Ask Ian: Why Does the AR15 Have a Buffer Thingie?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 сен 2024
- utreon.com/c/f...
/ forgottenweapons
www.floatplane....
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! shop.forgottenw...
From Arvid on Utreon:
"Why does an AR-15 need a buffer thingy? Why can't it just have a spring like every other normal gun?"
The Ar-15 really doesn't need the buffer and tube, but it is a holdover from the origins of the system: the AR-10. The intent of the AR-10 was to create a 7.62x51mm battle rifle that was very lightweight (under 7 pounds, originally) but still soft-shooting and controllable. In order to do that, Eugene Stoner. has to pull out all sorts of tricks. As it applied to our question today, this included a straight-line design with a buffer on the end of the bolt carrier to absorb any residual impact of the bolt carrier on the end of the receiver tube. At this time, there was no apparent need to allow for a folding stock, so the bolt was allowed to run the full length of the stock to minimize felt recoil.
After the basic design was put in place, the disassembly was changed from sliding together to pivoting, and this required splitting the single very long bolt carrier into what we now recognize as the bolt carrier and the buffer. When the design was scaled down to the AR-15, the basic architecture stayed the same, even though the recoil-reducing elements were not really necessary in the new smaller cartridge.
Contact:
Forgotten Weapons
6281 N. Oracle 36270
Tucson, AZ 85740
People always ask "What would Stoner do?", but they never ask "What was Stoner trying to do?" 😢
That’s because we know what he was trying to do: _perfection_ **chef’s kiss**
Literally the first thing Ian asked.
@@joemcdonald6573 and answered, he was trying to reduce receiver weight/cost/etc
I believe he was trying to "blow up"
@@LabiaLicker He was known to "act like he don't know nobody"
Thank you for doing these “one question” shorts. They are entertaining, informative and interesting. Most importantly, they don’t take an hour plus to watch; time I cannot devote to a RUclips vid. Again, thank you.
I can binge watch these Forsure
yup. I rarely watched the hour long fireside chats
And they're much easier to find later. Long Q&A videos are interesting to watch, but good luck finding the answer to a specific question years later.
the lack of skits, personal whatever, etc. is one of the things keeping me interested in Ian's content. Yes, I get a laugh out of some of the guntubers, but I sure don't learn much from some of them.
My only complaint is that he hasn't done a long q&a in quite a while.
Because of the ubiquity of the AR-15 and the fact that so many of us grew up with it we just take it for granted. When you take a moment to put the Stoner AR-10/15 system into context and think about all of the different innovations that are part of that platform you are reminded of how revolutionary it truly was.
Ian talking about the barrel extension replacing the receiver as the component providing the lock up of the bolt was the piece of information that did that for me again today. The simplicity of the idea that enables a few ounces of metal to replace a few pounds and provide the same level of functionality is quite simply astounding.
Couple this with the fact that so many of “new” guns (G36, FN SCAR, Sig MCX, BRN-180, …) are based on features in his AR-18 system it is a pleasant reminder of how truly brilliant Eugene Stoner really was. Arguably he was the John Browning of our time.
Not to mention the craziness that is the Stoner 63. He really was the JMB of our time.
"Arguably he was the John Browning of our time."
I tend to think of him as the "John Browning of battle/assault rifles". Browning just invented so doggam many different things that he's in a class of his own, but Stoner's ingenuity with assault rifle type systems (and to an extent light machine guns) is undoubtedly legendary tier.
Well, the JMB of the latter half of the 20th cemtury 😉
Exactly. Stoner was brilliant. Browning was a genius.
The idea using a trunnion or barrel extension as the components locking action, allowing for a lighter and cheaper receiver precedes Stoner.
Also a lot of the AR-10 is derived from the Johnson LMG, the big innovation was the use of aluminium (though I think early version used a stamped steel receiver) and it's gas system which truly brilliant.
It is notable how many of the answers in "Ask Ian" have their origins in constructive or evolutionary aspects and not just the intended use of the weapon. Excellent video, Greetings from Patagonia Argentina.
Excellent point there, Brother Carlos.
@@Marin3r101 trust me we have much much much much much more important issues to take care of
@@WTFisRUclipsDoinWitUsrNamesHUH The legacy of Jorge Rafael Videla?
@@Marin3r101 mad about what?
Something about one of the license plates on a car they drove through Argentina while filming an episode of their Amazon Top Gear show. The story I read didn't say what it meant and when I saw a pic of the car I didnt get it or I was looking at the wrong license plate but people were seriously pissed over there it must have been pretty bad or disrespectful
It is pretty crazy how well the AR10 tames 7.62 Nato recoil. Going from bolt action .308 to an AR10 was eye opening. It's like you can tell a lot of violence was happening in the chamber, but the recoil doesn't match up with it.
