Page 5 of 23 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 229

Thread: Switch to A5 System?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    Nope. Now I know why I thought it performed like the rifle system - because everyone told me it does. That is not the case.

    As you can see - the tube is 0.75 longer, but so is the buffer - so the travel remains the same as a carbine system.



    Whats the OAL of the rifle minus the spacer? And what if you tool the length of the spacer off the rifle buffer tube?

  2. #42
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Way out!
    Posts
    154
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    Nope. The rifle buffer is better than the carbine buffer because it has more travel.
    Wrong! They all have the same amount of travel, which is based on the BCG distance of travel, not the length of the buffer or its tube.
    Last edited by M90A1; 01-02-12 at 20:18. Reason: clarity

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0
    I just checked and you are right - about 3.75 inches for both.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Way out!
    Posts
    154
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    I just checked and you are right - about 3.75 inches for both.
    Yep, anymore travel than that, and the carrier key would break the lower receiver when it hit the buffer tube mounting point. The supposed reason the A5 works better than the carbine system is because of the rifle spring/heavier buffer combination. I don't completely understand the engineering involved, but the softer spring/heavier buffer seems to work better than the lighter buffer/heavier spring combination. It doesn't seem like it should, but it appears to work that way. Either combination of parts should be having to work against the same amount of pressure, generated by the firing cartridge, but evidently not. I suppose we're getting into dwell, timing, and probably some other factors, now. Someone with an engineering background would have to take over from here.
    Last edited by M90A1; 01-02-12 at 20:51.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0
    If the rifle buffer is over 5 oz, and the rifle and carbine buffer have the exact same travel - why does the carbine and H buffer even exist? Why would anyone use anything less than an H2 buffer (and whatever gas port was needed to make it work at the correct cyclic rate)?

    It seems like the entire problem with the carbine buffer all along was that it was not an H2 buffer from the start.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Way out!
    Posts
    154
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    If the rifle buffer is over 5 oz, and the rifle and carbine buffer have the exact same travel - why does the carbine and H buffer even exist? Why would anyone use anything less than an H2 buffer (and whatever gas port was needed to make it work at the correct cyclic rate)?

    It seems like the entire problem with the carbine buffer all along was that it was not an H2 buffer from the start.
    Spring rate? Is the carbine spring just a shortened rifle spring, or is it stronger?

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    2,047
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    If the rifle buffer is over 5 oz, and the rifle and carbine buffer have the exact same travel - why does the carbine and H buffer even exist? Why would anyone use anything less than an H2 buffer (and whatever gas port was needed to make it work at the correct cyclic rate)?

    It seems like the entire problem with the carbine buffer all along was that it was not an H2 buffer from the start.
    There are a few things about the CAR extension that don't make sense to me.

    Do you know the inside depth of the tubes?

    Also, if you get a chance can you see what the dims are at the locations marked? I don't have a rifle buffer or extension or any A5 parts at the moment. I suspect the OAL's between them, at a glance, might not be as far apart as mentioned here.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0
    The carbine and rifle spring, when installed in their respective tubes, both provide 5.8 lbs of force and go up to about 11 lbs of force.

    Normally I would think the carbine spring would be stressed more, but I calculated the stress in both, and they were both fine and within normal limits.

    I can think of no reason why the rifle buffer system would be any different than a carbine buffer system that uses an H2 buffer.

    It seems like what gave the carbine system the bad rap was the carbine buffer and H buffer - which, in 5.56mm at least, seem to have no reason to exist except to save money on Tungsten.

    Basically, the rifle buffer has low-cost steel weights, so someone put steel weights in the carbine buffer, and that is how we got the C buffer.

    So if you want to upgrade your carbine, I would use an H2 buffer - and then measure the cyclic rate on a FA lower, and enlarge the gas port if necessary to achieve 800-825 rpm (while using a normal spring).

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Malmo, Sweden
    Posts
    678
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    The length of travel of all three systems is the same - about 3.75 inches. The A5 system allows you to use the rifle spring, but it compresses the spring more than a rifle stock.

    http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/9...risonsmall.jpg

    http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/8...parisonsma.jpg
    Huge thanks for posting those pics!

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    27,216
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    It seems like the entire problem with the carbine buffer all along was that it was not an H2 buffer from the start.
    Wow. Could it REALLY be that simple?

    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    The carbine and rifle spring, when installed in their respective tubes, both provide 5.8 lbs of force and go up to about 11 lbs of force.

    Normally I would think the carbine spring would be stressed more, but I calculated the stress in both, and they were both fine and within normal limits.

    I can think of no reason why the rifle buffer system would be any different than a carbine buffer system that uses an H2 buffer.

    <SNIP>
    Ooooh... that's interesting. I'd have guessed the Rifle spring to have lower force on the bottom side.
    Last edited by markm; 01-03-12 at 13:27.
    "You people have too much time on your hands." - scottryan

Page 5 of 23 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... 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
  •