14.5" gas systems and the Noveske KX3

[Moose]

If money wasn't an object, I'd probably get a LMT SOPMOD.

Do understand that the LMT stock is noticeably heavier than the standard 6 position stock...So much so that it's a favorite of some to balance out SBRs.

Oh yeah. I shot an M4gery with a SOPMOD on it a couple years ago at Ft Lewis, and got to handle another a couple weeks ago.

ETA:

I forgot I also played with a KAC SR-15E2 with the SOPMOD on it at the store a few days ago, too.

ETA 2:

I'm starting to think about waiting for the extended BattleComp to come out and trying it.

I never considered the Battle Comp. Here's a few reviews on the Battle Comp and DNTC...

http://m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=670640&postcount=23

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=26802

http://forums.second-amendment.org/index.php?topic=3252.0

I'm interested in both of those, but I'll more than likely end up sticking with the YHM Phantom like I'm running now. We'll see when the time comes.

[Moose]

This one looks interesting, but I'm not sure if it'd be long enough...
http://micorind.com/images/micorflashsupp.pdf

http://www.tactical-life.com/online/products/micors-flash-suppressors/

[tylerw02]

Who did you buy your MOE and receiver extension kit from?  I have a BCM kit and it fits my MOE perfectly.  I know some vendors are putting together their own kits and using parts from who knows where. 

[Moose]

I thought I bought mine from BCM last year, but when I emailed them to ask them a question about it a few weeks ago (buffer weight), they said they never offered a complete kit. 

But yeah, I'm pretty sure I got it from BCM. It was either that, or PK Firearms.

Honest question though; if the tube is the correct diameter to fit the receiver, and Magpul made all the MOE stocks to the same spec, then wouldn't a commercial MOE fit any commercial tube the same?

[tylerw02]

Oh, you used commercial diameter?  I think there is some variation.  I had a commercial tube on my first AR and one commercial stock I had wouldn't even go on.  But "in spec" is usually a range and anything within that range is in spec.  Its possible, with tolerance stacking, something wouldn't fit right.  Whenever you have tolerance staking, there can be issues. But I believe they are right, I don't think they've sold commercial diameter tubes at all. 

[Moose]

So a commercial Magpul product wouldn't fit a commerical tube? I know there's tolerance differences, but I thought commercial was commercial, and mil-spec was mil-spec when it came to mixing and matching stocks and tubes.


ETA:
I'm not arguing with you or anything, I just thought it was odd that I buy a kit from a reputable company using two items (one being a Magpul product), that are advertised as being of compatible spec, and there's more slop than any commercial or mil-spec M4 stock (or a well worn M4 for that matter) I've ever handled. I mean I literally had to make a few passes around the tube with tape just to take up some of the slop.

[tylerw02]

I honestly don't know who makes the commercial tubes.  Its probably like anything else, three or four companies make most of them.  I stay away from them what I can.  I've got various brands of mil-spec diameter receiver extension and three different brands of stocks and haven't had an issue.  My MOE stock fits my mil-spec Bravo tube like a glove.  My VLTOR E-Mod fits my Bravo extension just a tad tight, but is breaking in fine.  I've got a couple different M4 stocks on Bravo extensions and one nameless mil-spec ext and they all fit just fine.  So I dunno what the deal is.  I'd probably blame the commercial rec. ext. manufacturer.  If it was that bad, I'd probably have sent it back to the vendor.  Something is definitely wrong. 

[Moose]

Meh, I've since parted ways with that particular rig to fund another project anyways.

And it's not that it really bothered me, honestly. I added the tape just to tighten it up a bit since it was free fix, but honestly it wasn't anything that affected the function of the rifle. I just figured I'd mention it since you brought up the MOE stock.

I'll keep that in mind when I build the next one though.

[Moose]

Here's another test of a 14.5 middy using various buffer weights...

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=56626

Day 1 Testing:

Iraqgunz and I finally got to get some shooting done this weekend. Now that I’ve finally fired the 14.5” mid length, I can say it’s undeniably a smoother running set up than the standard 14.5” M4. The first thing I did with this upper when I got to the range was load a single round of M855 into a Pmag and fire it. I could feel the difference on that very first shot.

According to several of my Quickload charts for .223 loads, the port pressure is 15 to 18 percent lower than that of the standard M4 gas system. Pressure reduction at the port is between 3000 and 3500 PSI on the load examples I have. You’d expect the middy to run smoother. And the buffer tests (below) seem to show that this is indeed the case.

