Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

AR-15 Lightweight Bolt Carrier. Good or Bad?

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by hk-sigman, Jan 24, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hk-sigman

    hk-sigman Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    56
    The complete upper that I just purchased came with a lightweight Colt Bolt carrier group. What are the benefits if any?
     
  2. HOLY DIVER

    HOLY DIVER Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,043
    Location:
    spartanburg,SC
    not sure. my competition H-BAR has the same bolt carrier as you speak of and it shoots great, so realy only thing i can think of is the rifle will cycle faster and i'm not sure if thats good or bad lol but my colt runs great so i don't worry about it
     
  3. Slamfire

    Slamfire Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    7,579
    Location:
    Alabama
    I see you have asked this question on AR15.com, maybe a bunch of other forums.

    Makers of lightweight carriers claim that it will increase the cyclical rate. A questionable advantage for a semi auto.

    I think a lightweight bolt carrier is a bad idea. A heavy bolt carrier is a positive. For AR’s, reducing dwell, by adding weight to the carrier is a desirable feature for reloaders.

    Increasing the mass of the carrier is also desirable as it improves function reliability. The best military rifles have high ratios of “carrier” weight compared with bolt weight. The more mass there is available to strip a round from the magazine and close the bolt, the more reliable the mechanism will be.

    The AK47 has a particularly high carrier to bolt weight ratio. I have not weighed my PTR91 bolt group, but it is no coincidence that the mass of the carrier is so high.

    The AR has never had the reputation of being as reliable as either of these rifles, adding a lightweight bolt carrier would be a step backwards for this design.

    In my opinion.
     
  4. briansmithwins

    briansmithwins Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,063
    You sure about that? I don't have the weights for the bolts separately but the complete bolt/bolt carrier assemblies are actually very close in weight.

    I do agree that sticking to the original design as close as possible is a good thing. BSW

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    Less reciprocating mass means you are back on your target faster. However, it also sacrifices some reliability as described above. The lightweight bolt carriers are popular in 3-gun for this.
     
  6. The_Hammer_Man

    The_Hammer_Man Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    +1 to the previous posts statement.

    The reliability issue can be somewhat mitigated by installing a heavy buffer. That will address the reliability issue but will also cause other problems.

    Personally IMHO the whole light weight bolt carrier thing is a solution looking for a problem.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page