run, it run on a carbine + H2 as well or better than with an A5.

[okie]

Nope. There’s no benefit. There’s no increased operating range, or bigger window, or whatever people think it does. I have never seen it in 14 odd years of having at least lower setup with an A5. If the gun will run, it run on a carbine + H2 as well or better than with an A5.

I would wager any improvements were more perception, maybe combined with coincidence. Like someone had a hiccup with 223 on a cold day, then installed the A5 system and shot that same ammo on the hottest day of the year and it worked fine, so they then conclude the A5 did something wonderful for them.