AR Sponsor
Posted: 3/31/2008 8:10:01 AM EDT
|
Anyone ever tried one of these? It says that it will not work in rifle caliber uppers but that is what some also said about the standard 9mm buffer. I wonder if it would be too heavy and that's why they say it won't work. Might also be too long. www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/store/ProductDetail.aspx?p=22904&title=AR-15/CAR-15/CAV-15%20PISTOL%20CALIBER%20BUFFER |
 I'm waiting on my Olympic Arms .45 acp upper to use mine with. IIRC, Cav Arms specified this weight for the added inertia so the pin holes in their poly receiver wouldn't elongate. The body is almost 1/2" longer than a standard buffer and appears to be solid, which means it doesn't have the inertial effect that helps to prevent bolt bounce that you get with regular buffers with the loose weights inside. The added length could cause timing or function issues also, for example the body might be long enough to prevent the bolt catch from functioning (similar to what you get if the upper screw on the rear of the stock is protruding into the buffer tube), etc. Get yourself an M-16 BCG, use a 9mm buffer like DPMS sells, and if you want more weight get a Tubb carrier weight system. Together that will equal more than what the Hahn weighs, and still be correct dimensionally. |
|
Why do you suggest an M16 bolt carrier? Wouldnt a full circle bolt carrier be fine? I know an M16 bolt carrier is a tiny bit heavier than a full circle semi carrier but is it that necessary? My 6920 has a half circle in it right now. I have two new full circle carriers. I just haven't gotten around to changing it out yet. Trying to get as much use out of the half circle carrier as I can until I have a better need to get rid of it. |
|
I suggested the M16 BCG (aka "full circle") simply for the slight added mass. A 9mm buffer and/or the Tubb CWS will be fine. Alternatively, look at this thread: here and e-mail Slash. he ought tobe able to build you an 8 oz. buffer that's the proper size. |
AR Sponsor