AR Sponsor
Posted: 12/8/2013 9:46:11 AM EDT
|
This was sold to me as a heavy buffer. Physically feels heavier than my standard carbine buffer to me. No scale to measure.
Non pinned red wine colored tip, no markings on body and it's about the same greenish color as the red wine rifle buffers I have. Any one recognize it? 
|
| Looks like early carbine buffer. Don't think heavy was available during it's time of production but I've been wrong on more than one occasion. I've never checked one for weight against current production and don't have any like that to check at this time. Looks cool to me. |
|
I'm hoping it's a genuine early buffer, it's living in my 609 clone right now. I should also note that it's a very tight fit in my modern production spring, but fits nicely in the used spring it came with.
This came with a Colt fiber-light stock. I'll have to find a scale and weigh it. |
|
Quoted:
Weigh it. If the body is steel, I'm guessing 9mm SMG, which has a heavier buffer body, and light internal rubber weights. http://www.ar15barrels.com/tech/buffer-construction.jpg Yup. Body is steel. Shaking it though it doesn't feel like there is rubber on the inside. Feels just like shaking my standard buffer. I'll see if I can get it weighed. |
|
Quoted:
From what I've been reading this sounds like an early Colt single piece body 9mm buffer with metal weights. And it doesn't sound like I want to run a 9mm buffer in my Xm177E1 clone. heavier can't really hurt. a lot of guys run heavier buffers when suppressed. |
|
Quoted:
heavier can't really hurt. a lot of guys run heavier buffers when suppressed. Quoted:
Quoted:
From what I've been reading this sounds like an early Colt single piece body 9mm buffer with metal weights. And it doesn't sound like I want to run a 9mm buffer in my Xm177E1 clone. heavier can't really hurt. a lot of guys run heavier buffers when suppressed. The answer to failures with the XM177E1 in 1966 was to put an A1 fixed stock on it - at least that's the theory that makes the most sense. The standard rifle buffer weighs about the same as the 9mm, so it should run fine, and in fact maybe a little better, although being semi and not selective fire, you don't have to worry much about bolt bounce. I'm sure the gas port on early XM177s was smaller than current 10" barrels as well. If it were me setting up an XM177E1 I would set the internals up the same as a Mk18 since they've pretty much figured it out. FWIW a heavier buffer slows down the RPM and relieves a little stress on the internals (hammering) as a result. Carbines, especially shorties with larger gas ports to make up for lack of dwell time, are notoriously overgassed. Just my .02 but I'd use it. Cool buffer. 
ETA: You can always go back to a lighter buffer. A heavier buffer should relieve the stress on that cam pin somewhat. |
AR Sponsor