I’m running a BCM 16" middy on an H1 carbine buffer. I’ve heard the Vltor A5 runs smoother than carbine, so would swapping my rifle buffered lower mimick how it would run on the A5 before I spend the money, or are the two just drastically different?
Reason being, I use the Magpul fixed carbine stock, and it will fit over an A5, so if it will run smoother on the A5 I might as well utilize that extra space in the buttstock.
Yes it would.
I find the two run quite close to each other in performance, both being much smoother and more forgiving than the carbine RE assembly. If you’re going to run the MagPul fixed length carbine stock, use the A5. The fixed length carbine stock uses the adjustment ridge to keep it from rotating
The Rifle and A5 are pretty similar, but the A5 buffer has the internal biasing spring, which improves cyclic consistency.
That’s true. I forgot about the internal spring. But for the most part, the OP should have an excellent idea of how the system would run.
I was unaware there was a bias spring inside the A5 buffer, I thought it was just a rifle spring and a shortened rifle weight buffer.
I’ll go out this afternoon and try the carbine and rifle lowers back to back (same triggers and grips) for the difference in shootability. I’m trying to keep the rifle lightweight (under 6.5 lbs) without sacrificing any reliability, but if it runs smoother and will only add a few ounces then it’s worth it.
Identical lowers with the same parts except carbine or rifle buffer. The only variable I can’t change between the two is the 5oz of weight between the stocks.
Couple hundred rounds of M193 ran 100% on both lowers. Shooting from offhand, kneeling, and prone.
Loading from bolt lock the carbine buffer chambers firmer, but CH slingshot loading takes less effort with the rifle.
Last shot BHO is definitely more noticeable with the rifle buffer than the carbine.
In recoil there is a slight but noticeable difference between the rifle’s heavy weight/light spring vs the carbine’s light weight/stiff spring.
The carbine just feels like it’s cycling faster and “snaps” the sights off target, while the rifle buffer “pulls” the sights off target. Hard to describe, I know.
I’d say the recoil force is about the same, but the rifle buffer just seems to spread it out more which for me translated to a little less movement of the sights.
So if I can get a rifle buffer type action in a carbine length with the A5 I think it’ll be a good setup.
The MagPul Fixed Length stock & A5 make for a good combo
I see they have a 6 or 7 position RE for the A5, and it looks like the detent channel starts at a different length from the endplate on each. Which RE is required for the FCS?
I see you have a spacer on your’s; is that to increase the LOP or to make it fit the RE?
Either the 6 or 7 position A5 RE will work with the FLCS. I used the 6 position as it has a shorter detent channel (what I call the ridge, for a lack of a better term) allowing for a longer increase in LOP. The spacer is there to increase the LOP and is not needed to make the stock otherwise fit. I will also be fitting the stock with a thicker buttpad
Not to derail this thread or hijack it, but there seems to be many knowledgeable users of the A5 system in here.
On a rifle length gas system (18") how does the A5 compare to a standard rifle buffer system in terms of felt recoil. I see a post that highlights its increased consistency, but wasn’t sure if a difference in recoil was noticeable.
I have an A5 system on all gas lengths except pistol: carbine, midlength, intermediate, and rifle. The A5 helped all of them. With the longer gas systems, the recoil is just a slight push as opposed to a jerk.