User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 9:06:10 AM EDT
[#1]
If the life expectancy of my dd 10.3 is about 5k rounds and dd has great customer service and lifetime warranty... What will they say when I need parts? Not normal wear and tear?
So I I should an extra bolt around. What else? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 10:02:23 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the life expectancy of my dd 10.3 is about 5k rounds and dd has great customer service and lifetime warranty... What will they say when I need parts? Not map wear and tear? So I I should an extra bolt around. What else? I should think you will do better than that. The DD BCG is a great one. Mine wore the cam pin to its happy spot. Looks gnarly, but it hasn't gotten any worse 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 10:17:13 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, most factory ARs need to be altered in some way to be tuned for use with a can. I can tell you that a 10.3" .082 DD is far from the only configuration that's gonna be too much with just an H buffer when used with a can and milspec pressured ammo. A swap to an H2 buffer instantly fixes that. An H3 even moreso. Not in the same manner. You can run a Colt or LMT MK18 suppressed and stock OTB more reliably than running DD MK18 suppressed and OTB, Gasport has everything to do with that. Anyway I think that the O.P should be aware of the designed overgassing of a DD 10.3 barrel in that it lends certain advantages like running crap ammo and running very dirty and dry but also the inherent problems that arise from that approach because they exist and there are remedies. A buffer spring and/or a buffer will fix part of the problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 12:25:19 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the life expectancy of my dd 10.3 is about 5k rounds and dd has great customer service and lifetime warranty... What will they say when I need parts? Not normal wear and tear? So I I should an extra bolt around. What else? If you have managed to drop the coin on a suppressed MK18 I think you could manage to have a spare $150 BCG laying around. That's just my 0.02 though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 12:42:14 PM EDT
[#5]
I have a spare colt BCG.
I guess I am going to buy a Spikes H3 buffer and try that out. Do I need a new/different spring? I don't think so bc this is brand new. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 12:49:15 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have a spare colt BCG. I guess I am going to buy a Spikes H3 buffer and try that out. Do I need a new/different spring? I don't think so bc this is brand new. I think you are golden man.... spare bolt that you shouldn't need for awhile... H3 buffer... golden That is unless you want to change the gas block to the MicroMoa Govnah which is an excellent option as well - just more expensive. Either the heavy buffer or the adjustable gas block will be fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 1:13:22 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Shocked you waited this long to jump in on stirring the pot with me. As many know, it's long been one of your favorite pastimes around here. If you've read all of my comments here, you'd understand why I prefer 14.5" mids over 14.5" carbines, but prefer 10.3" DD barrels to the Colt and LMT barrels I'm comparing them to. DD makes a higher quality barrel. I'll deal with having to run a heavier buffer for the better barrel. As I've already pointed out, there are essentially no producers of 10.3" barrels aside from DD. DD also happens to make the highest quality and most accurate CHF barrels IMO. Once again, "taming" these DD barrels is an easy task. I ultimately want the better barrel. Period. I already mentioned that if BCM offered a10.3" BFH CHF barrel with a .070 port, I'd likely go that route instead. But they don't, and no other factory CHF 10.3" barrels from big name producers are available. It clearly vastly limits the options. Me pointing out the epic contradiction of the crap several give the larger gas port DD barrels is just that...me pointing out the irony. When you have people notoriously known to praise gassier configurations because they will always cycle any ammo in any environment that turn around and have exact opposite opinions with 10.3" barrels...it's very ironic to say the least. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So do you bash 14.5" carbines as well? If so, I find your stance on this subject appropriate then. It's not exactly the same thing. The 10.3 has to take in a lot of gas in a very short period of time (less than half the dwell time a a 14.5" carbine) and is a lot harsher than the 14.5" so I am much more willing to take the extra pressure. That being said, I would prefer a mid 14.5". Everyone knows short barrels are harsh so you have to choose if you want to POSSIBLY not be able to shoot Tula (both LMT 10.5s I have owned shoot Tula and PMC bronze fine.. I've never owned a Colt 10.3 so IDK) or if you want to really stress the moving parts in your rifle. But yea, the consequences of the higher pressure in the 10.3 are a lot more severe than the consequences of the higher pressure in the 14.5 (in regards to the described circumstances). Not to mention, the gas port diameter is changed so there is a larger gas port but less dwell time in the 14.5 mid vs 14.5 carbine... in the case of the 10.3s there is a difference in the gas ports but there is no change in dwell time... its not a valid comparison. Also, if someone prefers the 14.5 mid, it's totally inconsistent to prefer the larger gas port in a 10.3. You can't have it both ways. You either sacrifice some recoil reduction for a larger operating window, or sacrifice operating window for a softer recoil. It's incongruent doctrine to argue for a softer shooting 14.5 mid that won't run Tula, and then argue AGAINST the smaller mil spec .070 ported 10.3, ESPECIALLY when used with a silencer. In other words, that's real retarded, sir. Shocked you waited this long to jump in on stirring the pot with me. As many know, it's long been one of your favorite pastimes around here. If you've read all of my comments here, you'd understand why I prefer 14.5" mids over 14.5" carbines, but prefer 10.3" DD barrels to the Colt and LMT barrels I'm comparing them to. DD makes a higher quality barrel. I'll deal with having to run a heavier buffer for the better barrel. As I've already pointed out, there are essentially no producers of 10.3" barrels aside from DD. DD also happens to make the highest quality and most accurate CHF barrels IMO. Once again, "taming" these DD barrels is an easy task. I ultimately want the better barrel. Period. I already mentioned that if BCM offered a10.3" BFH CHF barrel with a .070 port, I'd likely go that route instead. But they don't, and no other factory CHF 10.3" barrels from big name producers are available. It clearly vastly limits the options. Me pointing out the epic contradiction of the crap several give the larger gas port DD barrels is just that...me pointing out the irony. When you have people notoriously known to praise gassier configurations because they will always cycle any ammo in any environment that turn around and have exact opposite opinions with 10.3" barrels...it's very ironic to say the least. I like 14.5 carbines, and don't really care about gas port size on 10.3/5 as long as they are reliable with ANY ammo. I've owned both sizes of DD ports and they were both fine. I've also used LMT and Colt with satisfactory results. 14.5 mids are not as reliable as carbines when the ports are smaller, like BCM 14.5 mids. I've had multiples that wouldn't function with crappy ammo when they were clean, let alone dirty. I've never had reliability problems with any 14.5 carbine, including Colt, Bushmaster, LMT, DD, or BCM. 10.3/5 barrels have a very short dwell time and need a higher peak impulse to function well. A larger gas port doesn't bother me, and unless I have functioning problems, I don't care where the brass ejects, or if the rifle has a theoretically shorter life. I don't fuck with adjustable gas blocks, and use H buffers almost exclusively. To say that the .082 gas port is superior to .070 if the .070 functions exactly as reliably is stupid. If special buffers are REQUIRED for the larger port to function, than it is inferior. However, for my purposes they have always been the same. If a person wanted a 10.3 for use with a silencer, the smaller port is the better choice, period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 1:22:47 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I concluded a Govnah gas block was the right answer over a buffer change. I run suppressed all the time, but should the need arise (some emergency) to run complete shit ammo without the can, I like the ability to adjust the rifle to feed whatever without accepting I have to live with gas face or a busted bcg. Quote HistoryQuoted: I concluded a Govnah gas block was the right answer over a buffer change. I run suppressed all the time, but should the need arise (some emergency) to run complete shit ammo without the can, I like the ability to adjust the rifle to feed whatever without accepting I have to live with gas face or a busted bcg. Quoted: That is unless you want to change the gas block to the MicroMoa Govnah which is an excellent option as well - just more expensive. Either the heavy buffer or the adjustable gas block will be fine. As D_J posted above, going adjustable gives you the ability to change on the fly with no changing of parts. A heavy buffer cannot reduce the amount of additional gas entering the BCG / action. I just stumbled on this thread. Regarding the .070 vs .082 port size differences, no I don't think anyone can feel the difference. However, I did do a test running M855 in full auto and the .082 was like 30 RPM or so faster so it is cycling faster. I don't think many people if any can detect the difference of 30RPM faster in full auto RoF when we are already in the 800's. (talking unsuppressed, it is over 1K RPM suppressed when unregulated) What I have seen is that if you don't regulate the gas running a .082" port with M855 or other hot ammo and your extrractor tension isn't right, you are going to have malfunctions. I run Sprinco extractor springs and don't have issues but messing with customer setups I see this happen. The point is that by controlling the gas, you don't 'need' a super strong extractor spring and your system will be more forgiving. Your extractor spring isn't working as hard. When running suppressed at a .049 or so port, you still have a .070 to move up to if necessary and lastly a .082. When running unsuppressed at the .070, you can move up to the .082 if required with no buffer changing. Why run at .082 when your rifle doesn't need to? However, it is nice having the option if required. Is running adjustable gas 'needed'...No and neither is having a car with more than one gear. 1st gear can cover 100 miles on the highway just like 5th or 6th gear can. It is about choices and you have to decide what is right for you. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 2:30:13 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So sensitive. I have a right to share my opinion as much as anyone else. I don't care about stirring pots, I care about reliable, proven knowledge that helps others. When someone goes spouting off nonsense with no proof, I call them out. Sorry if you feel picked on, it just happens that I disagree with a lot of garbage you post. I like 14.5 carbines, and don't really care about gas port size on 10.3/5 as long as they are reliable with ANY ammo. I've owned both sizes of DD ports and they were both fine. I've also used LMT and Colt with satisfactory results. 14.5 mids are not as reliable as carbines when the ports are smaller, like BCM 14.5 mids. I've had multiples that wouldn't function with crappy ammo when they were clean, let alone dirty. I've never had reliability problems with any 14.5 carbine, including Colt, Bushmaster, LMT, DD, or BCM. 10.3/5 barrels have a very short dwell time and need a higher peak impulse to function well. A larger gas port doesn't bother me, and unless I have functioning problems, I don't care where the brass ejects, or if the rifle has a theoretically shorter life. I don't fuck with adjustable gas blocks, and use H buffers almost exclusively. To say that the .082 gas port is superior to .070 if the .070 functions exactly as reliably is stupid. If special buffers are REQUIRED for the larger port to function, than it is inferior. However, for my purposes they have always been the same. If a person wanted a 10.3 for use with a silencer, the smaller port is the better choice, period. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So do you bash 14.5" carbines as well? If so, I find your stance on this subject appropriate then. It's not exactly the same thing. The 10.3 has to take in a lot of gas in a very short period of time (less than half the dwell time a a 14.5" carbine) and is a lot harsher than the 14.5" so I am much more willing to take the extra pressure. That being said, I would prefer a mid 14.5". Everyone knows short barrels are harsh so you have to choose if you want to POSSIBLY not be able to shoot Tula (both LMT 10.5s I have owned shoot Tula and PMC bronze fine.. I've never owned a Colt 10.3 so IDK) or if you want to really stress the moving parts in your rifle. But yea, the consequences of the higher pressure in the 10.3 are a lot more severe than the consequences of the higher pressure in the 14.5 (in regards to the described circumstances). Not to mention, the gas port diameter is changed so there is a larger gas port but less dwell time in the 14.5 mid vs 14.5 carbine... in the case of the 10.3s there is a difference in the gas ports but there is no change in dwell time... its not a valid comparison. Also, if someone prefers the 14.5 mid, it's totally inconsistent to prefer the larger gas port in a 10.3. You can't have it both ways. You either sacrifice some recoil reduction for a larger operating window, or sacrifice operating window for a softer recoil. It's incongruent doctrine to argue for a softer shooting 14.5 mid that won't run Tula, and then argue AGAINST the smaller mil spec .070 ported 10.3, ESPECIALLY when used with a silencer. In other words, that's real retarded, sir. Shocked you waited this long to jump in on stirring the pot with me. As many know, it's long been one of your favorite pastimes around here. If you've read all of my comments here, you'd understand why I prefer 14.5" mids over 14.5" carbines, but prefer 10.3" DD barrels to the Colt and LMT barrels I'm comparing them to. DD makes a higher quality barrel. I'll deal with having to run a heavier buffer for the better barrel. As I've already pointed out, there are essentially no producers of 10.3" barrels aside from DD. DD also happens to make the highest quality and most accurate CHF barrels IMO. Once again, "taming" these DD barrels is an easy task. I ultimately want the better barrel. Period. I already mentioned that if BCM offered a10.3" BFH CHF barrel with a .070 port, I'd likely go that route instead. But they don't, and no other factory CHF 10.3" barrels from big name producers are available. It clearly vastly limits the options. Me pointing out the epic contradiction of the crap several give the larger gas port DD barrels is just that...me pointing out the irony. When you have people notoriously known to praise gassier configurations because they will always cycle any ammo in any environment that turn around and have exact opposite opinions with 10.3" barrels...it's very ironic to say the least. I like 14.5 carbines, and don't really care about gas port size on 10.3/5 as long as they are reliable with ANY ammo. I've owned both sizes of DD ports and they were both fine. I've also used LMT and Colt with satisfactory results. 