User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/27/2021 5:53:31 PM EDT
[#1]
I was involved in a project in the mid-1980's to make a 10" barrel AR as reliable as possible.
For the short barrel we needed a large gas port. At the time there weren't multiple buffer weights, but there were some leaky hydraulic buffers we wanted to avoid. We tried heavier springs. Then Colt came out with the 9mm. This had a two-piece buffer that weighs about the same as an H3 buffer. This cured all our issues with a standard spring. Later Colt replaced the two piece 9mm buffer for a one piece 9mm buffer for +P ammo. This was not as reliable as the two piece buffer with 5.56 ammo and a 10" barrel. These days there are standard, H, H2 and H3 buffers. Adding weight slows the action, while a heavier spring might move forward too quickly for the magazine to feed properly. A standard spring with a H2 buffer is pretty sweet, if it functions in your AR. Slightly heavier springs aren't bad, but don't things as much as additional buffer weight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2021 6:11:22 PM EDT
[#2]
You’ll need to replace the spring before the buffer, so I go with a heavier buffer. Then if I’m in a pinch I also don’t have to worry about finding an unstandardized spring.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2021 6:46:50 PM EDT
[#3]
Decent old thread on the subject
For the most part, springs are most influential on the return cycle and don't seem to effect unlock times atleast as much as buffer weights. Not to say they don't effect the ability to cycle completely just not the that initial delayed unlock. I'd probably stick with an H2 and sprinco white spring in your case but either way you need to test it suppressed and unsuppressed etc.. but generally that combo is works well in most similar configurations like yours in my experience. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2021 6:57:11 PM EDT
[#4]
Since your gun is on the fleeting edge of completing a full cycle, I'd use the standard spring and H1 buffer. If you specifically want to delay unlocking, a solid buffer (non floating weights like a 9mm) or something like the Vltor A5 buffer is the most reliable way. Either will consistently puts the full buffer weight against the carrier as unlocking happens. Floating weight buffers are not as consistent at delaying unlock because the buffer weight may or may not be fully against the carrier as unlocking begins, depending on the shooters support and how the gun is aimed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2021 8:02:19 PM EDT
[#5]
FWIW - I recently did a build where we had to open the gas hole a little on a 14.5" barrel because it was not cycling properly - after opening it up, we dropped in a Geissele heavy spring and H2 buffer and it was GTG.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2021 10:22:25 PM EDT
[#6]
I save the heavier spring only for when an H3 buffer isn't enough. So far that's only been a 7."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2021 12:31:18 AM EDT
[#7]
The thing that is a potential issue with springs - the actual mechanics of it aside - is that it's way more practical to mess around with buffer mass.
Springs are a wear item and eventually change a bit, and it's much more difficult to take one and objectively measure it compared to just slapping a buffer on a scale. They're a poor choice of variable for random home armorers to toss into the mix. If you're not looking at special springs like silent buffer setups for specific reasons, just buy a big old pile of USGI springs, have a few different buffers on hand, and call it a day. It's cheaper, it's simpler, and it works. Lots of dudes flinging $$$ at various gucci springs who are going to regret not putting the difference into mags and other spare parts. It's about time people stopped being gear queers and got serious about this stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2021 10:17:07 AM EDT
[#8]
Topic Moved
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2021 11:11:05 AM EDT
[#9]
There are very few problems that cannot be addressed with the proper weight buffer and a standard spring. If short stroking is a consistent issue, opening up the gas port might be worth consideration.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2021 6:03:38 PM EDT
[#10]
FWIW, LMT Defense touts using the lightest spring and heaviest buffer you are able too, and also likes a 3 o'clock ejection. Context - these guys are warriors and look for battlefield pickups.
Sprinco touts the exact opposite - the heaviest spring and lightest buffer you can, and a 4 o'clock is ideal. I can't shoot unsuppressed anymore. I now use Sprinco springs, color dependent on the can, and specialized buffers that are roughly H2 weight and designed for cans. LMT would not approve, but the combo testing has yielded a super soft, reliable shooter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2021 5:14:04 PM EDT
[#11]
I have a 16" barrel with a carbine gas system and my gun is overgassed to shit. I use a BCM h2 buffer and a sprinco blue spring. very little recoil and i eject around 3-4 oclock.
from my experience, testing buffers and springs are trial and error. You can have a similar setup to someone else's weapon, but yours could act differently to different buffer weights and springs. try a few and see what you like |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2021 7:08:18 PM EDT
[#12]
Isn't it "heavier buffer takes more to get moving, heavier spring takes more to keep moving"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2021 9:34:00 PM EDT
[#13]
I’ve played around with buffers and springs for over a decade.
