Quote 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.