In a recent post I was following buffer weight was indicated as a factor in reliability, less weight allowed underpowered loads to function. This got me thinking, I know that's dangerous but I can't help myself,if less weight works like that then will more weight let me use the new Hornaday superformance ammo? I really don't plan on it but want to make sure I understand how this all works.
I am also curios if a hydraulic buffer would be the way to go if I switch to an adjustable carbine stock. I have several younger kids that shoot the weapon regularly so length of pull and recoil are two important factors. I have a basic flat top AR-10, not the carbine but a 20 incher. Thanks for your time, Jim
In my experience, my rifle benefited from the heaviest heavy buffer I could find when switching to a collapsible stock. Done for the same reason, so my kids could shoot it. Since the time I performed the conversion to the collapsible stock, my kids and I have only ever had one failure to function with horrid turkish ammo. Everything else has run through it without a hitch. Unless that crap ammo becomes the last case of .308 on earth, I'm not adjusting my weapon to it.
Having said that, tuning the weapon by messing with buffer weights certainly does work but unfortunately there is no quantitative guideline for doing this. Like an eye exam, switch to a different buffer.. better or worse? now rinse, repeat until happy. as long as the buffer length works with whichever receiver extension you end up using, I can see great potential in finding that sweet spot for improved reliability.
Another factor to consider is over or under gassing. With most of the issues with our rifles being ammo-centric, settling on a buffer that covers the broadest range of ammo reliably, and adjusting gas to fine tune is my preferred method. It's cheaper than going through buffers.
As for hydraulic buffers, stay far, far, away. they don't last in an AR15 so I can't imagine them handling .308 carrier mass well at all.
It is an interesting topic, if I could afford to get enough of the various ammo on the market for testing purposes, I believe building a real world guide for determining ideal buffer mass for barrel length/ammo pressure/gas port size, would be greatly beneficial to the community...and way fun.
That's an interesting topic. Before my 10s got broke in they didn't like anything but 180 gr Rem CL-PSP. Now that I've got a few rounds through them they eat 168 and 150 gr just fine, but our mission is white tails at 100-250 yds, so we stock and shoot 180 gr.
I'm with 13fcolt about the hydraulic buffer; I don't think it's a particularly robust design.
Is the Superformance ammo going to be a problem? Their blurb implies that it's safe for semis, and the progressive powder scheme passes the smell test.
Charlie wrote: Is the Superformance ammo going to be a problem? Their blurb implies that it's safe for semis, and the progressive powder scheme passes the smell test. Charlie
I've read firsthand accounts on different gun boards saying it was an issue and about an even number saying it wasn't. I just used the example because they are at the max. There own sight says gas rifles under 20 inches may experience issue with it.
"Due to the longer duration of peak pressure produced by Superformance™, the post peak/declining port pressure at common carbine and mid-length gas port locations is still higher than that produced by standard propellant. This has a tendency to flood the system with a larger volume of gas, at a higher velocity, that tries to open the bolt of the gun too fast. It’s a timing issue. The cartridge case is still swollen from the application of pressure during firing while the gun is simultaneously trying to extract the cartridge case before it has had an opportunity to settle back to its original size, or more simply: the gun is still in the process or firing while it’s trying to extract the cartridge case.
www.hornady.com/ammunition/superformance...as-operated-firearms
"
This doesn't sound like a heavier buffer would matter, like the alternative 13fcolt mentioned, a gas/timing issue. That should mean an adjustable gas block could solve any issues with it, sound right?
One more reason I should have bit the bullet and bought a SASS from the start!
jtallen83 wrote: "Due to the longer duration of peak pressure produced by Superformance™, the post peak/declining port pressure at common carbine and mid-length gas port locations is still higher than that produced by standard propellant.
We're shooting fixed buttstock 10s with 20" 1:11 and 1:10 twist barrels. I'm not going to rush out and buy a case of Superformance ammo, but I'm interested.
OK, now I see the pressure graph that shows the different length systems. There isn't much difference at all for the rifle size gas system.
Looks like I'll be buying at least one box for a function test, those kind of numbers put the .308 right there with the 30-06, I like that!
The use of an adjustable gas block will correct many issues when it comes to cycling problems. Almost any gas block can be made adjustable with a simple set screw in the right place. .875 barrel, no problem, there are a few out there, but if you fail to find one you can use a .936 gas block, simply sleeve the gas port journal with a copper or brass sleeve.(of course machining capabilities are needed)
Also the best recoil spring to use is a AR-15 "Mil-Spec" spring, it hits right in the middle.
All content of this site is copyright 2003 - 2017 AR-10(T)™, AR-10™, are trademarks of ArmaLite, Inc.® AR10T.com is NOT endorsed or affiliated with ArmaLite, Inc.®
About AR10T.com
AR-10(T) is a community focused on rifles, optics, scopes, gear, accessories, and components used by the professional operator and skilled marksman. Enthusiasts, shooters, and gunsmiths alike contribute to our gallery, articles, and reviews Thank you for visiting!