User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 3:04:38 PM EDT
[#1]
Carrier travel is limited to the length the carrier can travel before the gas key hits the receiver.
People think a spring with 4 more coils is some panacea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 3:06:35 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: Im a little baffled by the physics behind the vltor (and similar) A5 systems. I understand the longer buffer tube but the buffer is increasing by the same length. So wouldnt the distance traveled by the buffer be the same as a standard system? The buffer and bolt carrier group travel the same distance. The A5 spring is a fixed stock rifle spring, not because of travel, but because of where it contacts the buffer and extension. The A5H2 buffer is supposed to be equal to a standard weight carbine buffer in action. If you want a heavier buffer use an A5H3, an A5H4 would be the extreme and likely not needed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 3:25:39 PM EDT
[#3]
So its exactly the same thing, just allows for a heavier buffer to be used?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 3:27:41 PM EDT
[#4]
No, it both allows for a heavier buffer and allows for the use of a rifle spring, which performs better.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 3:29:16 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The buffer and bolt carrier group travel the same distance. The A5 spring is a fixed stock rifle spring, not because of travel, but because of where it contacts the buffer and extension. The A5H2 buffer is supposed to be equal to a standard weight carbine buffer in action. If you want a heavier buffer use an A5H3, an A5H4 would be the extreme and likely not needed. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Im a little baffled by the physics behind the vltor (and similar) A5 systems. I understand the longer buffer tube but the buffer is increasing by the same length. So wouldnt the distance traveled by the buffer be the same as a standard system? The buffer and bolt carrier group travel the same distance. The A5 spring is a fixed stock rifle spring, not because of travel, but because of where it contacts the buffer and extension. The A5H2 buffer is supposed to be equal to a standard weight carbine buffer in action. If you want a heavier buffer use an A5H3, an A5H4 would be the extreme and likely not needed. A5H2 weighs 5.33oz, a carbine buffer is 2.9oz ETA https://www.arbuildjunkie.com/vltor-a5-buffer-system-overview/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 3:33:58 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So its exactly the same thing, just allows for a heavier buffer to be used? The purpose of the A5 system is to emulate the RIFLE buffer system in a shorter length that allows an adjustable stock. The A5 buffer is just large enough to fit the same weights and spacers as what are contained within a rifle buffer. The buffer tube is also sized appropriately to use a rifle spring. The original design concept was to allow drop-in replacement of rifle stocks and buffer systems on existing rifles without having to go through a lot of testing, requalification etc, to offer an easy upgrade path for M16 rifles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 3:41:25 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A5H2 weighs 5.33oz, a carbine buffer is 2.9oz ETA https://www.arbuildjunkie.com/vltor-a5-buffer-system-overview/ I mean in function, not in weight. A rifle buffer is 5.3 or 5.4 oz. The A5H2 is considered, "standard" and the A5H3 buffer is considered heavy. Remember it uses a rifle spring. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 6:23:33 PM EDT
[#8]
It allows the use of the better spring rate of a rifle spring.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 6:29:20 PM EDT
[#9]
I saw the testing data on the A5 system back when it was in development, IIRC it represented an improvement over the status quo with more consistent shot to shot bolt velocities which should result in more consistent operation. It also slowed the ROF. You almost have to shoot it to understand the benefit, it's just a different recoil impulse.
Also anyone banging a 9mm lower should absolute throw an A5 buffer (JUST the buffer) into their setup. It takes the additional slop out of the 9mm bolt travel so it doesn't beat the catch to hell like it normally does and shoots SO much more betterer, especially suppressed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 7:29:26 PM EDT
[#10]
In addition to the above mentioned advantages, the A5 system uses more individual weights than the carbine buffer, so that they might impact at different times, for a better dead blow effect at both ends of travel. Also, the A5 buffer has a small spring inside it that is weak enough to allow the weights to function to delay the counter-recoil stroke, and act to prevent bolt bounce, yet strong enough to position the weights forward for consistent inertia against the initial movement of the bolt carrier (or bolt in simple blowback actions). Standard style buffers are inconsistent about the position of the weights, depending upon the position the gun was in just prior to firing. I consider this to be a contributing factor in reliability for simple blowback actions.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 7:35:59 PM EDT
[#11]
If you read the whole A5 vs H6 test the H6 was more reliable than the A5.
