It was in the carrier for both.
The question about keeping the speed in check was in reference to being suppressed or not. The added internal mass does help. The added over travel can help. There's a few other possible options to do so as well. I was looking into what methods that they chose to utilize.
I really hope to see an inclusive Sullivan improved carrier.
Let's hope that this doesn't end up being an just an M16 carrier with a version of rail and key trimming with a shortened OAL buffer and an internal to the carrier buffer mass to maintain total mass. Those '90's versions with their required altered action springs needed to cycle without extra stress for longevity are not ideal. A couple of interesting possible additions have happened since then. Let's see what SF offers.
There does seem to be a limit of what you can gain with the carrier without altering other components, but there are possible gains to be made without those alterations as well.
The 16 inch is a DI, for their 7.62/308 rifle.
Never had any 5.56 issues regardless of the barrel I drop into it.
Run the silent capture spring for smoothness.
You can slow down the cyclic rate by changing the nature of the "bounce" at the back end of the stoke as well.
When the bolt carrier group/buffer bottom out in the receiver extension, the BCG will rebound off the elastic tip of the buffer, having a few weights impact the back of the buffer (or inside the BCG, or both) a few milliseconds after the initial bottoming out of the BCG/buffer will neutralize the forward motion. Similar in concept to a hydraulic buffer, only less messy...
Last edited by lysander; 06-09-16 at 19:30.
"That thing looks about as enjoyable as a bowl of exploding dicks." - Magic_Salad0892
"The body cannot go where the mind has not already been."
Without looking for my notes that I probably couldn't find, the early buffered carrier started as a standard carrier with a 9mm added mass insert. If I recall correctly, that is probably less than 100% correct, an older concept was made available to me. It was not new when I saw it, I would guess 5 years plus at that time in the early 90's.
The Insert fit tightly a standard carrier, so the carrier I.D. was rigid honed for clearance. The weighted insert was center drilled to accept an off the shelf ejector springs and retention on both sides to center it around the coiled spring retention to the carrier. The roll pin hole in the weight was elongated to allow movement axially. I don't recall the preload on the ejector assemblies, but it was less than normal ejector tension. The weight was less than a normal 9mm insert due to cutting off some length for movement and bore drilling.
While that offering seemed to offer some promise, there was no choice to do so for the market at that time, it could not sell.
Maybe? In today's more informed market this concept could be sold with other inclusions?
Let's see what happens..
Bookmarks