User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 4:53:20 AM EDT
[#1]
Why not just use an H3 buffer?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 4:56:51 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
I want the heaviest bolt carrier I can find, anybody know of some? Has to be heavier than a mil-spec M16 bolt carrier. Do you know the weights? A right side charging handle is totally fine although I dont necessarily need a side charger. I posted earlier on the board asking if lighter bcgs reduce recoil or heavier ones do. Not being satisfied with the answers, I reposted the question to a physics forum and the brainiacs shared a calculus forumula proving the heavier ones reduce felt recoil. So now I want the heaviest I can find. I think you would be better off with a Vltor A5 setup using the heaviest buffer that will function. You will achieve the same goal, and it will be much cheaper to tailor it to a different load if you want, via the buffer system being changed out whenever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 5:29:49 AM EDT
[#3]
I'm kind of married to my hydraulic buffer, so I want to stay away from increases in buffer weight. I wanted to just increase bolt carrier weight. Hell, I might change my mind on this though, I'm going to look at the VLTOR system.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 5:47:11 AM EDT
[#4]
Could you JB weld in a piece of tungsten or lead into the carrier?
just a thought, no idea if it would work |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 6:35:27 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Could you JB weld in a piece of tungsten or lead into the carrier? just a thought, no idea if it would work I think you could. I don't see why not. I actually already bought this, it's a weight with a flange on it so it can install in the rear of the bolt carrier. Supposedly adds 2 oz. But I still want a heavier bolt carrier to go with it. Tubb CWS. http://www.davidtubb.com/carrierweight-ar15 My hydraulic buffer is 4.2oz, and the heaviest H3 is 5.4 oz. The VLTOR A5s go up to 6.8oz. So with the 2oz i gained on the Tubbs, i'm up to par with the heaviest VLTOR A5 while keeping the kynshot in play. I just really like the idea of a hydraulic buffer dampening out that last bit of recoil. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 10:45:15 AM EDT
[#6]
What are you shooting that the recoil is that bad?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 11:31:40 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
I want the heaviest bolt carrier I can find, anybody know of some? Has to be heavier than a mil-spec M16 bolt carrier. Do you know the weights? A right side charging handle is totally fine although I dont necessarily need a side charger. I posted earlier on the board asking if lighter bcgs reduce recoil or heavier ones do. Not being satisfied with the answers, I reposted the question to a physics forum and the brainiacs shared a calculus forumula proving the heavier ones reduce felt recoil. So now I want the heaviest I can find. Did they also take in account that the lighter ones need less gas to operate the system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 12:47:33 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did they also take in account that the lighter ones need less gas to operate the system. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I want the heaviest bolt carrier I can find, anybody know of some? Has to be heavier than a mil-spec M16 bolt carrier. Do you know the weights? A right side charging handle is totally fine although I dont necessarily need a side charger. I posted earlier on the board asking if lighter bcgs reduce recoil or heavier ones do. Not being satisfied with the answers, I reposted the question to a physics forum and the brainiacs shared a calculus forumula proving the heavier ones reduce felt recoil. So now I want the heaviest I can find. Did they also take in account that the lighter ones need less gas to operate the system. This And you can't just add a bunch of mass without increasing gas and expect it to function perfectly (although you might get lucky in you're currently over gassed). Go too heavy and it won't cycle. If you want a reliable light recoiling gun you need to reduce gas and reduce mass. The mass part just keeps it cycling nicely, it's the gas that is contributing to recoil by throwing your BCG around. You can only go so light with the BCG and reduced gas or you won't have enough force to overcome friction when loading the next round. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 4:14:38 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Could you JB weld in a piece of tungsten or lead into the carrier? just a thought, no idea if it would work Or you could use this: Tubbs Carrier Weight System |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 4:17:35 PM EDT
[#10]
Have you considered an adjustable gas block? That way you can optimize the amount of gas to your components instead of optimizing your components to the amount of gas.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 4:20:46 PM EDT
[#11]
In my HD carbine I use a Young's NM carrier and a RRA 9mm buffer.
I slowed down the carbine because it seemed a bit snappy to me. Not because of recoil. Somewhere? I read the Young's carrier was a little heavier then a regular AR carrier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 7:55:51 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have you considered an adjustable gas block? That way you can optimize the amount of gas to your components instead of optimizing your components to the amount of gas. Yes, I have an adjustable gas block. Once you have the gas settings correct, it doesn't matter if you change the weight of the moving parts, they're still going to compress the spring just as much, it's just that the heavier one compresses it the same distance over a longer period of time than the lighter bolt system. Here's the thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/663746_Heavier_or_Lighter_BCG_for_less_recoil__isn_t_it_the_same_.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 7:57:11 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In my HD carbine I use a Young's NM carrier and a RRA 9mm buffer. I slowed down the carbine because it seemed a bit snappy to me. Not because of recoil. Somewhere? I read the Young's carrier was a little heavier then a regular AR carrier. On JSE Surplus's website it says the Young's carrier is 1/2 an ounce heavier. That's the only one I've been able to find that says it's heavier. Right now it's my prime suspect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 7:57:11 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In my HD carbine I use a Young's NM carrier and a RRA 9mm buffer. I slowed down the carbine because it seemed a bit snappy to me. Not because of recoil. Somewhere? I read the Young's carrier was a little heavier then a regular AR carrier. On JSE Surplus's website it says the Young's carrier is 1/2 an ounce heavier. That's the only one I've been able to find that says it's heavier. Right now it's my prime suspect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 7:59:57 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In my HD carbine I use a Young's NM carrier and a RRA 9mm buffer. I slowed down the carbine because it seemed a bit snappy to me. Not because of recoil. Somewhere? I read the Young's carrier was a little heavier then a regular AR carrier. On JSE Surplus's website it says the Young's carrier is 1/2 an ounce heavier. That's the only one I've been able to find that says it's heavier. Right now it's my prime suspect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 8:21:31 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think you could. I don't see why not. I actually already bought this, it's a weight with a flange on it so it can install in the rear of the bolt carrier. Supposedly adds 2 oz. But I still want a heavier bolt carrier to go with it. Tubb CWS. http://www.davidtubb.com/carrierweight-ar15 My hydraulic buffer is 4.2oz, and the heaviest H3 is 5.4 oz. The VLTOR A5s go up to 6.8oz. So with the 2oz i gained on the Tubbs, i'm up to par with the heaviest VLTOR A5 while keeping the kynshot in play. I just really like the idea of a hydraulic buffer dampening out that last bit of recoil. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Could you JB weld in a piece of tungsten or lead into the carrier? just a thought, no idea if it would work I think you could. I don't see why not. I actually already bought this, it's a weight with a flange on it so it can install in the rear of the bolt carrier. Supposedly adds 2 oz. But I still want a heavier bolt carrier to go with it. Tubb CWS. http://www.davidtubb.com/carrierweight-ar15 My hydraulic buffer is 4.2oz, and the heaviest H3 is 5.4 oz. The VLTOR A5s go up to 6.8oz. So with the 2oz i gained on the Tubbs, i'm up to par with the heaviest VLTOR A5 while keeping the kynshot in play. I just really like the idea of a hydraulic buffer dampening out that last bit of recoil. You might put to much weight on and cause feeding and extraction issues, be cautious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 9:42:24 PM EDT
[#17]
I just picked up this Ares bolt for my rifle length SPR, will be testing it out soon...
Ares Armore Low Friction Black Nitride Bolt Carrier Group Its not likely the heaviest, but it is a bit heavier than milspec. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 10:27:18 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I just picked up this Ares bolt for my rifle length SPR, will be testing it out soon... Ares Armore Low Friction Black Nitride Bolt Carrier Group Its not likely the heaviest, but it is a bit heavier than milspec. Great suggestion! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 11:57:32 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Great suggestion! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I just picked up this Ares bolt for my rifle length SPR, will be testing it out soon... Ares Armore Low Friction Black Nitride Bolt Carrier Group Its not likely the heaviest, but it is a bit heavier than milspec. Great suggestion! Did you miss my post about the Tubbs weight system? It adds up to 4 ounces in several increments. How heavy do you want? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 12:49:13 AM EDT
[#20]
Have you actually shot any of these systems or simply trying to apply physics on paper?? I read through the other thread and think you are over thinking it.
