AR Sponsor
Posted: 7/10/2015 8:01:34 PM EDT
|
I have my build complete minus the stock and buffer tube. I was looking at getting a DSG stock w/buffer assembly. It includes a standard carbine buffer, I do have a carbine gas length.
Do the heavier buffers such as Spikes have a significant impact in felt recoil? This is a K.I.S.S. build with a carry handle so no optic. Everything I've read leads me to a Springco white with a Spikes T2-2, however I have no experience with this platform. I typically run hotter 5.56 and never shoot wolf, brown bear, or any other steel case. |
|
Most of the time, an AR carbine will run perfectly well with a standard weight carbine buffer. Going with a heavy buffer to "reduce felt recoil" is a crap shoot. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. You can do more to manage recoil discomfort by simply making sure you're shouldering the gun properly each time than by messing with buffer swapping.
In my opinion, the only time you'll find a heavy buffer useful is when you're running a very short barrel or if you're running a carbine-length gas system and going for high rates of fire. |
| You'll get answers from both sides of the fence on this one. Your carbine gas system should function just fine with a heavier buffer but, that's not to say you need one. If you want to buy a kit that comes with a standard buffer then, go with it. Down the road if you feel the need to try swapping things around, it's cheap and easy to swap in a heavier buffer. As far as the st-t2 goes, I bought one and used it for a while. Initially I thought I liked the feel better. There wasn't less felt recoil (actually kind of felt like more). Just a more solid and less springy feel to the recoil, due to the powder vs. loose weights. I later changed my mind and went back to an H1. The spikes found it's way into my kids build. I think he was mostly impressed with the black anodizing and the fact that the logo matched his lower. Either way, he's happy. If you want a heavier buffer, I'd skip the st-t2 and just get an H2 but, it's all subjective. |
|
There are other practical advantages to using a heavier buffer in a carbine-length gas system; to counteract overgassing by slowing down carrier velocity to reduce parts battering and delaying extraction until chamber pressures have dropped sufficiently. H2's seem to be the sweet spot in my 6920's but YMMV.
Tomac |
|
The new theory of thinking is start with the heaviest buffer in which your rifle with function 100 percent in heat and cold etc. Work your way down as needed.
This will save wear and tear on the weapon as well. I do like the feel of a t2 spikes buffer myself, but milspec H is always GTG. |
|
Quoted:
You'll get answers from both sides of the fence on this one. Your carbine gas system should function just fine with a heavier buffer but, that's not to say you need one. Others have posted the theory that "the heaviest buffer your gun will run with" is a good choice, with the rationale that the heavy buffer will save wear on the weapon. The military has guns that have been running with the standard carbine buffer for decades, and these get run in full auto, get dragged through who knows what kind of gunk, and still keep going. From my own experience with ARs, both military and civilian, I don't feel that the potentially detectable extra push you might feel from an AR carbine with the standard buffer is really worth tweaking anything over. I'm also one of "those guys" that thinks the term "over gassed" needs to be limited to guns that do not function reliably because of having excessively large gas ports. To hear some people talk, every single AR barrel has too large a gas port, and that's nonsense. The standard port sizes are based on Stoner's gas system being able to meter enough gas to run the gun, even if the gun is filthy and gummed up. A little extra rearward carrier velocity is not an indication the gun is getting too much gas, it's an indication that the gun is getting "more than just barely enough" gas. If you get beat up by your AR with a standard carbine buffer, go ahead and put a heavier buffer in it - they're not terribly expensive. But when you don't clean it for a bunch of range trips, then decide to run some soft .223 through it, don't be surprised if you have cycling issues because the crud has built up enough that your gas system doesn't have enough "oomph" to overcome the inertia of your heavy buffer. It's not a bad strategy to match your buffer to your ammunition, but it can get complicated. |
|
Quoted:
Well put. It is definitely subjective, and what one shooter "feels," another may not notice, or at least not be bothered with. Others have posted the theory that "the heaviest buffer your gun will run with" is a good choice, with the rationale that the heavy buffer will save wear on the weapon. The military has guns that have been running with the standard carbine buffer for decades, and these get run in full auto, get dragged through who knows what kind of gunk, and still keep going. From my own experience with ARs, both military and civilian, I don't feel that the potentially detectable extra push you might feel from an AR carbine with the standard buffer is really worth tweaking anything over. I'm also one of "those guys" that thinks the term "over gassed" needs to be limited to guns that do not function reliably because of having excessively large gas ports. To hear some people talk, every single AR barrel has too large a gas port, and that's nonsense. The standard port sizes are based on Stoner's gas system being able to meter enough gas to run the gun, even if the gun is filthy and gummed up. A little extra rearward carrier velocity is not an indication the gun is getting too much gas, it's an indication that the gun is getting "more than just barely enough" gas. If you get beat up by your AR with a standard carbine buffer, go ahead and put a heavier buffer in it - they're not terribly expensive. But when you don't clean it for a bunch of range trips, then decide to run some soft .223 through it, don't be surprised if you have cycling issues because the crud has built up enough that your gas system doesn't have enough "oomph" to overcome the inertia of your heavy buffer. It's not a bad strategy to match your buffer to your ammunition, but it can get complicated. Quoted:
Quoted:
You'll get answers from both sides of the fence on this one. Your carbine gas system should function just fine with a heavier buffer but, that's not to say you need one. Others have posted the theory that "the heaviest buffer your gun will run with" is a good choice, with the rationale that the heavy buffer will save wear on the weapon. The military has guns that have been running with the standard carbine buffer for decades, and these get run in full auto, get dragged through who knows what kind of gunk, and still keep going. From my own experience with ARs, both military and civilian, I don't feel that the potentially detectable extra push you might feel from an AR carbine with the standard buffer is really worth tweaking anything over. I'm also one of "those guys" that thinks the term "over gassed" needs to be limited to guns that do not function reliably because of having excessively large gas ports. To hear some people talk, every single AR barrel has too large a gas port, and that's nonsense. The standard port sizes are based on Stoner's gas system being able to meter enough gas to run the gun, even if the gun is filthy and gummed up. A little extra rearward carrier velocity is not an indication the gun is getting too much gas, it's an indication that the gun is getting "more than just barely enough" gas. If you get beat up by your AR with a standard carbine buffer, go ahead and put a heavier buffer in it - they're not terribly expensive. But when you don't clean it for a bunch of range trips, then decide to run some soft .223 through it, don't be surprised if you have cycling issues because the crud has built up enough that your gas system doesn't have enough "oomph" to overcome the inertia of your heavy buffer. It's not a bad strategy to match your buffer to your ammunition, but it can get complicated. http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/ In my experience there aren't many carbine-length 16" AR's that *aren't* overgassed. Tomac |
|
Quoted:
http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/ In my experience there aren't many carbine-length 16" AR's that *aren't* overgassed. Tomac The article you linked doesn't mention the term or the description "overgassed". Instead, it discussed using both a heavy buffer and heavier spring in a 14.5" carbine to prevent failures due to fouling. The author was trying to get his gun to fail due to fouling - his testing had nothing to do with his gun having "too much gas." In fact, his results demonstrate that, even when heavily fouled, the AR gas system continued to provide more than enough power to operate the weapon. His results using a heavy buffer and spring had more to do with why it's a good idea to clean a rifle now and then than anything related to the concept of "overgassed" ARs. The term "overgassed" implies that thousands and thousands of rifles are being sold with faulty gas ports, or that the whole gas system design is at fault. I can't accept that a weapon system as well established as the AR/M16 is somehow flawed because it continues to provide at least enough gas power to operate the system under widely varied conditions and with a wide variety of ammunition. |
|
Quoted:
Using my definition (above), I've never heard of an AR, carbine or otherwise, that fails to operate because it gets too much gas. As designed, the AR gas system can handle a wide range of ammunition, from relatively light to quite hot. That design also allows the weapon to operate more reliably while becoming quite dirty. The extra gas pressure ONLY increases BCG velocity - the excess gas in the system is vented through the holes on the right side of the carrier as soon as the bolt is sufficiently unlocked. While the added carrier velocity may cause recoil to be harsher, it isn't detrimental to the function of the weapon. The article you linked doesn't mention the term or the description "overgassed". Instead, it discussed using both a heavy buffer and heavier spring in a 14.5" carbine to prevent failures due to fouling. The author was trying to get his gun to fail due to fouling - his testing had nothing to do with his gun having "too much gas." In fact, his results demonstrate that, even when heavily fouled, the AR gas system continued to provide more than enough power to operate the weapon. His results using a heavy buffer and spring had more to do with why it's a good idea to clean a rifle now and then than anything related to the concept of "overgassed" ARs. The term "overgassed" implies that thousands and thousands of rifles are being sold with faulty gas ports, or that the whole gas system design is at fault. I can't accept that a weapon system as well established as the AR/M16 is somehow flawed because it continues to provide at least enough gas power to operate the system under widely varied conditions and with a wide variety of ammunition. Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/ In my experience there aren't many carbine-length 16" AR's that *aren't* overgassed. Tomac The article you linked doesn't mention the term or the description "overgassed". Instead, it discussed using both a heavy buffer and heavier spring in a 14.5" carbine to prevent failures due to fouling. The author was trying to get his gun to fail due to fouling - his testing had nothing to do with his gun having "too much gas." In fact, his results demonstrate that, even when heavily fouled, the AR gas system continued to provide more than enough power to operate the weapon. His results using a heavy buffer and spring had more to do with why it's a good idea to clean a rifle now and then than anything related to the concept of "overgassed" ARs. The term "overgassed" implies that thousands and thousands of rifles are being sold with faulty gas ports, or that the whole gas system design is at fault. I can't accept that a weapon system as well established as the AR/M16 is somehow flawed because it continues to provide at least enough gas power to operate the system under widely varied conditions and with a wide variety of ammunition. Sigh... Overgassed as in providing more gas than is needed for reliable operation. More gas than is needed can only be detrimental in the long run, whether it's due to excessive parts wear, increased chance of faulty extraction due to excessive carrier speed or attempted extraction before chamber pressures have dropped sufficiently for optimal extraction. A system with the proper amount of gas will run more reliably than one w/excessive gas. Tomac |
|
For what it is worth even the military is going to heavier buffers in the M4A1.
I predominately run CS flatwire springs and H2 buffers. This works for me. If the buffer is too heavy for the weapon/ammo then you get short stoking. This may only show up when the weapon is extremely dirty. |
|
Quoted:
There are other practical advantages to using a heavier buffer in a carbine-length gas system; to counteract overgassing by slowing down carrier velocity to reduce parts battering and delaying extraction until chamber pressures have dropped sufficiently. H2's seem to be the sweet spot in my 6920's but YMMV. Tomac Agreed, I love mine and feel like it is a little more reliable with less recoil. |
|
buffer selection (in my experience) is merely what you do after the parts you have on hand dont work..
I've put a rifle upper on a carbine host lower and not had an issue, likewise I've swapped them the other direction and not had an issue.. but my SBR would not cycle reliably until I swapped over to a heavy buffer (even though I had an adjustable gas block installed). more plays into it than just the gas system design. |
|
Quoted:
Sigh... Overgassed as in providing more gas than is needed for reliable operation. More gas than is needed can only be detrimental in the long run, whether it's due to excessive parts wear, increased chance of faulty extraction due to excessive carrier speed or attempted extraction before chamber pressures have dropped sufficiently for optimal extraction. A system with the proper amount of gas will run more reliably than one w/excessive gas. Tomac Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/ In my experience there aren't many carbine-length 16" AR's that *aren't* overgassed. Tomac The article you linked doesn't mention the term or the description "overgassed". Instead, it discussed using both a heavy buffer and heavier spring in a 14.5" carbine to prevent failures due to fouling. The author was trying to get his gun to fail due to fouling - his testing had nothing to do with his gun having "too much gas." In fact, his results demonstrate that, even when heavily fouled, the AR gas system continued to provide more than enough power to operate the weapon. His results using a heavy buffer and spring had more to do with why it's a good idea to clean a rifle now and then than anything related to the concept of "overgassed" ARs. The term "overgassed" implies that thousands and thousands of rifles are being sold with faulty gas ports, or that the whole gas system design is at fault. I can't accept that a weapon system as well established as the AR/M16 is somehow flawed because it continues to provide at least enough gas power to operate the system under widely varied conditions and with a wide variety of ammunition. Sigh... Overgassed as in providing more gas than is needed for reliable operation. More gas than is needed can only be detrimental in the long run, whether it's due to excessive parts wear, increased chance of faulty extraction due to excessive carrier speed or attempted extraction before chamber pressures have dropped sufficiently for optimal extraction. A system with the proper amount of gas will run more reliably than one w/excessive gas. Tomac "More than is needed" for reliable operation is a very fluid thing. Super clean and running hot ammo, or crudded up and running lighter loaded ammo? My point is that, unless a barrel has a significantly larger than standard gas port, you're not going to get too much gas - though you might feel that the gun is rougher due to the carrier moving at a higher velocity. That's not a problem per se. For a range gun, I can see tweaking all sorts of things to make it fun to shoot. But for a combat weapon, I'm going to go with what is most reliable. On a related subject, it looks like the "standard" buffer for M4s is moving toward an H2 buffer. That makes sense. There's plenty of evidence that M4s run "faster" than CARs did, and the legendary M4 feed ramp is just one mod that has been needed to accommodate that. A heavier buffer will reduce the velocity of the carrier (in both directions), which is related to the reliability issues found in M4s. If it reduces cyclic rates by just a bit, it can also help the Soldier keep on target better. |
AR Sponsor