Even with 5.56/.223 it's noticable when you don't have the buffer
@@jason200912 AR-10 still has way less felt recoil and lower muzzle climb on top of that.
@@jason200912 Word.
i fire lapped a POS DPMS LR308 that was barely holding 5 MOA, and got it down to about .75....
Same with 3" shells in a semi shotgun instead of a pump. The pump bruised me purple and green. The semi could've been mag dumped.
@@hashbrownz1999a great example of that is the Beretta 1301. I’d argue it’s the lightweight AR of semi auto shotguns
0:37 The prototypes look so much more like ScI-Fi rayguns than the production models. They're great examples of 1950s space age design.
Ian makes the seemingly most boring part of the rifle into an incredibly interesting history lesson. Great job!
I'm really liking the "Ask Ian" series. I don't often have enough time to watch a full Q&A video. But 5-10 minutes is no problem. Thanks! 👍
Yes it was a very smart move to break up the questions. Maybe some of the other questions don't particularly interest me at the moment, but one of them does. The shorter title and shorter runtime make it a much easier choice to watch. Maybe I'll end up watching them all anyway, but it doesn't have to be at once and it isn't inconvenient even if I do.
Thanks to 'the buffer thingie' I had to knock out 50 pushups for my drill sergeant when I had him inspect my 'cleaned' M16. He pulled out the buffer spring and held out his soot covered hand while pointing down and saying "That'll cost you 50, private, for lying to a drill sergeant about a cleaned rifle!"
Had an SKS. Son in law built me an AR 15 in the 7.62x39 and was amazing the controlability of the round on that platform. Follow up shots were almost instant.
Forgotten weapons forgot to mention that the buffer is also used to reduce bolt-bounce. When the bolt slams into the chamber, it tends to want to bounce back from the rebounding inertia.
The buffer has sliding wright's because when the bcg comes to a instant hault, just as the bolt wants to bounce back, the buffer weights continue forward to prevent bounce.
Them sliding weights aren't in there for no reason. The buffer is more than just an extension to compensate for the shorter bolt carrier.
This was VERY informative, I don't think I had ever seen the sliding upper and lower receivers before. Seeing the original AR-10 bolt with guide on it is a "lost" link with the Johnson LMG. What Stoner did with the gas system is genius but he paid Mevin Johnson royaltys for a reason. He was definitely standing on Johnson's shoulders.
Huh
Buffer tube, buffer thingy, forward assist
The AR15 is kinda weird
...direct impingement that isn't really direct impingement cause technically it has a gas piston thingie inside the bolt carrier...
Yeah it sure is weird
is there a thingy assist buffer though?
@@stevbe1723 I was thinking about this too but have an even vaguer understanding so I couldn’t articulate it.
Basically the Zooey Deschanel of rifles. Yeah it tries to be different, but at the end of the day it’s just a hot gun and that’s what matters.
Agreed!
@@justme_gb It's the gun brake, obviously.
These facts, and design choices, are the reason why i love firearms.....i LOVE the mechanism behind it, the design choices, the ideas, the problem solving within a very small tolerance inside a closed system...each part doing its supposed job, working together...
Even better when certain parts pull double or triple duty, you just go through it and go "Man, that's so smart"
@@stevbe1723 Exactly!!
Yep. Like the ejector/interruptor on the Mosin-Nagant.
Indeed. Designing some of my own myself. Challenging work, but I’d get the hang of it after my first project (which I’m still working on😂)
Makes my head spin. I imagine there's a lot of spillover from clock, watch and lock making . But when you are dealing with an explosion I imagine the trial and error had to be infuriating. There's a fine line between function and blowing up and you have to start all over .
One of my favorite hobbies is reminding my friends who are big fans of guns with novel mechanical solutions and really distinct design intent that design wise the AR-15 is actually one of the most distinctive designs out there even to this day, much more so than a lot of guns that look distinctive.
@@shadowopsairman1583 nah more like the f15
@@mshark8246 that's the ar10
I think your description of the superfluity of the extra recoil reducing features of the AR-10/AR-15 for lower energy calibers probably explains some of why Stoner went in a different direction with the recoil system of the AR-18 (besides the other technical advantages), since it was designed for 5.56/.223 from the start.
Well that and by then Colt owned the patents, he had to do something different.
Wasn't the 5.56 AR-18 just a downsize of the AR-16, the AR-16 being in 7.62 NATO. Same with the Stoner 63 being downsized from the Stoner 62 series?
@@KrisKringle2 Yup
@@KrisKringle2 You're right! I forgot about that one.
Not true, stoner only had the ar18 set up that way for a foreign market that demanded it. He chose the buffer tube for a reason
That AR-10 behind you is beautiful.
If you have never shot an AR 10,you are in for quite the surprise. Very smooth and controlled, with hardly any recoil.
Agree, when it's properly gassed and/or properly buffer weighted. Big medicine typewriter. Unfortunately most ar10's are overgassed.
@@PBVader And have too much carrier mass.
@@PBVader isn't there a adjustable gas port, my FAL is adjustable as hell .
@@snek9353 BCG mass is needed for strength and current gas port size, otherwise the buffer would weigh close to a pound. If the standard gas port size could be cut in half to say 35 to 40 thou and still provide the pressure to operate, a lot of stuff could be lightened starting with the BCG.
@@george2113 sadly most ar10s are ported to 70 to 75 thousandth and have no adjustability. Not saying g you couldn't put an adjustable on there, or get one of those multi port keys like my POF. It was cycling hot handloads from the suppressor setting, and bouncing the buffer off the tube on normal with nato ball harshly. Custom gas key port and 5.5 ounce buffer tamed her down perfectly. Remember the brass should be ejected at 3 to 4 o'clock, not 1 o'clock.
I took collapsible stock off my ar-15 and put on the standard stock. It performed better and the full sized buffer turned it into a consistent ejection pattern at 5 o'clock. It is a tack driver now at 200 yds.
Well, that brings to mind the fact that a WWSD in .308 would be an interesting project.
It might be more interesting if it uses army's new 6.8 ammo
Let's wait for the GWACS fiasco to wind down but yes I would also like to see this :P
@@AndersonKeim if we don't support KE arms there probably won't be a WWSD AR-10
@@chrisblack6258 are you referring to the 277 fury?
@@george2113 277 Fury is what Sig Sauer calls it. To the US Army, it is known as 6.8x51mm.
It is mindboggling that so many engineers/designers/gunsmiths etc. continued to make weapons with the butt plate so much lower than the bore axis.
Revisiting old weapons with an, inline stock would result in significantly better performance in full auto. (I am looking at you, Thompson Submachine Gun)
The negative of the straight in line stock are the sights have to be higher from the bore..
I wouldn’t consider the Thompson to be the sort of gun that you would be concerned with the negative effects of a higher sight mount on your longer shots?
Not only did the M3 have a better stock, it fired slower, making it more accurate.
Wow, I hadn't realized how much Johnson influenced the early AR10. That first pattern bcg is taken straight from a Johnson LMG
most of stoners ideas were not original. he did a good job of taking proven designs and making them work in his rifles.
@@leftyo9589 as far as I can tell, the internal piston was Stoner's idea. Pretty much everything else was taken from other designs. Although Melvin Johnson actually worked with Stoner at Armalite, so it's not surprising that the AR has so much of Johnson's influence. I just hadn't realized how much 😂
Oh, I loved the AR10. I recall in the early days mixing up the buffer of an M16 and a CAR15, to result in a stoppage I couldn’t figure out for ages.
It's a kind of do all solution. It gets that spring behind the bolt which is in itself a lightweight way to do it, it allows the spring tube to be used for a dual role, obviously it takes stress off the receiver and with these things combined you make a very handy rifle which has the benefits of an inline stock and future upgradability. Chuck in an extra buffer and you've got a lovely softened recoil impulse in a compact, adaptable package.
The heavier buffer was to slow the cyclic rate down as a result of switching to ball powder..
Though not mentioned in this video, the buffer’s primary function in the 556 AR platform weapons is to control unwanted carrier bounce in full automatic fire. Excessive carrier bounce will result in light strike malfunctions. That is why there are steel and tungsten weights floating around in the buffer. To counter act the carrier from bouncing off the barrel extension.
I always disliked that in Basic they insisted that the buffer and spring have to come out of the rifle to be considered disassembled. It's an unnecessary step, and it's annoying dealing with the buffer detent.
Not that hard to remove..
At Ft Knox in late 1990 I found little practically in maintenance teaching aspects. Clearing jams and misfires was a priority though. SPORTS will always be stuck in my head.
Well, the military also teaches unnecessary over-cleaning of the weapons as well. The amount of cleaning that many anal armorers demand before turn-in can actually damage the rifles.
@@armynurseboy Yup!
@@hairydogstail😮
Wow i didnt realize there was so many different inventions that really made the AR10 tick. Thank you for the history lesson Ian
I'm surprised you didn't mention the weights inside the buffer floating dirt the purpose of preventing bolt bounce in full auto
The whole reason for the buffer is preventing bolt bounce so it can fire in full auto. Otherwise the bolt can be unlocked when the hammer falls and fail to fire
Chris Bartocci goes at length into that in one of his videos. Bear in mind that Chris worked for Colt while Ian has not.
@@eloiseharbeson2483 I'm am 💯 that Ian knows that fact but wanted to give lesser known facts and just forgot to throw that nugget in.
Yeah, I didn't really like that he did that. This video will tend to make some think the buffer now has no purpose. The buffer absolutely has a purpose in the AR-15.
It was to slow the BCG velocity down because of the high cyclic rate which induced malfunctions and parts breakage as a result of switching to ball powder.
Surprised you didn't mention the AR-18/AR-180 when discussing the folding stock. But those early variants of the AR-10 being so lightweight is very surprising.
My guess is that that function is a later development. Starting out with a solid mass and at some point someone uses a deadblow hammer and has an "A ha!" moment. Or even if it was a function added in early development, it was a case of being able to have the buffer do double duty.
Lets hope Ian could get his hands on AR16 in 7.62x51 the progenitor of AR18/180 and their derivatives.
@@DreadNought0255 AR-15 originally had the Edgewater spring guide with multiple dead blow effect conical buffers like a Browning A5 shotgun.
Ian, being left handed like yourself. I had some low cost ammo for my DPMS AR15 eject hot cartridges in my face. Thankfully our son was in college 30 minutes from our cottage where my guns were kept. My sons room mate and friends were in the Criminal justice program. On weekends our son and friends stayed at our cottage and went to the gun range for fun. They used up the cheap ammo and the rest of my ammo. Cleaned the guns so they were spotless.
Didn't expect these in-depth dives into simple questions to become the most interesting series on the channel.
The Marines already had the M-16A1 when I joined and I had little knowledge of the M-1 or M14. Many years later I obtained a nice M-1 and also ended up with a Czech 8mm mauser. The men that went into battle with the 30-06 and 8mm were clearly tougher than I am, those older weapons kick like a mule and I can't imagine having to fire one a lot in a short period.
I mean, part of the answer is that they *didn't* fire as much. The ammunition weighs almost three times as much per round. So if you think about, say, breaking contact and needing maximum suppression, where the squad is firing off a third of a basic load in a short time... Your basic load is a lot more rounds than theirs. And, of course, because of that heavy recoil, a 5.56 weapon has a much greater ability to get off several shots on a quick target. So "firing a lot in a short period" meant fewer shots back then than it would today. (Still plenty hard on the shoulder, of course!)
@@trioptimum9027 LoL, even with the same number of rounds, the larger rifles make you not want to shoot a lot. I've done target practice with the 8mm because I still love to use open sights, even if I can't see quite as well as I did when younger, even with corrective lenses. And of course I was in excellent physical condition when I was in the Corps. But the 8 mm is brutal. Before the fall of the USSR, 8mm ammo was uncommon but once that happened I stocked up for life, cheap. The military loads still have a pretty good kick, the moose loads with 192 grain bullets just plain hurt. I love the rifle but don't shoot it as much, I now know why my dad had a big rubber butt plate on his favorite 30-06 though.
And just for the record, I loved the M-16, lot of people bitched about it but it definitely served the purpose.
The recoil is not bad if you're shooting those rifles like they were back in WWII. They were generally shooting offhand. The way most of us shoot them is in the prone or off of a static table and when you shoot like that the recoil can be punishing after a few shots. I can shoot my Type 53 (Chinese Mosin) off hand all day long. As soon as get into a static position, I'm done after 10 rounds.
I also have a K98 Mauser chambered in 7.62 Nato. Its the same way. Nice to shoot when standing or kneeling. Terrible when prone or at a table.
@@oldscratch3535 Point taken, but for the record, I don't know about you, but when using a weapon in battle, offhand is the last position I'm going to be thinking of. For those that don't understand, please see Monty Python's "the art of how not to be seen". 😁
The fact that people say rifles like the SCAR are better than the AR is really depressing.
When you compare a carefully engineered marvel meant to do a specific job to a hunk of scrap meant to tick arbitrary boxes, it just makes actual engineers give up.
The AR-10 was engineered to be the ideal battle rifle. It is light, it uses every trick in the book for recoil control, and it's simple to use.
The SCAR is just an AK with a more consistent piston and a better shell.
The original AR-10 with the sliding rails sure looks very similar to the Johnson LMG and Israeli DROR. The bolt design and lockup into the barrel extension also came from the Johnson design. I think a very strong case can be made that the AR-10 was a direct descendent from the Johnson LMG that converted the original recoil operation to an inline gas pistion (especially since Stoner worked with Melvin Johnson). The ultimate success of the later AR-15 over the garand derived rifles demonstrates that his original action was a superior design. Interesting "what-if" to think about if he had started his design a few years earlier and had as much development time that the M1 garand had.
I wonder what an M14 with a folding straight line stock and actual sliding recoil absorbing section Ala FG-42 would do for full-auto controllability.
Good video. I owned a S & W MP10 and had to send it back to them 3 times. Finally, I had some one look at it and found that they were putting AR15 buffer and spring and in an AR10. I had to send it to them again and they finally fixed it. I did understand wrong parts causes misfires, but now I totally understand.
When we did our teardowns of our M16, and later the M4, we would remove the buffers and clean because we found dirt/sand would find it's way back there a lot
These "Ask Ian" videos are my favorite thing you've ever done.
Was wondering this for a while. This is a great video series, cheers! 👍
Time to make a video about it then?
Removing the buffer tube
Recoil cracks mountain ranges, drives planet out of orbit
Time for a massive buffer weight
Great presentation especially the images of the older than oldies. The point about the spring not needed to be removed for standard field stripping, keep the spring from unnecessary exposure to contaminates is extremely valid. When I shot a friend’s AR-10 it was actually easier to keep on target than my M-1 Carbine. Years later when shooting a M-1A I had no idea that a 7.62 X 51 kicked so harshly and squeezing off subsequent shots I knew that big rifle was gonna punish my shoulder and that made my aim and hold less steady. WWSD with today’s technology really fill the mind with wonder. The AR platform wasn’t a bad bit of Kit coming from an aircraft company.
The cam pin slot cut, powder being used, barrel port location and size determines lock time, not the buffer..The buffer weights control the carrier velocity and bolt bounce, not lock time..The gas system is charge upwards of 20,000+ PSI, a few ounces in the buffer has negligible effect on lock time..The original buffer (edge-water) was basically a spring guide that prevented the gas key from hitting the lower receiver during recoil..
ruclips.net/video/OMXd8nzE5LQ/видео.htmlsi=Al269EZbFc61tHp1&t=766
I shot a HK-91 back in the mid 80's (first time shooting 7.62x51) and almost shot through the roof of my car (benchrest) because I didn't expect the uncontrollability trying to fire it fast in semi-auto. As always, thanks Ian!
An addendum (I'm not going to look through ~1100 comments to make sure this has been brought up) that might not be so obvious to people: the buffer, itself, is an easily "tunable" part of the gas system. If you were to make a simple empty tube, capped on both ends, and replace your buffer with that, your gun is going to rip the case heads off of a fair number of cartridges when the gun is firing (this would be bad, and potentially seriously so). Changing gas port size means taking a lot of things apart, and drilling a new hole, if you need more gas, and it means replacing the entire barrel if you need less gas. Changing the mass of the bolt carrier is an option, but that also requires more work to do. By having that buffer, that can be opened and its contents changed, the designer can easily tune how much delay there is between the bullet passing the gas port and the rearward travel of the bolt.
From the standpoint of going from a developed prototype to a production gun, it's easy to understand why they'd say, "Okay, we made it work right, now let's sell it," instead of "Okay, we make it work right, now let's change stuff and go through the whole tuning process again."
The HK417/MR762/MR308 has the same diameter through the whole bolt carrier, just as the original AR10 has (so the buffer tube has a larger diameter). The advantage is that the bolt carrier can travel a little bit further back then on a SR25-design with the smaller AR15 buffer tube diameter. The consequence is that with a standard 308 load the buffer never reaches the end of travel, the whole recoil is absorbed softly by the buffer spring. This makes for a very soft 308 shooting experience.
Neat, but IMO superfluous without making other changes as well. A very similar recoil reduction can be gained by reducing the mass of the carrier and good tuning. This also of course creates a lighter weapon overall as well. And contrary to the belief of many increases reliability.
A fatal flaw in the HK417 design is not moving the bolt catch back as well. Because their has to be enough energy in the forward movement of the BCG when released from the bolt catch there has to be a compromise. The spring has to be strong enough, but this also means that if the BCG is allowed to travel to far back then the impact of catching the bolt will damage the lower.
The AR rifle's buffer does contact the end of the buffer tube. That is what the plastic insert is for on the end of the buffer. Stoner and Jim Sullivan got the idea for constant recoil from the German STG-44 assault rifle. Sullivan did not invent it..
Because the spring alone doesn't decellerate the bolt's mass enough to run with a spring only. Increasing the spring's strength exceeds the tension/pressure rating of the buffer tube, and creates other problems along with excessive wear.
You're right Ian, St. Eugene pulled out every trick known, and created a couple of new ones to create the platform. Everything so the weight could be greatly reduced, and a lot of the other issues the M1/M14 and M1 Carb. had because of their "Traditional" design. Stoner wasn't just thinking outside the box, he broke it down, and refolded the box.
Great answer to a reasonable question. Thanks, Ian. We need you, and more like you.
Ian, you left out discussion of the weights inside the buffer which give it a "dead blow" characteristic. This was to help prevent, or at least, reduce bolt carrier bounce in full auto. The bolt carrier tends to want to bounce upon closing, partially unlocking the bolt. The weights and rubber dampers effectively reduce that so that the bolt carrier assembly slam closed and stay that way.
I love these detailed explanations on mechanics and history, these Ask Ian videos are great.
The buffer thumping into the back of the bolt during chambering is also a safety feature that does about the same function of a forward assist- done automatically....
