Page 13 of 23 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 229

Thread: Switch to A5 System?

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    32
    Feedback Score
    0
    I just bought one to try out. In addition to the potential reliability gain and softer impulse the final straw for me was the extra length of the RE. I tend to shoot my CTR's out one or two max on my six position extension. I think the Emod fully collapsed might be just about perfect for me. We shall see.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    2,047
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeCLeonard View Post
    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?
    That's the question no one asks because of what the answer will be.

    When you use a brake with a suppressor to reduce baffle erosion that is a different story, not often the case though.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Way out!
    Posts
    154
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    All right, here's something else to mull over.

    Rifle receiver extension - 9-5/8" inside depth
    Rifle buffer length beyond forward end of spring - 1-5/8"
    Effective inside depth of rifle receiver extension - 8"

    A5 receiver extension - 7-3/4" inside depth
    A5 buffer length beyond forward end of spring - approx. 3/16"
    Effective inside depth of A5 receiver extension - approx. 7-9/16"

    Rifle buffer weighs approx. 5.2 oz.
    A5 std buffer weighs approx. 5.2 oz

    So, the A5 system compresses the rifle spring 3/8" more than the rifle system when both are in the "at rest" position. Whatever amount of force that amounts to, that's the difference between the two. I would think the difference in static length between two springs could account for that much, though.

    So, as I stated earlier, the A5 system is one way to use a rifle weight buffer, and a rifle spring, in a carbine type receiver extension. No magic, but whatever a carbine or mid-length upper will do on a rifle lower, it will do on an A5 equipped lower and have a collapsible stock.

    Additionally, an Armalite AR-10 carbine receiver extension has a 7/3/4" inside depth, so it would more closely approximate the A5 receiver extension, whereas the RR LAR-8 tube has a full 8" inside depth, which would be more like a genuine rifle extension, for whatever that's worth.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    171
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay_Cunningham View Post
    There is no muzzle flip on an AR- that phenomenon is negated by the DI system.


    This is interesting but needs a different thread.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas
    Posts
    2,251
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeCLeonard View Post
    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.
    I posted the answer to this earlier in this thread with a link as well. The rifle action spring is more consistent than the carbine RE. This means the carrier will be traveling at a much more consistent velocity from shot to shot.

    With a carbine RE there will be much more variance in carrier speed from shot to shot. If it's already on the edge, a little bit faster than the time before can cause issues with extraction, for example.

    I can't get into the technical aspects of this. I have a very vague understanding at this point, but not enough to try to explain it.

    I understand Ron's explanations, but I don't think it can take into account consistency and variation in carrier velocity. The rifle system (and A5) has shown to be a more reliable system in the Marines testing, Vltor's testing and even in my own experience, which is nothing in comparison. I've run it on many different rifles and pretty much all showed sme improvement.

    Now, someone posted earlier that either the A5 or rifle system wasn't as snappy as the carbine RE felt. I've noticed that too, as I'm sure most users of a rifle system have. I understand that, we'll all have different experiences by the gas systems we use, barrel lengths, weight of components, ammunition, weight of the buffer, etc.

    For now, I've decided I'll run it n every rifle I own except my 14.5" mid length. My 14.5" mid length BCM has been 100% reliable in a couple thousand rounds with the A5, but a carbine RE and H buffer just feels better to me as the A5, even with one tungsten replaced with a stainless, feels sluggish and on the verge of short stroking with weaker ammo and even 223 75gr TAP. It feels great with all 5.56 from 55gr 193 to 75gr TAP 5.56.
    Last edited by jonconsiglio; 01-06-12 at 18:04. Reason: Spelling - iPad coming up with words that don't exist
    Proven combat techniques may not be flashy and may require a bit more physical effort on the part of the shooter. Further, they may not win competition matches, but they will help ensure your survival in a shooting or gunfight on the street. ~ Paul Howe

  6. #126
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas
    Posts
    2,251
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeCLeonard View Post
    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?
    Recoil felt in an AR will be moving parts (which will vary by the amount of force moving the bolt carrier group - ie. gas), bullet torque, etc. A comp or brake will jet gas out the top and sides, the gas coming out of the top will push the barrel down.