Vltor counted light primer strikes and magazines falling out of the gun to get the reliability numbers better than the carbine setup. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 7:50:52 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you read the whole A5 vs H6 test the H6 was more reliable than the A5. Vltor counted light primer strikes and magazines falling out of the gun to get the reliability numbers better than the carbine setup. The H6 is a fixed weight and the A5 is available in several different weights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 10:00:00 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The H6 is a fixed weight and the A5 is available in several different weights. So are carbine buffers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 10:08:48 PM EDT
[#14]
H3 carbine buffers are nominally 5.4oz, +/- depending on mfr.
H2 carbine buffers are nominally 4.5oz, +/- depending on mfr. so yes, you can easily and readily get heavier carbine buffers for the standard AR-15 7" carbine buffer tube. and snake-oil springs, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 10:26:52 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So are carbine buffers. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The H6 is a fixed weight and the A5 is available in several different weights. So are carbine buffers. H6 buffers are made for a specific application and that is to use with 20" barrels. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 10:40:34 PM EDT
[#16]
The 3 advantages of the A5 system are:
1-it uses the rifle spring 2-it allows for a longer LOP with more adjustment 3-it allows more buffer weight adjustments for tuning (A5H0, A5H1, A5H2, A5H3, & A5H4) with A5H2 being the same weight as a rifle buffer. If none of the above matter to you, a standard carbine buffer setup will serve you well. I prefer the A5 system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 11:38:03 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: H6 buffers are made for a specific application and that is to use with 20" barrels. The A5 was too. And it doesn’t do it as well as the H6, as used by the US, and H2 as used by Canada. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 12:23:51 AM EDT
[#18]
I'm with samuse on this... Though not because of any issue I've experienced with the A5 system, in fact I've never used it. I was on the edge of going all into it, but I never fully committed even though I bought a bunch of A5 REs, A5H2 buffers and a few extra rifle springs.
 I just got tired of seeing all the guys who bought into the A5 buffer system on the forums (mostly TOS) constantly chasing their tails around in circles trying to achieve fine tuned perfection. They we're just constantly testing all the different A5 buffer weights along with all the "Voodoo BS" Sprinco buffer springs. They just never seemed fully satisfied... Always chasing, but never really catching that ultimate in reliability unicorn that they were after. Short barrels, suppressors and LMT Enhanced BCGs were always in the mix to tune around too. I realized that it's just a hole to throw your money down to never see a real return on. The original Colt carbine buffer system just works and it works very well, certainly well enough for me. Note: Before the A5 system came along, the same guys that are into the A5 system now were constantly messing with Sprinco buffer springs and different buffer weights for the standard carbine buffer system too... It's almost a sickness of sorts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 10:07:55 AM EDT
[#19]
Topic Moved
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 6:14:55 PM EDT
[#20]
The buffer is lengthened so that the carrier stops in the same position as it would in a carbine length system, the difference is it allows for the use of a rifle spring instead of a carbine spring. The A5 is basically a shortened rifle buffer system where everything but the spring and spring travel is shortened.
The A5 is a great option for your .308/6.5cm AR because it allows the use of AR carbine buffers. So, you can standardize buffers across AR platforms. Although, ArmaLite has been using the same system since the AR10 carbine... so it makes me wonder if Vltor just took the same idea and adapted it for AR15s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 7:44:32 PM EDT
[#21]
That’s exactly what it is. The 6 position A5 receiver extensions are RE-10/A5SR for use with AR-10s. LMT 308 MWS and KAC SR-25 also use the ~.655” longer tube.
It was a clever thing to think of, but it didn’t really pan out functionally. It took a long time to really catch on and nobody cares that it functions worse than a carbine setup because it’s an upgrade and it costs more so it has to be better. Lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 9:42:19 PM EDT
[#22]
Personally I really like the A5 system. I find it has a better recoil impulse and I personally like it. I have fired thousands of rounds through mine with no issues.
If I had a carbine setup with a carbine system, I wouldn’t not spend the money to swap it to an A5. But if I were to build a carbine from the ground up, I would spend the extra few bucks for the A5. Again, just my experience. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 11:45:58 PM EDT
[#23]
Works great in suppressed pistols instead of an adjustable gasblock
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2022 12:16:30 PM EDT
[#24]
Lets address the spring in the a5 system, as that is really its major advantage. Ill try to keep this short yet informative.
Ar 15s have a compromized spring design, meaning less than ideal force at l1(bolt closed) and l2(bolt fully open) Ideally a rifle will have significant force at l1, to ensure bolt closes properly, and as little force as possible at l2, to ensure full cycling. This is acheived best with a very low spring rate, and large amounts of pre compression. The dimensional parameters of the carbine spring system ~1"OD,~3.8" compressed length, preclude ideal rifle spring design. Colt did the absolute best possible with the size parameters, achieving the lowest possible spring rate and l2 force, while maintaining an acceptable level of l1 force. The rifle spring system is also compromized from ideal, but to a smaller degree, it has more force at l1 than carbine, and less force at l2, again, the best possible for size restraints. The vltor a5 allows use of rifle size springs, so is necessarily "better" as far as spring design is concerned. And will make small gains in reliabilty, due to increased closing force(minimizing failures to close fully) and decreased cycling force(minimizing short stroking) Typically rifles will have a ~3/8"-~1/2" diameter spring, as it is much easier to achieve ideal springing, and uses much less spring mass. AR15 springs are necessarily compromized due to packaging restraints inherent to design. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2022 1:09:51 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ideally a rifle will have significant force at l1, to ensure bolt closes properly, and as little force as possible at l2, to ensure full cycling. This is acheived best with a very low spring rate, and large amounts of pre compression. […] The vltor a5 allows use of rifle size springs, so is necessarily "better" as far as spring design is concerned. And will make small gains in reliabilty, due to increased closing force(minimizing failures to close fully) and decreased cycling force(minimizing short stroking) IIRC a complaint that I’ve seen about the A5 system is that it’s less reliable in this regard than a conventional carbine setup. @samuse — do I have this straight? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2022 2:07:09 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nice explanation, but I wonder whether having a larger force at l2 (bolt open) is all bad. Seems to me that it would help in stripping the next round from the magazine, especially from one that’s full or nearly so. IIRC a complaint that I’ve seen about the A5 system is that it’s less reliable in this regard than a conventional carbine setup. @samuse — do I have this straight? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Ideally a rifle will have significant force at l1, to ensure bolt closes properly, and as little force as possible at l2, to ensure full cycling. This is acheived best with a very low spring rate, and large amounts of pre compression. […] The vltor a5 allows use of rifle size springs, so is necessarily "better" as far as spring design is concerned. And will make small gains in reliabilty, due to increased closing force(minimizing failures to close fully) and decreased cycling force(minimizing short stroking) IIRC a complaint that I’ve seen about the A5 system is that it’s less reliable in this regard than a conventional carbine setup. @samuse — do I have this straight? Less L2 force is what I think is the main reason why the A5, and the original rifle setup is less reliable than the carbine H2 setup. I also suspect the biasing spring has something to do with the propensity to fail to feed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2022 5:55:03 AM EDT
[#27]
A longer spring means more linear force. That means a bit more force holding the bolt closed and a bit less when the bolt is back, reducing bolt velocity and bolt bounce. You want more spring closed and less open than a standard carbine spring. The only ways to accomplish that are a flat spring of carbine length (that is longer due to more coils) or a longer round wire spring.