CARBINE BUFFER COMPARISON:

I’ve seen a lot of posts on the forums asking which buffer to run with the 14.5 middy. That was one of the first things I wanted to test. So Iraqgunz and I headed out to the range. 108 degrees out, and there was no shade for the shooters or rifles. Just holding the rifle and touching my nose to the charging handle was uncomfortable due to the heat. It was absolutely miserable weather for shooting, but that’s what I wanted for at least one of the testing days.

(All buffers tested using Colt Stainless Steel, standard carbine action springs.)

H BUFFER:
I decided to start off the evaluation with a Colt carbine lower that has a factory original H Buffer installed. The first 30 rounds were fired for both a general function check and to get the irons quickly dialed in. Ammo was “real deal” M855. I wanted to start off with full powered ammo and work my way back from there. No surprises… flawless function.

H2 BUFFER:
No significant difference in cycle or brass ejection. After 20 or so rounds of the same flawless function and more neat little piles of brass at my 4 o’clock position, I decided to move to the next buffer.

H3 BUFFER:
More of the same! 20 rounds of M855, and the upper still runs perfectly. I can start to feel the recoil impulse change a little, and brass is still piling up neatly at 4 o’clock.
Seeing that there was little chance of functional issues with the upper and Military ammo, we decided to try some commercial and training ammo with the H3 in place.

The first ammo we tried was Hornady Steel cased 55 grain training ammo. This was jaw dropping for both Iraqgunz and I. With the H3 buffer and training ammo, the carbine shot about like an AR with a rimfire conversion installed. It was freakishly soft… Not that the upper didn't already shoot very smoothly... but I could feel the bolt group cycling slower as we were pushing the limits of mild ammo and a heavy buffer. I could feel that “whick-whack” of a slow moving bolt group when you’re starting to approach short stroking. The bolt did however lock back each of the three times we fired the last shot in the mag.

After the Hornady ammo, I tried 20 rounds of mild hand loads and 20 rounds of Walmart Federal bulk pack with the H3 buffer. Both of these rounds got the cycle speed back up and functioned very well. All of the buffers yielded tight little piles of brass. The upper cycles and ejects very consistently and flawlessly.

CONCLUSIONS on the carbine buffer system were this:

Iraqgunz commented that if he knew he had a solid supply of Mil spec or 5.56 Hornady ammo, he’d just run the H3 buffer. I think I’d be quite comfortable running the H2 buffer for everything, commercial or Military ammo. When I first got this upper I was all hot and heavy to run a fixed stock/rifle buffer on it. But now, I feel like it’s almost pointless to run the rifle buffer because the upper runs so good with the carbine buffer system.
When I run some Match ammo through it on test day 2 or 3, I’ll use an A1 stock/rifle buffer and update this portion at that time.

[tylerw02]

I was very very skeptical of the idea until I started reading the thread you are referencing and a couple others.  Sounds like its working better than one could hope for. 

[Moose]

I was very very skeptical of the idea until I started reading the thread you are referencing and a couple others.  Sounds like its working better than one could hope for. 

Yeah, mine runs sweet with the H buffer with any commercial .223 or mil-spec 5.56 load, and I thought it could easily support an H2 buffer even before reading that write-up.

[Moose]

It's funny reading all the threads over there about getting on a 14.5 middy bandwagon. I built mine nearly three years ago, and everyone asked why a 14.5 middy, and would it run or if it needed a light buffer.

 

 

[tylerw02]

Who's barrel is yours?

I know a guy that has been running a 14.5" middy a couple years and his ran fine with about anything, but his is a CMMG bbl which is said to have a very large gas port, kind of reducing some of the advantages, but either way, its got to be better than a carbine system either way.

[Moose]

Who's barrel is yours?

I know a guy that has been running a 14.5" middy a couple years and his ran fine with about anything, but his is a CMMG bbl which is said to have a very large gas port, kind of reducing some of the advantages, but either way, its got to be better than a carbine system either way.

CMMG. I'm not sure what the port dia is, but I've compared it to an issue M4, and a Stag 16" carbine, and it was noticeably smoother than either when I was still running the carbine buffer. Even more so with the H buffer.

[Moose]

BCM 14.5 middy, PWS brake, H2 buffer. So smooth...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4WMw4PikNM&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCPiUXlF0c0&NR=1