I know we have tons of A5 threads, but I wanted to share my thoughts and experiences and throw out a poll on the topic. My eyes gloss over when the same three or four guys start talking mechanical tech stuff in every A5 thread, its just beyond my comprehension so that probably plays a factor. Regardless, this is where I’m at currently.
Pros:
Increased reliability, decreased parts wear, and maybe recoil mitigation - though it is VERY debatable how much of a real/perceived benefit any of this is for the vast majority of shooters
Increased tune-ability based on available buffer weights
Cons:
Shit availability - if you’re able to find everything in stock, its rarely all in the same place. The VLTOR tube doesn’t have as many positions as the BCM or Magpul, so the latter are preferred. However, BCM’s kit only comes with an A5-0, which is weird and somewhat pointless. The Springco Green SPring is also typically regarded as better, and again, is not sold in any kit that I’m aware of. On a good day, I’m ordering a buffer and tube from one place and the Springco from another. I’m pretty sure I’ve had to buy all three from separate vendors before. Then you add the castle nut and end plate, its just obnoxious.
Cost - piecing together all of the separate parts is probably around $125, at best. The BCM mil-spec kit is $57.95.
Extended OAL - not really a big deal in use, but my ARs are just barely too long to fit in the foam inside of my hard case, because of the A5.
Factory lower options - there are plenty of reasons for building your own lower, and I swap most stuff out of a standard LPK anyways. However, there are very few factory options with the A5 already installed and at least the BCM, from what I’ve seen, only comes with black furniture and a non-SOPMOD stock. I think there re even fewer complete rifles with them.
Proprietary parts - I’m all for spare parts, but if somehow you get caught with your pants down, most LGS will probably have standard carbine buffer parts on hand. Maybe they’ll have a rifle tube and spring, but the buffers themselves stay pretty scarce.
Bottom line, with few people shooting FA and a growing demand for minimalist gas port sizes, I just don’t see the increased performance as being worth it. Again, this has just been my experience. I haven’t removed my current two yet, so if I’m way off base on the pros side, I’m up for some knowledge, but I think the vast majority of solid-perofring guns out there use the standard system so I’m not sure tht there is anything that could be too convincing.
#4
SOLGW offers customizable lowers with A5 options. We also use the Sprinco green springs with those.
SOLGW allows you to choose many options for your lower. FCG, selectors, bolt catch, cerakote etc…
The A5 system is great in that it’s more forgiving and less sensitive to input.
I’m seeing a lot of this minimalist gas port stuff, but I don’t think it’s a solution to anything.
It’s nice to see more people paying attention to gas port math, but having your rifle on the ragged edge of working is a bad idea, IMO.
Let me give you another choice option for your poll… If building a rifle from scratch I would use A5 components again but I wouldn’t retrofit a rifle that is running good as is.
I always seem to build from the ground up, so I end up with a rifle that simply costs an extra few dollars in the end. Not the biggest deal when looking at $1000 or more builds. I buy most parts blemished from Vltor, so the costs difference remains minimal. As far as a rifle going down, its quicker to go grab another rifle from the safe than parts from a store, and I’ll just place an order online. Availability is it’s own issue, but is getting better.
I agree with your concerns over A5 and accept your viewpoint as perfectly valid from the end user perspective. My biggest complaint about A5 is using non-standard buffer tube and buffer. I’m not too concerned about A5 availability as you can almost always can find it in stock nowadays at Midway, BCM, SOLGW, and VLTOR itself. Price-wise it’s not really an issue long term as it will probably cost an extra $20-40 realistically speaking.
Another HUGE Question for me is why VLTOR never offered a spacer for their tube? I would love to get one to be able to switch between A5 and a regular spring/buffer.
From the reliability perspective I’m extremely happy with A5. I don’t think it’s worth switching good quality mil-spec buffer tube to A5 unless there is a very specific use/purpose for it. However, for stripped lowers I don’t see a downside except for keeping different parts.
On the other side of the spectrum I would say that Geissele 42 which is highly popular now is really not worth it (at least for me) as it also adds two proprietary components with questionable benefit/value over a milp-spec spring and buffer of proper weight.
A5 works great for me. I have two identical 11.5 SBRs, one with and one without an A4 system. Clear difference between the two rifles. Now both of them have an A5.
Not to sidetrack but the “minimalist” gas port thing is for people who shoot mil-spec vs shit ammo. I’m far from an ammo snob but I don’t buy shitty Wolf or Tula unless its for an AK. My AR’s get 5.56 NATO pressure loads. The trend of barrel makers to make over-gassed guns is for the cheap-asses and their shit ammo. If that’s what you want to shoot, fine. But for those who prefer to use 5.56 NATO it would be nice to see a choice in port sizes given by the major manufacturers. To make barrels for the masses has been done for quite some time, but I’d prefer one made for mil-spec ammo. I believe some barrel manufacturers (or their end-buyers) have spec’d tighter gas ports for the more discriminating ammo users, and that is good to see. I hope that trend continues, with port sizes for both mil-spec as well as shit ammo.
Daniel Defense went from a 0.076 to a 0.069 on their 11.5" barrels and thats still aways from a minimalist or right on the ragged edge. Its probably damn near a perfect size gas port for the 11.5"
I’m very happy with the A5 performance but I consider it an enhancement rather than a must have.
IMHO - nothing wrong with the Russian Tula/Wolf or any foreign ammo manufacturer. People know what they are buying and typically are fine with it. These are not a premium brands and never positioned themselves as such.
In my experience Russian/Ukranian/other former Soviet block steel cased ammo is more reliable and consistent (much better in fact) than any and all US re-manufactured brass ammo which are often touted as an alternative.
SOLGW has A5 kits where you can choose what buffer weight you want. I got one on sale for $100 as a present for someone else (he’s very happy with it for his 12.5" Kino build). When I was shopping for A5 parts for a rifle of mine (which, admittedly was already running perfectly) I had to piece together a BCM extension, sprinco spring, and A5 weight from two or three different places, and the whole thing cost me like $155.
Mike, if you’re reading this… please don’t stop selling those A5 kits!
I never got into them, didn’t see a need to. Like ED’s thread, just go shoot what you have and don’t fret over the latest whiz bang waazoo. A lot of this stuff reminds me of a buddy who tried getting me into 1911’s. He said the best gun ever as long as they run, two rounds later his fell apart. Point is, people fiddle puck with their guns until they no longer work and wonder why.
I have one A5H2 set up on a rifle, and I like the idea of the rifle spring and buffer weight. I am just not skilled/practiced enough to take advantage of any performance benefit the A5 system offers or my upper does not let it shine.
I am good with buying carbine extensions with H2 buffers and spending the savings on ammo/reloading components.
It’s not always about the immediate moment. I think it’s important to keep the long game in mind with regards to AR builds. That strategy says the A5 is the better more reliable choice, along with the other improvements that have been noted above. I’ve ran both side by side and the results spoke clearly to me. I do understand the mantra of “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” But if in the process of “fixing”, I can improve the performance and reliability of the weapon, which has a direct impact on longevity, then it’s an acceptable fix, it’s a win-win.
You can still watch the movie”10” on a VHS player, but I think most of us (who know what that movie is) would prefer it in high def streaming or Blu-Ray version.
So after swapping out my carbine systems with A5’s, every AR continued to run, just better in my opinion, as my experience had proven to me.
But to the chief complaint…Even if I have to shop 2-3 stores to source the parts, that’s no reason to turn away from something I view as a bona fide improvement. Maybe if I was used to buying all my rifle parts at single source, like BCM,I would find a reason to complain, but I don’t and so I won’t.
Have you tested with roughly equivalent weight buffers, A5 vs carbine? As in A5H1 vs H2?
I think there is some validity to this
I think there’s something to this.
All,
I am in the planning phase of conducting a scientifically controlled, single blinded study on this subject, and have been for several months. I have access to alumni of 3/75RR, SMU unit members, a professional scientist, and some Reserve/Guard Soldiers. I wish to compare A5 vs carbine based systems vs modified carbine based systems that use a biasing spring, measured objectively using a shot timer, eliminating as many variables possible.
Limiting factors include time available and endless schedule conflicts. I’m not sure 100% if or when I will complete this project. Also, N will be limited, and will be a snapshot of individual participants. But, I’m trying to make it happen.
My hypothesis is that the A5 results can be reproduced without the A5 RE.
The A5 is worth it if you have a need for it: 1.) If you’re trying to run a collapsible stock on a rifle gas system, 2.) If you have an over-gassed system that a standard buffer weight can’t help, 3.) If you like to fiddle-**** with your guns.
Some will fall into category 2, most will probably fall into category 3 who should probably look into a different gas system (midlength, intermediate) or a different gas porting instead and solve the problem at it’s root.