The effect is minimal, but everything adds up. Just like midlength gas vs carbine gas port. The negative with the A5 is you can't get the buffer as light for use with an adjustable gas block. Less reciprocating mass also lowers recoil if the gas is adjusted down to match. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2022 9:48:29 AM EDT
[#28]
Stress analysis of carbine vs rifle springs showed the carbine to be nearly identical to the rifle at L1, and about 1 lb heavier at L2, and well within limits of the material and operating lengths of the spring. IE: Nothing to be gained with a longer spring.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2022 12:24:15 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Stress analysis of carbine vs rifle springs showed the carbine to be nearly identical to the rifle at L1, and about 1 lb heavier at L2, and well within limits of the material and operating lengths of the spring. IE: Nothing to be gained with a longer spring. Do you have a source for the info you've been stating in this thread about carbine vs A5 systems? Not trying to be snarky at all, I'm just genuinely curious and would like to read about them both. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2022 9:31:44 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: I saw the testing data on the A5 system back when it was in development, IIRC it represented an improvement over the status quo with more consistent shot to shot bolt velocities which should result in more consistent operation. It also slowed the ROF. You almost have to shoot it to understand the benefit, it's just a different recoil impulse. Quoted: I consider this to be a contributing factor in reliability for simple blowback actions. Quoted: If you read the whole A5 vs H6 test the H6 was more reliable than the A5. Vltor counted light primer strikes and magazines falling out of the gun to get the reliability numbers better than the carbine setup. Quoted: It was a clever thing to think of, but it didn’t really pan out functionally. It took a long time to really catch on and nobody cares that it functions worse than a carbine setup because it’s an upgrade and it costs more so it has to be better. Lol. Quoted: The vltor a5 allows use of rifle size springs, so is necessarily "better" as far as spring design is concerned. And will make small gains in reliabilty, due to increased closing force(minimizing failures to close fully) and decreased cycling force(minimizing short stroking) Typically rifles will have a ~3/8"-~1/2" diameter spring, as it is much easier to achieve ideal springing, and uses much less spring mass. AR15 springs are necessarily compromized due to packaging restraints inherent to design. Quoted: Less L2 force is what I think is the main reason why the A5, and the original rifle setup is less reliable than the carbine H2 setup. I also suspect the biasing spring has something to do with the propensity to fail to feed. I was looking into the A5 buffer for one reason only: reliability. I have read over the past couple of years about the A5 being more reliable...and less reliable than a carbine buffer system - much like posts I have quoted above. Conflicting information seems to make this a bit of a crap shoot. In the end, my question is this: "In overall performance, is there accurate evidence that shows that the A5 buffer system makes the AR15 function more reliably?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2022 10:57:57 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I was looking into the A5 buffer for one reason only: reliability. I have read over the past couple of years about the A5 being more reliable...and less reliable than a carbine buffer system - much like posts I have quoted above. Conflicting information seems to make this a bit of a crap shoot. In the end, my question is this: "In overall performance, is there accurate evidence that shows that the A5 buffer system makes the AR15 function more reliably?" Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I saw the testing data on the A5 system back when it was in development, IIRC it represented an improvement over the status quo with more consistent shot to shot bolt velocities which should result in more consistent operation. It also slowed the ROF. You almost have to shoot it to understand the benefit, it's just a different recoil impulse. Quoted: I consider this to be a contributing factor in reliability for simple blowback actions. Quoted: If you read the whole A5 vs H6 test the H6 was more reliable than the A5. Vltor counted light primer strikes and magazines falling out of the gun to get the reliability numbers better than the carbine setup. Quoted: It was a clever thing to think of, but it didn’t really pan out functionally. It took a long time to really catch on and nobody cares that it functions worse than a carbine setup because it’s an upgrade and it costs more so it has to be better. Lol. Quoted: The vltor a5 allows use of rifle size springs, so is necessarily "better" as far as spring design is concerned. And will make small gains in reliabilty, due to increased closing force(minimizing failures to close fully) and decreased cycling force(minimizing short stroking) Typically rifles will have a ~3/8"-~1/2" diameter spring, as it is much easier to achieve ideal springing, and uses much less spring mass. AR15 springs are necessarily compromized due to packaging restraints inherent to design. Quoted: Less L2 force is what I think is the main reason why the A5, and the original rifle setup is less reliable than the carbine H2 setup. I also suspect the biasing spring has something to do with the propensity to fail to feed. I was looking into the A5 buffer for one reason only: reliability. I have read over the past couple of years about the A5 being more reliable...and less reliable than a carbine buffer system - much like posts I have quoted above. Conflicting information seems to make this a bit of a crap shoot. In the end, my question is this: "In overall performance, is there accurate evidence that shows that the A5 buffer system makes the AR15 function more reliably?" No. There is none. It’s the same crowd on M4C and Reddit that regurgitate the same idea of why they think it’s more reliable and works ‘with a wider range of uppers’ that the carbine setup. The H2 buffer is in military use behind 10.3. - 14.5 carbine and mid, 15-16” carbine, 18” and 20” rifles, blanks to M855A1, suppressed and unsuppressed. ETA arctic cold to Iraq hot. The H2 buffer was 4 years in development, has been standard in every carbine for amount 20 years now. They went back to the drawing board to test the rifle, A5, and H6 buffers, burned through about 200K rounds, found the H6 better, and VLTOR found one power point slide that showed the A5 having less stoppages, and the fanboys have been screaming it from the rooftops since. They either don’t know, or never saw the whole thing that breaks down the stoppages by class. The H6 stoppages that made it less reliable were magazines not seated and falling out, and light primer strikes. It showed the A5 had more failures to fully feed/return to battery than the H6. THAT is attributable to the buffer setup. The rifle setup was worse than the A5 in that regard too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2022 11:27:01 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No. There is none. It’s the same crowd on M4C and Reddit that regurgitate the same idea of why they think it’s more reliable and works ‘with a wider range of uppers’ that the carbine setup. The H2 buffer is in military use behind 10.3. - 14.5 carbine and mid, 15-16” carbine, 18” and 20” rifles, blanks to M855A1, suppressed and unsuppressed. The H2 buffer was 4 years in development, has been standard in every carbine for amount 20 years now. They went back to the drawing board to test the rifle, A5, and H6 buffers, burned through about 200K rounds, found the H6 better, and VLTOR found one power point slide that showed the A5 having less stoppages, and the fanboys have been screaming it from the rooftops since. They either don’t know, or never saw the whole thing that breaks down the stoppages by class. The H6 stoppages that made it less reliable were magazines not seated and falling out, and light primer strikes. It showed the A5 had more failures to fully feed/return to battery than the H6. THAT is attributable to the buffer setup. The rifle setup was worse than the A5 in that regard too. Do you have a link to those slides for scientific research ?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2022 11:57:56 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you have a link to those slides for scientific research ?I don’t. There’s one floating around the internet somewhere. This stuff is almost 20 years old at this point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2022 10:10:50 AM EDT
[#34]
I have shot probably a close to a hundred thousand rounds through all my AR’s which are A5 equipped. I’m not a fan boy I bought them for the slightly better lop. I have never had any reliability issues, I have never changed the weights in the elusive recoil tuning quest. Honestly I played with the weight on one setup to see if there was a noticeable difference which I really didn’t unless I was wanting to feel a difference. I tried a couple Sprinco greens still the same but they did remove most of the recoil boing, boing, so there is that. Will I continue to use them? Yes! I have some extras and the additional lop is worth it for me, will I play with springs and weights nope. I will say in closing there are no downsides, and you do get increased lop if your tall.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2022 11:37:24 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I was looking into the A5 buffer for one reason only: reliability. I have read over the past couple of years about the A5 being more reliable...and less reliable than a carbine buffer system - much like posts I have quoted above. Conflicting information seems to make this a bit of a crap shoot. In the end, my question is this: "In overall performance, is there accurate evidence that shows that the A5 buffer system makes the AR15 function more reliably?" Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I saw the testing data on the A5 system back when it was in development, IIRC it represented an improvement over the status quo with more consistent shot to shot bolt velocities which should result in more consistent operation. It also slowed the ROF. You almost have to shoot it to understand the benefit, it's just a different recoil impulse. Quoted: I consider this to be a contributing factor in reliability for simple blowback actions. Quoted: If you read the whole A5 vs H6 test the H6 was more reliable than the A5. Vltor counted light primer strikes and magazines falling out of the gun to get the reliability numbers better than the carbine setup. Quoted: It was a clever thing to think of, but it didn’t really pan out functionally. It took a long time to really catch on and nobody cares that it functions worse than a carbine setup because it’s an upgrade and it costs more so it has to be better. Lol. Quoted: The vltor a5 allows use of rifle size springs, so is necessarily "better" as far as spring design is concerned. And will make small gains in reliabilty, due to increased closing force(minimizing failures to close fully) and decreased cycling force(minimizing short stroking) Typically rifles will have a ~3/8"-~1/2" diameter spring, as it is much easier to achieve ideal springing, and uses much less spring mass. AR15 springs are necessarily compromized due to packaging restraints inherent to design. Quoted: Less L2 force is what I think is the main reason why the A5, and the original rifle setup is less reliable than the carbine H2 setup. I also suspect the biasing spring has something to do with the propensity to fail to feed. I was looking into the A5 buffer for one reason only: reliability. I have read over the past couple of years about the A5 being more reliable...and less reliable than a carbine buffer system - much like posts I have quoted above. Conflicting information seems to make this a bit of a crap shoot. In the end, my question is this: "In overall performance, is there accurate evidence that shows that the A5 buffer system makes the AR15 function more reliably?" I can tell you this, the rifle length (not carbine) receiver extension, spring, and buffer, is PROVEN to be longer lasting AND more reliable than the carbine extension, spring, and buffers. This is a proven fact. If you want the ULTIMATE in reliability (and durability as well), you use a fixed rifle stock, and buffer / spring system. IF you want a collapsible stock, then reliability isn't your main concern, but I can understand you wanting to also have the most reliable set up you can along with the CONVENIENCE that a collapsible stock brings. If the A5 more closely emulates the rifle receiver extension set up and function, it should inherently be more reliable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2022 9:02:52 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I can tell you this, the rifle length (not carbine) receiver extension, spring, and buffer, is PROVEN to be longer lasting AND more reliable than the carbine extension, spring, and buffers. This is a proven fact. If you want the ULTIMATE in reliability (and durability as well), you use a fixed rifle stock, and buffer / spring system. IF you want a collapsible stock, then reliability isn't your main concern, but I can understand you wanting to also have the most reliable set up you can along with the CONVENIENCE that a collapsible stock brings. If the A5 more closely emulates the rifle receiver extension set up and function, it should inherently be more reliable. USMC testing disagrees. The rifle spring and buffer was more reliable than the 3 oz carbine buffer before the advent of the H2,3,&6 buffer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2022 9:30:54 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: USMC testing disagrees. The rifle spring and buffer was more reliable than the 3 oz carbine buffer before the advent of the H2,3,&6 buffer. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I can tell you this, the rifle length (not carbine) receiver extension, spring, and buffer, is PROVEN to be longer lasting AND more reliable than the carbine extension, spring, and buffers. This is a proven fact. If you want the ULTIMATE in reliability (and durability as well), you use a fixed rifle stock, and buffer / spring system. IF you want a collapsible stock, then reliability isn't your main concern, but I can understand you wanting to also have the most reliable set up you can along with the CONVENIENCE that a collapsible stock brings. If the A5 more closely emulates the rifle receiver extension set up and function, it should inherently be more reliable. USMC testing disagrees. The rifle spring and buffer was more reliable than the 3 oz carbine buffer before the advent of the H2,3,&6 buffer. USMC does not disagree, and no where do they state that a carbine recoil system is more reliable. The rifle system, length of travel / weight combination is inherently more reliable than the shorter carbine travel system designed by Colt. Remember, STONER designed the M16 with the rifle recoil