AR Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - DPM Recoil Reduction System vs. Hydraulic buffer EDIT: Armament LARB Mod 2 and 3 added to the test. (Page 1 of 4)
Posted: 10/5/2019 1:40:37 PM EDT
|
I started this thread off the buffer bumper thread since the subject is somewhat off topic. I have a well running setup thanks to testing and guidelines posted by Amphibian but am curious about the new buffer being sold by DPM. Not that I am set on changing anything but I would like to see how the DPM buffer performs vs. a hydraulic buffer.
Quoted:
In regards to buffers, did you see the DPM buffer posted earlier? It has a 2 stage compression cycle, as opposed to the 1x compression of the hydraulic buffer. I think it could actually perform better. Buffer cycle animation at 0:38: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNOCSG9aGFo https://i.ibb.co/zhWnyrJ/Screen-Shot-2019-10-05-at-7-28-33-AM.png Downside is, at $205, it is more expensive then the hydraulic buffer. https://www.rainierarms.com/dpm-recoil-reduction-system-ar-15-223-5-56/ It is 2+ oz. heavier than my current buffer at 6.9 oz (EDIT actual weights below, one of the US suppliers has incorrect weight posted). The extra weight may (will?) cause cycling probs with my suppressed CMMG 9mm RDB, Spikes .300 BK, and 5.56 uppers so I may also need a diff spring. Could the extra weight be offset by the shifting mass/spring construction? I am no expert by any means and appreciate input from the real experts re. expectations and possible problems. I may buy one and send it to one of our resident experts to test vs. a hydraulic buffer. Anyone game to do a comparison? |
|
I've got a DPM RRS buffer on the way for evaluation and Amphibian has agreed to test it out vs. hydraulic. I would like to see it compared to the LARB buffer as well. I believe mbell? is getting a LARB buffer to test so if he is game I'll send it to him after Amphibian has completed his tests, or mbell can send the LARB to Amphibian, either way is fine with me.
The buffer is expensive and there is no test data out there that I could find or videos other than by the OEM, DPM. I suggested that the exposure on AR-15.com and video of testing could help with sales. They readily agreed to send me one. Very fast reply and DPM must have high confidence that their buffer will perform well. Here is the data on weights: With light weight 117 grams (4.13 oz.) With heavy weight 127 grams (4.48 oz) -------------------------------------------- Dear Rick, Thank you very much. Yes I provide a sample for you to test and advertise it in social media. The tracking number is : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with Hellenic Post office, (USPS in U.S.A.) I send also a spring and adaptor. Attention the adaptor is only for long tubes. For carbine size tubes use only the spring and the buffer. If you use the adaptor in the carbine tube the buffer will be broken. Below is the products I send. https://dpmsystems.com/ar-15-223-recoil-buffer-assembly https://dpmsystems.com/ar-15-set-universal-adaptor-spring Please let me know once you receive it. Best Regards Panagiotis Mantas DPM Systems Technologies Ltd. Mikras Asias 37 Argiroupolis 164 52 Athens Greece Tel/Fax: +30 210 96 17 153 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.dpmsystems.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Note that I still haven't gotten a reply from any of the 3 US suppliers that I contacted. The OEM in Greece replied in less than 24 hours. Amphibian IM your shipping address and I will get it out to you when I receive it. |
|
Quoted:
That sure is spendy. Guess I'm just here so I can hopefully read the results sometime. |
|
Quoted:
Nice of them to loan us one for free. Kynshot hydraulics are pretty sweet for full auto at 65 bucks less. DPM RRS is $205 if you order it from Rainier. Big improvement over cheaper ones? TBD. If it turns out that the DPM is more effective then the previous gold standard of Hydraulic buffers, I suspect this will spur development for future multi-spring buffer systems. |
A few thoughts.
Right now, I'm thinking to compare it to my preferred buffer/tube/spring configuration:
|
|
Quoted:
1. Mag fed 5.56 2. Belt fed 5.56 3. CMMG RDB 9mm - since I have been spending a lot of time with it and finally feel my setup has surpassed the MP5 If your testing reveals there is no substantial improvement over the hydraulic buffer please do a head to head vs. a standard buffer to confirm the benefits of their system since the DPM OEM was kind enough to ship us one of their buffers to review. re. 3. Didn't know you had surpassed the MP5 with CMMG 9mm RDB. Last I read you were getting close. Going to be hard to beat that result. |
|
Quoted:
re. 3. Didn't know you had surpassed the MP5 with CMMG 9mm RDB. Last I read you were getting close. Going to be hard to beat that result. Ran it in the SMG match this past weekend and got first place again w/ zero malfunctions. At the match I go to, they have what they call, 'style' points so if you have two square targets next to each other and hose them down w/ one pull of the trigger you get 5 seconds for each set deducted from your time. 3 squares and you get 10 seconds deducted. For a whole plate rack of 6, 7 or 8 targets, 20 seconds deducted. I damn near hosed all the style point opportunities. You need to have a SMG that is smooth and not too fast to do this successfully. I now have the smoothness of an MP5 PLUS: 1. Last round BHO, 2. mags that drop free (using Endomags) 3. The ability to drop the bolt with my right index finger (using the PDQ that allows the drop the bolt AND lock it back with my index finger) is a huge time saver. Those 3 features saved me a lot of time in the match. |
|
Quoted:
I can test if you want. https://www.ar15.com/forums/Armory/Ferfrans-Bolt-Carrier/23-493014/#i5050320 14.5" w/ Carbine buffer tube: -H2 + Tubb Flatwire -DPM + Tubb Flatwire *if you have one, a carbine length Hydraulic buffer + Tubb That should give us a direct comparison of the buffers effect, as its the same spring and tube length. It would be nice to have both your ROF testing, as well as just your opinion on how they 'feel' recoil wise in both FA and SA. As far as a comparison of 'the amphibian' (A5+9mm Hydraulic+Tubb), I'm not sure if its possible to use the DPM in a A5 tube; is there a 0.75" spacer, similar to this 9mm spacer? 
