if it's an "H" buffer it should say "H" on the face of it. Advice on which buffer to use should have been based on the gas system length and port size etc. Did I miss that in your posts above? Maybe you need an H2 or H3 or just a normal carbine buffer.
What makes an AR by Colt or FN any better than the AR kit I ordered?
- Thread starter Tallbald
- Start date
- Status
if it's an "H" buffer it should say "H" on the face of it. Advice on which buffer to use should have been based on the gas system length and port size etc. Did I miss that in your posts above? Maybe you need an H2 or H3 or just a normal carbine buffer.
Hokie_PhD
Member
Congrats
Post some pics
Many of us never get tired of pics
Post some pics
Many of us never get tired of pics
After testing various buffers with an adjustable gas block equipped upper, I've found that especially for short barreled ARs, CAR buffers are just too light. Even when the gas flow is right.
PSA kits come with CAR buffers.
WestKentucky
Member
Colt and others are no different than the other ARs. They should be, and could be, but they aren’t. The military contracts should mean that they are producing a high quality weapon with very few differences between the war machine and the beer can hole poker. In reality the parts are all contracted out to various vendors. The various vendors also make parts for the other companies, so the parts end up being the same. As far as the military machinery I believe that the manufacturer has to at least finish the “machine gun” aka lower receiver in house, so they buy forgings from the same guys who make their AR lowers and finish the parts themselves. The only difference you can possibly see is between a billet lower and a forged lower. For 99% of civilian purposes they are the same. For hard use games the billet is likely stronger and may take more abuse before cracking. You do pay a premium for billet. You don’t necessarily get a billet part just because it’s from the big name shops.
WestKentucky
Member
All depends on gas flow. My 7.5” gun was over gassed, I scooted my gas block forward ever so slightly until the port was partially blocked. Who needs an adjustable gas block, right?
Things have changed in the AR-15 market. There are now a pile of manufacturers compared to a decade or two ago. There are many good ARs, some basic, some intermediate and some upper tier with hefty price tags. But for a good while Colt have been the bench mark in that their rifles/carbines had all the basic features and QC. Things like barrels coated before front sight installed, staked gas keys etc etc. You could or can buy a perfectly good functioning arm for less, but many of these features are absent. How important they are depend on the desires of the user.
do you have proof of any of that?
the parts that are likely true are that colt subcontracts parts out to various manufacturers. the part that is misleading is that that in any way implies they are the same. it is likely the opposite. even if a given part comes off the same assembly line, if it goes to colt, it may be subjected to expensive testing and QC, that it doesn't get if it goes to a commercial product that doesn't advertise meeting any standard. worse, if a batch of parts is "good enough to shoot safely" but doesn't pass some technicality on the mil spec testing, it may still be sold in the commercial guns.
very few people need an adjustable gas block. but most people do need a gas block that is properly assembled. typically that means pinning it or at a minimum putting a screw into a dimple in the barrel, neither of which are conducive to "scooting". seriously, i hope you're joking.
Skylerbone
Member
@Tallbald, as a toolmaker you’d be familiar with specs. Imagine everything from materials to dimensions to assembly to hardening and coatings as variables that are “adjusted” by AR builders.
Some of these like the series of aluminum used in a lower are huge selling points but don’t matter as much as the spring material chosen for the parts kit. Imagine the magazine falls free because the spring tensioning the catch was 1/5th of a cent cheaper than milspec called for. NOW you could care less about doubling the shear strength using a 7075 lower because the rifle don’t work.
I used to think it was snobbery and at times you’ll see it is when it comes to owners, but that in no way makes the rifle any less capable, which is to say more worthy of consideration for a weapon of war. Milspec simply means the parts were (should be) built to survive X number of cycles or stress or rounds between maintenance.
I have enough faith in certain brands as to believe they would acquit themselves well vs a Colt or FN, but brands like these will always protect themselves from the pitfalls of cutting corners to reach a price point and that peace of mind can be very reassuring.
Some of these like the series of aluminum used in a lower are huge selling points but don’t matter as much as the spring material chosen for the parts kit. Imagine the magazine falls free because the spring tensioning the catch was 1/5th of a cent cheaper than milspec called for. NOW you could care less about doubling the shear strength using a 7075 lower because the rifle don’t work.