    Take an AR and lock the bolt to the rear without a mag. Take a firing grip as best you can and release the bolt with your left thumb (if right handed). You'll see your dot move around...and it won't be much more than when firing live ammo.

    This is just a basic explanation, I can't get into physics on this one since it's not my area.

    I think a lot of the muzzle flip everyone refers too is actually rifle shake. Try a bolt action with the same load in your AR and you'll see some of what I'm referring too.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpaqu View Post


    This is interesting but needs a different thread.
    Why does this need a different thread? It has a lot to do with what we're talking about.
    Last edited by jonconsiglio; 01-06-12 at 18:05.
    Proven combat techniques may not be flashy and may require a bit more physical effort on the part of the shooter. Further, they may not win competition matches, but they will help ensure your survival in a shooting or gunfight on the street. ~ Paul Howe

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,706
    Feedback Score
    43 (100%)
    I just shot my 10.3" SBR with an A5 system for the first time today....

    And experienced my first failure with this rifle ever.

    It was a double feed and it was the last two rounds in a mag. I have since marked it. I fired about 120 rounds prior to that with no issues but given that it was the last two rounds of the day I'm kind of...you know.

    Anyway, felt recoil seemed a tad different and the ejection pattern was definitely different (about 5:00 when it used to be 2:00)

    The double feed left a bad taste in my mouth. I need to run a few hundred more rounds through it.
    Why do the loudest do the least?

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    171
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jonconsiglio View Post
    I posted the answer to this earlier in this thread with a link as well. The rifle action spring is more consistent than the carbine RE. This means the carrier will be traveling at a much more consistent velocity from shot to shot.

    With a carbine RE there will be much more variance in carrier speed from shot to shot. If it's already on the edge, a little bit faster than the time before can cause issues with extraction, for example.

    I can't get into the technical aspects of this. I have a very vague understanding at this point, but not enough to try to explain it.

    The link you provided only says the following concerning the spring of the A5

    The use of a rifle spring provides consistency that the carbine-length spring does not. It was found that the more coils that a spring has, the more consistent the spring rate upon each compression.
    http://www.militarymorons.com/weapon...urniture2.html

    This is a patently false statement. Military Morons may be living up to their name. The number of coils has NO bearing on how consistent the spring rate is. (And if it is build a carbine spring with more coils) The only thing increasing the number of coils might do is increase the weight of the spring. The only thing increasing the weight of the spring does is increase the effective weight of the buffer.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas
    Posts
    2,251
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by dpaqu View Post
    The link you provided only says the following concerning the spring of the A5



    http://www.militarymorons.com/weapon...urniture2.html

    This is a patently false statement. Military Morons may be living up to their name. The number of coils has NO bearing on how consistent the spring rate is. (And if it is build a carbine spring with more coils) The only thing increasing the number of coils might do is increase the weight of the spring. The only thing increasing the weight of the spring does is increase the effective weight of the buffer.
    We're not so much worried about increasing the weight of the spring, it has to do with coils per length that allows a consistent compression where the shorter carbine action spring will vary its speed per cycle.
    Last edited by jonconsiglio; 01-06-12 at 20:38.
    Proven combat techniques may not be flashy and may require a bit more physical effort on the part of the shooter. Further, they may not win competition matches, but they will help ensure your survival in a shooting or gunfight on the street. ~ Paul Howe

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    171
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jonconsiglio View Post
    So, you're saying it's not more consistent as Vltor has stated?

    So, you've called out a well respected senior member, called the A5 snake oil and now you're saying the rifle action spring does not produce more consistent velocities than a carbine action spring?
    No but I'm thinking about calling you out for reading comprehension.
    -I asked if the claims VLTOR made were snake oil I never stated that it was.
    -I never said that that VLTORs claims for more consistent carrier velocity were false just that those results were not attributed to the spring IF what rsilvers mentioned was true AND if spring harmonics did not play a factor.

    Who did I call out?

Page 13 of 23 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... 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
  •