14.5 mids are not as reliable as carbines when the ports are smaller, like BCM 14.5 mids. I've had multiples that wouldn't function with crappy ammo when they were clean, let alone dirty. I've never had reliability problems with any 14.5 carbine, including Colt, Bushmaster, LMT, DD, or BCM. 10.3/5 barrels have a very short dwell time and need a higher peak impulse to function well. A larger gas port doesn't bother me, and unless I have functioning problems, I don't care where the brass ejects, or if the rifle has a theoretically shorter life. I don't fuck with adjustable gas blocks, and use H buffers almost exclusively. To say that the .082 gas port is superior to .070 if the .070 functions exactly as reliably is stupid. If special buffers are REQUIRED for the larger port to function, than it is inferior. However, for my purposes they have always been the same. If a person wanted a 10.3 for use with a silencer, the smaller port is the better choice, period. Point out what I've posted here that's "garbage." I've more than proven all of my points. And I never said the larger port was better in any scenario. I said it was better for cycling any and all ammo in any environment. You are who has now contradicted yourself. You say you like a barrel that will cycle any ammo. Well, the .070 port 10.3" barrels are designed to be run with milspec pressured ammo. That is a fact. And not everyone has cans. I've pointed out valid reasons that are factual, and your grounds for calling anything out that I've said in here are wanting at best. And as amphibian just pointed out, someone who knows a thing or two about this subject and has done more testing than surely anyone else in here, no one will notice a "recoil" difference between the .070 and .082 barrel. Another fact I have already long pointed out in here as well. Once again, no "garbage" here, take yours elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 2:47:29 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
+1, thanks for the post!! As D_J posted above, going adjustable gives you the ability to change on the fly with no changing of parts. A heavy buffer cannot reduce the amount of additional gas entering the BCG / action. I just stumbled on this thread. Regarding the .070 vs .082 port size differences, no I don't think anyone can feel the difference. However, I did do a test running M855 in full auto and the .082 was like 30 RPM or so faster so it is cycling faster. I don't think many people if any can detect the difference of 30RPM faster in full auto RoF when we are already in the 800's. (talking unsuppressed, it is over 1K RPM suppressed when unregulated) What I have seen is that if you don't regulate the gas running a .082" port with M855 or other hot ammo and your extrractor tension isn't right, you are going to have malfunctions. I run Sprinco extractor springs and don't have issues but messing with customer setups I see this happen. The point is that by controlling the gas, you don't 'need' a super strong extractor spring and your system will be more forgiving. Your extractor spring isn't working as hard. When running suppressed at a .049 or so port, you still have a .070 to move up to if necessary and lastly a .082. When running unsuppressed at the .070, you can move up to the .082 if required with no buffer changing. Why run at .082 when your rifle doesn't need to? However, it is nice having the option if required. Is running adjustable gas 'needed'...No and neither is having a car with more than one gear. 1st gear can cover 100 miles on the highway just like 5th or 6th gear can. It is about choices and you have to decide what is right for you. Thanks! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I concluded a Govnah gas block was the right answer over a buffer change. I run suppressed all the time, but should the need arise (some emergency) to run complete shit ammo without the can, I like the ability to adjust the rifle to feed whatever without accepting I have to live with gas face or a busted bcg. Quoted:
That is unless you want to change the gas block to the MicroMoa Govnah which is an excellent option as well - just more expensive. Either the heavy buffer or the adjustable gas block will be fine. As D_J posted above, going adjustable gives you the ability to change on the fly with no changing of parts. A heavy buffer cannot reduce the amount of additional gas entering the BCG / action. I just stumbled on this thread. Regarding the .070 vs .082 port size differences, no I don't think anyone can feel the difference. However, I did do a test running M855 in full auto and the .082 was like 30 RPM or so faster so it is cycling faster. I don't think many people if any can detect the difference of 30RPM faster in full auto RoF when we are already in the 800's. (talking unsuppressed, it is over 1K RPM suppressed when unregulated) What I have seen is that if you don't regulate the gas running a .082" port with M855 or other hot ammo and your extrractor tension isn't right, you are going to have malfunctions. I run Sprinco extractor springs and don't have issues but messing with customer setups I see this happen. The point is that by controlling the gas, you don't 'need' a super strong extractor spring and your system will be more forgiving. Your extractor spring isn't working as hard. When running suppressed at a .049 or so port, you still have a .070 to move up to if necessary and lastly a .082. When running unsuppressed at the .070, you can move up to the .082 if required with no buffer changing. Why run at .082 when your rifle doesn't need to? However, it is nice having the option if required. Is running adjustable gas 'needed'...No and neither is having a car with more than one gear. 1st gear can cover 100 miles on the highway just like 5th or 6th gear can. It is about choices and you have to decide what is right for you. Thanks! +1. Controlling the gas solves all issues created by an overgassed gun. With the 10.3 barrel you don't need to do anything to shoot it unsuppressed but you do need to do something if you want to reliable suppressed weapon. The best "something" is an adjustable gas block |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 3:31:17 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: no one will notice a "recoil" difference between the .070 and .082 barrel. Again, why run a larger port when not necessary....like running in 1st gear on the highway when you don't need that much torque. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 3:33:23 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, you won't notice it but that doesn't mean the .012 larger port isn't doing anything either....it is just hard to quantify. It is going to get more fouling but that is hard to quantify. By running it in full auto, you can get real data as to the difference...like I said, about 30 RPM increase in ROF. DD did that for a reason and that is to run cheap ammo like Tula as already discussed. Again, why run a larger port when not necessary....like running in 1st gear on the highway when you don't need that much torque. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
no one will notice a "recoil" difference between the .070 and .082 barrel. Yeah. I get all that. I have one of your Govnahs installed on one of my 10.3" DDs. .049 suppressed is an absolute dream to shoot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 11:44:49 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, you won't notice it but that doesn't mean the .012 larger port isn't doing anything either....it is just hard to quantify. It is going to get more fouling but that is hard to quantify. By running it in full auto, you can get real data as to the difference...like I said, about 30 RPM increase in ROF. DD did that for a reason and that is to run cheap ammo like Tula as already discussed. Again, why run a larger port when not necessary....like running in 1st gear on the highway when you don't need that much torque. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
no one will notice a "recoil" difference between the .070 and .082 barrel. Its only hard to quantify if you don't have another reference point. I have an SLR gasblock on a 16" midlength gun and one without , both using the same brand of barrel and same gas port size/ spring and buffer, side by side you can tell which has the adjustable gasblock. bigger difference is noted when suppressed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 3:15:14 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Its only hard to quantify if you don't have another reference point. I have an SLR gasblock on a 16" midlength gun and one without , both using the same brand of barrel and same gas port size/ spring and buffer, side by side you can tell which has the adjustable gasblock. bigger difference is noted when suppressed. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: no one will notice a "recoil" difference between the .070 and .082 barrel. Its only hard to quantify if you don't have another reference point. I have an SLR gasblock on a 16" midlength gun and one without , both using the same brand of barrel and same gas port size/ spring and buffer, side by side you can tell which has the adjustable gasblock. bigger difference is noted when suppressed. We are working on this now. See one of our team shooters Instagram posts...https://instagram.com/multigun/ What you are looking at below is a prototype accelerometer that we hope to be making available to everyone. Future models will be rail mounted.  You can see differences in x, y and z axis... sensor transmits data over bluetooth to your Android device and gets uploaded to plotly for graphical output.  We have already proven how the Govnah reduces cyclic rate with timers in full auto....but not everyone has access to a machine gun.... Next step is to prove reduction in recoil and making the tools available for anyone to prove it themselves. I believe this will be a big develpment in performance tuning. Think of all the muzzle breaks and buffers out there that people have opinions on. You will be able to get hard numbers to back up your test data. Of course there are more factors to a great muzzle break such as weight, POI shift etc...just like their is with making a suppressor purchase. It is not just about DB reduction. But back on topic regarding being able to quantify recoil we hope to get this nailed down soon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 8:13:12 PM EDT
[#15]
Try reading again. I said either port size worked fine for me and I had no preference in 10.3/5 barrel.
I won't use 14.5 mids any more, especially from BCM, because they will not function with any ammo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 8:16:50 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Being able to tell the difference does NOT mean you can quantify it. You have no numbers to back anything up.... We are working on this now. See one of our team shooters Instagram posts...https://instagram.com/multigun/ What you are looking at below is a prototype accelerometer that we hope to be making available to everyone. Future models will be rail mounted. https://igcdn-photos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t51.2885-15/11272965_391947360992818_1860431480_n.jpg You can see differences in x, y and z axis... sensor transmits data over bluetooth to your Android device and gets uploaded to plotly for graphical output. https://igcdn-photos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/t51.2885-15/11282276_104965723171315_998348884_n.jpg We have already proven how the Govnah reduces cyclic rate with timers in full auto....but not everyone has access to a machine gun.... Next step is to prove reduction in recoil and making the tools available for anyone to prove it themselves. I believe this will be a big develpment in performance tuning. Think of all the muzzle breaks and buffers out there that people have opinions on. You will be able to get hard numbers to back up your test data. Of course there are more factors to a great muzzle break such as weight, POI shift etc...just like their is with making a suppressor purchase. It is not just about DB reduction. But back on topic regarding being able to quantify recoil we hope to get this nailed down soon. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: no one will notice a "recoil" difference between the .070 and .082 barrel. Its only hard to quantify if you don't have another reference point. I have an SLR gasblock on a 16" midlength gun and one without , both using the same brand of barrel and same gas port size/ spring and buffer, side by side you can tell which has the adjustable gasblock. bigger difference is noted when suppressed. We are working on this now. See one of our team shooters Instagram posts...https://instagram.com/multigun/ What you are looking at below is a prototype accelerometer that we hope to be making available to everyone. Future models will be rail mounted. https://igcdn-photos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t51.2885-15/11272965_391947360992818_1860431480_n.jpg You can see differences in x, y and z axis... sensor transmits data over bluetooth to your Android device and gets uploaded to plotly for graphical output. https://igcdn-photos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/t51.2885-15/11282276_104965723171315_998348884_n.jpg We have already proven how the Govnah reduces cyclic rate with timers in full auto....but not everyone has access to a machine gun.... Next step is to prove reduction in recoil and making the tools available for anyone to prove it themselves. I believe this will be a big develpment in performance tuning. Think of all the muzzle breaks and buffers out there that people have opinions on. You will be able to get hard numbers to back up your test data. Of course there are more factors to a great muzzle break such as weight, POI shift etc...just like their is with making a suppressor purchase. It is not just about DB reduction. But back on topic regarding being able to quantify recoil we hope to get this nailed down soon. Even when you quantify it, there will be differences like peak force, and duration of force that will be hard to compare. Can't wait to see your results. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 8:23:03 PM EDT
[#17]
That's all fine and good. It doesn't take away from the fact that you came in here calling me "retarded" and saying I was speaking "garbage" when that couldn't have been any further from the truth. As said, you like to stir the pot with me any chance you get - warranted or not. You've been called out, and as I've pointed out, you have had zero basis to question anything I've said in here...and certainly not refer to it as "retarded" or "garbage." Perhaps you need to wait until I start talking about my 14.5" mids that have always functioned 100 percent with heavy buffers and weak ammo since day one (which I've already welcomed you to come see for yourself) before you have a legitimate thing to call into question with me. Until then, you may want to choose your words a little more carefully.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 8:46:10 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Being able to tell the difference does NOT mean you can quantify it. You have no numbers to back anything up.... We are working on this now. See one of our team shooters Instagram posts...https://instagram.com/multigun/ What you are looking at below is a prototype accelerometer that we hope to be making available to everyone. Future models will be rail mounted. https://igcdn-photos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t51.2885-15/11272965_391947360992818_1860431480_n.jpg You can see differences in x, y and z axis... sensor transmits data over bluetooth to your Android device and gets uploaded to plotly for graphical output. https://igcdn-photos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/t51.2885-15/11282276_104965723171315_998348884_n.jpg We have already proven how the Govnah reduces cyclic rate with timers in full auto....but not everyone has access to a machine gun.... Next step is to prove reduction in recoil and making the tools available for anyone to prove it themselves. I believe this will be a big develpment in performance tuning. Think of all the muzzle breaks and buffers out there that people have opinions on. You will be able to get hard numbers to back up your test data. Of course there are more factors to a great muzzle break such as weight, POI shift etc...just like their is with making a suppressor purchase. It is not just about DB reduction. But back on topic regarding being able to quantify recoil we hope to get this nailed down soon. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