As an engineer I respect you using proper terms as in moment of action ! 👍great job sir
He has a degree in mechanical engineering
@@RhodokTribesman I’ve never took the time to observe that notion, thanks , and I’ve assumed so on many of occasions talking about components and or pressure, stress testing ect!
As a new-ish gun owner I love these Q&A vids. 30% of the info may go over my head but I’m always way better informed after.
Ian is a beast. He literally is a archival attribute to the community
Yea I got auto corrected like a mo fo.
5.56 still recoils noticably. I'm glad the AR-15 is designed to mellow it, because I tried a buddy's CMR-30 in .22 magnum and having basically zero recoil for rapid fire is awesome.
Amazing to think the SA-80 (L85 A3) is 1.5lb HEAVIER than the M1.
Is that true? Because I believe its closer to the opposite way round.
@@wiseguyashnee8532 According to Wikipedia, the SA80 is in fact slightly heavier than the Garand.
@@wiseguyashnee8532 Google is your friend. And mine in this instance.
@@jason200912 depends which iteration. The A1 I used had any number of issues but, in all honesty, it was OK. I won’t go through all the problems as you know them all I’m sure, but in the UK and Europe where I used it it was alright; accurate, good to shoot and easy to manoeuvre. Hateful for drill thanks to its weight.
I knew that! Just could not articulate it so well. At least one thing learned during my time in the Navy under the formerly worst president in history, Jimmy Carter.
With a suppressed M16A1 on full auto, especially an old heavy suppressor, the vertical recoil and lack of muzzle climb are distinguishable (at least to me, as a disclaimer to the 10K experts about to set me straight). Please continue with the good work.
Excellent explanation, well presented. I suppose one could delve further into the buffer's design and weight as it relates to the gas system.
Interesting idea about an "in-line" recoil pulse. The rotational bolt-ish mechanism that is used in the Vectors seems to buck this idea, although I've wondered if this was instead an attempt to lengthen the path and spring length for a longer, but lower peak recoil pulse.
Ultimately the recoil is a result of gas expansion pushing forward on the bullet, and backwards on the bolt/case. Increasing the weight of the bolt is the only way to prevent it shooting back at the same speed the bullet does, and the spring is an attempt to lengthen the pulse itself (but not amplitude).
The weight of the BCG+buffer and the gas pressure/power of the cartridge determines the total recoil... but given a spring strong enough to allow full compression, but without bottoming out completely, gives you the softest recoil.
A G36 Bolt Carrier, has Sand (dunno which Kind, could be tungsten) in the upper Part of it, there is a weldet shut section in the Back of it. If you remove all the moving parts and Shake it, you can hear it, Like a very expensive maraca. Thats the HK way of preventing Bolt Carrier bounce, source: i shook the dann Thing, also iam German Army lol
Its tungsten shot.
The 7.62 Nato weapon I've become most impressed with is the Century Arms version of the CETME or the C-308. I've owned an HK-91 in the past and it was brutal to shoot with the standard flash suppressor. It would literally bruise your cheek. Fast forward 30 years and I acquired a C-308 that had a different, Century Arms proprietary muzzle brake and it was just a night and day difference. A C-308 has the felt recoil of a 5.56 Nato AR-15 with No Barrel Climb! Good thing I bought one when they were new and cheap!
all i am hearing is that i need a AR-10
And a shift button.
I think we really miss how much of a luxury it is to have the option of removing the spring, changing buffer weight, etc. the ability to change buffer weight and spring stiffness has increased the ability to tune these firearms so incredibly far. Remember if you ever tune something like a gas shotgun, you really only have the ability to tune the gas down or up. These ARs have the ability to tune gas level, as well as rebound, and to control bolt speed in both directions. How fortunate we are.
Come to think of it, what on earth was the M15? Some kind of experimental rifle or did the US just jump from M14 to M16?
It’s a weird attempt at a light support version of the M14, iirc.
I believe the M15 was an experimental LMG variant of the M14 with a heavy barrel and a bipod
The M-15 was the heavy barrel, bipod “SAW” version of the M-14. It was not successful and was withdrawn from service. Fairly rare; I never saw one in person.
Ian has a video on a semi auto one that was for sale at one of the auctions several years ago. Search for semi auto M14-E2
M14 with heavy barrel and bipod
A LONG time ago I was reading about the early AR-10 with the the big titanium suppressor/compensator on it. The article said it was so effective that whoever was shooting it for a demonstration set a bushel basket on its side at 100 yards and did a mag dump on full auto, easily keeping all 20 or 25 rounds inside the basket. If I recall correctly, the recoil of an M14 rifle would have sent the 2nd or 3rd round over the top edge of the basket, and it would have resembled anti-aircraft fire by the end of 20 rounds. I've known men who were issued M14s but none of them ever said they could hit anything on full-auto.
The Russian AKM-AK-74 has a 5 piece anti bolt bounce device like the M-16 M-4 needs in it's buffer, "AKA" buffer weights, mistakenly called a rate reducer..The telescoping stock has proven more valuable than a folding stock, kudos to Stoner and the Colt design team..
Talking about AR's with return springs above the bolt.
Ian you gotta get your hands on a LR-300.
I really like your show maybe I suggestion for content early firearms that would fall under the NFA today
And of course, an interesting side effect of splitting the BCG into a BCG and buffer, this allows you to easily change out the buffer to add or decrease weight to the system.
Could you explain how the SCAR 17 mitigates recoil with its design? It would an interesting comparison to make since both chambers the 7.62
@@Bob_Lennart I mean, without the spring the bolt carrier is going to slam into the back of the receiver at extremely high speed...
I sincerely hope you have a doctorate in gun-ology because your depth and breadth of knowledge is credibly incredible. Just by talking thru the receiver concept, I learn how other guns are designed. Thanks for your generous sharing.
Once again, a great history lesson. Well done and thanks!
I you, am enjoying the one question format Ian. It allows you to go into much deeper detail, development and history.
People often forget how much of a genius Eugene Stoner is.
Most of the "modern" rifle designs heavily inspired by (or straight up copied) Stoner's AR 18 design.
I don't think people realize just how few people really push firearms design forward. Stoner, Browning, Colt, Maxim and a handful of others, roughly one each generation.
Also, you ever notice that most of them are Americans?
@@nicholashodges201 yeap, they are just amazing at pushing forward new designs! Revolutionary designs!
Oh yeah! No surprise there! haha
@@free2chasehappy idk if you're joking or trying to be a smartass. Either way when you dig into the design & function of most modern arms you can compare them to the weapons designed by that handful and see that they're the same guns with rather superficial changes or minor improvements to function, and that when those fail it's the manufacturing or user at fault, not a weakness in the design (the 1911 & AR platform are great examples of this)
@@nicholashodges201 I think there is a misunderstanding... I think the designers you mentioned made a lot of revolutionary designs and I believe they formed the bedrock where most modern gun get their designs from.
@@free2chasehappy It's just hard to tell with the sheer number of asshats the seem to come crawling whenever you mention Americans on social media without dogging us. And since they like to try to be sarcastic...
The ar10 version you have behind you has really grown on me over the years.
I had thought that one of the major reasons for the buffer assembly was to reduce bolt bounce on full auto fire
That came later when the military switched to ball powder and needed to slow down the BCG cycling speed and bolt bounce malfunction problem. The original buffer was basically a spring guide..
@@hairydogstail did the AR10 (which greatly predates the AR15, let alone the switch to ball powder) not have any sort of powdered weights in the buffer like became standard on the M16?
The military had a gross abundance of ball powder at the time, so the change was one of supply economics.
This change led to the excessive carbon fouling that plagued the original M-16’s until the A1 modifications were made.
@@blackhawk7r221 Fouling was not the main cause of malfunction, it was the increase cyclic rate and poor maintenance training. The fouling came from the excessive calcium carbonate or for lack of a better word-chalk, that was added to the old ball powder recycled from WW2 artillery shells. They have since then required a low amount of calcium carbonate to be allowed in ball powder..The new buffer was designed to slow the increased cyclic rate from ball powder and the added benefit of preventing bolt bounce malfunctions..
IDK about the past but it's certainly a reason for it now. It's also not limited to full auto fire. Carrier bounce is a problem for semi-auto as well, it's just often not as noticed as it's less likely to cause a miss fire.
That is the first time I've seen that picture at 4:50, interesting to see this development growth of the platform
I would tell the questioner to go to Chris Bartocci and Smallarmssolutions on RUclips, he has a nearly hour long video explain the Buffer Tube and the history of the AR platform and what tube to use for which setup.
Chris and Ian are my favorite firearm experts and historians on YT.
I'd had loved to hear you call it a "buffer thingy" to my Drill Instructor!!
Even with 5.56, the felt recoil between an AR-15, and say a Ruger mini 14 is significant.
Not really.
I love the physics, chemistry, and geometry of gun designs. They're essential high pressure rube Goldberg machines and I love it.
Recoil spring doesn't come out of the FN FAL either. Stays in the buttstock.
We were told that disassembly of the return spring in the field would likely result in a non-functional rifle and possibly severe injury when the spring was set free.
FAL tips open on a pivot pin, too, a bit like the AR, but a little heavier :D. It was a really good weapon, but a webbing load of ammunition for it probably weighed as much again as the rifle.
@@RodBatten The FAL was originally intended to use the .280 cartridge, but was rechambered for .30/7.62mm after the US insisted on keeping the full size cartridge. It's easy to think that the FAL would've been even better if it was a little lighter and handier.
@@ErwinPommel The AR -15 was originally chambered in the 222 Remington..
Mythbusters episode 136 shows a 1911 lighting a strike anywhere match. The slow motion shows the bullet leave the barrel, with the barrel barely rising. Then the slide hits the stop, the barrel flips up. Very enlightening.
Because it works better than the shoulder thing that goes up.
One of the big things left out here is that the buffer has moving weights. This causes it to work like a dead blow hammer.
Dead blow hammers are typically orange rubber, with a bunch of lead shot inside. When you swing the hammer, the weight goes to the back of the hammer. When the face hits, it is immediately followed by another hit, as the weight inside the dead blow hits inside. This causes a HIT AND STOP.
With the AR buffer, we have the same thing. At the back of travel, it hits and stops, causing additional delay for the brass to eject out of the gun. At the front of travel, the bolt carrier slams home and stops, causing the bolt not to bounce and come out of battery.
This is propaganda paid for by Big Buffer 😤
the first AR10/AR15 had only a "guide rod" with a "guide rod" spring, but it was found that "bolt bounce" occurred, so to make the operating system more safe of the AR10/15, they developed a weighted buffer, so when the weighted buffer slams the bolt into battery, the bolt stays locked into the lugs and in battery to discharge the next round safely and properly from the spring tension and weighted buffer. This is how I understood it from listening to Small arms solutions and also reading the black rifle book.
But so many of today's "New Rifles" use one of Stoner's designs from AR-10, AR-15 or AR-18. Just go to show how right the man back in the early days.
Interesting that Ian mentions the FG-42 as similarly controllable...because it pretty much has the same two tricks as the AR-10, in-line recoil and a buffer system (the gun presses into the stock).
So... If your buttstock is lined above the barrel, will it recoil downwards?
You'd need a very high stock, and you'd need the barrel to be in line BELOW the stock just as on the M1 the barrel is in line ABOVE the stock, but yeah in theory it could recoil downwards I suppose. That would actually be more useful recoil than recoiling upwards I think. Better to send rounds low towards the lower portions of the target or even ricochet bullets up off the ground than to simply launch rounds up above the target uselessly.
@@normanmccollum6082 problem with that would be making appropriate sights for a contraption where your barrel is below your shoulder and your eyes are still above them
@@belthesheep3550 Not really. That's already the case with a straight line stock. Whatever riser would just be a little taller.
Turn your M-1 rifle upside down and try it.
It is not gonna work like that when fired from shoulder - even if the recoil does not try to rotate your arm up on your shoulder, it will still try to rotate your body backward on your hips which will result in the gun climbing up.
In the old, 1970’s days of AR-15 builds, I ended up with a recoil buffer that was a cheap, soft plastic part, filled with lead shot! It came in a parts kit and I put a proper, milspec one, in place of it. The system is an amazing piece of modern technology though!
damn 52 sec after post w 2 views
Lets hope Ian could get his hands on AR16 in 7.62x51 the progenitor of AR18/180 and their derivatives.
I like AR-15 look, how thin it is, but i absolutely hate that it don't have folding stock. That's why i like LR300! =)
I would consider the buffer + recoil spring to be better than a folding stock, if you can fire it without it being against your shoulder because the recoil is so light then that's a good thing. An AR-16 built with folding stocks in mind should keep the buffer and spring. 2 smaller springs and buffers above the bolt instead of behind it would do the trick, same extra light recoil but not using the stock and would be even easier to handle with the stock folded.
Early gang
Me too
One of the next Q+A episodes might be if the FN FAL were to be adopted by the US, would we still have the M16 today. At first, I thought the FN FNC would be the answer, but turned out to be wrong. The closest to being the true answer is we would still have the M16 today because of Armalite being an independent gun maker and given the interest by the US Air Force. So, it doesn’t matter if it’s the M14 or even a FAL, the M16 can still exist today.
In addition the original AR-10 had a mechanism that would allow for belt fed operations over the other rifles in the trials...
From a physics stand point, it’s also easier to control a reciprocating mass closer to your center of mass vs out in front of you.
I don't have an AR but this was very informative. Iv wanted a semi auto AR style platform for quite some time, but I waited so long to decide that that market is flooded with sooooo many parts and makes, I don't even know we're to begin. I would like to build it from the ground up, because I get familiar with things that way, like cars so on. I learn more about how it works and it makes me understand it better.
Another thing they had was a follow up slide to tap the bolt closed of necessary. To compensate for bolt bounce / unlock.
I really the "Ask Ian" format and hope it becomes more frequent on your channel.
Ive always had a good understanding about why the AR had a buffer tube but i never knew how Stoner got there. I always was under the assumption that he always a buffer in the stock and the bolt was a separate piece. Great explanation Ian thanks
The buffer is always in the stock and the bolt and carrier are separate pieces..