Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 116

Thread: What is your ideal SBR/Suppressed setup?

  1. #91
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurodriver View Post
    By "function" I mean if my can is damaged/lost, will I still be able to engage the threat without turning my rifle into a single shot. If the answer is yes, then the rifle functions.

    So, I suppose locking back is not important for "function", and yes, cycle is a better term.

    To re-phrase:

    I hope my rifle, with a .062" gas port, cycles using a buffer weight that allows adequate performance while suppressed.
    It will and you will most likely want to upgrade to an H2 or H3 buffer.



    C4

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,065
    Feedback Score
    38 (100%)
    So I've been reading up on gas port sizes and came across a chart for "milspec" GP sizes for different barrel lengths. I know we have established that Noveske uses Milspec port sizes, but according to the chart:

    A 14.5-16" barrel with an outside barrel diameter of .625" (at the GP) will have a min port size of .063.

    A 14.5-16" barrel with an outside barrel diameter of .750" (at the GP) will have a min port size of .070.

    My first question is, aren't Noveske's barrels .750" at the gas port? Giving it a .070 GP size? Or is it still .063?

    Secone, why would the diameter of the barrel change the GP size?

  3. #93
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironman8 View Post
    So I've been reading up on gas port sizes and came across a chart for "milspec" GP sizes for different barrel lengths. I know we have established that Noveske uses Milspec port sizes, but according to the chart:

    A 14.5-16" barrel with an outside barrel diameter of .625" (at the GP) will have a min port size of .063.

    A 14.5-16" barrel with an outside barrel diameter of .750" (at the GP) will have a min port size of .070.

    My first question is, aren't Noveske's barrels .750" at the gas port? Giving it a .070 GP size? Or is it still .063?

    Secone, why would the diameter of the barrel change the GP size?

    If you are using the chart I am thinking of, it is wrong.

    First, there are really only a handful of "issued" weapons. The two most common would be the M4 (which uses a .063GP) and the A2/A4.

    The thickness of the barrel has nothing to do with the GP size.

    Since we know that the M4's GP size is .063, then when you go to a 16" barrel, you are increasing dwell time. This means that you need to reduce the GP size to around .061 IMHO.


    C4

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    7,868
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by munch520 View Post
    I don't think it would be on a dedicated upper with full power loads. Obviously wouldn't run un suppressed.

    I'd be interested to get a few together with a high speed camera and measure results, But I doubt I can find local people with these, and unforutnately can't build 3 MK18s now
    -a custom build ~.058" or so
    -a cut down carbine ~.062"
    -a factory 10.5 (LMT or the like)

    Obviously keeping the same: barrel lengths, ammunition, carriers, buffers, springs, etc.
    .056'' cycles for me, unsuppressed, and with A5 system will lock the bolt back.

    With 5.56mm ammo only. Most .223 won't even cycle in my gun.
    We miss you, AC.
    We miss you, ToddG.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    2,842
    Feedback Score
    18 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Magic_Salad0892 View Post
    .056'' cycles for me, unsuppressed, and with A5 system will lock the bolt back.

    With 5.56mm ammo only. Most .223 won't even cycle in my gun.
    Well that's good news. I'll be running the A5 too

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,065
    Feedback Score
    38 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    If you are using the chart I am thinking of, it is wrong.

    First, there are really only a handful of "issued" weapons. The two most common would be the M4 (which uses a .063GP) and the A2/A4.

    The thickness of the barrel has nothing to do with the GP size.

    Since we know that the M4's GP size is .063, then when you go to a 16" barrel, you are increasing dwell time. This means that you need to reduce the GP size to around .061 IMHO.


    C4
    Thanks Grant. That makes much more sense.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    454
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Question for Grant or anyone else that has tried this stuff with and without the LMT enhanced carrier.

    If a 14.5" barrel with 0.062" gp was cut to 11.5" and found to function/lock back using a standard carrier and H2 buffer...would there still be any benefit to trying the enhanced LMT carrier?

    Even though the rifle is functioning with the standard carrier...would the enhanced carrier run cleaner or allow the use of lower-powered ammo?

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    7,868
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeCLeonard View Post
    Question for Grant or anyone else that has tried this stuff with and without the LMT enhanced carrier.

    If a 14.5" barrel with 0.062" gp was cut to 11.5" and found to function/lock back using a standard carrier and H2 buffer...would there still be any benefit to trying the enhanced LMT carrier?

    Even though the rifle is functioning with the standard carrier...would the enhanced carrier run cleaner or allow the use of lower-powered ammo?
    I don't know, but I think yes.
    We miss you, AC.
    We miss you, ToddG.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,065
    Feedback Score
    38 (100%)
    I'm still a little fuzzy as to why you would need a carrier to BLEED off gas from a system that is "optimized" to shoot dedicated suppressed (meaning it already has less gas to begin with)?

    Is it that you have optimized the system for use WITH the LMT Enhanced Carrier?

    If you could drill your own gas port, couldn't you get the same effect with a smaller GP and a standard carrier (because you don't have the excess gas that needs to be bled off)?

    What benefit does the LMT enhanced carrier give you that the standard carrier does not, that would make you want to use it instead of optimizing the gas port for a standard carrier?

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,706
    Feedback Score
    43 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironman8 View Post
    I'm still a little fuzzy as to why you would need a carrier to BLEED off gas from a system that is "optimized" to shoot dedicated suppressed (meaning it already has less gas to begin with)?

    Is it that you have optimized the system for use WITH the LMT Enhanced Carrier?

    If you could drill your own gas port, couldn't you get the same effect with a smaller GP and a standard carrier (because you don't have the excess gas that needs to be bled off)?

    What benefit does the LMT enhanced carrier give you that the standard carrier does not, that would make you want to use it instead of optimizing the gas port for a standard carrier?
    You should read Grants "perfect suppressed SBR" thread.
    Why do the loudest do the least?

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 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
  •