AR Sponsor
Posted: 11/8/2012 12:00:15 AM EDT
|
Hey all. Pretty new to the forum here. I am actually just posting to get some input form all of you.
I just purchased 2 7075 T6 Mil Spec Receiver extension kits from BCM for my 2 Windham HBCs. I upgraded the kits to H2 buffers. The Windhams are 16" Barrels with carbine length gas systems. I appologize in advance, as I know there have been many threads covering this, but I just wanted to post my specific scenario to see what you guys have to say about it. My who purpose behind these upgrades is to make my defensive/contingincy rifles even more robust and reliable. I want to be sure that the H2 buffers with my setup will not be too heavy and cause short stroking with some of the 55gr. .223 Rem loads popular for target shooting. I have read that many people use H2 buffers even with Middys and have no problems with the cycling of the lighter .223 rounds. I did also pick up 2 H Carbine buffers as a backup, as well as to use with a couple of BCM 16" Mid Length Uppers that I plan on getting in the future (if they are ever back in stock after yesterday...) I'm just looking to get an even softer felt recoil, while keeping the action closed longer which will hopefully keep my weapon cleaner longer, and put less stress on the Extractor AND cycle properly and reliably EVERY shot. Thanks again guys, and I appologies for the redundant rant. Take care. |
|
Quoted: personally most piss away money on this board for high speed buffers that don't do that much for them in a semi rifle.My who purpose behind these upgrades is to make my defensive/contingincy rifles even more robust and reliable. No most people that get them heard someone talking about it with a suppressor/ and or F/a and think their rifle needs one as well I want to be sure that the H2 buffers with my setup will not be too heavy and cause short stroking with some of the 55gr. . I'm just looking to get an even softer felt recoil, while keeping the action closed longer which will hopefully keep my weapon cleaner longer, and put less stress on the Extractor AND cycle properly and reliably EVERY shot. Thanks again guys, and I appologies for the redundant rant. Take care. They only way to know if the h2s will work will be to shoot it in YOUR rifle good luck on the cleaner part  |
|
personally most piss away money on this board for high speed buffers that don't do that much for them in a semi rifle.
They only way to know if the H2s will work will be to shoot it in YOUR rifle You may have "upgraded" your buffer, you may have downgraded it. Only range time will tell. |
| Alot of smart people and experience came up with the standard buffer weights. Usually, unless something is out of spec... Changing the buffer isnt needed. From now on i would recommend you use the proper buffer for your build, and then only swap out if you are having problems and are troubleshooting or trying to correct them. In the meantime shoot them and see. Unfortunately on the reliability scale you likely went down because you really dont know what it will do at this point... They may or may not work.... Shoot it with a variety of ammo until you have shot enough to feel comfy... |
|
This comes up all time and the answer is always the same....
Each rifle is an individual and no amount of internet guessing will tell you with certainty which buffer weight will work best. Manufacturers ship weapons with standard buffers because they offer the highest degree of functionality with cheap, low-powered ammo (.223). |
|
Quoted:
Hey all. Pretty new to the forum here. I am actually just posting to get some input form all of you. I just purchased 2 7075 T6 Mil Spec Receiver extension kits from BCM for my 2 Windham HBCs. I upgraded the kits to H2 buffers. The Windhams are 16" Barrels with carbine length gas systems. I appologize in advance, as I know there have been many threads covering this, but I just wanted to post my specific scenario to see what you guys have to say about it. My who purpose behind these upgrades is to make my defensive/contingincy rifles even more robust and reliable. I want to be sure that the H2 buffers with my setup will not be too heavy and cause short stroking with some of the 55gr. .223 Rem loads popular for target shooting. I have read that many people use H2 buffers even with Middys and have no problems with the cycling of the lighter .223 rounds. I did also pick up 2 H Carbine buffers as a backup, as well as to use with a couple of BCM 16" Mid Length Uppers that I plan on getting in the future (if they are ever back in stock after yesterday...) I'm just looking to get an even softer felt recoil, while keeping the action closed longer which will hopefully keep my weapon cleaner longer, and put less stress on the Extractor AND cycle properly and reliably EVERY shot. Thanks again guys, and I appologies for the redundant rant. Take care. What leads you to believe your rifle will be more reliable by changing the commercial receiver extension to a mil-spec RE? There is no proof of this. Of course, commercial REs are so un-tacti-cool 
As for the buffers, dunno, try 'em in your rifles with the weakest ammo you have. Since they can be swapped in the field in about 30 seconds each, take all your buffers along to the range and try them out. Joe |
|
Quoted: What leads you to believe your rifle will be more reliable by changing the commercial receiver extension to a mil-spec RE? There is no proof of this. Of course, commercial REs are so un-tacti-cool there is nwbi, and a mil spec extension is better in this case |
|
Well, thanks for the responses guys. I feel I should itterate, I will have Carbine, H, and H2 buffers, so if something does not quite cycle right, I can reduce the buffer weight incrementally. I also have no quams at all the Commercial reciever extensions. A big reason I purchesed the Mil-Spec ones from BCM was because I really enjoy working on guns, and I have been wanting to get a nice stock of all kinds of spare parts for mine. I figured if I was going to get spare parts, I may as well get my additional reviever extensions in 7075 T6 aluminum, rather than 6061 T6. I am by no means "tacti-cool". Mall ninjas actually annoy me a lot.
My purpose of asking the question is given a set configuration and knowing the the gas ports are pretty close to what most would call a standard, I figured I'd get more chimes in with other peoples personal experiences with similar configurations. Not vaugue, generalized responses. Though I do appreciate the time you guys took to respond. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
What leads you to believe your rifle will be more reliable by changing the commercial receiver extension to a mil-spec RE? There is no proof of this. Of course, commercial REs are so un-tacti-cool
there is nwbi, and a mil spec extension is better in this case What is "nwbi"? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What leads you to believe your rifle will be more reliable by changing the commercial receiver extension to a mil-spec RE? There is no proof of this. Of course, commercial REs are so un-tacti-cool
there is nwbi, and a mil spec extension is better in this case What is "nwbi"?[/quotit's called a typo, should have been "newbie" |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What leads you to believe your rifle will be more reliable by changing the commercial receiver extension to a mil-spec RE? There is no proof of this. Of course, commercial REs are so un-tacti-cool
there is nwbi, and a mil spec extension is better in this case What is "nwbi"?[/quotit's called a typo, should have been "newbie" It's called relax. I assumed it meant something, as I try to maintain hope that this forum stays civil with no petty name calling...I'm waiting for that day...people's irritation level seems pretty high here on arf.com |
|
Quoted: It wasn't name calling, I was pointing out the fact that most of the It's called relax. I assumed it meant something, as I try to maintain hope that this forum stays civil with no petty name calling...I'm waiting for that day...people's irritation level seems pretty high here on arf.com "nwbis" from this year will spout out info and be completely wrong. Reference about a hundred threads in the first few pages to prove the point. Ie you need to read/study a lot more mil spec is better than commercial in this case |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It wasn't name calling, I was pointing out the fact that most of the "nwbis" from this year will spout out info and be completely wrong. Reference about a hundred threads in the first few pages to prove the point. Ie you need to read/study a lot more
It's called relax. I assumed it meant something, as I try to maintain hope that this forum stays civil with no petty name calling...I'm waiting for that day...people's irritation level seems pretty high here on arf.com mil spec is better than commercial in this case Yup :) Higher carbon content = stronger threads :) GTG |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It wasn't name calling, I was pointing out the fact that most of the "nwbis" from this year will spout out info and be completely wrong. Reference about a hundred threads in the first few pages to prove the point. Ie you need to read/study a lot more
It's called relax. I assumed it meant something, as I try to maintain hope that this forum stays civil with no petty name calling...I'm waiting for that day...people's irritation level seems pretty high here on arf.com mil spec is better than commercial in this case Yup :) Higher carbon unobtanium content = stronger threads :) GTG |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
What leads you to believe your rifle will be more reliable by changing the commercial receiver extension to a mil-spec RE? There is no proof of this. Of course, commercial REs are so un-tacti-cool
there is nwbi, and a mil spec extension is better in this case Link to the proof please. Inquiring minds want to know. |
AR Sponsor