User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/22/2005 5:59:43 AM EDT
[#1]
Changing anything on your moving mass can affect rifle operation. If you have a borderline gas system, on the undergassed side, you could introduce problems by adding mass (weight). FTF, FTE, FTEX, etc. can all occur if you add too much to the system. Add the collection of mechanical tolerances to the mix and it could make things worse. Most rifles won't have this issue, but some will. Having said all of that, I'm very interested in these buffers and others, as I will start some type of competetive shooting this year or next and speed will be a concern for me. My only issue is the testing. Ideally, I'd like to have two or three exactly identical rifles side by side for the testing. That would cost some $$$$. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2005 5:54:22 PM EDT
[#2]
I shot the MGI buffer in my new POF gas piston upper today. It really made the smooth operating gas system run even smoother. It is noticable. Muzzle climb was almost nonexistant! The weapon stayed right on target!!
We also tried it in my Dads 10'' M-16. On semi it helped keep the muzzle down and on full auto it was night and day. The buffer slowed the rate of fire down considerably ( as advertised) and the weapon was a lot more controllable! The MGI is well worth the money! I also recieved my enidne buffer in the mail today but wont get to try it out until next weekend. Both buffers are very well made! I dont think that you will go wrong either way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2005 6:05:54 PM EDT
[#3]
You know what would be shnazzy? A enidine pistol buffer tube that instead of having a buffer slide through it, WAS the buffer. Have the bolt carrier push directly on the buffer like the M249.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2005 1:07:42 PM EDT
[#4]
.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2005 8:44:13 PM EDT
[#5]
Went for the endine becasue the mgi one was developed as a part of the counterpoise system, which imho, sucked.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2005 9:22:38 PM EDT
[#6]
tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2005 5:44:06 AM EDT
[#7]
What didn't you like, specifically, about the Counterpoise system? Small Arms Review called it the biggest improvement in the AR15/M16 since the introduction of that weapon. Everyone else seems to have had great results with it, although it is now superceded by the MGI products, which evolved from it. Did you have some kind of bad experience with it? I'm sure Jim Sullivan would be upset if he thought that people weren't happy with his co-design of the Counterpoise system. In fact, in the nearly 6 years that I've been involved with both the Counterpoise and MGI system, you are the first one that I've heard a complaint from, so I'm very interested in hearing why you didn't like it. We're not afraid to take some criticism from a user, so you can go ahead and let it all hang out right here on the forum. It might help us to make a better product in the future, or it may serve to show why we made the evolutionary changes that we did make since the Counterpoise was superceded. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2005 9:57:29 PM EDT
[#8]
I went for the AAC (Advanced Armament) Rate Reducer and it's worked out great for me. Very nice and smooth...came with a buffer spring too...$79 direct from AAC.
http://www.advancedarmament.com/products/ar15.asp Scroll down to the bottom...really nice looking too. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2005 7:07:12 PM EDT
[#9]
Tag to review tomorrow morning
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 6:07:18 PM EDT
[#10]
not trying to hijack, but what weight 9mm buffers are commonly being used in the 5.56 carbines, or is it just the H buffer?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 6:40:14 PM EDT
[#11]
Im curious as to what the 9mm buffer weighs myself?
A standard "H" buffer weighs 3.76oz. A standard car buffer weighs 2.94oz My advance armament buffer weighs 5.28 oz My enidine buffer weighs 4.3 oz My MGI buffer weighs 7.1 oz Without testing the enidine yet, My MGI is by far the best buffer that I have. I makes the biggest difference. I will be testing the enidine tomorrow pending the weather. ( Nothing scientific. Just range shooting) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 7:13:15 PM EDT
[#12]
There are several 9mm buffer weights, and IIRC they range from about 7 ounces to about 7.5 ounces, or somewhere around that. Very similar in weight to the MGI RRB weight.
The main difference with the MGI RRB, is not so much the weight(although that is part of it), as it is how the internal weights of the buffer are actuated by the short plunger. The weight by itself will slow the cycling and also improve extraction reliability in carbines, and also help stop bolt bounce, which is why they are popular. However, they really don't help to reduce the recoil or muzzle rise. The MGI system does reduce recoil and muzzle rise, along with doing all the other good things a 9mm buffer does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2005 1:51:59 AM EDT
[#13]
Exactly what are you talking about? I don't understand how the failure of the AAC buffer would affect the gun any differently than then MGI, Endine, or any other buffer failing...  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2005 2:04:13 AM EDT
[#14]
thats probably a newer design all the ones i have seen took place of the whole buffer and spring. use to be like a shock/strut for vehicles but in your buffer tube and if it went so did your rifle. looks like they redesigned it to work/look like the two that are here already though 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2005 3:59:32 AM EDT
[#15]
Well according to their website, it was designed by firearms inventor Maxwell G. Atchisson. It also states that it has survived a 6000 round military endurance test and I can tell you by first hand experience that the workmanship is top notch on the AAC unit. In usage, the felt recoil definitely went down and my AR stayed on target after every round much better than before...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2005 5:21:39 AM EDT
[#16]
I used the AAC buffer before I started using the MGI RRB.
The AAC buffer does work fine. I had no complaints with it. However, in my opinion the MGI was far superior, and I switched to that years ago. For $79, the AAC is not a bad deal However, the AAC 6000 round test is a bit too short for my tastes. RRB units have been tested to 35000 rounds on 2 different occasions without any failures. That said, any of these higher performance buffers should be a good improvement over the stock system in the AR15. It just depends how much better performance you want, and how much you want to pay. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2005 5:31:36 AM EDT
[#17]
The AAC carbine buffer has never taken the place of the recoil spring, though it does include a lighter recoil spring (only good for 9mm use, often times not strong enough to strip .223/5.56mm off a mag) which you can choose not to use. Perhaps you are mistaking something else for the AAC buffer. The AAC buffer is very good at reducing ROF, though it does not reduce recoil (if it does, it must be very little because I can't tell -- By contrast, I can tell the MGI reduces rate and recoil). The AAC buffer does aid in reliability in that it compresses the buffer spring and keeps the bolt carrier behind the magazine for a longer duration, giving the magazine more time to get the next round in place. The official endurance test is 6,000 rounds (I suspect they stopped there because the mil-spec test for rifles is 6k rounds), but many use them in their FA guns and have many, many more rounds through them.
I measure the AAC unit @ ~5.4oz and the MGI @ ~7.1oz |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2005 7:44:20 AM EDT
[#18]
there was one of them that took place of the whole buffer system.
when i remeber/find it ill post again but i swear it was the aac. eta: well i googled it and the only thing i found was the olympic arms hyd buffer which takes place of the buffer and spring and found this one too |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2005 8:07:12 AM EDT
[#19]
I finally got to compare the enidine buffer to the MGI in my POF gas piston upper M4. Shoooting xm193 55gr bullets, I fired 10 rounds with the enidine and then swapped to the MGI. In all honesty, I would have to say that this is truely a toss up! It seemed that maybe the MGI helped a little better with recoil and the enidine was slightly better on muzzle rise. Both are very smooth and make a noticable difference when compared to the standard H buffers. I ended up shooting another 300 rounds with both of these buffers and could hardly feel a difference. Both are very close in performance.
What I decided to do was to keep the MGI buffer in my POF M4 and to put the enidine in my SPR. The enidine will contribute to less muzzle rise and help stay on target with my long distance shooting in the SPR. The MGI just seems to fit my piston operated M4. Recoil is reduced considerably. (Not that the recoil is bad). All in all I dont believe that you can go wrong purchasing either one of these buffers. Both are very well made and work as advertised! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2005 10:02:00 AM EDT
[#20]
You are thinking of the old Colt ACR buffer. Not AAC.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2005 10:03:57 PM EDT
[#21]
thats it! i stand corrected 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2005 8:25:52 AM EDT
[#22]
Where can I get an endine buffer?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2005 8:43:41 AM EDT
[#23]
im/email grant @ gandrtactical think he's offering them**click here** |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2005 8:55:18 PM EDT
[#24]
How about some more range reports?
I haven't been able to take mine out yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 10:06:16 AM EDT
[#25]
Thanks for the heads up on the enidine buffer. Picked one up from G&R Tactical (favorite dealer along with Denny) and should get it any day now. I will let you know how she works out in FA.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 10:10:47 AM EDT
[#26]
Let me know how you like it Sir! C4 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 9:57:00 PM EDT
[#27]
Grant, the thing is FANTASTIC! I thought it was a gimmick until I crossed this thread. I am going to ask Paul LW to try it on the .499!
I shot before and after installation, and it seems to cut felt recoil (which is about nil to begin with) but most importantly along with my LWKP, I can write my name with it on the target (exaggeration, but not not by much) as it really reduces muzzle rise. I figure it works as a normal buffer does until it hits the back of the tube. At that point, the little hydraulic piston softens the blow. That terminal blow is likely responsible for most of the wandering your muzzle does in a mag dump. It also reduced ROF some. Damn, I am glad I ran across this thread! Thanks for the quick and excellent service Grant/Roxanne once again. BTW, awesome prices on the eotechs. Will be contacting you soon about getting a few of those. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2005 7:00:56 AM EDT
[#28]
Yes, reducing the secondary recoil impulse of the moving masses does greatly improve the controllability of the weapon.
The MGI RRB addresses this issue in a different way, mechanically instead of hydraulically. In combination with a good muzzle brake, which will address the primary recoil impulse of the actual firing, the controllability is improved even further. In full auto, the RRB's higher mass provides a forward moving momentum upon closing the bolt, which will counteract the next shot's initial firing impulse to some noticeable degree. So, in that regard, our RRB buffer also negates a portion of the initial firing recoil impulse for all full-auto shots except the first one. It works very well. I'm glad that there are other choices on the market for improving this aspect of the weapon, because I know that not everyone can afford to buy an MGI RRB. Our product is more expensive, but we think it's worth it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2005 7:49:23 AM EDT
[#29]
Here's a glimpse into the buyers mind. I can afford your buffer, but did not buy it because the other 2 provided comparable results (from what I read here) at a reduced price. Its already disturbing paying nearly a hundred bucks on a buffer. Even if all three were in the same ballpark, it still would have been a toss up.
I think I will eventually obtain the other 2 and see for myself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2005 8:01:55 AM EDT
[#30]
I always encourage comparisons.
It is the best way to make an informed decision. I'm sure that some will prefer one, while others will prefer the other.' That's the way of the world. Again, I'm pleased to see alternative selections in the market, at various price points. Competition makes everybody sharper. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2005 4:03:06 PM EDT
[#31]
I am with 48thHighlander on the price issue. Although I really want to try the MGI buffer I can't justify the $150 price tag . Especially when some of the more knowledgeable dealers say the Enidine buffer is great. twl, let us know when you offer your buffers at the group buy rate again.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2005 4:19:55 PM EDT
[#32]
I bought a couple of MGI RRB's on the group buy offered by twl. I was looking at the Oly pnumatic buffer & hadn't heard about the Enidine offering until later. I like the MGI buffer because it's strictly mechanical, no seals to go south on you at the worst moment. Seals are problematic on any piece of equipment. The MGI could fail too but I have more faith in it's construction than I do with something that uses a seal. Also I don't look at it as buying a high dollar buffer, what I paid for was the features I was looking for, not the buffer itself. The MGI does everything it was claimed to do the way I want it done. The nice thing is that one buffer works on everything, AR15 in whatever flavor you like as well as my LR308.
Bushwack |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2005 4:27:09 PM EDT
[#33]
Glad you like it! My experience is very similar to yours. C4 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2005 6:05:28 PM EDT
[#34]
Having both, I can say that they are pretty equal in performance. They both reduce felt recoil and keep you on target from almost completely eliminating muzzle rise. The enidne is $50 cheaper and I think that its very robust. The MGI is a lot heavier and like some others have said being completely mechanical gives me a little more piece of mind. It helps eliminate recoil just a little more than the enidine.
Both are well worth the money and if you get the chance to compare them to regular buffers, you will see why! I also just put the extra power recoil buffer spring from Wolf Springs in both my SPR and POF M4. These things work too!! The springs help felt recoil but mainly are nice for slamming the bolt back into battery. When you load a round its going into the chamber. I recommend these also!!!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2005 7:37:39 PM EDT
[#35]
Worrying about a hydralic buffer is overkill. Enidine seems to make hydralics for aircraft and other applications. If hydralics are good enough to keep a plane in the air, they are certainly good enough for my civvie weapons. If the cylinder lost all of its fluid, the rifle would not fail to work.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2005 8:14:27 PM EDT
[#36]
That's a very sensible argument, 48th.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2005 3:46:29 AM EDT
[#37]
Your point is well taken 48th, even if an airplane is a collection of compremises flying close formation. I'm sure anyone buying either buffer will be happy with what they bought.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2005 11:29:43 AM EDT
[#38]
Last I heard, Jim Sullivan was busy working on a family of weapons based on the constand recoil principle. Anybody have some news on that? Justin |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2005 1:13:58 PM EDT
[#39]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2005 5:01:06 PM EDT
[#40]
Enidine has tested the new M4 buffer to 500k simulated impacts.
Endine is not a firearms company that plays with hydraulics, they are THE hydraulic company. These folks know hydraulics. Enidine is the supplier for the M249 Hydralic buffer and also make the M2 recoiling mounts for the military. Then next project is a buffer for the full stock M16. We will be at the DPMS Shoot this weekend and will have demo guns on site. Stop by and say hi. We are the primary distributor for the Enidine M4 buffers and have many dealers here on AR15 who stock this product. Larry Bullock Buffer Technologies |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2005 5:55:04 PM EDT
[#41]
Thanks Larry. I met the Enidine guys at the shot show and was impressed with them (which is why I run their buffer in my personal weapon(s). C4 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2005 8:39:29 PM EDT
[#42]
Good to know. Thanks for the info; I'll keep that in mind. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2005 9:02:17 PM EDT
[#43]
Another nice thing about the MGI buffer - it's good for both carbine and full size stocks as is with the use of the delrin insert, no need for a different unit. If I'm not mistaken, it will also work for 9mm as well. Very versatile. I would like to see how the rate reduction in the M16 stands up to the MGI. So far the MGI has had the best rate reduction, at least compared to the AAC. It will be tough to beat. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2005 2:52:22 AM EDT
[#44]
yep the mgi is one size fits all! |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2005 4:23:27 AM EDT
[#45]
I'm tempted to get an MGI buffer but, considering that I didn't like the feel of a 9mm buffer in a carbine, I'm hesitant to do so. I guess I could get one and, worst comes to worst, I could use it in my 9mm AR but still, $150 is a lot of money for something I'm not sure I will like.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2005 4:52:54 AM EDT
[#46]
Matt_B,
We have a money-back guarantee of satisfaction. If you want to try it, you can send it back if you don't like it. It is very different than the 9mm buffer, because it has the recoil reducing feature that the 9mm buffer does not have. Literally hundreds of AR15.com members have purchased this buffer in just this year alone. I have not gotten one sent back to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2005 4:57:56 AM EDT
[#47]
 I've read up on the MGI buffer and knew it doesn't have the same "thump" as a 9mm buffer but I also seemed to be the only one that knew of that didn't like a 9mm buffer in a 5.56mm AR. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2005 7:09:15 AM EDT
[#48]
Some interesting testing going on by AZLarry posted on Lightfighter. Too early to make claims, but if it is true, MGI and AAC should undertake similar testing ASAP as I am sure the results would be similar. Here is a cut and paste. It is posted in the Lightfigher stud board.
By AZ LARRY:
The above was cut and pasted relevent info from AZLarry from the thread. Here is the link if you want to look at the entire thread. I have not chrono'ed my rifles with the enidine. lightfighter.net/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/9046084761/m/5901027651 I don't sell Enidine. I am just impressed with their buffer. So much so, we are going to test it with the .499 and see what happens. What a life!  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2005 7:39:40 AM EDT
[#49]
Darren, It's posted right here too, remember! I mean for the love of God, you posted in the damn thread! I think all of that powder residue is getting to your head. You should stop testing and let me take over for now.Link: www.jobrelatedstuff.com/forums/topic.html?b=7&f=121&t=249960&page=13. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2005 8:00:16 AM EDT
[#50]
Well, that's very interesting information, and I have to say that I've never actually tried chronographing different buffers.
Of course, there's only one reason that it could make any difference, and that's later bolt opening timing. So, apparently the advantages of a premium buffer system continue to add up beyond what we even thought before. Nice investigative reporting there, AZLarry. I'm quite surprised actually, that this seemed to make such a difference in a 10.5" barrel, when there is so little barrel length after the gas port anyway. I guess any little bit helps. |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
