You've never heard of the Prairie Sasquatch???  

Their hearing is uncanny.  It's been said they can hear a sparrow fart at 30 yards.  
I've never seen one, but I'm sure it's my AR's fault.  Just a matter of time, man.  Juuuuust a matter of time.

My buffer has a prairie Sacquatch call built in. Just FYI...

Also, I've had a few questions/remarks regarding the LARBs retail price. I'm racking my freakin head around how NOT to raise the retail price. I've had discussions with some large national retailers/distributors lately. These really need to priced at $85.00 retail MINIMUM. Which, is still reasonable. I'm doing my best to keep them at $75.00. Here's a comparison for reference. The top picture is the LARB torn down to its individual components. The only components NOT made in house are the roll pin and spring (and the spring is a custom order BTW). In the bottom, is a SureFire SOCOM 556 brake mount. Please consider this, same material and "approximately" machine time/work. The LARB is $75.00, the SOCOM brake is $149.00. People have ZERO issues paying almost double for the brake. Now, I'm not bashing SureFire at all, I'm a huge SureFire fan boy and I have several of these brakes and a SOCOM 2 on my rifle, this is simple an example...

Well if you were able to put a surefire logo on it that would automatically make it another $50

Is that a fair comparison? Doesn't the Surefire require a 5 axis mill for the Socom 'nub'?

No, lathe and mill op, or a Swiss machine. You can go even simpler. The MGI buffer is even simpler than mine, less machine time, cheaper steel and sells for $169.00, that is a direct comparison...

Just a heads up, I'll do a direct apples to apples comparison to LARBs closest competitor, the MGI RRB. I'll go into more detail when I have more time, but here's a teaser. Both buffers have between 4K-6k rounds, full auto and semi auto. For quick reference, the MGI is mild steel with 3 tungsten weights, the LARB 17-4 stainless with a one piece 17-4 stainless weight. The MGI is 6.75 oz, the LARB 4oz (the LARB in my Shrike is 6oz, using a solid tungsten weight). The MGI has a parkerized finish, this LARB has a CeraKote Micro Slick coating (my personal LARB Ive been running the last year). The MGI retails at $165.00, the LARB H at $75.00. Now I'm not bashing the MGI buffer at all, I bought one no question. It did suffer a spring failure around 3k rounds (you can see the shorter spring in the picture, the broken part fell out when I cleaned it). I'm not sure I would necessarily consider it a "failure", as the buffer still functioned but now has play/slop in the system, where as it wasn't designed to when new. Both buffers have performed very well. More details to come....

Well, I did say I would post mine, so....

Ackthuallllyyy...

I see a PMAG. No reason to use anything but good ole USGI since it feeds the same amirite?

Very nice! Is that patriot brown?

an honest reply.OP

I have been shooting ars since 89.

the malfunctions I have had were caused by
#1 steel case or reloaded ammo
#2 after market non milspec parts /triggers ie.  enhanced extractors, hydraulic buffers,  fancy light triggers, or enhanced bolt catches.all have caused me problems
#3 bad magazines
on what  is now 28 years of civilian AR shooting (and the 8 years of military service) my best advice is stay true to milspec Ammo & parts  keep it lubed & clean and you will be fine.  it rely is that easy

Yes sir

Here's a VERY basic video. I had literally minutes to spare and I had to test another part anyway. Standard Mil spec buffer then swap to the LARB. Quick and dirty, nothing more...

Mil spec buffer vs LARB

Mikes LARB test

Also, a few here have asked about back orders. I believe all back orders have shipped.

Got my "Order Completed" notification last night.    

Just a suggestion, you guys might want to throw a Tracking # in your e-mail notifications, especially if these take off and start selling like hotcakes.  
That will cut down on a lot of phone calls, particularly if something gets lost in transit or mis-delivered.

Good, I hoped your was in there. I fill the orders in the exact order they are placed. I try and include tracking numbers, but it's hard. I typically ship 40 packages at a time and keeping track is very hard. Basically comes down to a time issue. Or lack of time issue...

Received my LARB's on Monday, finally hit the range this morning w/the help of a good friend (ex-LE) to help w/the testing.
I told him nothing about what was being tested, only that I wanted him to fire timed strings out of both my rifles.
Rifles were switched around repeatedly last night so even I was unaware as to which rifle had the LARB installed.

Test Rifles:
BCM LW 16" middy uppers w/Precision Armament AFAB muzzle devices, Hiperfire EDT triggers (4.5#), Meprolight RDS'. Lights were removed to lighten the front as much as possible to maximize muzzle rise.
Rifles are physically identical except one had a std carbine buffer installed while the other had a LARB installed.

Ammo: Wolf Gold 55gr

Targets: Clean std B27 silhouettes at 50yds w/an 8.5"x11" piece of paper attached at COM.

Drill:
Shooter fires 10rds rapid fire into the berm to get acquainted w/the recoil characteristics of that particular rifle.
Then, using a shot timer, shooter fires 10rds from one rifle at the paper COM, attempting to put as many rds into the paper as quickly as possible.
Start position was rifle on-target w/safety off.
This was repeated twice more for 30rds total. Shooter then switched rifles & targets.
Again, 10rds into the berm before the timed strings.
Shooter does the 3x10rd timed strings into the 2nd target.

I didn't check which rifle had the LARB installed until after we were both finished shooting.

Here are the raw times separated into Me/Him & Left Rifle (LR) & Right Rifle (RR):

Him:
LR: 11.55, 10.23, 11.45 (33.23 total)
RR: 9.32, 9.87, 9.71 (28.9 total)
Difference: 4.13 seconds faster w/RR

Me:
LR: 6.94, 8.32, 7.3 (22.56 total)
RR: 6.93, 5.88, 6.21 (19.02 total)
Difference: 3.54 seconds faster w/RR

Turns out the Right Rifle had the LARB installed (big surprise, huh?).

We were both impressed w/the significant improvement.
Now, thinking that maybe just the LARB's additional weight was the primary cause for improvement, he ran the drill again using his rifle (BCM std 16" middy upper w/BCM Mod-0 muzzle device, Hiperfire EDT trigger, Trijicon MRO, light removed) using both his buffer and the LARB. His rifle has a PWS heavy buffer (H2 I believe, at least as heavy as the LARB, perhaps heavier).

Here are his raw times, listed as WL (w/LARB) and WP (w/PWS):
WP: 11.49, 10.32, 9.0 (30.81 total)
WL: 9.0, 8.76, 7.23 (24.99 total)
Difference was 5.82 seconds faster w/the LARB.

Bottom line is there's significant improvement using the LARB that can't be accounted for simply by being heavier.
We were both amused by the "Contains actual tactical magic" line on the back of the package, but maybe that's true?...
All I know is my followup shots are significantly faster w/the LARB than w/any other buffer I've used (std carbine to H3) and it's staying in my rifles.
Only question now is do I spring for a couple more to go in the son's & wife's rifles!

Tomac

ETA: All shots were on the silhouette, appx 90-95% were on the 8.5"x11" paper. Also, while I'm happy w/the LARB as-is, the only minor improvement I'd currently like to see is a nitride surface.

Well, now.

Excellent! I'm glad it's performing well for everyone! I may offer a back nitride or maybe a microslick CeraKote finish soon....

Well where did all the nay-sayers disappear to

Nice KAC lower. I may have been being a dick earlier by posting a pic of the simplest AR I own without any useless gadgets on it, just to win the argument.

But, since you did hold up your end of the bargain, too, and did actually post a pic like you said you would, here's a pic of mine. I figure a KAC for a KAC is a fair deal.



ETA: My apologies for busting your balls about the buffer earlier in the thread. I hope you start selling the shit outta these things and can't keep up. Maybe I'll actually give one a try. In fact, if you can make one with the Knight's crest engraved on it somewhere, I might even drop it in this one.

Don't worry, I'm back!

I want a titanium body version with a tungsten internal weight. Let me know when it's available.

Great video showing the differences between standard and L.A.R.B. buffers.

Friend who tested the LARB w/me this morning just emailed me asking if I'd order a LARB for him, so ordered another 3 total (LARB's going into the wife's & son's rifles as well).

Tomac

I would take an aluminum body without the centering nub but the manufacturer has said he didn't like how aluminum held up, but he's made some from titanium.

Wouldn't comparing it to an H or H2 be more apples to apples than a carbine buffer?

What's wrong with an aluminum body? All my standard buffers are aluminum bodied.

@99HMC4

What did you not like about your aluminum version?

Yes, that's why if you read the remainder of my post you'll see we also tested my friend's AR w/both the LARB and a heavy PWS buffer of at least equal weight and the LARB still showed significant improvement.

Tomac

His design has a bubble on the front that centers in the carrier. When made from aluminum I think the centering bubble gets scratched up by the carrier as the upper is opened/closed.

I wouldn't be bothered by the spherical portion getting scratched up. If it actually bothered someone, then removing the upper by pulling both pins and sliding it forward is always an option.

This is true. I made several aluminum prototypes, they just don't hold up. The radius on the face takes a beating from centering the carrier under recoil and from opening/closing the upper. Also couldn't get the weight I wanted without going to tungsten with an aluminum body. Aluminum just didn't give me the qualities I was looking for.

FWIW I would buy an aluminium model with or without the centering design and with a tungsten weight. 

Yes and no. I don't follow the spec weights 100%. Meaning my "heavy" is not the exact same as a mil spec "heavy". There's nothing wrong with this as I've completely left anything mil spec in the dust with my design. Mil spec is simply a base line. People seem to get caught up in the weights of each, rather than seeing the LARB for a complete drop unit. When you compare a drop in trigger, you don't compare it to a mil spec trigger, the whole point is to improve on the mil spec parts. Rather you compare it to other drop in triggers. You don't compare a Geissele trigger to a mil spec, then point out that the trigger pull weights are not the same. They're not supposed to be the same.

