Increase the gas system pressure, the action will cycle faster and harder, if you are using the same buffer and carrier mass.

Increasing the buffer and carrier mass, will decrease the cyclic rate.

So, if you've bumped-up the gas pressure, it would be advised to adjust the buffer/carrier masses to suit the change, so that the gun cycles in its normal range.
Or else, find some way to re-meter the gas system.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why was the Car buffer so light from the get-go? Less reciprocating weight = higher rate of fire. So you are saying it was a goal of the Carbine to have higher rate of fire?  What about the malfunction potential being increased exponentially when compared to a rifle system???

The higher rate of fire was a by-product of shortening the gas system.

Basically, the shortened gas system of the carbine was a response to the need for a shorter version of the M16 for paratroopers and special-ops guys.

While many might think that alot of thought went into this process, that apparently was not the case. Essentially, it seems they just chopped it down, stuck a shorter gas tube on it, and that was that. I don't know if there was some pressing need to get it done in an extremely short time, or if they just didn't pay attention.

As time went on, and people started recognizing that things can be done to deal with the "chopped-off" gas system that we were stuck with from the early days, some enterprising manufacturers started to do some things about it.
Unfortunately, some of the major mfrs aren't included in that group.
They make it to TDP, and whatever becomes of it after it's sold is the problem of the purchaser.

Quoted: Twl, why was the 3oz carbine buffer engineered from the get-go?

I don't know the specific answer for that question.
Ekie probably knows that, since he's a student of the historical Colt stuff.

If I were to venture a guess, I'd say that they made a gas port that was small enough to work properly(when new) with that buffer weight, in conjunction with the M16 carrier(which is slightly heavier than an AR15 carrier). The specs for cyclic rate are higher on the carbine, and perhaps they just felt that was fine.

Unfortunately as we now know, the port size doesn't remain static at the size it was made, but enlarges as the barrel life progresses. And as the port enlarges, causing the gun to cycle faster and harder, the more rounds are fired in a shorter time period in each burst, causing the barrel to heat up faster, causing exacerbated erosion to occur.

We are finally seeing Colts coming thru with some H buffers now in the M4 series.
It's definitely a step in the right direction, but the port is still going to erode, and the buffer weight will need to be more later anyway.


Alot of people just ignored the phenomenon of gas port erosion for many years, and I still hear people denying that it happens.
It is a variable thing, that is related not only to the gas system, but if the weapon is fired rapidly or full auto, or otherwise heats up more than normal. Erosion of the steel is more rapid if the steel is heated, and even more rapidly if it is really overheated. The chrome barrel lining helps to protect the bottom edge of the port hole for awhile.

Also, depending on how you use the rifle, and how sensitive you might be to the cyclic behavior of the rifle, you may not notice it for a long time because it happens gradually and you don't notice it as easily as if it was a big change all at once.