I used to think it was snobbery and at times you’ll see it is when it comes to owners, but that in no way makes the rifle any less capable, which is to say more worthy of consideration for a weapon of war. Milspec simply means the parts were (should be) built to survive X number of cycles or stress or rounds between maintenance.
I have enough faith in certain brands as to believe they would acquit themselves well vs a Colt or FN, but brands like these will always protect themselves from the pitfalls of cutting corners to reach a price point and that peace of mind can be very reassuring.
WestKentucky
Member
You are correct that there may be additional testing, but if I test a product coming off of the production line to prove it to be in spec, then why would anyone expect the next run of parts to suddenly not be in spec? A different rollmark or a different inked stamp changes nothing. Don’t forget that specs are generally checked as a small sample of the lot. So if they check a bolt to be the proper hardness and all samples prove good, then why would they change things? They wouldn’t, they would standardize the process which makes good parts. And no, I’m not so naive to think that factory seconds don’t get run into the market, but with all of the current rave over buying blems I don’t think anybody would realistically mark a part and sell it differently other than saying it’s a usable but blemished part. Too much liability to sell parts that are unsatisfactory in function. I do very much believe that these useful but imperfect parts go into the PSA kits and the like.
And my pistol barrel came without dimple. I assembled and tested, found the gas to be a bit much. Took a measurement from the flash hider to the face of the gas block, scooted forward about .005 until it was about right with factory ammo. Then I torqued down the gas block tighter to positively mark the location, verified that with witness marks in chalk on the rear of the gas block, pulled it back apart and used a punch and then drill press to dimple the barrel for the set screw.
Then it uses a pistol length gas system which taps into the gas where pressure is even higher. This means it's even more important to replace the CAR buffer with an H buffer. If the barrel is over gassed, going to an even heavier won't fix the problem (although it wouldn't hurt to use an H2 instead of an H). The only way to fix an over gassed AR is to reduce gas flow.
One thing that's different is documentation and certification. Parts used to fulfill government contract must have the processes and QA checks documented and certified. No parts or assemblies without proper paperwork is milspec, even if they are made exactly like a documented milspec part.
If documented milspec parts are found to be substandard, it can lead to fines, loss of contract and possible prosecution.[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
Seriously?
Because there are hundreds of things that could change. Your lot of raw steel or aluminum may not be in spec. Some machine may have worked its way out of adjustment. You wouldn’t know til you start getting customer complaints. This illustrates the difference in mil spec and not milspec. Milspec requires every bolt to be tested. Commercial bolts may be batch tested. But hey for those of you who think once a part came off the line that passed the test that all subsequent parts will too, so no sense in testing anymore ... we can save you a few dollars.
WestKentucky
Member
You have a few good points there, but it still doesn’t work. Even if the manufacturer makes one massive production run to make 2000 military parts and 2000 civilian parts, only the 2000 military parts will be subjected to the various testing and certification criteria unless the company just likes to bleed labor dollars for doing those processes on civilian parts.
But still, an AR15 is not a military weapon. It is a civilian version of a military weapon. Most companies selling “AR15” parts as milspec are intentionally misleading the customer. They typically are not milspec if they are sold to the general public. The process/part/inspection/ may conform to military specifications, but they truthfully aren’t...usually. A few of the interchangeable parts may be over-runs of a milspec contract, but logic dictates that they would put these back to fill future orders rather than go through the expensive processes again just because they want to sell a premium product for a sub-premium price. If I could buy a legit colt m4 or m16 I would expect the parts to all be milspec as I would be buying an honest to goodness military grade weapon. But a LE6920 is NOT an m4 nor is it an m16. The receiver is different. The trigger group is different. The barrels are different, THEY ARE NOT MIL PARTS.
But still, an AR15 is not a military weapon. It is a civilian version of a military weapon. Most companies selling “AR15” parts as milspec are intentionally misleading the customer. They typically are not milspec if they are sold to the general public. The process/part/inspection/ may conform to military specifications, but they truthfully aren’t...usually. A few of the interchangeable parts may be over-runs of a milspec contract, but logic dictates that they would put these back to fill future orders rather than go through the expensive processes again just because they want to sell a premium product for a sub-premium price. If I could buy a legit colt m4 or m16 I would expect the parts to all be milspec as I would be buying an honest to goodness military grade weapon. But a LE6920 is NOT an m4 nor is it an m16. The receiver is different. The trigger group is different. The barrels are different, THEY ARE NOT MIL PARTS.