If it doesn’t run with a standard spring and an H2 or H3, or A5H2 or 3... It ain’t gonna run. A stiffer spring’s characteristics are counter to anything that would improve reliability in an AR. The fact that these guns run so well over/improperly sprung is a testament to the design. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2021 11:21:16 PM EDT
[#14]
There is a really good discussion on TOS, AR/M4>AR General Discussion> How Does The Bolt Unlock? With Jack Leuba and lysander
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2021 11:29:31 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A stiffer spring’s characteristics are counter to anything that would improve reliability in an AR. The fact that these guns run so well over/improperly sprung is a testament to the design. Some years back I had some monster springs made for a blowback project. Ridiculously heavy springs. Still ran in DI 5.56 guns. The fact that you can vary the spring, buffer and gas ports so much and the gun is exactly a testament to the design. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2021 8:24:11 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’ve played around with buffers and springs for over a decade. If it doesn’t run with a standard spring and an H2 or H3, or A5H2 or 3... It ain’t gonna run. A stiffer spring’s characteristics are counter to anything that would improve reliability in an AR. The fact that these guns run so well over/improperly sprung is a testament to the design. I'd use a heavier Sprinco spring over an AGB any day. Shoot suppressed more with multiple configurations and you'll understand a bit more on internals through empiricism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2021 1:32:50 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd use a heavier Sprinco spring over an AGB any day. Shoot suppressed more with multiple configurations and you'll understand a bit more on internals through empiricism. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I’ve played around with buffers and springs for over a decade. If it doesn’t run with a standard spring and an H2 or H3, or A5H2 or 3... It ain’t gonna run. A stiffer spring’s characteristics are counter to anything that would improve reliability in an AR. The fact that these guns run so well over/improperly sprung is a testament to the design. I'd use a heavier Sprinco spring over an AGB any day. Shoot suppressed more with multiple configurations and you'll understand a bit more on internals through empiricism. Sprinco action springs are snake oil garbage. I understand plenty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2021 12:54:37 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sprinco action springs are snake oil garbage. I understand plenty. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I’ve played around with buffers and springs for over a decade. If it doesn’t run with a standard spring and an H2 or H3, or A5H2 or 3... It ain’t gonna run. A stiffer spring’s characteristics are counter to anything that would improve reliability in an AR. The fact that these guns run so well over/improperly sprung is a testament to the design. I'd use a heavier Sprinco spring over an AGB any day. Shoot suppressed more with multiple configurations and you'll understand a bit more on internals through empiricism. Sprinco action springs are snake oil garbage. I understand plenty. As silly as complaining about LMT's place on the "chart" |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2021 5:03:45 PM EDT
[#19]
LMT’s regular d.i. ARs aren’t anything special. About the same as a 6920 but always cost a lot more.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2021 11:11:13 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LMT’s regular d.i. ARs aren’t anything special. About the same as a 6920 but always cost a lot more. They're better than Colt. And Sprinco is more than GTG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2021 11:38:18 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They're better than Colt. And Sprinco is more than GTG. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: LMT’s regular d.i. ARs aren’t anything special. About the same as a 6920 but always cost a lot more. They're better than Colt. And Sprinco is more than GTG. Quantify better. Plain ‘ol Defender 2000 vs 6920. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2021 3:55:09 PM EDT
[#22]
LMT's barrels are arguably better due to their special chrome plating process and additional cryo treatment. These processes may or may not give you better accuracy. As every barrel is different and has its own properties /accuracy potential, and also since Colt has some super accurate barrels themselves, I wouldn't quantify it as a definitive advantage.
However, LMT's rifles come with semi carriers and non H standard weight buffers. For a 16" carbine gassed barrel, you're going to want that extra reciprocating mass. Colt's generally also have much nicer stock triggers than LMT and much more generous mag wells (LMT tend to have tight magwells). |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2021 4:57:19 PM EDT
[#23]
Never heard of anything about special chrome.
