Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/28/2004 7:08:56 AM EST
Anyone have one? Do they significantly increase reliability and reduce recoil? I'm already running a 9mm buffer.


Source
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 10:54:48 AM EST
Depends on what you're using them for. They're intended for Highpower shooters who use the 80gr. loads for the 600yd. stage of their event. They work under those conditions.

I'm not so sure about any benefit with loads in the M193 or M855 range. I tend to think that they would be a waste of money when used with standard ammo.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 11:32:00 AM EST
If you are already running a 9mm buffer, that is probably as heavy as you'd want to go with .223

Now if you're using a 458 Socom or 50 Beo then it might be a worthwhile upgrade...
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 11:57:52 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/28/2004 11:59:26 AM EST by DarkStar]

I picked up the Tubbs Speedlock CWS system from Midway weeks ago and plan on dropping it into my Beowulf. I'm hoping to find some time between archery whitetail, fall turkey, and firearm whitetail in the next few weeks to give it a test run in the Beowulf and in a few 5.56 uppers to test functioning. My current Beowulf setup already has the Colt tungsten H3 5.6 ounce buffer and Wolff +10% CAR action spring and the Beowulf is what I'm going to carry this firearm season so I may wait until after to start experimenting with it again...

I'd agree that using the CWS carrier which weighs 1.54 ounces along with the 2.51 ounce tungsten weight for a combined weight of 4.05 ounces may be a bit much for a .223/5.56 to maintain reliable functioning, but I think that combo will turn the Beowulf into a pussycat... Using just the CWS carrier alone will add 1.54 ounces or even the stainless 1.25 ounce insert along with it for a combined 2.79 ounces may be do-able in the .223/5.56 running XM193 or Q3131a tho...

www.zediker.com/tubb/images/speedlock/slscws2.html

edited for linkee..
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 12:30:16 PM EST
I want to get one for my AR10 to see if I can delay the unlocking of the bolt a bit more, would rather have a drop in unit that I can key to a certain load(such as my AR10 HATING FEDERAL AMMO OF ALL KINDS) than have to muck around with an adjustable gas block or gas tube.

The adjustments devices are not as robust or easy to adjust as something like you'd see on an FAL, having a JP Enterprises rifle I have adjusted the gas on the rifle exactly ONCE and that is enough.


My older AR10 is definitely "over gassed" from the results I've seen with certain handloads and the notorious Federal ammo. It would be nice if I could get bolt gun like performance stressing the brass less.
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 7:46:07 AM EST
uglygun,

Stay away from late mfg. Federal brass. It's way soft and I even have trouble with it in my bolt guns! For example - fired Fed GMM ammo once in my M700 bolt gun (Obermeyer bbl, Palma '95 chamber) then reloaded it (Redding neck bushing die) using same load that functions perfectly in this rifle with Win. or LC brass (it's not a 'hot' load) and the primer pockets expand so much with the Fed brass that the fired primer falls out of the case when you tap it on the bench. This has happened the same way with some other of my rifles using Fed brass. The stuff is so bad that the USAMTU threw away a dumpster full of it a couple of years ago!

I have a two year old AR10(T) and have never ran into any problems when using loads that have been loaded rather 'warm' to 'hot' using Win, LC, or FN mil brass. I wonder what changes have been made to make it different from your old AR10?

Sorry for hijacking this thread .
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 10:24:33 AM EST
You don't have to tell me about federal ammo...

I have 3 AR15s and an AR10 that outright hate the stuff, Amer Eagle, Gold Medal, Custom, it doesn't matter they all hate it.


The last straw for me came when trying to test some Gold Medal 168grn MK in my AR10 and the jolt from the bolt going into battery managed to unseat a primer from a live round. I didn't notice it until I pulled the trigger and nothing happened, ejecting the round I started looking at it real carefully and noticed that it didn't have a primer. Opening the lower/upper I noticed the primer sitting inside the lower.

This was around 5 years ago when I had just gotten my AR10 and was testing/evaluating factory ammo.

I had already known that Federal ammo was dogshit for reloading due to out of spec heads and primers not taking a good seat into the once fired brass but the experience with factory fresh ammo was enough to seal it's fate.


My handloads are generally low end to mid level charge weights, I don't go much higher. If I start pushing for longer ranges though it would be nice to have a device for a bit of fine tuning when working towards the warmer loads. The other factor is that if I can delay the unlocking a tad maybe it won't work the brass quite as much.
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 11:20:17 AM EST
The benefit of the CWS to me seems that it's easily tailorable to whatever load you are using. You can run your gun four ways; (1) stock carrier only, (2) stock carrier + CW insert, (3) stock carrier + CW insert + SS insert, or (4) stock carrier + CW insert + tungsten insert. Its just an alternative to changing out buffers and/or buffer springs. If you settle in a single load, those alternatives would be OK, but the CWS does give more flexibility.

The only downside I've heard about is, if used as delivered, you need to take both the front and rear takedown pins out for disassembly and cleaning. The CWS insert protrudes out far enough from your carrier that you cant close the upper on the lower by taking out just the rear takedown pin. The way around that from what I've heard is to have a smith counterbore your carrier to allow the CWS insert and the SS/tungsten inserts to seat flush with your carrier.

I know they came out of the HP arena as an aid to allow cranking up the velocity on 75-80 grainers but it ought to provide the same benefit as other add on devices. I can see how carbines would benefit by having easier extraction if the bolt stays locked a little longer. Pressures on the case walls would subside a bit more, easing extraction and not placing as a big a strain on extractor springs and extractor claws.
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 1:57:13 PM EST
btt
Top Top