system and it is optimal to the gun. Colt later made modifications to the weapon for convenience of special forces. These changes necessitated compromises to the optimal functioning of the weapon, IE shorter length of travel and recoil impulse. Just increasing the buffer weight does not make it the same. Anyone who has fired both a rifle and a carbine recoil system (even with a heavier buffer) can physically notice there is a difference in recoil impulse. From observing this thread, you seem to have a personal attachment to the carbine recoil system. You need to learn to step back and be more objective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2022 12:00:36 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: USMC does not disagree, and no where do they state that a carbine recoil system is more reliable. The rifle system, length of travel / weight combination is inherently more reliable than the shorter carbine travel system designed by Colt. Remember, STONER designed the M16 with the rifle recoil system and it is optimal to the gun. Colt later made modifications to the weapon for convenience of special forces. These changes necessitated compromises to the optimal functioning of the weapon, IE shorter length of travel and recoil impulse. Just increasing the buffer weight does not make it the same. Anyone who has fired both a rifle and a carbine recoil system (even with a heavier buffer) can physically notice there is a difference in recoil impulse. From observing this thread, you seem to have a personal attachment to the carbine recoil system. You need to learn to step back and be more objective. You missed the 200K rounds the USMC fired with carbine, A5, and rifle setups before they stated that there was no reliability advantage to the rifle or A5. Carrier travel doesn’t change with buffer setup. The carbine spring is well within material and design limitations and spring engineering shows that more coils would not be beneficial to performance. I’ve done blind comparisons with A5 and carbine lowers with the same uppers and ammo and not one shooter thought the A5 felt better. In fact, a majority performed best with the carbine-H, over A5 and carbine-H2. 14 years now of observation with A5 equipped guns is objective enough. I’ve put a lot of work and money into proving this stuff, and had to eat my own crow on the A5 as I was a very early adopter of it and had recommended it to people for years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2022 2:22:49 PM EDT
[#39]
The fact that the carbine spring can fail in as little as 4k rounds alone makes it less reliable (military armor's are scheduled to check the length at that round count). Rifle length springs almost never fail.
What else you got? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2022 2:40:03 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The fact that the carbine spring can fail in as little as 4k rounds alone makes it less reliable (military armor's are scheduled to check the length at that round count). Rifle length springs almost never fail. What else you got? Who’s counting to 4K? Almost nobody. Where’d you hear that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2022 3:03:18 PM EDT
[#41]
I run the A5 tube so that I can run anti-tilt buffers (aka: linear alignment buffers), even on my DI guns.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2022 3:52:17 PM EDT
[#42]
I'm with samuse on this one... I never fully bought all in, but I watched people chase their tails around with the Vltor A5 and LMT Enhanced BCG for years over on TOS and to a lesser extent here trying to achieve some kind of reliability utopia, but all they really managed to do is put together a niche combination of parts that doesn't work in certain conditions and has an awkward recoil impulse.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2022 3:58:40 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm with samuse on this one... I never fully bought all in, but I watched people chase their tails around with the Vltor A5 and LMT Enhanced BCG for years over on TOS and to a lesser extent here trying to achieve some kind of reliability utopia, but all they really managed to do is put together a niche combination of parts that doesn't work in certain conditions and has an awkward recoil impulse. Kind of like the KAC rifle? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2022 4:19:39 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Kind of like the KAC rifle? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm with samuse on this one... I never fully bought all in, but I watched people chase their tails around with the Vltor A5 and LMT Enhanced BCG for years over on TOS and to a lesser extent here trying to achieve some kind of reliability utopia, but all they really managed to do is put together a niche combination of parts that doesn't work in certain conditions and has an awkward recoil impulse. Kind of like the KAC rifle? Oh you done did it now! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2022 5:45:24 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh you done did it now! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm with samuse on this one... I never fully bought all in, but I watched people chase their tails around with the Vltor A5 and LMT Enhanced BCG for years over on TOS and to a lesser extent here trying to achieve some kind of reliability utopia, but all they really managed to do is put together a niche combination of parts that doesn't work in certain conditions and has an awkward recoil impulse. Kind of like the KAC rifle? Oh you done did it now! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2022 7:48:25 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’ve done blind comparisons with A5 and carbine lowers with the same uppers and ammo and not one shooter thought the A5 felt better. In fact, a majority performed best with the carbine-H, over A5 and carbine-H2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2022 7:48:38 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh you done did it now! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm with samuse on this one... I never fully bought all in, but I watched people chase their tails around with the Vltor A5 and LMT Enhanced BCG for years over on TOS and to a lesser extent here trying to achieve some kind of reliability utopia, but all they really managed to do is put together a niche combination of parts that doesn't work in certain conditions and has an awkward recoil impulse. Kind of like the KAC rifle? Oh you done did it now! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2022 8:54:03 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Curious about this — what specific A5 setup did you use in this testing? That is, which buffer weight and what spring? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I’ve done blind comparisons with A5 and carbine lowers with the same uppers and ammo and not one shooter thought the A5 felt better. In fact, a majority performed best with the carbine-H, over A5 and carbine-H2. Fresh mil-spec carbine and rifle springs from Colt, A5-2 and -3 buffers, H, and H2 buffers. Lowers all had identical Magpul furniture and Sionics NP3 triggers. Ammo was, iirc, IMI M855, and MK262mod1. Uppers were Colt 6920s (16” carbine) with Geissele 13.5” MK14s, and a Colt 6933 upper. There were 5 very competent shooters, not including myself. On a different occasion we did BCM 16” mids, Colt 6920s, A5-2 vs H2. THOSE results were very interesting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2022 12:48:55 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fresh mil-spec carbine and rifle springs from Colt, A5-2 and -3 buffers, H, and H2 buffers. 3-gun guys have understood for a long time the benefits and drawbacks of reducing the reciprocating mass. I wonder what would have happened had you tested an A5H0 (3.8 oz) or A5H1 (4.6 oz) instead. I do understand that the A5H2 seems to be the default recommendation, presumably because it matches the standard rifle buffer and many think of the A5 system as being equivalent to the rifle setup, just repackaged into a small form-factor. Uses the same spring after all…. That comparison isn’t entirely accurate, however. If you hold an A5 buffer next to a rifle one, you can see there’s less space available for the spring in between the shoulder and the end of the bumper. So that rifle spring is compressed an extra 0.55” or so when it’s used in an A5 setup as compared to standard rifle, and that means more working force. As I figure it, the spring in an A5 is acting more like a carbine’s than a rifle’s, at least in regard to the force it supplies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2022 6:14:12 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fresh mil-spec carbine and rifle springs from Colt, A5-2 and -3 buffers, H, and H2 buffers. Lowers all had identical Magpul furniture and Sionics NP3 triggers. Ammo was, iirc, IMI M855, and MK262mod1. Uppers were Colt 6920s (16” carbine) with Geissele 13.5” MK14s, and a Colt 6933 upper. There were 5 very competent shooters, not including myself. On a different occasion we did BCM 16” mids, Colt 6920s, A5-2 vs H2. THOSE results were very interesting. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I’ve done blind comparisons with A5 and carbine lowers with the same uppers and ammo and not one shooter thought the A5 felt better. In fact, a majority performed best with the carbine-H, over A5 and carbine-H2. Fresh mil-spec carbine and rifle springs from Colt, A5-2 and -3 buffers, H, and H2 buffers. Lowers all had identical Magpul furniture and Sionics NP3 triggers. Ammo was, iirc, IMI M855, and MK262mod1. Uppers were Colt 6920s (16” carbine) with Geissele 13.5” MK14s, and a Colt 6933 upper. There were 5 very competent shooters, not including myself. On a different occasion we did BCM 16” mids, Colt 6920s, A5-2 vs H2. THOSE results were very interesting. Hi, If you had done this test with a rifle gas system what do you think the results would have been? I've got a 20" ar w/the A5 and I'd like to try the carbine extension and buffer. Which buffer should I use? Thanks |
|
|
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.