The PWS is a heavy body buffer not heavy buffer weight buffer, right?

Did you always run the rifle without the LARB first and the rifle with the LARB second?

The PWS belongs to my friend so I don't know if it's heavy body or heavy buffer.

During the testing, we unknowingly ended up shooting the rifle w/the LARB second every time.
I simply laid the rifles on the bench, arbitrarily calling them 'left rifle' and 'right rifle' to prevent mixing them up during the testing.
We didn't identify which rifle had the LARB installed until after the testing.

Tomac

So is it possible you just shot the second go around better each time?

Comparing the LARB to an H, H2, or H3 has nothing to do with weight or mil spec. It has to do with cost and benefits. For the advantages the LARB supposedly has over the carbine, can the same or more be achieved by simply replacing steel carbine weights with tungsten weights?

Good info

I don't believe so, the difference is too pronounced.

Tomac

As I mentioned earlier, read farther down in my test report and you'll see where we tested the LARB vs a heavy PWS buffer in my friend's rifle and the LARB still performed significantly better, so the LARB is doing something that can't be attributed solely to being heavier than the std carbine buffer.

I admit to being skeptical when first I ordered the LARB as an experiment (as anyone here who's familiar w/me knows, I like to experiment, especially w/optics ), but now that I've done my own testing I've decided the benefits are worth the cost, as has my friend who helped w/the testing (YMMV).

Tomac

No, even Mikes YouTube tests proved this.

Thanks for the info on the aluminum version.

Lol! Nice! No worries, I appreciate that. How about my simple build? And yes, there's a LARB in this one too! And..... KAC may or may not have a LARB in their possession.

Exactly what I'm here for. Can't stand people like that and it's a true show of character.

So where are all of you?  Your crow is piping hot and ready to eat.

Coming late to this thread, if looks like you got a lot more criticism over your testing than I thought it deserved. I'm not a mech. eng. but I am familiar with PSD, measurement, and data amalysis. I thought using your phone was a good idea. It's amazing the sensor capabilites those things have. Unfortunately there are people in the technical world who like to beat up on ideas based on minutiae, and brow beat anyone who dares to enter their realm of expertise with insults and confusing jargon. They annoy me, but some of them did bring up valid points (which is even more annoying). I thought that I'd leave some constructive criticism focused on how you might improve future testing.

If possible, you should see if you can increase
how quickly your app/accelerometer records data. In the top left of the plot, it says that it is recording at about 99 Hertz (Hz). That means 99 measurements every second. I don't know exactly how long it takes for your rifle to cycle, but I would have guessed that you need something like 1,000 - 10,000 Hz. To get an idea of what the right number is, I would suggest that you figure out how to get  at least 100 measurements in every cycle. It sounds like you have full auto, and know how to get the cycle time (by cycle time, I'm thinking of how long it takes all the recoil processes to complete for 1 fired round). To get the required samples per second, divide the number of samples you want by the cycle time (say 100 / T for 100 samples).

I can't be sure without more information, but it looked like your data may have been taken too slow. If you're curious, I can tell you why, but that gets to be a long explanation.

It sounds like you have a nice product. Have you looked at how others "measure" recoil? I know that recoil can be subjective, but this is hardly a new problem, and I'm sure there are good approaches that others have figured out. The cell phone may end up not being the best tool, but it is a good start.

I'm sorry, but no it doesn't. I'm not doubting any advantage for a given weight, but unless I'm missing something, there's been no comparisons to heavier buffers like an H2 or H3. It hard not to become more and more skeptical the longer this test is avoided.

No one ever says, I want to reduce bolt speed, reduce recoil, etc, but I'm not willing to add the few ounces to try a heavier buffer. The additional buffer weight added to the overall rifle weight is minuscule.

Is the reluctance to compare to H2s or H3s because the LARB cannot be made heavier? Or is the reluctance to do so because the H2 or H3 will perform better? Clearly, there's guns that run better with a H2 versus a H or and H3 versus a H2 or H. So, logic would dictate the heavier buffers would be more comparable to or out perform the LARB.

I'm gonna be honest. I'm not reluctant to test this, I just don't care. The LARB weighs exactly 4oz. It can go up to 5.8oz with a tungsten weight. Miles test did prove that simply adding weight, was not the reason for the improved performance of the LARB. Your logic of "any AR will run better with a heavier buffer" is highly flawed. And shows your knowledge of the Ar platform. I'm sure someone will eventually chime in and test it against an H2 or H3 buffer. But until then, well just have to settle for the fact it out performs a mil spec buffer of the same weight.

You need to reread my post, I said no such thing. Just because my skepticism is growing, there's no need for insults.

So, you admit there's no reason for anyone using a H2 or H3 to consider the LARB?