Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: cheap ammo and carbine gas v.s mid length gas, witch is more reliable?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    310
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    cheap ammo and carbine gas v.s mid length gas, witch is more reliable?

    I haven't been able to find my question from a Google search,and wen try to use the orange search button on this sight it shuts my phone down, why I don't know but I can't use it. I just want to know witch gas system car v.s mid length is best for running underpowerd ammo. I know It's not best to use cheap ammo, but that's what I can afford to shoot in quantity. I would rather shoot a lot of cheap ammo then a few hundred rounds of mil spec ammo. I am wanting to run a 14.5 inch barrel on my main training upper and was thinking a carbine length gas system would be the most reliable out of the two for the cheap ammo. but don't have any proof of this just a thought. Anyone know of any hard evidence to support this? Or is it just the luck of the draw on weather a gun will run underpowered ammo? Thanks for any help I appreciate it.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Northern UT
    Posts
    4,023
    Feedback Score
    66 (100%)
    Logically the shorter gas system would allow more gas pressure to power the action when using underpowered ammo. another option is to get the upper you want and then experiment with different buffer weights.
    Last edited by VIP3R 237; 02-20-12 at 20:14.
    I paint spaceship parts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Failure2Stop View Post
    Stippled Glocks are like used underwear; previous owner makes all the difference in value.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    310
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    That's what I was thinking about the shorter gas system, never thought to try different buffer/spring waights with the mid length. thanks for the reply

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NM
    Posts
    3,988
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    Low powered ammo is still low powered, and lube has more to do with it than people give it credit for.

    Lowering the reciprocating weight helps (CAR buffer), but unless it's a pure plinking gun, I'd focus on function with your primary go-to ammunition, and view the rest as malfunction clearance practice.
    عندما تصبح الأسلحة محظورة, قد يملكون حظرون عندهم فقط
    کله چی سلاح منع شوی دی، یوازي غلوونکۍ یی به درلود
    Semper Fi
    "Being able to do the basics, on demand, takes practice. " - Sinister

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    310
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    I understand where your coming from, but if the gun functions with the low powered cheap stuff then it will almost certainly function with xm193 m855. Unless there is something else causing the problems. This gun will be used for messing around on the range, but it will not be It's primary function. First and foremost it will be my SD/HD gun, but it will also be the gun I use most at training classes(because it will be my SD/HD gun) and I will be using cheap ammo. That's why I'm trying to find the most reliable setup to run cheap ammo. I may just be over thinking it, because every other AR I have had with the exception of one, would run cheap ammo as well as the hotter xm193 just fine. Anyway I appreciate your help thanks.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    You are over-thinking it.

    Even a mid-length, even a 14.5" mid-length can be made to run "cheap ammo". I have 850 rounds of steel-cased ammo through a 14.5" BCM mid-length with no cleaning and lube added at the 450 round mark.

    That said, I also don't think the mid-length cures cancer the way some people will have you believing it does.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    370
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    I have two mid length rifles, 16 inch barrels. They both run with Wolf although cleaning the chamber helps. I mostly prefer the mid length for the extra hand guard length, that and I just think they look more balanced with less barrel sticking out.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    Posts
    8,192
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    A mid-length will generally be closer to functional threshold with lighter impulsed ammo than a carbine length gas system. For best results, use a standard carbine buffer, or nothing heavier than a H buffer (if that), and a GI spring.

    There are more variables than this, but this is a start.
    2012 National Zumba Endurance Champion
    الدهون القاع الفتيات لك جعل العالم هزاز جولة الذهاب

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,646
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    One is not inherently more reliable than the other. The gas system should be tuned to the combination of the weight of the bolt, the carrier, the buffer, the strength of spring, distance on barrel for the gas port and size of the gas port. Weak ammo will bring weak results if these things are not accounted for properly.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    962
    Feedback Score
    21 (100%)
    This. Properly ported, both carbine and midlength gas systems will push the same amount of gas into the carrier.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moltke View Post
    One is not inherently more reliable than the other. The gas system should be tuned to the combination of the weight of the bolt, the carrier, the buffer, the strength of spring, distance on barrel for the gas port and size of the gas port. Weak ammo will bring weak results if these things are not accounted for properly.
    B.A.S. Mechanical Engineering Technology

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •