Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Page Armory » M-16
Site Notices
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:40:41 PM EDT
It is my understanding that the buffer weight has an effect on the rpm since heavier weights cause the rifle to take longer to cycle. I am getting a SP1 conversion soon and would like to save costs on ammo (really funny that I'm penny pinching after buying a 25k-30k gun) and increase controllability. What are y'all experience with different buffer weights? Is there a major difference between carbine and H4? How about weights that are one step from each other like H1 vs H2? Thanks in advance.
Link Posted: 4/15/2024 4:48:39 PM EDT
[#1]
Look at this thread just a few down the page: https://www.ar15.com/forums/Armory/M16-Ultimax-/23-544953/

Bunch of info on my site: https://c3junkie.com/?page_id=164
Kinda scattered though.
This is also relevant with some cylic rate info as well: https://c3junkie.com/?page_id=977
Link Posted: 4/15/2024 5:02:14 PM EDT
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By amphibian:
Look at this thread just a few down the page: https://www.ar15.com/forums/Armory/M16-Ultimax-/23-544953/

Bunch of info on my site: https://c3junkie.com/?page_id=164
Kinda scattered though.
This is also relevant with some cylic rate info as well: https://c3junkie.com/?page_id=977
View Quote

Sweet, thanks!
Link Posted: 4/21/2024 6:30:39 PM EDT
[#3]
There are also the two-piece buffers, but I have never tested them as far as cyclic rate goes.
However I do know, they eliminate bolt carrier bounce completely.

Tony



Link Posted: 4/22/2024 9:34:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: SecondAmend] [#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TonyRumore:
There are also the two-piece buffers, but I have never tested them as far as cyclic rate goes.
However I do know, they eliminate bolt carrier bounce completely.

Tony

https://i.imgur.com/XGdbwIl.jpg

View Quote

I've ran M16 9mm ROF tests on a number of buffers.  For the type of buffer pictured (two-piece steel 9mm mechanical, 5.6 oz.); using a Colt M16A; Colt 16 in. 9mm ‘pencil’ barrel installed in Gibbz Arms G9 side charge upper receiver; 9mm, ramped, direct blowback bolt carrier group (15.6 oz.); standard, mil spec, six position carbine length buffer tube without spacer; and standard round wire carbine length recoil spring and obtained 869 RPM as an average of five runs (10 rounds per run).

MHO, YMMV, etc.

ETA: And as a couple of points for comparison using the same configuration except for the buffer used -
H3 buffer(5.6 oz.): 971 RPM, and
Steel shell carbine length buffer w/3 tungsten weights (7.5 oz.): 886 RPM.

AETA: [Note that even though the steel shell  with tungsten weights buffer weighs more than the two-piece steel 9mm mechanical buffer, the rate of fire is higher.  Buffer configuration also is part of the ROF achieved].

Assuming one is discussing centerfire calibers, to get the lowest rate of fire, one probably has to use a hydraulic buffer in connection with whatever other elements are implemented in their configuration.
Page Armory » M-16
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top