That should allow maintaining the 'spring pressure' of the A5+Tubb, while allowing the use of a carbine length buffer. |
|
Quoted:
Great idea. I'd help as well. Quoted:
Quoted:
amphibian, IM me your PayPal addy. I'd like to contribute to your ammo stash fund for testing. |
|
Quoted: In terms of testing, if you could replicate the 14.5" midlength test you did: https://www.ar15.com/forums/Armory/Ferfrans-Bolt-Carrier/23-493014/#i5050320 14.5" w/ Carbine buffer tube: -H2 + Tubb Flatwire -DPM + Tubb Flatwire *if you have one, a carbine length Hydraulic buffer + Tubb That should give us a direct comparison of the buffers effect, as its the same spring and tube length. It would be nice to have both your ROF testing, as well as just your opinion on how they 'feel' recoil wise in both FA and SA. As far as a comparison of 'the amphibian' (A5+9mm Hydraulic+Tubb), I'm not sure if its possible to use the DPM in a A5 tube; is there a 0.75" spacer, similar to this 9mm spacer? https://i.ibb.co/mhMHFtx/Screen-Shot-2019-10-06-at-4-29-46-AM.png That should allow maintaining the 'spring pressure' of the A5+Tubb, while allowing the use of a carbine length buffer. I still have that 14.5 mid upper laying around. I was thinking to do my DD MK18 10.3" I have my Govnah gas block on there with .070"/.052"/.082" gas settings. The MK18 is a relatively common / well known configuration I can test. As mentioned on my site here: I have at least 4 different carbine length hydraulic buffers: http://c3junkie.com/?page_id=430 Again, I only like the RB5005 when it comes to carbine length. You can go to that link above to read more details on my experience with the hydraulics. I am going to try to get a rifle length buffer tube milled out so we can see with my high speed camera what is happening. I have the New Frontier Armory spacers which are great and allow additional travel for the spring but not what we need to truly mimic the shorter buffer tubes. I was planning on using something else as spacers to not allow the additional spring travel to mimic the shorter buffer tubes....but the product description of the DPM adapter sounds like it should work. Below is a picture of the adapter instructions. Looks like you flip it depending on what spring you are using. I'm thinking to flip it so the spring has less distance to mimic installation in a carbine tube. 
|
|
Quoted:
In that thread, you had requested I test a 14.5 - 16" mid not carbine and 14.5 mid is what I did back then. I still have that 14.5 mid upper laying around. I was thinking to do my DD MK18 10.3" I have my Govnah gas block on there with .070"/.052"/.082" gas settings. The MK18 is a relatively common / well known configuration I can test. As mentioned on my site here: I have at least 4 different carbine length hydraulic buffers: http://c3junkie.com/?page_id=430 Again, I only like the RB5005 when it comes to carbine length. You can go to that link above to read more details on my experience with the hydraulics. I am going to try to get a rifle length buffer tube milled out so we can see with my high speed camera what is happening. I have the New Frontier Armory spacers which are great and allow additional travel for the spring but not what we need to truly mimic the shorter buffer tubes. I was planning on using something else as spacers to not allow the additional spring travel to mimic the shorter buffer tubes....but the product description of the DPM adapter sounds like it should work. Below is a picture of the adapter instructions. Looks like you flip it depending on what spring you are using. I'm thinking to flip it so the spring has less distance to mimic installation in a carbine tube. http://c3junkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/adaptor.png Quoted:
Quoted: In terms of testing, if you could replicate the 14.5" midlength test you did: https://www.ar15.com/forums/Armory/Ferfrans-Bolt-Carrier/23-493014/#i5050320 14.5" w/ Carbine buffer tube: -H2 + Tubb Flatwire -DPM + Tubb Flatwire *if you have one, a carbine length Hydraulic buffer + Tubb That should give us a direct comparison of the buffers effect, as its the same spring and tube length. It would be nice to have both your ROF testing, as well as just your opinion on how they 'feel' recoil wise in both FA and SA. As far as a comparison of 'the amphibian' (A5+9mm Hydraulic+Tubb), I'm not sure if its possible to use the DPM in a A5 tube; is there a 0.75" spacer, similar to this 9mm spacer? https://i.ibb.co/mhMHFtx/Screen-Shot-2019-10-06-at-4-29-46-AM.png That should allow maintaining the 'spring pressure' of the A5+Tubb, while allowing the use of a carbine length buffer. I still have that 14.5 mid upper laying around. I was thinking to do my DD MK18 10.3" I have my Govnah gas block on there with .070"/.052"/.082" gas settings. The MK18 is a relatively common / well known configuration I can test. As mentioned on my site here: I have at least 4 different carbine length hydraulic buffers: http://c3junkie.com/?page_id=430 Again, I only like the RB5005 when it comes to carbine length. You can go to that link above to read more details on my experience with the hydraulics. I am going to try to get a rifle length buffer tube milled out so we can see with my high speed camera what is happening. I have the New Frontier Armory spacers which are great and allow additional travel for the spring but not what we need to truly mimic the shorter buffer tubes. I was planning on using something else as spacers to not allow the additional spring travel to mimic the shorter buffer tubes....but the product description of the DPM adapter sounds like it should work. Below is a picture of the adapter instructions. Looks like you flip it depending on what spring you are using. I'm thinking to flip it so the spring has less distance to mimic installation in a carbine tube. http://c3junkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/adaptor.png When I said carbine, I meant with the standard, carbine length buffer tube, as opposed to the A5. A head to head of the H2 vs DPM vs RB5005 in the carbine buffer, and the DPM vs RB5007 in the A5 tube, would be lovely. Thanks again for agreeing to do this test. Please IM your paypal as well once the DPM buffer arrives so I can help kick in for ammo 
|
|
I had my buddy mill out this rifle buffer tube this AM.
1/4" end mill. I want to see if the hydraulic or any buffer for that matter does anything upon initial recoil impulse like I suspect is happening. With that long slot and the last one we should be able to see if the buffers are bottoming out and what that looks like for carbine, A5 and rifle. I know rifle wasn't in scope but I happen to be playing with a DPMS G2 and trying a rifle length tube out on it I suspect that lighting will be critical. I may have to get someone to shine a light at the tube during firing. 
|
|
Quoted:
I had my buddy mill out this rifle buffer tube this AM. 1/4" end mill. I want to see if the hydraulic or any buffer for that matter does anything upon initial recoil impulse like I suspect is happening. With that long slot and the last one we should be able to see if the buffers are bottoming out and what that looks like for carbine, A5 and rifle. I know rifle wasn't in scope but I happen to be playing with a DPMS G2 and trying a rifle length tube out on it I suspect that lighting will be critical. I may have to get someone to shine a light at the tube during firing. http://c3junkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/MilledRifleTube-1024x405.png |
I thought he was gonna simulate different lengths in his sectioned rifle tube? Carbine & A5?
|
Quoted:
Yeah...but only with my fixed ejector setup which is a custom setup. Ran it in the SMG match this past weekend and got first place again w/ zero malfunctions. At the match I go to, they have what they call, 'style' points so if you have two square targets next to each other and hose them down w/ one pull of the trigger you get 5 seconds for each set deducted from your time. 3 squares and you get 10 seconds deducted. For a whole plate rack of 6, 7 or 8 targets, 20 seconds deducted. I damn near hosed all the style point opportunities. You need to have a SMG that is smooth and not too fast to do this successfully. I now have the smoothness of an MP5 PLUS: 1. Last round BHO, 2. mags that drop free (using Endomags) 3. The ability to drop the bolt with my right index finger (using the PDQ that allows the drop the bolt AND lock it back with my index finger) is a huge time saver. Those 3 features saved me a lot of time in the match. Quoted:
Quoted:
re: 3, Didn't know you had surpassed the MP5 with CMMG 9mm RDB. Last I read you were getting close. Going to be hard to beat that result. Ran it in the SMG match this past weekend and got first place again w/ zero malfunctions. At the match I go to, they have what they call, 'style' points so if you have two square targets next to each other and hose them down w/ one pull of the trigger you get 5 seconds for each set deducted from your time. 3 squares and you get 10 seconds deducted. For a whole plate rack of 6, 7 or 8 targets, 20 seconds deducted. I damn near hosed all the style point opportunities. You need to have a SMG that is smooth and not too fast to do this successfully. I now have the smoothness of an MP5 PLUS: 1. Last round BHO, 2. mags that drop free (using Endomags) 3. The ability to drop the bolt with my right index finger (using the PDQ that allows the drop the bolt AND lock it back with my index finger) is a huge time saver. Those 3 features saved me a lot of time in the match. |
|
Quoted: @amphibian, do you have a separate build thread detailing all this? The CMMG Guard thread has some info: https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/Thoughts-on-the-CMMG-Guard-/15-713060/&page=20 I started this thread regarding my full auto CMMG RDB tuning here: https://www.ar15.com/forums/Armory/Full-Auto-CMMG-Guard-Tuning/23-494385/?page=1 I also have my own website here: http://c3junkie.com/ Have a section just for the CMMG RDB here: http://c3junkie.com/?page_id=956 |
|
I posted this in the the buffer bumper thread but am adding it here since it may be helpful when the testing begins. Not sure what Amphibian has in the way of accelerometer he may be way ahead of me already.
There is a free app called Physics Toolbox Accelerometer. I tested the app functionality by slapping my phone. You can export the raw data file via email in text format (.csv). The app samples data from the phone sensors in millisecond increments. G-force is baseline 1 for Earth's gravity. Very sensitive sensors in the phone you can see every little movement I make. Here is the first part of the raw data file opened with Openoffice Calc. Attached File Some phones sample data faster than others. Some Galaxy s7, s8 devices can achieve 400 Hz, most phones support between 100 - 400. Any of you guys can download the app and mount your phone to your handguard to try it out. App will email data to you in .csv format to open with Excel or OpenOffice Calc (free) to make a chart with. Here is a graph of the first test after deleting all but one impulse. Total range of data about .15 seconds. Blue line represents the 3 second point in the data. Chart shows 7 g's total most of the force along the y axis which was with my phone sideways left side up, top towards the muzzle. Attached File Note if you guys try this there is a lot of data saved in a short period of time. You can load the whole file into the spreadsheet but if you try to make a chart it will bog down your pc. You have to cut out all but the impulse time frame. Capturing the recoil impulse period and strength and making it easy to visualize the differences with various components should be a piece of cake. I know this may have been covered already but it is all new to me. I am surprised the free app works so well. Phones these days, what they can do. Wow. There is also a device to do this and perhaps get a faster data acquisition rate: Cheap Rifle Accelerometer The maker is working on tweaking his to get 1 ms samples and may be able to provide one for us if the app is too slow. Here is his blog: Ammolytics Blog |
|
Hey everyone!
HDSledge reached out to ask about the DIY firearm accelerometer I put together and I offered to let him borrow it for this test. It definitely sounds like an interesting experiment and I look forward to seeing the results! I haven't yet read through every post in this thread, but I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. |
|
Quoted:
In that thread, you had requested I test a 14.5 - 16" mid not carbine and 14.5 mid is what I did back then. I still have that 14.5 mid upper laying around. I was thinking to do my DD MK18 10.3" I have my Govnah gas block on there with .070"/.052"/.082" gas settings. The MK18 is a relatively common / well known configuration I can test. As mentioned on my site here: I have at least 4 different carbine length hydraulic buffers: http://c3junkie.com/?page_id=430 Again, I only like the RB5005 when it comes to carbine length. You can go to that link above to read more details on my experience with the hydraulics. I am going to try to get a rifle length buffer tube milled out so we can see with my high speed camera what is happening. I have the New Frontier Armory spacers which are great and allow additional travel for the spring but not what we need to truly mimic the shorter buffer tubes. I was planning on using something else as spacers to not allow the additional spring travel to mimic the shorter buffer tubes....but the product description of the DPM adapter sounds like it should work. Below is a picture of the adapter instructions. Looks like you flip it depending on what spring you are using. I'm thinking to flip it so the spring has less distance to mimic installation in a carbine tube. http://c3junkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/adaptor.png As far as recoil management, if all you could change out was the action spring, is it safe to say you’d go with the longer offering of Tubb’s flatwire springs? I remember watching his video on your site couple years ago. I’ve also used his loaded ammo to break in a Remington 700 rifle. He’s an interesting guy. Similar to Bill Geissele in the way he can dig into the minutia of his products. |
|
Quoted: Spent some time browsing your site. A lot of good info! As far as recoil management, if all you could change out was the action spring, is it safe to say you'd go with the longer offering of Tubb's flatwire springs? I remember watching his video on your site couple years ago. I've also used his loaded ammo to break in a Remington 700 rifle. He's an interesting guy. Similar to Bill Geissele in the way he can dig into the minutia of his products. As tested on the website, I get about the same results as using a stock Vltor A5 setup with their buffer, tube and provided spring as I do in a carbine buffer tube and just changing to the 556 Tubb and H3 (same weight as a stock A5 buffer at 5.3 oz.) |
|
Quoted:
Not sure what Amphibian has in the way of accelerometer he may be way ahead of me already. This one by ammolytics looks pretty awesome. Will have to read up on it some more. If that works probably didn't need to mill out the buffer tube...but I think a lot of people are visual and if I can get good video, it will be great to see what is actually happening. Having numbers to go with it would be even better. |
|
In terms of recoil testing, TTAG developed a simple but reliable testing protocol during their Muzzle Break Shootout:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/556-muzzle-device-shootout/ The AR is strapped down to a shooting sled, loaded with 1x round. The sled is on a plastic table where it can slide freely under recoil. The starting distance is marked, and then the recoil distance the sled slides is recorded. Test repeated 2x per unit. An example of this type of testing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI-70qQdY8Q For the buffer test, the exact same AR and ammo would be used, and just buffers would be swapped out and tested one after the other. The biggest issue is that this test won't measure smoothness vs sharpness of recoil. 2x buffers might have the same overall recoil force/recoil distance, but one buffer might spread this force out over a longer time, resulting in the perceived recoil being less / rifle being smoother to fire: 
The problems of getting a 'real' recoil test are covered in depth here: https://precisionrifleblog.com/2015/07/01/muzzle-brakes-recoil-primer-test-equipment-rifles/ |
|
Quoted:
If we're doing actual measurements instead of just video, and using quarters as a spacer, then the simulated lengths of different types of buffer tube will not be comparable, due to the added mass of the monetary spacer. Shipping update: October 10, 2019, 3:09 pm Arrived at USPS Regional Facility QUEENS NY DISTRIBUTION CENTER There is interest in the buffer bumper effects. I have the EAB bumper, the LARB Rate Reducing tail cap bumper and a silicone damper for the bottom of the spring. How about a plain buffer test on those? The one inch silicone hemisphere at the bottom of the spring may prove to be helpful for any configuration that doesn't use other bumper tailcaps. I will also contribute to the ammo fund since a "few"  rounds will be expended during the testing.
UPDATE: Armament will offer a demo price for one of the LARB buffers but not send one to test for free so unless someone is willing to spring for one at a reduced price we are set on DPM RRS vs. Hydraulic. I will send Amphibian the 3 bumpers noted, a spare Spike's T3 buffer, and a spare Tubb Flat Wire spring to try out the bumpers/tailcaps if he is willing to test their function. 5.56/6-pos. tube/T-3 buffer/Tubbs for those will make for a quick comparison. |
|
Depending on how testing goes I personally would also love to see the Armaspec SRS and Shooting Innovations RRS thrown in. I picked up an SRS at the same time I got my suppressor, which required a new brake and gas setting so I never gave it a fair comparison (which is fine, I got it for noise not recoil) but a buddy picked one up for his .300 and left everything else the same and is convinced it reduced felt recoil.
I'd even be game to toss my SRS in the mail for the good of science if Armaspec didn't want to send a T&E piece out. |
|
Quoted:
Depending on how testing goes I personally would also love to see the Armaspec SRS and Shooting Innovations RRS thrown in. I picked up an SRS at the same time I got my suppressor, which required a new brake and gas setting so I never gave it a fair comparison (which is fine, I got it for noise not recoil) but a buddy picked one up for his .300 and left everything else the same and is convinced it reduced felt recoil. I'd even be game to toss my SRS in the mail for the good of science if Armaspec didn't want to send a T&E piece out. I'll send an inquiry to Shooting Innovations and see if they will send us one of their buffers to add to the tests. If you send yours that will be 4 buffer systems to compare. |
| I think someone needs to ask amphibian if he's willing to do all this. I'm happy to contribute to his ammo budget, as are others, but I'm only going to send a trifle. Others may send more, but I'd hate for him to commit and end up w/ a good sized hole in his ammo fort. |
|
Quoted:
I think someone needs to ask amphibian if he's willing to do all this. I'm happy to contribute to his ammo budget, as are others, but I'm only going to send a trifle. Others may send more, but I'd hate for him to commit and end up w/ a good sized hole in his ammo fort. |
|
Bear in mind, I'm interested in getting this data for my own selfish reasons. Yes, I want smooth, soft shooting and minimization of dot bounce like most people here....BUT I also want a full auto cylic rate that is preferrably under 800 RPM. Ideally in the 600's.
Again, it isn't hard to get an M16 to run slower. The hard part is getting it to be slower and smoother. Again, look at something like the Ultimax where the bolt doesn't bottom out. Very smooth....but it is open bolt. In the AR15/M16, there isn't much room to work with beyond the BHO so very hard to get something that is smooth and doesn't bottom out. Pretty much bank on the buffer bottoming out so here we are....looking for options to minimize the impact when bottoming out. How buffers behave upon the initial recoil impulse and also when the bolt goes into battery is of great interest to me. I've already discussed my theories on what is happening with the hydraulics which we should hopefully see once I get some video going with my milled out tube and high speed camera. If you go to my website and look at my full auto testing, I go over what I have found to work the best for me. I have a pretty large assortment of springs and buffers already. I used to swear by the JP SCS which is similar to the Armaspec and Shooting Innovations buffer/spring assemblies. While the JP SCS is one of the smoothest I've used, I found the cyclic rate to be too fast for full auto (5.56 and 9mm CMMG RDB) and it doesn't work in my belt fed Shrike or FM9 with the weight added. I've never tested the Armaspec or Shooting Innovation buffer/spring assemblies but they look similar to the JP SCS....so I suspect they wouldn't work in my beltfeds either. As mentioned before, I believe that a fully encapsulated buffer would be the most robust/bombproof. I suspect the LARB fits in that category. However, I'm not a ninja door kicker either. I think a regular H2/H3 or LARB for that matter is more robust than any hydraulic buffer like my favorite RB5007. However, since I'm not a door kicker and I've had pretty good reliability, I'm willing to run the RB5007 knowing that. I would be happy to test an LARB as I it would probably work with everything I would want it to work in but I have no idea how it would perform compared to the ones I already have. I personally would like to restrict testing to buffers that work with a standard spring 'geometry' so any milspec spring (in the case of my favorite Tubb flat springs, they work with all buffers I've tried). |
|
Quoted:
Bear in mind, I'm interested in getting this data for my own selfish reasons. Yes, I want smooth, soft shooting and minimization of dot bounce like most people here....BUT I also want a full auto cylic rate that is preferrably under 800 RPM. Ideally in the 600's. Again, it isn't hard to get an M16 to run slower. The hard part is getting it to be slower and smoother. Again, look at something like the Ultimax where the bolt doesn't bottom out. Very smooth....but it is open bolt. In the AR15/M16, there isn't much room to work with beyond the BHO so very hard to get something that is smooth and doesn't bottom out. Pretty much bank on the buffer bottoming out so here we are....looking for options to minimize the impact when bottoming out. How buffers behave upon the initial recoil impulse and also when the bolt goes into battery is of great interest to me. I've already discussed my theories on what is happening with the hydraulics which we should hopefully see once I get some video going with my milled out tube and high speed camera. If you go to my website and look at my full auto testing, I go over what I have found to work the best for me. I have a pretty large assortment of springs and buffers already. I used to swear by the JP SCS which is similar to the Armaspec and Shooting Innovations buffer/spring assemblies. While the JP SCS is one of the smoothest I've used, I found the cyclic rate to be too fast for full auto (5.56 and 9mm CMMG RDB) and it doesn't work in my belt fed Shrike or FM9 with the weight added. I've never tested the Armaspec or Shooting Innovation buffer/spring assemblies but they look similar to the JP SCS....so I suspect they wouldn't work in my beltfeds either. As mentioned before, I believe that a fully encapsulated buffer would be the most robust/bombproof. I suspect the LARB fits in that category. However, I'm not a ninja door kicker either. I think a regular H2/H3 or LARB for that matter is more robust than any hydraulic buffer like my favorite RB5007. However, since I'm not a door kicker and I've had pretty good reliability, I'm willing to run the RB5007 knowing that. I would be happy to test an LARB as I it would probably work with everything I would want it to work in but I have no idea how it would perform compared to the ones I already have. I personally would like to restrict testing to buffers that work with a standard spring 'geometry' so any milspec spring (in the case of my favorite Tubb flat springs, they work with all buffers I've tried). |
|
Quoted:
Bear in mind, I'm interested in getting this data for my own selfish reasons. Yes, I want smooth, soft shooting and minimization of dot bounce like most people here....BUT I also want a full auto cylic rate that is preferrably under 800 RPM. Ideally in the 600's. Again, it isn't hard to get an M16 to run slower. The hard part is getting it to be slower and smoother. Again, look at something like the Ultimax where the bolt doesn't bottom out. Very smooth....but it is open bolt. In the AR15/M16, there isn't much room to work with beyond the BHO so very hard to get something that is smooth and doesn't bottom out. Pretty much bank on the buffer bottoming out so here we are....looking for options to minimize the impact when bottoming out. How buffers behave upon the initial recoil impulse and also when the bolt goes into battery is of great interest to me. I've already discussed my theories on what is happening with the hydraulics which we should hopefully see once I get some video going with my milled out tube and high speed camera. If you go to my website and look at my full auto testing, I go over what I have found to work the best for me. I have a pretty large assortment of springs and buffers already. I used to swear by the JP SCS which is similar to the Armaspec and Shooting Innovations buffer/spring assemblies. While the JP SCS is one of the smoothest I've used, I found the cyclic rate to be too fast for full auto (5.56 and 9mm CMMG RDB) and it doesn't work in my belt fed Shrike or FM9 with the weight added. I've never tested the Armaspec or Shooting Innovation buffer/spring assemblies but they look similar to the JP SCS....so I suspect they wouldn't work in my beltfeds either. As mentioned before, I believe that a fully encapsulated buffer would be the most robust/bombproof. I suspect the LARB fits in that category. However, I'm not a ninja door kicker either. I think a regular H2/H3 or LARB for that matter is more robust than any hydraulic buffer like my favorite RB5007. However, since I'm not a door kicker and I've had pretty good reliability, I'm willing to run the RB5007 knowing that. I would be happy to test an LARB as I it would probably work with everything I would want it to work in but I have no idea how it would perform compared to the ones I already have. I personally would like to restrict testing to buffers that work with a standard spring 'geometry' so any milspec spring (in the case of my favorite Tubb flat springs, they work with all buffers I've tried). I appreciate you being willing to take this on. It is work, takes time and we keep adding to it. You say you are doing it for selfish reasons but folks putting your test results into practice are the real winners. |
|
Quoted:
I got with Nick at Armament and worked out a fair deal for everyone so we've got an Armament LARB buffer coming in. I'm sending along the LARB Rate Reducing Tailcap with it so we can get a good read on how it slows things down for full auto. I appreciate you being willing to take this on. It is work, takes time and we keep adding to it. You say you are doing it for selfish reasons but folks putting your test results into practice are the real winners. Quoted:
Quoted:
Bear in mind, I'm interested in getting this data for my own selfish reasons. Yes, I want smooth, soft shooting and minimization of dot bounce like most people here....BUT I also want a full auto cylic rate that is preferrably under 800 RPM. Ideally in the 600's. Again, it isn't hard to get an M16 to run slower. The hard part is getting it to be slower and smoother. Again, look at something like the Ultimax where the bolt doesn't bottom out. Very smooth....but it is open bolt. In the AR15/M16, there isn't much room to work with beyond the BHO so very hard to get something that is smooth and doesn't bottom out. Pretty much bank on the buffer bottoming out so here we are....looking for options to minimize the impact when bottoming out. How buffers behave upon the initial recoil impulse and also when the bolt goes into battery is of great interest to me. I've already discussed my theories on what is happening with the hydraulics which we should hopefully see once I get some video going with my milled out tube and high speed camera. If you go to my website and look at my full auto testing, I go over what I have found to work the best for me. I have a pretty large assortment of springs and buffers already. I used to swear by the JP SCS which is similar to the Armaspec and Shooting Innovations buffer/spring assemblies. While the JP SCS is one of the smoothest I've used, I found the cyclic rate to be too fast for full auto (5.56 and 9mm CMMG RDB) and it doesn't work in my belt fed Shrike or FM9 with the weight added. I've never tested the Armaspec or Shooting Innovation buffer/spring assemblies but they look similar to the JP SCS....so I suspect they wouldn't work in my beltfeds either. As mentioned before, I believe that a fully encapsulated buffer would be the most robust/bombproof. I suspect the LARB fits in that category. However, I'm not a ninja door kicker either. I think a regular H2/H3 or LARB for that matter is more robust than any hydraulic buffer like my favorite RB5007. However, since I'm not a door kicker and I've had pretty good reliability, I'm willing to run the RB5007 knowing that. I would be happy to test an LARB as I it would probably work with everything I would want it to work in but I have no idea how it would perform compared to the ones I already have. I personally would like to restrict testing to buffers that work with a standard spring 'geometry' so any milspec spring (in the case of my favorite Tubb flat springs, they work with all buffers I've tried). I appreciate you being willing to take this on. It is work, takes time and we keep adding to it. You say you are doing it for selfish reasons but folks putting your test results into practice are the real winners. Now that it's a 3 way race, between 3 really different technologies, its going to be a hell of test
|
|
Quoted:
For sure, the reason I brought up the SRS and RRS and NOT the SCS is that they both use a dual spring that the DPM reminds me of. You've got a goal in mind so definitely focus your efforts and resources on that. If you decide you do want to test an H1 SRS with a thousand suppressed rounds on it...hit me up. Quoted:
Quoted:
Bear in mind, I'm interested in getting this data for my own selfish reasons. Yes, I want smooth, soft shooting and minimization of dot bounce like most people here....BUT I also want a full auto cylic rate that is preferrably under 800 RPM. Ideally in the 600's. Again, it isn't hard to get an M16 to run slower. The hard part is getting it to be slower and smoother. Again, look at something like the Ultimax where the bolt doesn't bottom out. Very smooth....but it is open bolt. In the AR15/M16, there isn't much room to work with beyond the BHO so very hard to get something that is smooth and doesn't bottom out. Pretty much bank on the buffer bottoming out so here we are....looking for options to minimize the impact when bottoming out. How buffers behave upon the initial recoil impulse and also when the bolt goes into battery is of great interest to me. I've already discussed my theories on what is happening with the hydraulics which we should hopefully see once I get some video going with my milled out tube and high speed camera. If you go to my website and look at my full auto testing, I go over what I have found to work the best for me. I have a pretty large assortment of springs and buffers already. I used to swear by the JP SCS which is similar to the Armaspec and Shooting Innovations buffer/spring assemblies. While the JP SCS is one of the smoothest I've used, I found the cyclic rate to be too fast for full auto (5.56 and 9mm CMMG RDB) and it doesn't work in my belt fed Shrike or FM9 with the weight added. I've never tested the Armaspec or Shooting Innovation buffer/spring assemblies but they look similar to the JP SCS....so I suspect they wouldn't work in my beltfeds either. As mentioned before, I believe that a fully encapsulated buffer would be the most robust/bombproof. I suspect the LARB fits in that category. However, I'm not a ninja door kicker either. I think a regular H2/H3 or LARB for that matter is more robust than any hydraulic buffer like my favorite RB5007. However, since I'm not a door kicker and I've had pretty good reliability, I'm willing to run the RB5007 knowing that. I would be happy to test an LARB as I it would probably work with everything I would want it to work in but I have no idea how it would perform compared to the ones I already have. I personally would like to restrict testing to buffers that work with a standard spring 'geometry' so any milspec spring (in the case of my favorite Tubb flat springs, they work with all buffers I've tried). 