Lightweight operating systems with reduced gas is a pretty proven method. That in combination with a good muzzle brake is hard to beat. The only guys I know that really like the heavy carriers like them because they are running max loads and the delayed unlocking helps mitigate the pressure spike. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 12:40:11 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have you actually shot any of these systems or simply trying to apply physics on paper?? I read through the other thread and think you are over thinking it. Lightweight operating systems with reduced gas is a pretty proven method. That in combination with a good muzzle brake is hard to beat. The only guys I know that really like the heavy carriers like them because they are running max loads and the delayed unlocking helps mitigate the pressure spike. Agreed. I would hold off on buying the heaviest BCG until you have a better understanding of the whole picture. the physics behind the cycling of the rifle and the "felt" recoil is more complex than just a "calculus forumula proving the heavier(BCG) ones reduce felt recoil" first. I'd ask myself, am I going to be shooting low or high pressure ammo? if you choose full pressure 556 ammo then a FA BCG, H2 buffer and stronger spring would be ideal to keep Bolt from unlocking while chamber pressure is to high. this also depends on barrel length, gas system length and gas pot size. remember, there are two different forces to consider in "felt" recoil of a gas operated gun; the reciprocating mass of the action and the back pressure from the expending gasses exiting the bore. While I really dislike the use of comps on 556 guns you can cut the back pressure significantly by using a comp/brake the competitive shooter have already figured all this out for you. lowest recoil flattest shooting = low pressure ammo + adj. gas block + rifle gas + rifle receiver extension + LW internals + comp/brake |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 1:00:17 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, I have an adjustable gas block. Once you have the gas settings correct, it doesn't matter if you change the weight of the moving parts, they're still going to compress the spring just as much, it's just that the heavier one compresses it the same distance over a longer period of time than the lighter bolt system. Here's the thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/663746_Heavier_or_Lighter_BCG_for_less_recoil__isn_t_it_the_same_.html Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Have you considered an adjustable gas block? That way you can optimize the amount of gas to your components instead of optimizing your components to the amount of gas. Yes, I have an adjustable gas block. Once you have the gas settings correct, it doesn't matter if you change the weight of the moving parts, they're still going to compress the spring just as much, it's just that the heavier one compresses it the same distance over a longer period of time than the lighter bolt system. Here's the thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/663746_Heavier_or_Lighter_BCG_for_less_recoil__isn_t_it_the_same_.html Read your thread 
You need to read and understand more about this before you come on here after reading one persons point of view, acting like a expert, telling people(including Jerry Miculek) they are wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 1:06:10 PM EDT
[#23]
I have a POF carrier that's extra heavy, it's nothing but problems for me, I'd stick to normal weight carriers.
If you're interested, I'll trade you for a regular M16 carrier 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 5:02:01 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Read your thread
You need to read and understand more about this before you come on here after reading one persons point of view, acting like a expert, telling people(including Jerry Miculek) they are wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Have you considered an adjustable gas block? That way you can optimize the amount of gas to your components instead of optimizing your components to the amount of gas. Yes, I have an adjustable gas block. Once you have the gas settings correct, it doesn't matter if you change the weight of the moving parts, they're still going to compress the spring just as much, it's just that the heavier one compresses it the same distance over a longer period of time than the lighter bolt system. Here's the thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/663746_Heavier_or_Lighter_BCG_for_less_recoil__isn_t_it_the_same_.html Read your thread
You need to read and understand more about this before you come on here after reading one persons point of view, acting like a expert, telling people(including Jerry Miculek) they are wrong. This. OP needs to post less and read more. Also, you are completely ignoring the third recoil impulse which is the carrier slamming into battery. You will feel this more with a heavier carrier. Also what works for one person may not be the same for another. I for one prefer a sharper but quicker impulse. I find that I get back on target quicker that way than a slower one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 5:06:04 PM EDT
[#25]
I would just go back to the Physics Forum that the OP came from and ask them on building the whole AR.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 5:12:43 PM EDT
[#26]
OP please send the link to the physics forum. Not that I don't believe their knowledge, I just want to see how you phrased the question. I would hazard to guess that you think the gas that goes through your gas block and down the tube is what cycles the action?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 10:21:13 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
I want the heaviest bolt carrier I can find, anybody know of some? Has to be heavier than a mil-spec M16 bolt carrier. Do you know the weights? A right side charging handle is totally fine although I dont necessarily need a side charger. I posted earlier on the board asking if lighter bcgs reduce recoil or heavier ones do. Not being satisfied with the answers, I reposted the question to a physics forum and the brainiacs shared a calculus forumula proving the heavier ones reduce felt recoil. So now I want the heaviest I can find. I think the heaviest one on the market is the Primary Weapons Systems DI (Direct Impingement) bolt carrier. It is about 1.4 ounces heavier than a standard mil-spec bolt carrier. The PWS website says 9.9 oz. But someone very credible on M4carbine.net weighed one and it is 10.8 ounces. The mil-spec ones are about 9.4 oz. These are weights for the carriers (and installed gas key) only, NOT the entire bolt carrier group (with bolt, cam pin, etc.). It is interesting that the PWS bolt carrier has one large gas vent hole (instead of 2 small ones with a mil-spec carrier). It is designed to be able to be dropped into any decent mil-spec gun (and be compatible with all mil-spec parts like bolts, firing pins, cam pins, etc.), and function perfectly. The extra weight (and nitride coating and other features) makes it more reliable. PWS makes very high quality products, but they are expensive. http://primaryweapons.com/accessories/dicarrier/offerings/#.VJogJMnkKA HighSpeedSteel |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 2:40:32 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the heaviest one on the market is the Primary Weapons Systems DI (Direct Impingement) bolt carrier. It is about 1.4 ounces heavier than a standard mil-spec bolt carrier. The PWS website says 9.9 oz. But someone very credible on M4carbine.net weighed one and it is 10.8 ounces. The mil-spec ones are about 9.4 oz. These are weights for the carriers (and installed gas key) only, NOT the entire bolt carrier group (with bolt, cam pin, etc.). It is interesting that the PWS bolt carrier has one large gas vent hole (instead of 2 small ones with a mil-spec carrier). It is designed to be able to be dropped into any decent mil-spec gun (and be compatible with all mil-spec parts like bolts, firing pins, cam pins, etc.), and function perfectly. The extra weight (and nitride coating and other features) makes it more reliable. PWS makes very high quality products, but they are expensive. http://primaryweapons.com/accessories/dicarrier/offerings/#.VJogJMnkKA HighSpeedSteel Interesting for sure. I want to look more at this one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 6:37:52 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The only guys I know that really like the heavy carriers like them because they are running max loads and the delayed unlocking helps mitigate the pressure spike. I use a heavy A5 in my M16 to slow cyclic rate. I could also do that with adjustable gas, but I am using an upper with suppressed/ unsuppressed gas setting. OP really needs to figure out if he goes too heavy its not gonna work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 3:10:26 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I use a heavy A5 in my M16 to slow cyclic rate. I could also do that with adjustable gas, but I am using an upper with suppressed/ unsuppressed gas setting. OP really needs to figure out if he goes too heavy its not gonna work. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The only guys I know that really like the heavy carriers like them because they are running max loads and the delayed unlocking helps mitigate the pressure spike. I use a heavy A5 in my M16 to slow cyclic rate. I could also do that with adjustable gas, but I am using an upper with suppressed/ unsuppressed gas setting. OP really needs to figure out if he goes too heavy its not gonna work. I wasn't even considering you full auto guys. I know that works well for slowing rate of fire as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 11:55:40 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OP please send the link to the physics forum. Not that I don't believe their knowledge, I just want to see how you phrased the question. I would hazard to guess that you think the gas that goes through your gas block and down the tube is what cycles the action? Here you go. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/would-changing-the-weight-of-gun-components-affect-recoil.788570/ The light weight career and lower gas operation didn't apprear to be addresses. It seem like they were figuring it was the same level of gas for both systems. Then they got on a tangent about what recoil actually is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 12:44:25 AM EDT
[#32]
Increasing the weight of a rifle always reduces felt recoil, no matter where you put it. Might as well strap a 45lb plate to the quad rail and eliminate the recoil. If you want to mitigate recoil as much as you can w/out turning your rifle into a pig, worry about regulating the gas correctly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 12:46:23 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here you go. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/would-changing-the-weight-of-gun-components-affect-recoil.788570/ The light weight career and lower gas operation didn't apprear to be addresses. It seem like they were figuring it was the same level of gas for both systems. Then they got on a tangent about what recoil actually is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
OP please send the link to the physics forum. Not that I don't believe their knowledge, I just want to see how you phrased the question. I would hazard to guess that you think the gas that goes through your gas block and down the tube is what cycles the action? Here you go. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/would-changing-the-weight-of-gun-components-affect-recoil.788570/ The light weight career and lower gas operation didn't apprear to be addresses. It seem like they were figuring it was the same level of gas for both systems. Then they got on a tangent about what recoil actually is. I don't know why a physics forum needs to be consulted on making a gun heavier to reduce recoil. Of course it does. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
