I looked and looked and probably didn't look everywhere but I couldn't find any studies on what should be easy enough to quantify. What are the effect of buffer weight on cyclic rate? Say I have a short AR that has a cyclic rate of 800 rounds per minute ( I do ) 40 rounds in 3 seconds. Im running a 3.7 ounce buffer. Lets say I went to a 5.8 ounce buffer or a 9 ounce buffer. How would that change alone affect my cyclic rate?

[youtube]shorts/XbM6Jyodylc[/youtube]

To many variables to east make a prediction. Variables that you have to consider are:
Barrel length
Gas port size
Gas system length
Adjustable gas block
Suppressed vs suppressed
Ammo type

Im just looking for data. What have other people done? I dont see that out there at all. Surely someone in the history of full auto weapons has taken out a 3.7 ounce buffer, made no other changes and put in a 6 ounce buffer and typed something on the internet saying hey Yall, I went from 800 rounds per minute to 650 rounds per minute. Cant find anything like that. Its odd.

You posted in the MG section but your post eludes to being related to the M16 right?  I post all the time about cyclic rates and smoothing out the M16 in various calibers.
Below is what I would consider a 'baseline' milspec MK18 configuration.


I don't think it is particularly smooth though.  I do a ton of testing to smooth things out and slow the cyclic rate down.
Below is the same exact upper and the only change is a Tubb 556 flat spring and a Kynshot hyrdaulic RB5005 4.7 oz buffer which is almost identical in weight to the H2 buffer and yet I get 138 RPM slower cyclic rate using these two components.


I personally do not like just throwing mass at the problem as it can make the gun bouncy.  I try to reduce the amount of reciprocating mass to an extent.

Please check out these links on my site:
https://c3junkie.com/?page_id=977  (this links discusses the use of the Tubb flat spring and then hydraulic buffer)
https://c3junkie.com/?page_id=1403  (my M16 'Ultimax' project where I get the M16 to achieve constant recoil and the BCG does NOT bottom out on the bottom of the buffer tube)

My main AR15/M16 page with other links you may find helpful and buffer data: https://c3junkie.com/?page_id=164

Magnificent R&D work on those pages. Kudos.

We did a lot of research in this area when we developed the LARB buffer.

I run an adjustable gas block on my 16 and have had great luck. First it was to reduce suppressor blowback, but I found that un suppressed the ROF came down significantly. Recently I started using a lightweight BCG and Have been getting into the 650 RPM range (13.7" barrel) and pretty smooth. Not enough usage or different ammo varieties to give a great opinion on how reliable it is. But so far 100%.

You could make the assumption that the reciprocating components have the same amount of kinetic energy before and after the alteration in mass.  Make an educated guess as to the velocity, then recalculate using the new mass.

You could make the assumption that the reciprocating components have the same momentum, then recalculate as described above.

These methodologies are both probably overly simplistic.

You could just increase the weight of the buffer and test-fire it.