|
|
Quoted:
Yes, the 556 and 308 Tubb flat springs are the only springs I know of that are advertised to work in a Rifle and Carbine buffer tube....and obviously the A5 being in the middle works in that too. As tested on the website, I get about the same results as using a stock Vltor A5 setup with their buffer, tube and provided spring as I do in a carbine buffer tube and just changing to the 556 Tubb and H3 (same weight as a stock A5 buffer at 5.3 oz.) Quoted:
Quoted: Spent some time browsing your site. A lot of good info! As far as recoil management, if all you could change out was the action spring, is it safe to say you'd go with the longer offering of Tubb's flatwire springs? I remember watching his video on your site couple years ago. I've also used his loaded ammo to break in a Remington 700 rifle. He's an interesting guy. Similar to Bill Geissele in the way he can dig into the minutia of his products. As tested on the website, I get about the same results as using a stock Vltor A5 setup with their buffer, tube and provided spring as I do in a carbine buffer tube and just changing to the 556 Tubb and H3 (same weight as a stock A5 buffer at 5.3 oz.) |
|
Quoted:
I got with Nick at Armament and worked out a fair deal for everyone so we've got an Armament LARB buffer coming in. I'm sending along the LARB Rate Reducing Tailcap with it so we can get a good read on how it slows things down for full auto. I appreciate you being willing to take this on. It is work, takes time and we keep adding to it. You say you are doing it for selfish reasons but folks putting your test results into practice are the real winners. If not....contact me offline and I may just buy one off Nick as well. Also, regarding the LARB and looking at this video by mbell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivMzu_HKgHw&t=581s Mike states how he reversed the spring and weight in the buffer and it brought the cyclic rate down another 39 RPM. Below is a pic taken from LARB's site showing the default spring and weight orientation. 
This is the same orientation I did in my CMMG RDB testing w/ my custom tungsten spring loaded carrier weight as seen in my picture below. 
I think that orientation helps to reduce the initial recoil impulse. (not to get too off topic but if you follow my CMMG RDB testing, I stopped using the spring loaded carrier weight and instead modified the lugs of 5.45x39 bolts to control the delaying instead of throwing more mass at the issue). As I've mentioned before, I think that while documenting the cyclic rate is great data, it is not the deciding factor for me. I value smoothness more than cyclic rate. Picture below is the same configuration using the standard Colt 3.5 oz bolt weight and while it had a much slower cyclic rate, I found it to be too bouncy.  Again, in regards to cyclic rate, I personally don't pay much attention to any variation under 50 RPM if the results were taken on different days as just how well lubed the gun is will change your results. So going back to mbell's Youtube video.... @mbell or @99HMC4 Mike mentioned that he was going to ask Nick why he chose that spring/weight orientation. Mike did you get an answer from Nick? I personally think that while you may have a slower cyclic rate it may not be as smooth as the way Nick has it configured from the factory. However, there are so many variables. Caliber, gas system, ammo etc... You may have one configuration where you get a slower cyclic rate and you can't tell the difference in smoothness where another configuration you may have greater smoothness....maybe Nick chose that orientation as it is smoother across more configurations? Also, I see the picture below on the LARB site which is the Shrike or MCR upper. @99HMC4 what cyclic rates have you gotten with the Shrike/MCR? Which buffer? LARB Mod2 or 3 both? Spring details? 
|
|
Quoted:
Thanks for doing the legwork. I just noticed that they have an A5 length LARB buffer. Are you getting one of those? I would like to see a head to head against the RB5007 which I consider to be the best right now. If not....contact me offline and I may just buy one off Nick as well. |
|
Quoted:
I posted this in the the buffer bumper thread but am adding it here since it may be helpful when the testing begins. Not sure what Amphibian has in the way of accelerometer he may be way ahead of me already. There is a free app called Physics Toolbox Accelerometer. I tested the app functionality by slapping my phone. You can export the raw data file via email in text format (.csv). The app samples data from the phone sensors in millisecond increments. G-force is baseline 1 for Earth's gravity. Very sensitive sensors in the phone you can see every little movement I make. Here is the first part of the raw data file opened with Openoffice Calc. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/374164/Accelerometer_testing_jpg-1120638.JPG Some phones sample data faster than others. Some Galaxy s7, s8 devices can achieve 400 Hz, most phones support between 100 - 400. Any of you guys can download the app and mount your phone to your handguard to try it out. App will email data to you in .csv format to open with Excel or OpenOffice Calc (free) to make a chart with. Here is a graph of the first test after deleting all but one impulse. Total range of data about .15 seconds. Blue line represents the 3 second point in the data. Chart shows 7 g's total most of the force along the y axis which was with my phone sideways left side up, top towards the muzzle. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/374164/Physics_Toolbox_Accelerometer_test_jpg-1120643.JPG Note if you guys try this there is a lot of data saved in a short period of time. You can load the whole file into the spreadsheet but if you try to make a chart it will bog down your pc. You have to cut out all but the impulse time frame. Capturing the recoil impulse period and strength and making it easy to visualize the differences with various components should be a piece of cake. I know this may have been covered already but it is all new to me. I am surprised the free app works so well. Phones these days, what they can do. Wow. There is also a device to do this and perhaps get a faster data acquisition rate: Cheap Rifle Accelerometer The maker is working on tweaking his to get 1 ms samples and may be able to provide one for us if the app is too slow. Here is his blog: Ammolytics Blog |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - DPM Recoil Reduction System vs. Hydraulic buffer EDIT: Armament LARB Mod 2 and 3 added to the test. (Page 1 of 4)
AR Sponsor
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter