Hoot's CCWS (Cheap Carrier Weight System)

Talk about the AR15 style rifles chambered in 450 Bushmaster.

Moderator: MudBug

Re: Hoot's CCWS (Cheap Carrier Weight System)

Postby Hoot » Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:09 am

longrangedog1000yd wrote:hoot, have you had any problems with mid or start loads functioning with your ccws?


No, the only rounds I had that would not cycle were severely underloaded ones with filler to simulate how slow the bullet would be traveling at much greater distances. Using a 200gr XPB bullet, the action would cycle down to about 24gr of Lil Gun. That's a very light load.

Hoot
In Theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In Practice, there is.
User avatar
Hoot
 
Posts: 5083
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:34 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: Hoot's CCWS (Cheap Carrier Weight System)

Postby cptrifeg2 » Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:35 pm

Hoot wrote:
cptrifeg2 wrote:I miss read your response the first time- teach me to read from a cell phone. Looks like I have some homework to do.


It's been a while now.How did your stainless version work out?

Hoot


Works great! Works even better with the tungsten buffer and heavy spring.
Image

"Soldier's dont rise to the occasion, but fall to their level of training".
User avatar
cptrifeg2
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 5:44 pm

Re: Hoot's CCWS (Cheap Carrier Weight System)

Postby Hopalong » Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:55 am

Hoot-

I read through the thread. Middle of the night, so my comprehension isn't the best. I didn't see a weight anywhere, so calculated it out to be about 4.5 oz. Is that about right, or did you weigh the slug? And another question. With a heavier buffer, would you use the entire weight or would you use a shorter piece for less weight?

Thanks.

Hop
Hopalong
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 7:46 am
Location: Colorado

Re: Hoot's CCWS (Cheap Carrier Weight System)

Postby Hoot » Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:43 am

Hopalong wrote:Hoot-

I read through the thread. Middle of the night, so my comprehension isn't the best. I didn't see a weight anywhere, so calculated it out to be about 4.5 oz. Is that about right, or did you weigh the slug? And another question. With a heavier buffer, would you use the entire weight or would you use a shorter piece for less weight?

Thanks.

Hop


IIRC, that's pretty close. Maybe more like 4 oz. Never used a heavier buffer, so it's hard to say where to compromise on the weight. I'm sure at some point there is such a thing as too much weight.

Now to each his own, but if I had to choose between putting additional weight in an aluminum buffer, that is going to repeatedly slam into a steel bolt carrier, or put the equivalent weight in the steel carrier and let a lighter aluminum buffer slam into it, I'd go for the weight in the harder, steel carrier. That's why I did not concentrate my effort into simply increasing the weight of the buffer. In terms of accomplishment, either way will slow down the unlock and lock cycle. Some members report getting a synergistic effect on perceived recoil from putting a slightly heavier spring in at the same time as adding weight. I'm still using the standard rifle buffer and spring in mine. IMHO, if the buffer is not bottoming out and your carrier strips rounds and goes into battery reliably why mess with the spring?

Hoot
In Theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In Practice, there is.
User avatar
Hoot
 
Posts: 5083
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:34 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: Hoot's CCWS (Cheap Carrier Weight System)

Postby Hopalong » Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:05 pm

Hoot wrote:
IIRC, that's pretty close. Maybe more like 4 oz. Never used a heavier buffer, so it's hard to say where to compromise on the weight. I'm sure at some point there is such a thing as too much weight.

Now to each his own, but if I had to choose between putting additional weight in an aluminum buffer, that is going to repeatedly slam into a steel bolt carrier, or put the equivalent weight in the steel carrier and let a lighter aluminum buffer slam into it, I'd go for the weight in the harder, steel carrier. That's why I did not concentrate my effort into simply increasing the weight of the buffer. In terms of accomplishment, either way will slow down the unlock and lock cycle. Some members report getting a synergistic effect on perceived recoil from putting a slightly heavier spring in at the same time as adding weight. I'm still using the standard rifle buffer and spring in mine. IMHO, if the buffer is not bottoming out and your carrier strips rounds and goes into battery reliably why mess with the spring?

Hoot


If I get all analytical, it would seem that inertia being what it is, the bold and buffer stay together regardless. Or if they were about the same weight, they'd move pretty much together. Thoughts? Maybe that bears checking. I need to get out my bigger scale and weigh a few things. There are several different buffer weights available, and IIRC I have an H2. I'll look at them and see what my setup is and any signs that things are banging around in there.

I'd have to agree about the spring.

While I was pondering all this I poked around on the web and found some .625 tungsten rod. 1.3" or so would weigh the same as the lead weight you fashioned. Only $16 an inch. Comes in 72" lengths. Maybe next week...

Hop

Hop
Hopalong
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 7:46 am
Location: Colorado

Re: Hoot's CCWS (Cheap Carrier Weight System)

Postby Hoot » Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:18 am

Hopalong wrote:
Hoot wrote:
IIRC, that's pretty close. Maybe more like 4 oz. Never used a heavier buffer, so it's hard to say where to compromise on the weight. I'm sure at some point there is such a thing as too much weight.

Now to each his own, but if I had to choose between putting additional weight in an aluminum buffer, that is going to repeatedly slam into a steel bolt carrier, or put the equivalent weight in the steel carrier and let a lighter aluminum buffer slam into it, I'd go for the weight in the harder, steel carrier. That's why I did not concentrate my effort into simply increasing the weight of the buffer. In terms of accomplishment, either way will slow down the unlock and lock cycle. Some members report getting a synergistic effect on perceived recoil from putting a slightly heavier spring in at the same time as adding weight. I'm still using the standard rifle buffer and spring in mine. IMHO, if the buffer is not bottoming out and your carrier strips rounds and goes into battery reliably why mess with the spring?

Hoot


If I get all analytical, it would seem that inertia being what it is, the bold and buffer stay together regardless. Or if they were about the same weight, they'd move pretty much together. Thoughts? Maybe that bears checking. I need to get out my bigger scale and weigh a few things. There are several different buffer weights available, and IIRC I have an H2. I'll look at them and see what my setup is and any signs that things are banging around in there.

I'd have to agree about the spring.

While I was pondering all this I poked around on the web and found some .625 tungsten rod. 1.3" or so would weigh the same as the lead weight you fashioned. Only $16 an inch. Comes in 72" lengths. Maybe next week...

Hop

Hop


Your analytics are correct Hop, the two do not physically separate and re-collide, or at least they're not supposed to. Even so, aluminum in theory (see my sig) will yield over time, to steel. In practice, I've not shot enough to see that manifest in significant peening though. I toyed with trying the solid, pure tungsten rod approach, but I'm too cheap to spend that kind of dough and I did not look forward to having to cut it. You have no idea how many people do not realize that powdered tungsten is no heavier per unit volume than lead, due to the air in between the powder particles.

In for a dime, in for a dollar. If you go with the tungsten rod, might as well go the entire 2 inches. There was nothing scientific about the ~4 oz of lead I used. It was limited by the length I felt comfortable fitting inside the carrier.

Hoot
In Theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In Practice, there is.
User avatar
Hoot
 
Posts: 5083
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:34 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: Hoot's CCWS (Cheap Carrier Weight System)

Postby cptrifeg2 » Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:09 pm

Hoot wrote:
cptrifeg2 wrote:I miss read your response the first time- teach me to read from a cell phone. Looks like I have some homework to do.


It's been a while now.How did your stainless version work out?

Hoot


1500 rounds since I installed the SS carrier weight per your dimensions. As usual my own ignorance was causing the brass damage as you indicated too much lube left on the cases after loading. No issues related to the bolt carrier to date, smooth cycling other than some deep curls I seated incorrectly for COL recently..basically the only issues I have in general come from me lol. while the stainless in lighter than lead or tungsten, I had it available at the time. It works well with the ross brake, H3 buffer and heavy spring as well as the edmonds tube stuffed in my collapsable stock.
Image

"Soldier's dont rise to the occasion, but fall to their level of training".
User avatar
cptrifeg2
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 5:44 pm

Re: Hoot's CCWS (Cheap Carrier Weight System)

Postby Navy_Guns » Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:55 pm

This is a great tip - I'm going to have to make one for my AR-45 since it sounds like I'm going to be on back order with Bushmaster for my 450 for a while. I just had to send my Cavalry Arms polymer lower back for replacement because it split in half at the rear take-down pin! I have a custom-made tungsten-filled buffer for it but this should help even more. It's straight blow back so the extra mass is important.
Navy_Guns
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:54 pm

Re: Hoot's CCWS (Cheap Carrier Weight System)

Postby helidude350 » Sun Jul 14, 2013 7:42 am

www.heavybuffers.com

My ar45s have them

Not really recoil , but a nice "thump" at the shoulder.

If you use a rifle stock, be sure to get the spacer ( or make one).
Don't do the "duh" like in my post on the ar45 thread


Btw have standard carbine buffer and spring in my 450b 16"
helidude350
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:53 am

Re: Hoot's CCWS (Cheap Carrier Weight System)

Postby Hoot » Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:22 am

helidude350 wrote:http://www.heavybuffers.com

My ar45s have them

Not really recoil , but a nice "thump" at the shoulder.

If you use a rifle stock, be sure to get the spacer ( or make one).
Don't do the "duh" like in my post on the ar45 thread


Btw have standard carbine buffer and spring in my 450b 16"


That's a nice looking piece of work. While I'm not in favor of adding weight to an aluminum buffer (ever see an aluminum hammer in the store?), in SS this looks like a viable albeit expensive solution. I've never been embued with heavy weight springs because they add to the forward pounding that the BCG and BE take, not to mention the softer brass cases being stripped and chambered. Before throwing a chunk of change at that, I'd consider one of those hydraulic buffers myself.
Though this is unrelated, doing a meltdown of the BE can reduce a lot of the surface damage that brass incurs during chambering and extraction. If you google it, there are articles, possibly a youtube video on the process. BTW, it's a figure of speech. No heat involved. That and polishing the feed ramp are things I automatically do with every new AR upper, mainly because I reload.

Hoot
In Theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In Practice, there is.
User avatar
Hoot
 
Posts: 5083
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:34 am
Location: Minnesota

PreviousNext

Return to AR15 Style Rifles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests