Page 12 of 23 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 229

Thread: Switch to A5 System?

  1. #111
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Way out!
    Posts
    154
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Koshinn View Post
    I'm pretty sure you don't need the spacer, the extra length of the a5 buffer shouldn't matter much regarding spring compression or buffer travel, while a spacer will change spring compression compared to a real a5.

    Although if your spacer is slim enough that the buffer spring fits in the tube around the spacer, I imagine all you did by adding it was add some mass to the back of your weapon.

    Or maybe I'm going crazy from all the meds I'm on.
    I believe you misunderstood what I did. I used a regular carbine H3 buffer, not the A5 buffer. Without the spacer, the carbine H3 buffer would be 3/4" too short for the extended length of the AR-10 buffer tube. Operating the rifle like that would instantly cause the destruction of the lower receiver, so do not try this.

    My spacer was made to fit inside the spring, so as to not cause any compression of the spring. Too, the mass of the spacer is less than an ounce, so it made no difference, in that respect.

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    171
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by markm View Post
    The system has been tested "a la Madre" by the Marines already.

    More so than any of our ammo budgets would allow. What are we missing???
    You yourself said in this thread the results were within the "statistical margin of error"????

    rob_s can test this stuff if he wants but to what end? rsilvers established that the springs are not anywhere near stressed and we know from previous threads that they are linear so what is the point????

    Myth: Rifle length buffer systems are more reliable.
    Fact: Rifle weight buffers are more reliable.

    IF: harmonics (AKA weight and force of a reciprocating spring)don't play a factor as that is the only thing that has yet to be accounted for.

    The Marines and Vltor can't change physics.

  3. #113
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    27,216
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by dpaqu View Post
    You yourself said in this thread the results were within the "statistical margin of error"????
    Yep.... They nominally had less malfs with the A5... but nothing significant enough to run through the streets screaming about...

    This was how it was explained to me, mind you.. I can't remember the round count... but it was beyond anything an individual could do himself.
    "You people have too much time on your hands." - scottryan

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    454
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    I'm very interested in the A5 system...but I'm having a real hard time wrapping my head around why the same effects of the A5 can't be duplicated by just using a heavier buffer in the carbine system like some of you are saying.

    The bolt carrier goes back and encounters counter-force imparted by the weight of a buffer, and the force of the spring. If a particular carbine buffer/spring combo imparts an equal amount of resistance as the A5 combo on the moving bolt carrier...then what is the difference? The only thing I can think of is having the resistance from the buffer/spring applied in a more linear and consistent fashion with the A5...but even Mr. Silver's numbers show that there isn't much, if any difference.

    And not to derail too much...but there was mention of stock-weight and it's affect on how a rifle recoils...leading us to attribute a perceived benefit in feel of the A5 to heavier stocks. All other things being equal, wouldn't a heavier stock increase muzzle flip since you're moving the fulcrum (center of gravity) of the rifle rearward...which would require less force to get the barrel end moving up? Seems like a front heavy, but lighter rifle might exhibit a little snappier feeling recoil...but with less muzzle jump. Am I making any sense?
    Last edited by MikeCLeonard; 01-06-12 at 15:15.

  5. #115
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    2,047
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by dpaqu View Post
    You yourself said in this thread the results were within the "statistical margin of error"????

    rob_s can test this stuff if he wants but to what end? rsilvers established that the springs are not anywhere near stressed and we know from previous threads that they are linear so what is the point????

    Myth: Rifle length buffer systems are more reliable.
    Fact: Rifle weight buffers are more reliable.

    IF: harmonics (AKA weight and force of a reciprocating spring)don't play a factor as that is the only thing that has yet to be accounted for.

    The Marines and Vltor can't change physics.
    The springs are linear, but not the same and the rates are different enough.

    As far as stress is concerned... Well both springs are acceptable for use and reasonable life. Let's worry about the rate, force, and resting force. Those all matter.

  6. #116
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,028
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)
    There is no muzzle flip on an AR- that phenomenon is negated by the DI system.

  7. #117
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    454
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay_Cunningham View Post
    There is no muzzle flip on an AR- that phenomenon is negated by the DI system.
    So is recoil solely a factor of the reciprocating mass inside the rifle then? What makes the dot on a RDS move in any particular direction once the rifle is fired? Granted, shooter technique plays a big part here...but aside from that...I'm just curious what factors can be adjusted to lessen the movement of the rifle during firing. Also, if there is no muzzle-flip...what forces are being addressed with muzzle-breaks and comps?

    Your input is appreciated...Thank you Jay!

    -Mike
    Last edited by MikeCLeonard; 01-06-12 at 15:39.

  8. #118
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    2,047
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeCLeonard View Post
    So is recoil solely a factor of the reciprocating mass inside the rifle then? What makes the dot on a RDS move in any particular direction once the rifle is fired?
    Consider how the gun works... There is nothing reacted until the bolt moves backwards along the bore axis. The only forces acting in other directions are those applied by the shooter supporting the gun and reacting the directly rearward recoil force. The shooter will impart some force on the stock, under the receiver extension and out of line that will cause some movement.

    Draw a free body diagram of the gun in rest and just after the bullet has fired.

  9. #119
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,028
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)
    There is also counter torque from the bullet spinning down the rifling of the barrel.

  10. #120
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    454
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    So I'm still curious about how comps offer any improvement in recoil management. If not for keeping the muzzle from moving upward...are they designed simply to reduce the amount of rearward force?

Page 12 of 23 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... 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
  •