H buffer and springco spring
Has anybody tried the Tubbs flatwire spring? They advertize it as working equally well in carbine and rifle length buffer systems. I am looking to use it in an A5 setup, but have not decided for sure if it’s really any better than a standard rifle length spring. I called and they claim it works great in the A5, of course they are selling the spring so I didn’t expect a different answer. Just curious if anyone has used this spring.
Yes. I’ve used the AR15 version and the AR10 version in my A5 system. I’m currently using, and so far prefer, the AR10 version of the spring.
Can you elaborate a little on why you like the AR-10 version more? Also, which buffer weight, what uppers you run it with, etc. Thanks!
I’ve posted in other threads as well. It’s more linear than any other A5 spring. After about 50 rounds, it’s about the same overall strength as a sprinco green. Gun movement is reduced and the difference between strong 5.56 pressure ammo and weak .223 pressure ammo (pmc bronze, et al) is less noticeable.
I run it with an A5H4 buffer and an 18" Faxon Firearms gunner profile barrel and an adjustable Ti gas block from SLR Rifleworks.
Sir,
Is there a specific reason you are running the A5H4 as opposed to a lighter buffer with your AGB?
Is it a balance issue with the 18" barrel?
I only ask because my limited research has suggested that one of the many advantages of the AGB is that it allows a lighter buffer to be used.
Thanks
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The benefit of an adjustable gas block is to match gas drive to the buffer and spring combo, resulting in optimum cyclic velocity and operation.
The goal is generally not to lighten the buffer, with notable exceptions for competition or extreme lightweight purposes.
Many users here have experienced and understand the operational benefits of heavier spring biased buffers like the A5.
Clint nailed it.
I actually run the SAME gas setting on the gas block as I did on a lighter spring and A5H1 buffer. The gun rubs best with heavier A5 buffers. I’ve found that, as Clint noted, most guns run best with an A5H2 or heavier buffer in terms of overall recoil pulse, gun movement, and sight tracking.
Thanks. Appreciate it.
I was always under the belief that it is optimal to run the heaviest buffer possible, just as long as there are no issues cycling, extracting etc…nothing wrong with trial and error with different weights. Another reason I like some of the buffers from Spikes as they have tweener sized buffers.
Many, unknowingly, haven’t made preferable decisions that aren’t at any fault of their own as they do not have or have had access to studies of the M16 FOW. Compare and contrast the 20" rifle gas 5.56 vs a slightly lower case capacity for the same bore, or a 5.56 case capacity with a slightly larger bore, think .222. The components can work in more of a harmony that requires a reduced effort, less stress on parts. The timing of events can come together much better. Increasing the 20" rifle case capacity to 5.56 from .222 takes the timing of events from close to ideal to a margin that reduces it some, but not huge.
Enter the carbine, or anything less than the 20" rifle gas sample. The timing of the events change, those changes are a reduction in time, but are not equal for all of them. That basically means that all the items the system does has lost some of the balance it could have had. The problem is how to restore, at least some of the balance when making a carbine out of a rifle that was made on the “outer edge” of operation. To help some of the timing issues sometimes gas port distance has been extended from the bolt face farther than the traditional “carbine length”, that delay can improve the timing, but you can obviously see that too long can reduce the span of function. Another alternative is to try to mimic the timing during cycling of the 20" rifle gas with a balance of action weight and spring. In the balance of weight and spring, to help improve timing, a carbine would need more weight and less spring. Unfortunately, most manufacturers have gone the opposite direction using the carbine action spring with less mass, that may not be the best direction. There are timing issues that have the potential to improve the timing issues. Cam tracking in the carriers can have a huge influence on timing of certain things, the problem is that few options are available. So, to keep things in time as much as possible, knowing that it is a compromise, how would an end user bring things back into the balance, or towards it at least? There are a few commercially available items that can help get you closer timing, but it won’t get you there, even in a 20" barrel, but it is much better than what is offered normally. Action weights really need to be higher in general, but there is a limit in this system as other functions like resetting the hammer and stripping a round, etc all take work and their work shouldn’t detract from the operation as a system.
I use “twist ties” to experiment with buffer spring tension by collapsing them. Some guys cut but I temporarily shoot with this set-up for trouble shooting.
I would hesitate on that method. The induced stress on the spring could have negative results for an end product.
I use a Tubbs Precision AR15 buffer spring, and a H3 buffer. I have used this set up in every AR15 that I have owned, and it really smooth`s out the rifle and reduces the recoil, what little there is.
I’m not opposed to the flat wire concept, but I’m less than convinced from their CS springs. I’ve heard that some newer ones may be 17-7, but I haven’t checked them out. Maybe there is a chance in improvement there, but it’s an unknown for now.