no one will notice a "recoil" difference between the .070 and .082 barrel. Its only hard to quantify if you don't have another reference point. I have an SLR gasblock on a 16" midlength gun and one without , both using the same brand of barrel and same gas port size/ spring and buffer, side by side you can tell which has the adjustable gasblock. bigger difference is noted when suppressed. We are working on this now. See one of our team shooters Instagram posts...https://instagram.com/multigun/ What you are looking at below is a prototype accelerometer that we hope to be making available to everyone. Future models will be rail mounted. https://igcdn-photos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t51.2885-15/11272965_391947360992818_1860431480_n.jpg You can see differences in x, y and z axis... sensor transmits data over bluetooth to your Android device and gets uploaded to plotly for graphical output. https://igcdn-photos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/t51.2885-15/11282276_104965723171315_998348884_n.jpg We have already proven how the Govnah reduces cyclic rate with timers in full auto....but not everyone has access to a machine gun.... Next step is to prove reduction in recoil and making the tools available for anyone to prove it themselves. I believe this will be a big develpment in performance tuning. Think of all the muzzle breaks and buffers out there that people have opinions on. You will be able to get hard numbers to back up your test data. Of course there are more factors to a great muzzle break such as weight, POI shift etc...just like their is with making a suppressor purchase. It is not just about DB reduction. But back on topic regarding being able to quantify recoil we hope to get this nailed down soon. I can feel the difference in recoil. It simply doesn't "bottom out" and it eliminates the sharpness of the recoil. Another tangible is the noticeably less amount of gas pressure being expelled from the receiver ( E.G : no A.G.B ..I wear eye pro, tuned with an A.G.B ..no eye pro required.). The number you all are working are great and I am sure people will appreciate it but I wouldn't be spending $120 to $ 145 a pop for something that didn't tangibly improve my weapons performance. As far as recoil goes... I think you are right... recoil on a 556 is so negligible from the get go you simply aren't going to notice a big difference tuned or not. But increased recoil feel is just one symptom over gassing , there is misfeeds/jams,accelerated component wear and excess blowback to contend with also. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 10:20:27 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Try reading again. I said either port size worked fine for me and I had no preference in 10.3/5 barrel. I won't use 14.5 mids any more, especially from BCM, because they will not function with any ammo. What ammo? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 11:01:09 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What ammo? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Try reading again. I said either port size worked fine for me and I had no preference in 10.3/5 barrel. I won't use 14.5 mids any more, especially from BCM, because they will not function with any ammo. What ammo? He's likely referring to stuff like Tula, but perhaps he's run into issues with other ammo and BCM 14.5" mids as well. The BCM 14.5" mids tend to be hit and miss from what I've seen/heard. You will find several who have 14.5" BCM mids, and they run a ton of Tula through them without a single problem. Others, however, may have entirely different results. Because of this, I'd surely agree you shouldn't pick up a 14.5" BCM mid with the intention of it being an "eat anything" type setup. With that said, while I never personally run Tula (or any steel cased stuff in general), I have owned a handful of 14.5" BCM mids over the past few years, and still own two. They have all been fed steady diets of notoriously weak PMC Bronze 223, combined with H2 buffers, and have all been 100 percent flawless with that combination. And arguably, my absolute favorite AR to shoot for over a year now has been my most recent 14.5" BCM mid with 13" KMR. It's stupid light, softer shooting than any other 14.5" 5.56 I've ever handled (and that includes a handful of 14.5" KAC SR-15s with their proprietary intermediate length gas system), and has been dead nuts reliable with nothing but PMC Bronze and an H2 buffer since the very first round fired. Experiences do seem to differ vastly though with BCM 14.5" mids. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2015 12:55:18 PM EDT
[#21]
I bought and installed a spikes t3 buffer. Haven't shot it yet but looking forward to it. I will carry the stock h buffer just in case.
|
|
|
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.
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.