Not really. I found that in short barrels, minimum gas flow for full function with a CAR, H & H2 buffer is the same. The difference is the CAR buffer results in sharper recoil than the H. The H buffer will soften recoil. The H2 buffer is softer still, but can sometimes feel sluggish. Right now, I'm running an H2 buffer in a suppressed shorty and it's real soft. The H3 buffer starts pushing the AR around as it cycles due to the extra weight. If something as heavy as an H3 buffer is desired, it's usually better to switch to an A5 RE and A5H2 buffer, which is the same weight as the H3 (and rifle) buffer. But the longer rifle spring used in the A5 does something to how it feels during recoil. It feels even better.
However, all of this is beyond TBs experience level. In order for him to test the differences in buffer weights, he'd need to set up an upper with an adjustable gas system and test all three buffers, a significant investment in money and time. By the time he reads this far, his head will be spinning. The best approach to to Keep It Simple Slick. We do that by replacing the underweight CAR buffer with the standard weight H buffer and go shoot. If it turns out the buffer is still "too light" we know it's gas flow and will address that issue if and when it arises. But first, TB needs to focus on getting his AR assembled and out to the range.
ColoradoMinuteMan
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2015
- Messages
- 702
The reality is that is all comes down to consistency, driven by QA. Many manufactures source parts from similar sources, or manufacture to similar specs. A given example of one of these manufactured parts may be flawless, or it may have defects. What will set a manufacture apart will be what level of QA they utilize to ensure that defects don't get into the hands of the consumer.
Some believe that those that come from Colt, Daniel Defense BCM, etc. may have more detailed and sustained QA processes than others. An example of this is a complete PSA upper that I bought. I tried to pin it into a PSA lower that I had, and the takedown pin was too tight to push it into battery without a rubber mallet. It had the same issue with every lower I tried it on. I took the upper off of my M&P and it snapped right into every lower I had. That doesn't mean that everything PSA is a piece of garbage, it just means that their QA process didn't catch it. I don't expect their QA to be as good as BCM or Colt, because it costs 2/3 to 1/2 the price of similar uppers from those manufactures. They have to find a way to reduce margins, and one way they can do it is by letting the consumers do part of their QA work. I don't take it personally or beat up on PSA for it, I just know what to expect when I purchase something at a "value" price.
It really doesn't mean that Colt's manufacturing process is any better or that individual parts are better, it can simply be that they have found ways to cut the most expensive cost input to any process, and that is labor. Anyway, I have 0 first hand knowledge of various manufactures QA processes, but I do know that PSA has to find it's margin somewhere and i'd be willing to bet that most of it is in labor.
Consistency counts for a lot, and often people are often driven towards consistency. Take McDonald's as case study. They are the best selling burger in the world and it isn't because they make the burgers. It's because for the most part, people who go to McDonald's know what to expect.
Some believe that those that come from Colt, Daniel Defense BCM, etc. may have more detailed and sustained QA processes than others. An example of this is a complete PSA upper that I bought. I tried to pin it into a PSA lower that I had, and the takedown pin was too tight to push it into battery without a rubber mallet. It had the same issue with every lower I tried it on. I took the upper off of my M&P and it snapped right into every lower I had. That doesn't mean that everything PSA is a piece of garbage, it just means that their QA process didn't catch it. I don't expect their QA to be as good as BCM or Colt, because it costs 2/3 to 1/2 the price of similar uppers from those manufactures. They have to find a way to reduce margins, and one way they can do it is by letting the consumers do part of their QA work. I don't take it personally or beat up on PSA for it, I just know what to expect when I purchase something at a "value" price.
It really doesn't mean that Colt's manufacturing process is any better or that individual parts are better, it can simply be that they have found ways to cut the most expensive cost input to any process, and that is labor. Anyway, I have 0 first hand knowledge of various manufactures QA processes, but I do know that PSA has to find it's margin somewhere and i'd be willing to bet that most of it is in labor.
Consistency counts for a lot, and often people are often driven towards consistency. Take McDonald's as case study. They are the best selling burger in the world and it isn't because they make the burgers. It's because for the most part, people who go to McDonald's know what to expect.
generally, we are talking about ARs that do not have adjustable gas blocks, because the vast majority of ARs do not. My guess is not even 1% of ARs worldwide have adjustable gas blocks. It might be nice to reduce the gas flow, but that is not an option for many users.
The purpose of the heavier buffer, which will solve the problem for most over gassed ARs, is to delay the unlocking of the bolt until chamber pressure has reduced to the point that extraction is more reliable. The change in the feel of recoil to the user may be a good or bad side effect depending on preference.
My suppressed shorty needed an H2. It was not as reliable with just the H. When I added the folding stock mechanism, I switched back to the carbine buffer.
Mosin Bubba
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,936
Batch testing's not necessarily a bad thing - or rather, it's not as bad as you'd think. You can generate a very accurate distribution of the process you're looking at from a surprisingly small sample.
The math changes depending on the details, but testing some IC chips at work, we are regularly able to get accurate 3-sigma data on a lot of hundreds of chips from testing a few dozen samples, and our sample numbers hold up when we look at our clients' verification tests and our parts' return rate from real world use. Basically, we can determine whether 99.7% of our parts are in spec using a batch test for a tiny fraction of the cost of Colt-style QC - and if the max and min are well inside the spec limits, there's reason to think that the other 0.3% of parts will work too.
Of course, if you're asking some troops to put their lives on the line for you, they deserve a little better than "the math says that 99.7% of your rifles should work", and that's why you have Colt doing what they do. But if you look at the QC of the millions of AR bolts out there in civilian hands, you're not seeing a lot of failures either.
Last edited:
Inspectors do NOT control quality. All they can do is assure the part is quality. The people actually manufacturing the parts and assemblies and the processes they use, control quality.
If a company cannot afford to control quality and processes, they certainly won't be able to afford their reject rate.
If a company cannot afford to control quality and processes, they certainly won't be able to afford their reject rate.
Last edited:
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,891
Can anybody link the hammer spring testing protocol Colt and FN use for each and every mil-spec hammer spring they install?
cougar1717
Member
Many people get caught up in the "mil spec" argument concerning the AR-15 when it comes to manufacturers with government contracts making commercial firearms vs manufacturers without government contracts. People who purchase firearms from manufacturers with government contracts generally do receive a firearm that is well made and you can reference any "chart" discussions, ad nauseum.
As others have pointed out, even the "mil spec" commercial rifles must have 16+ inch barrels, semi-auto in lieu of select fire, and advertise the minutiae of testings, peenings, where is it chromed, and my personal favorite - the hilariously ridiculous argument over 158 Carpenter steel bolts (flame away - haha)
We must remember that manufacturers making firearms for government contracts are making them to be run specifically for select fire. The commercial only firearms are NOT made for select fire. Dare I say that there are mil spec features that are not necessary when only semi-auto is used? Dare I say that I personally prefer many features that are not mil spec as the AR-15 has evolved?
These would include things like:
Free floating handguards for various shooting techniques, slimmer profile and weight reduction (over 4-rail insert picatinny handguards with rail covers), and accessory attachments
Stainless or nitrided barrels for better accuracy (even if it gives up some longevity)
Twists other than 1:7
Wylde chambers for better accuracy over 5.56mm
Light and crisp aftermarket triggers other than the few trigger manufacturers who have government contracts
Mid length gas systems
Adjustable gas blocks
Calibers other than 5.56mm that need adjustable gas blocks - haha
Non-mil-spec bolts, utilizing newer alloys and lug designs
Bolt and BCG coatings and finishes, like NTFE or nitride
Silent capture buffer springs for those who dislike hearing SPROOOIIINNGG
Muzzle devices other than A2 birdcage
Etc.
The features available in today's commercial AR make it a beast in comparison with some of the rifles available when the floodgates of the commercial market opened up in 2004.
Don't misunderstand, I am not picking on the 6920, the FN15, or the like. They are advertised and made to be of the same quality as the select fire rifles. It's just when compared with the state of the AR-t 15's (haha), the commercial versions of the mil-spec rifles look like they have been frozen in time, due to the divergence between the commercial vs military markets.
As others have pointed out, even the "mil spec" commercial rifles must have 16+ inch barrels, semi-auto in lieu of select fire, and advertise the minutiae of testings, peenings, where is it chromed, and my personal favorite - the hilariously ridiculous argument over 158 Carpenter steel bolts (flame away - haha)
We must remember that manufacturers making firearms for government contracts are making them to be run specifically for select fire. The commercial only firearms are NOT made for select fire. Dare I say that there are mil spec features that are not necessary when only semi-auto is used? Dare I say that I personally prefer many features that are not mil spec as the AR-15 has evolved?
These would include things like:
Free floating handguards for various shooting techniques, slimmer profile and weight reduction (over 4-rail insert picatinny handguards with rail covers), and accessory attachments
Stainless or nitrided barrels for better accuracy (even if it gives up some longevity)
Twists other than 1:7
Wylde chambers for better accuracy over 5.56mm
Light and crisp aftermarket triggers other than the few trigger manufacturers who have government contracts
Mid length gas systems
Adjustable gas blocks
Calibers other than 5.56mm that need adjustable gas blocks - haha
Non-mil-spec bolts, utilizing newer alloys and lug designs
Bolt and BCG coatings and finishes, like NTFE or nitride
Silent capture buffer springs for those who dislike hearing SPROOOIIINNGG
Muzzle devices other than A2 birdcage
Etc.
The features available in today's commercial AR make it a beast in comparison with some of the rifles available when the floodgates of the commercial market opened up in 2004.
Don't misunderstand, I am not picking on the 6920, the FN15, or the like. They are advertised and made to be of the same quality as the select fire rifles. It's just when compared with the state of the AR-t 15's (haha), the commercial versions of the mil-spec rifles look like they have been frozen in time, due to the divergence between the commercial vs military markets.
imashooter
Member
Though difficult for some, don't get caught up in the hype. Unless a part has a consistently atrocious reputation, one is likely as good as another in our safe little country. Regarding buffers, I prefer heavy factoring in bolt locking back. H3 should be fine. Doubtful your barrel will be under-gassed.
The adjustable gas block is an option for any owner with an over gassed AR. It's not like they are made of Unobtanium or banned in certain jurisdictions. Same with reducing gas flow. Other options for reducing gas flow include the BRT Micro Port and the EZ Tune gas tube. All are easy to get. Some need a little gunsmithing. The gas tube just needs to be swapped in.
But all of that is beside the point. It's ridiculous that in today's market, knowing what we know, makers are still putting out over gassed ARs. I don't suggest that shooters should be running adjustable gas port, Micro ports or EZ Tune gas tubes. ARs should have the correct gas port and buffer right out of the box.
Yes, a heavier buffer delays unlocking of the bolt. It also reduces bolt bounce. it also provides the correct mass for reliable feeding. What it does not do is fix over gassing.
The feel of the recoil tells an experienced AR owner what is going on. The CAR buffer has sharper recoil because it's slamming into the back of the RE. Reducing gas to lessen the impact results in unreliable function. AR carbines and shorties should have an H or H2 buffer and a correctly ported barrel.
Coal Dragger
member
I could try to explain to the OP what the differences are and what those mean for the user.... but it’s just not worth my time.
So I’ll post this video and let the late Pat Rogers explain. Even given his vast experience with AR’s, 90% of the posters in this thread will ignore his advice because they think their anecdotal experience with one AR they put 200 rounds through a year is a valid data set.
Anyway here’s the video:
At the end of the day I’m not staking my life on a bargain basement AR I put together in my garage. If you want to, that’s your business.
So I’ll post this video and let the late Pat Rogers explain. Even given his vast experience with AR’s, 90% of the posters in this thread will ignore his advice because they think their anecdotal experience with one AR they put 200 rounds through a year is a valid data set.
Anyway here’s the video:
At the end of the day I’m not staking my life on a bargain basement AR I put together in my garage. If you want to, that’s your business.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