The cryo? How would you even quantify something like that? There’s always threads on how accurate Colt’s barrels are, how many about LMT? No doubt they’re top of the line ARs, but I’d take an H buffer and regular carrier over a carbine/semi, and a taper pinned, parked under the FSB over a cryo barrel any day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2021 6:21:28 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LMT's barrels are arguably better due to their special chrome plating process and additional cryo treatment. These processes may or may not give you better accuracy. As every barrel is different and has its own properties /accuracy potential, and also since Colt has some super accurate barrels themselves, I wouldn't quantify it as a definitive advantage. However, LMT's rifles come with semi carriers and non H standard weight buffers. For a 16" carbine gassed barrel, you're going to want that extra reciprocating mass. Colt's generally also have much nicer stock triggers than LMT and much more generous mag wells (LMT tend to have tight magwells). If the gas port is properly sized who cares if it's a C vs H buffer? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2021 6:29:50 PM EDT
[#25]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2021 8:35:09 PM EDT
[#26]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2021 9:28:00 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sprinco action springs are snake oil garbage. I understand plenty.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2021 11:54:25 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Never heard of anything about special chrome. The cryo? How would you even quantify something like that? There’s always threads on how accurate Colt’s barrels are, how many about LMT? No doubt they’re top of the line ARs, but I’d take an H buffer and regular carrier over a carbine/semi, and a taper pinned, parked under the FSB over a cryo barrel any day. Quote HistoryQuoted: Never heard of anything about special chrome. The cryo? How would you even quantify something like that? There’s always threads on how accurate Colt’s barrels are, how many about LMT? No doubt they’re top of the line ARs, but I’d take an H buffer and regular carrier over a carbine/semi, and a taper pinned, parked under the FSB over a cryo barrel any day. Don't worry, you're not the only one. Allow me to educate you. The chrome plating process adds thickness to the bore, as a result, something has to be done in order to accommodate that extra thickness. The "mil spec" way that colt, and just about everyone else, uses is they acid etch the barrel's steel bore diameter down slightly to account for the increased thickness of the chrome plating. This works ok, but can cause inconsistencies in thickness as it is not 100% uniform. What LMT does is they actually have the barrels made so the bores are slightly over sized when they are machined. The barrels are oversized to exactly account for the thickness of the chrome, and when the barrels are chrome lined, it brings the diameter to the proper spec. This is a lot more uniform process than acid etching the bore down, and can lead to better accuracy. Quoted: Quoted: LMT's barrels are arguably better due to their special chrome plating process and additional cryo treatment. These processes may or may not give you better accuracy. As every barrel is different and has its own properties /accuracy potential, and also since Colt has some super accurate barrels themselves, I wouldn't quantify it as a definitive advantage. However, LMT's rifles come with semi carriers and non H standard weight buffers. For a 16" carbine gassed barrel, you're going to want that extra reciprocating mass. Colt's generally also have much nicer stock triggers than LMT and much more generous mag wells (LMT tend to have tight magwells). If the gas port is properly sized who cares if it's a C vs H buffer? The gas port is properly sized for a 14.5" barrel. ~.062 is too large for a carbine gas with a 16" barrel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2021 8:10:53 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Don't worry, you're not the only one. Allow me to educate you. The chrome plating process adds thickness to the bore, as a result, something has to be done in order to accommodate that extra thickness. The "mil spec" way that colt, and just about everyone else, uses is they acid etch the barrel's steel bore diameter down slightly to account for the increased thickness of the chrome plating. This works ok, but can cause inconsistencies in thickness as it is not 100% uniform. What LMT does is they actually have the barrels made so the bores are slightly over sized when they are machined. The barrels are oversized to exactly account for the thickness of the chrome, and when the barrels are chrome lined, it brings the diameter to the proper spec. This is a lot more uniform process than acid etching the bore down, and can lead to better accuracy. The gas port is properly sized for a 14.5" barrel. ~.062 is too large for a carbine gas with a 16" barrel. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Never heard of anything about special chrome. The cryo? How would you even quantify something like that? There’s always threads on how accurate Colt’s barrels are, how many about LMT? No doubt they’re top of the line ARs, but I’d take an H buffer and regular carrier over a carbine/semi, and a taper pinned, parked under the FSB over a cryo barrel any day. Don't worry, you're not the only one. Allow me to educate you. The chrome plating process adds thickness to the bore, as a result, something has to be done in order to accommodate that extra thickness. The "mil spec" way that colt, and just about everyone else, uses is they acid etch the barrel's steel bore diameter down slightly to account for the increased thickness of the chrome plating. This works ok, but can cause inconsistencies in thickness as it is not 100% uniform. What LMT does is they actually have the barrels made so the bores are slightly over sized when they are machined. The barrels are oversized to exactly account for the thickness of the chrome, and when the barrels are chrome lined, it brings the diameter to the proper spec. This is a lot more uniform process than acid etching the bore down, and can lead to better accuracy. Quoted: Quoted: LMT's barrels are arguably better due to their special chrome plating process and additional cryo treatment. These processes may or may not give you better accuracy. As every barrel is different and has its own properties /accuracy potential, and also since Colt has some super accurate barrels themselves, I wouldn't quantify it as a definitive advantage. However, LMT's rifles come with semi carriers and non H standard weight buffers. For a 16" carbine gassed barrel, you're going to want that extra reciprocating mass. Colt's generally also have much nicer stock triggers than LMT and much more generous mag wells (LMT tend to have tight magwells). If the gas port is properly sized who cares if it's a C vs H buffer? The gas port is properly sized for a 14.5" barrel. ~.062 is too large for a carbine gas with a 16" barrel. Zero parts failures and you say too large. LMT may need to contract you to learn how to build proper rifles? They're GTG. So are Sprinco springs. In an interesting twist, LMT states they prefer using the best buffer weight for the lightest spring. Sprinco states optimal is the heaviest spring with the lightest buffer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2021 8:28:34 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In an interesting twist, LMT states they prefer using the best buffer weight for the lightest spring. Sprinco states optimal is the heaviest spring with the lightest buffer. Agree with LMT. Seen plenty of AR malfunctions with "extra power" springs when all they needed was a "fresh" carbine spring and the proper buffer. Of course, the market might have changed to an old timer like me who preferred barrels with proper sized gas ports. It seems now that if your rifle can't shoot the crappiest underpowered steel case Tula without a failure to feed, fire, or eject, it is no longer considered "reliable." As far as I am concerned, it doesn't seem that we have made near the progress we seem to think we have unless you consider crappy ammo and overgassed barrels "progress." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2021 11:21:10 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sprinco states optimal is the heaviest spring with the lightest buffer. Weird that a spring manufacturer would say that a new spring is the answer to your question |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2021 12:23:31 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Zero parts failures and you say too large. LMT may need to contract you to learn how to build proper rifles? They're GTG. So are Sprinco springs. In an interesting twist, LMT states they prefer using the best buffer weight for the lightest spring. Sprinco states optimal is the heaviest spring with the lightest buffer. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Never heard of anything about special chrome. The cryo? How would you even quantify something like that? There’s always threads on how accurate Colt’s barrels are, how many about LMT? No doubt they’re top of the line ARs, but I’d take an H buffer and regular carrier over a carbine/semi, and a taper pinned, parked under the FSB over a cryo barrel any day. Don't worry, you're not the only one. Allow me to educate you. The chrome plating process adds thickness to the bore, as a result, something has to be done in order to accommodate that extra thickness. The "mil spec" way that colt, and just about everyone else, uses is they acid etch the barrel's steel bore diameter down slightly to account for the increased thickness of the chrome plating. This works ok, but can cause inconsistencies in thickness as it is not 100% uniform. What LMT does is they actually have the barrels made so the bores are slightly over sized when they are machined. The barrels are oversized to exactly account for the thickness of the chrome, and when the barrels are chrome lined, it brings the diameter to the proper spec. This is a lot more uniform process than acid etching the bore down, and can lead to better accuracy. Quoted: Quoted: LMT's barrels are arguably better due to their special chrome plating process and additional cryo treatment. These processes may or may not give you better accuracy. As every barrel is different and has its own properties /accuracy potential, and also since Colt has some super accurate barrels themselves, I wouldn't quantify it as a definitive advantage. However, LMT's rifles come with semi carriers and non H standard weight buffers. For a 16" carbine gassed barrel, you're going to want that extra reciprocating mass. Colt's generally also have much nicer stock triggers than LMT and much more generous mag wells (LMT tend to have tight magwells). If the gas port is properly sized who cares if it's a C vs H buffer? The gas port is properly sized for a 14.5" barrel. ~.062 is too large for a carbine gas with a 16" barrel. Zero parts failures and you say too large. LMT may need to contract you to learn how to build proper rifles? They're GTG. So are Sprinco springs. In an interesting twist, LMT states they prefer using the best buffer weight for the lightest spring. Sprinco states optimal is the heaviest spring with the lightest buffer. All rifles have parts failures over time, nothing last forever. Or maybe you have the everlastingAR in your fantasy land world? An over gassed rifle, which a 16" carbine gassed gun with a .0625 gas port is, will wear out parts faster than an optimally gassed rifle. I'm sorry if that's too nuanced for you to comprehend. Back to fantasy land! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2021 12:29:30 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Weird that a spring manufacturer would say that a new spring is the answer to your question Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Sprinco states optimal is the heaviest spring with the lightest buffer. Weird that a spring manufacturer would say that a new spring is the answer to your question They make springs of all strengths for all contexts. Try a can with decent blowback. Many trust AGBs. I don't. Buffer weights only do so much. Heavier springs, however... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2021 12:31:07 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: All rifles have parts failures over time, nothing last forever. Or maybe you have the everlastingAR in your fantasy land world? An over gassed rifle, which a 16" carbine gassed gun with a .0625 gas port is, will wear out parts faster than an optimally gassed rifle. I'm sorry if that's too nuanced for you to comprehend. Back to fantasy land! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Never heard of anything about special chrome. The cryo? How would you even quantify something like that? There’s always threads on how accurate Colt’s barrels are, how many about LMT? No doubt they’re top of the line ARs, but I’d take an H buffer and regular carrier over a carbine/semi, and a taper pinned, parked under the FSB over a cryo barrel any day. Don't worry, you're not the only one. Allow me to educate you. The chrome plating process adds thickness to the bore, as a result, something has to be done in order to accommodate that extra thickness. The "mil spec" way that colt, and just about everyone else, uses is they acid etch the barrel's steel bore diameter down slightly to account for the increased thickness of the chrome plating. This works ok, but can cause inconsistencies in thickness as it is not 100% uniform. What LMT does is they actually have the barrels made so the bores are slightly over sized when they are machined. The barrels are oversized to exactly account for the thickness of the chrome, and when the barrels are chrome lined, it brings the diameter to the proper spec. This is a lot more uniform process than acid etching the bore down, and can lead to better accuracy. Quoted: Quoted: LMT's barrels are arguably better due to their special chrome plating process and additional cryo treatment. These processes may or may not give you better accuracy. As every barrel is different and has its own properties /accuracy potential, and also since Colt has some super accurate barrels themselves, I wouldn't quantify it as a definitive advantage. However, LMT's rifles come with semi carriers and non H standard weight buffers. For a 16" carbine gassed barrel, you're going to want that extra reciprocating mass. Colt's generally also have much nicer stock triggers than LMT and much more generous mag wells (LMT tend to have tight magwells). If the gas port is properly sized who cares if it's a C vs H buffer? The gas port is properly sized for a 14.5" barrel. ~.062 is too large for a carbine gas with a 16" barrel. Zero parts failures and you say too large. LMT may need to contract you to learn how to build proper rifles? They're GTG. So are Sprinco springs. In an interesting twist, LMT states they prefer using the best buffer weight for the lightest spring. Sprinco states optimal is the heaviest spring with the lightest buffer. All rifles have parts failures over time, nothing last forever. Or maybe you have the everlastingAR in your fantasy land world? An over gassed rifle, which a 16" carbine gassed gun with a .0625 gas port is, will wear out parts faster than an optimally gassed rifle. I'm sorry if that's too nuanced for you to comprehend. Back to fantasy land! My rifles run .045 port sizes. Because shooting unsuppressed is 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2021 12:53:30 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sprinco states optimal is the heaviest spring with the lightest buffer. Nuts. A high power spring shortens the rear dwell, accelerates the bolt closing so reduces time for the magazine, increases bolt bounce, and in general increases wear and tear on the firearm. They're making a lot of money off of people's ignorance in thinking that increasing spring force can slow the cyclic rate or otherwise improve function. In a previous thread someone showed all the calculations that demonstrated that spring force makes very little difference in opening speed of the BCG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2021 11:53:15 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Weird that a spring manufacturer would say that a new spring is the answer to your question Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Sprinco states optimal is the heaviest spring with the lightest buffer. Weird that a spring manufacturer would say that a new spring is the answer to your question They also said that Colt 6920s, especially the new ones, need a red EXTRA heavy spring because reasons. Colt 16” carbines have had the same size gas port forever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2021 12:21:21 PM EDT
[#37]
What's even more crazy is the folks who put extra power springs in blowback 9mms, because apparently it takes a lot of force to strip a 9mm from a magazine? Just beating stuff up is all they're doing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2021 1:14:58 PM EDT
[#38]
I'd love to see a podcast with a Sprinco rep and a Heavy Buffers rep. PPV. Maybe a little MMA.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2021 3:36:37 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd love to see a podcast with a Sprinco rep and a Heavy Buffers rep. PPV. Maybe a little MMA. Well. The US military only has one spring and they use heavier buffers to slow cyclic rate. They should talk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2021 8:44:51 PM EDT
[#40]
The same people slighting heavier springs either don't shoot suppressed, use a can that has little blowback, has a custom gas port size, or use AGBs. Slighting heavier springs and using an AGB is head-shakingly interesting.
Standard springs with any buffer weight, suppressed, won't work with a pinned GB. Heavier springs, pinned GB's, suppressed shooting makes them reliable and durable. |
|
|
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.
