You don't need an H2 buffer with rifle gas & an AGB................just more mass to move.
A carbine buffer will give less mass & (somewhat) less felt recoil if that's what you desire.
MM
- Thread starter generalzip
- Start date
A carbine buffer will give less mass & (somewhat) less felt recoil if that's what you desire.
MM
The h2 isn’t for recoil. It’s to delay unlocking time so it’s less gassy. It works
So does adjusting the AGB with a lighter buffer....................& a lighter BCG if you choose.
The purpose of the AGB is to make it less "gassy", but most good rifle gas barrels are not gassy at all, compared to carbine or even mid-gas barrels. It's very rare to see an over gassed rifle length system.
I don't own a single rifle gas gun that has an H2 buffer out of 4-5 with that gas system. None unlock to soon either, none.
MM
The purpose of the AGB is to make it less "gassy", but most good rifle gas barrels are not gassy at all, compared to carbine or even mid-gas barrels. It's very rare to see an over gassed rifle length system.
I don't own a single rifle gas gun that has an H2 buffer out of 4-5 with that gas system. None unlock to soon either, none.
MM
I’ve tried AGB and lighter BCG. I found reliability to suffer. Glad that works for you. I prefer the slower impulse and increase reliability of the heavier buffer systems. Especially for mid length and carbine length systems.
I agree about shorter gas systems; as for AGB's, either with or w/o a lighter BCG, there are literally half or more of the shooters here that use some sort of gas mitigation.................either via gas blocks of with adjustable gas keys.
They just work.
They just have to be tuned correctly & mated to an appropriate buffer / spring.
MM
They just work.
They just have to be tuned correctly & mated to an appropriate buffer / spring.
MM
I have found that with the riflespeed.com tool less adjustable gas block, tuning for suppressed and un suppressed is not only easy but exemplary. It has made the whole correct setup question out of the equation. Ejection is so consistent i could probably collect my brass in a red solocup.
I have seen an appreciable improvement in the accuracy as well.
I have seen an appreciable improvement in the accuracy as well.
Last edited:
How long the CLE are taking for a complete Upper delivery?
That looks like a neat idea, but please explain to me how that functions or controls gas any better than an SLR, or one of many other good AGB's, other than it needs no tool to adjust. Or an RCA adjustable gas key?
MM
He can't, he got the hammer minutes after posting that.
For me, having had slr adjustable gas blocks, it allows me to change gas settings fast and easy. With the slr blocks, I couldn't remember how many clicks for each set-up and ended up just tuning it for the weakest ammo and leaving it there.
With this one, I marked where it runs suppressed with a circle around the number, and two lines bracketing the unsuppressed setting. So I can easily change settings and can fine tune if need be.
Now I can run it optimized, and do. Just in personal experience the others were nice to get it to run at one setting only. Not a big deal for some, for me it was enough of a convenience to switch all of them over. Now I use an adjustable gas block as I had envisioned I would.
@Rockfish Dave How does your profile says banned but you're posting? Are you immortal?
LOL, no. That popped up after one of the website updates... I just ignore the comments regarding it for the most part.
It isn't like I am exactly a prolific poster, but if I have something to contribute that might be of interest or assistance to others I share.
Been working more than shooting so I am back to visiting the forum again as a means to escape the doldrums....
Last edited:
That's how I always figured it. Your posts do contribute, so the "Banned" tag just means more people will read them.
That might explain why they tend to produce less velocity. But darn they shoot well and with most everythingThe 16" larue barrels are badly overgassed . . .
....
Gas port diameter is largely irrelevant with regard to relative muzzle velocity. The percentage of change in muzzle velocity with a change in the diameter of the gas port is so miniscule that it’s easily lost in the noise of other variables. The test data shown below will provide some insight into the subject matter.
Observations On The Velocities Obtained From A Direct Impingement Gas System AR-15
Compared To A “Single Shot” AR-15
Compared To A “Single Shot” AR-15
I conducted a simple test that consisted of a comparison of the velocities obtained from an AR-15 using the direct impingement gas system with a standard sized gas block, to that of the same barrel with no gas system at all; that is, I completely clamped-off the gas port, turning the AR-15 into a "single-shot" rifle.
The ammunition used in this test was hand-loaded 69 grain Sierra MatchKings. I fired three 10-shot strings of this ammunition in a row over an Oehler 35-P chronograph, with proof-screen technology. The center screen of the chronograph was positioned 21 feet from the muzzle. The test vehicle was a 16” barreled AR-15 with a carbine-length direct impingement gas system and a standard sized (0.75”) Larue Tactical low-profile gas block.
After firing the three 10-shot strings from the upper using the direct impingement system, I let the barrel cool and then removed the gas tube. Next, I removed the low profile gas block from the barrel, flipped it 180 degrees and reinstalled it on the barrel, thereby completely clamping off the gas port on the barrel. This gave me a single-shot AR-15 in which I had to manually load and eject each round using the charging handle, thus giving me the means to determine the amount of velocity that is lost due to the auto-loading function of the direct impingement gas system of the AR-15.
Following the same procedure as previously used, I fired three 10-shot strings of the same hand-loaded 69 grain Sierra MatchKings over the Oehler 35-P chronograph positioned 21 feet from the muzzle using the single-shot AR-15. The results are show in the table below.
As you can see in the table below, there was a small (but statistically significant) difference of 23 FPS (less than 1% of the muzzle velocity) between the grand averages of the velocities from the direct impingement gas system and the single-shot (gas port clamped-off) system.
Atmospheric Conditions
Temperature- 63 degrees F
Humidity - 34%
Barometric pressure – 30.20
Elevation - 960 feet above sea level
Skies – sunny, Jupiter aligned with Mars
....
@Molon beat me to it. I spun a gas block around once and chrono'd. I saw 10-15fps difference, and even that is a bit dubious considering the ES of the ammo I was using.
Thank you! I appreciate the informationGas port diameter is largely irrelevant with regard to relative muzzle velocity. The percentage of change in muzzle velocity with a change in the diameter of the gas port is so miniscule that it’s easily lost in the noise of other variables. The test data shown below will provide some insight into the subject matter.
Observations On The Velocities Obtained From A Direct Impingement Gas System AR-15
Compared To A “Single Shot” AR-15
I conducted a simple test that consisted of a comparison of the velocities obtained from an AR-15 using the direct impingement gas system with a standard sized gas block, to that of the same barrel with no gas system at all; that is, I completely clamped-off the gas port, turning the AR-15 into a "single-shot" rifle.
The ammunition used in this test was hand-loaded 69 grain Sierra MatchKings. I fired three 10-shot strings of this ammunition in a row over an Oehler 35-P chronograph, with proof-screen technology. The center screen of the chronograph was positioned 21 feet from the muzzle. The test vehicle was a 16” barreled AR-15 with a carbine-length direct impingement gas system and a standard sized (0.75”) Larue Tactical low-profile gas block.
After firing the three 10-shot strings from the upper using the direct impingement system, I let the barrel cool and then removed the gas tube. Next, I removed the low profile gas block from the barrel, flipped it 180 degrees and reinstalled it on the barrel, thereby completely clamping off the gas port on the barrel. This gave me a single-shot AR-15 in which I had to manually load and eject each round using the charging handle, thus giving me the means to determine the amount of velocity that is lost due to the auto-loading function of the direct impingement gas system of the AR-15.
Following the same procedure as previously used, I fired three 10-shot strings of the same hand-loaded 69 grain Sierra MatchKings over the Oehler 35-P chronograph positioned 21 feet from the muzzle using the single-shot AR-15. The results are show in the table below.
As you can see in the table below, there was a small (but statistically significant) difference of 23 FPS (less than 1% of the muzzle velocity) between the grand averages of the velocities from the direct impingement gas system and the single-shot (gas port clamped-off) system.
Atmospheric Conditions
Temperature- 63 degrees F
Humidity - 34%
Barometric pressure – 30.20
Elevation - 960 feet above sea level
Skies – sunny, Jupiter aligned with Mars
....
