DonovanM

I have been looking into this as I've encountered a few idiosyncrasies with my personal rifles that I've been working on debugging. Unlike with pistols, I do believe that "tuning" is actually a big part of getting a rifle to shoot flat without exerting too much muscular tension on it or putting something ridiculous like an SJC Titan on the end, which is basically half a pound of overkill. The biggest consideration with tuning an AR is obviously going to be the amount of gas being used and how that correlates with the mass of the reciprocating components. I have found that you can achieve pretty good - not great - shootability with full mass operating system components, but lower mass is highly preferred. Common doctrine seems to be to tune your gas block to give only as much gas as is necessary to lock the bolt back, plus some arbitrary amount to account for ammunition variations, whether that's velocity within the same lot or between brands. This method is a good baseline - a fine minimum, but I have found that leaving it this way more often than not leads to an undergassed state in some of my rifles where the recoil has an obviously slow and "chunky" feel to it (cyclic rate too low), especially noticeable with full mass components. The effect of overgassing with lighter components has manifested as a "smack" at the end of the recoil cycle where the muzzle noticeably dips sharply under recoil. My theory is that any given value of total reciprocating mass in the operating system will have a corresponding value - or range - of cyclic rates that will decrease noticeability to the shooter and improve the rifle's shootability. Or, that perhaps there is a "one size fits all" optimum cyclic rate that works with all values of reciprocating mass. Either way, the goal of tuning the gas block is simply to get inside this range of values. Luckily, once there, reliability should be maintained as an under or over gassed state should be noticeable to the shooter and is what usually accounts for the majority of feeding or extraction-related issues in ARs. To receive the best feedback from the rifle about the amount of gas to use, I believe it is beneficial to tune the gas block without a muzzle device attached - or one that doesn't have an impact on felt recoil or muzzle deviation - a pure flash hider, but it has to be symmetrical, ie not something like an A2. As soon as we get as close as we can to the optimum amount of gas - it will most likely not end up being "perfect" - especially with gas blocks with a more coarse adjustment like the Syrac - the preferred (for now) muzzle device can then be attached to assess it's effect on the final product. I believe that compensators should serve as a supplement to an already tuned rifle, much like protein powder to an already healthy diet. The ideal compensator would allow the user to tune the escaping gas vectors to counteract the muzzle drift left over once the tuning is right. Since no user is able to offer complete 360 degree support of the rifle when it fires, recoil will always have a path of least resistance it can follow to allow the rifle to drift off target. Many compensators attempt to correct for this with varying degrees of effectiveness, but there is no one size fits all solution, as the gas pressure at the muzzle, which determines the effectiveness of a compensator's asymmetrical directional ports, is going to be different between varying barrel lengths and gas systems, to say nothing of the ammunition being used. Unfortunately, truly tuneable compensators are few and far in between. There is the Rolling Thunder comp, which while effective, is again half a pound of overkill. The Ares Armor comp is an interesting and completely tuneable design but will lack the effectiveness of brakes with a nice, large baffle area for the escaping gas to strike, thus reducing recoil. The Surefire SOCOM-series muzzle brake has a similar design to the Rolling Thunder with the "tuneable" ports in the high-pressure chamber, while remaining relatively small and lightweight, but the high surface hardness of the Ionbond DLC coating will somewhat inhibit a user's ability to tune the compensator at the range with a cordless drill. Once done we should have a rifle optimally set up, not for the short or long games where anything serviceable and accurate will work, but in the intermediate game, perhaps around the 50 yard mark where an 8" plate rack or paper targets are best shot offhand. What I really wish is to have access to high speed cameras to actually measure the optimum cyclic rates of full and low-mass operating systems and see if they are different - or if there is a "one size fits all" range of cyclic rates that will work with everything. Sigh, one day. I have never gotten to shoot a JP rifle, but by all accounts they are the best shooting ARs out there. I imagine they figured all this stuff out at the factory when I was still in middle school, which consequently explains why they have their own bespoke spring rates, buffer/bolt carrier weights, adjustable gas systems and compensators that when combined produce the feel that everyone is looking for - hence the production backlog, and their preferred use by the best shooters in the world who have the luxury of running whatever they want. Your comments, agreements and disagreements are very much appreciated

Sigh.

You would have to go up to Bremerton (about an hour's drive) to shoot a match on 1/4.

If you mean the weekend of 12/8 we have our annual Toys for Tots charity match at Paul Bunyan Sportsman's in Puyallup. Should be a great match.

I already dull my fibers down with a sharpie. No need for brighter. I like his rear sight though because DLC would be WAY more durable than the bluing (that's long since faded and been retouched) on my Sevignys.

Oh really! I oughtta make a video, because I can open bolt reload just fine running quads or twos. After TWO DAYS of quad load practice (granted, my gun was perfectly set up for it) I was doing this: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151835427183423 Combine them with a few load 2's and you can do everything you need. Load 2/4 is the future of shotgun loading.

Revo? I assume Revolver. Good stuff!

I can only do so much until the side of my thumb gets sore from shoving the shells in. It's taken a beating recently.

Can't recommend him enough. He does great work and is exceedingly easy to work with.

Nope, he just added a little extension as you can see. Works PERFECT, and he polished it up slick as snot. I mentioned being concerned about adding too much mass to the carrier, so he even weighed it before and after for me - it went from 32 to a whole 34 grams. (Pardon the JB weld, that was me wanting to go a little more aggressive on the port job)

I had mine done after the port. Got my thumb stuck when I still caddy loaded. Didn't hurt (much less impale my thumbnail like I've seen happen) just got stuck. it might be fine if you stick with load 2/4 as Pat has.Who did you have weld your lifter? Local guy - Fred Hastings of http://dev.carfirearms.com/. It's pretty rad now.

This was obviously not done with a dremel tool, right?? I got VERY good results with nothing more than a bench vise, coarse file, sandpaper and polish.

I had mine done after the port. Got my thumb stuck when I still caddy loaded. Didn't hurt (much less impale my thumbnail like I've seen happen) just got stuck. it might be fine if you stick with load 2/4 as Pat has.

This thread cracks me up. I posted this before I bought my shotgun (and did the loading port much like Pat's) and now with an entire 2 days of practice quad loading I'm under 4 seconds for 8 shells. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151835427183423

I would stay away from both. The Troy DOA rear is useless and the Diamondheads just seem flimsy and cheesy to me. Go with a set of MBUS if not the Dueck offsets.

I'll echo the "Sandals?! What the shit!" sentiment. Apparently you haven't drop kicked one of your mags all the way across a stage on a moving reload yet Anyway... on the first video, right out of the gate you should have crowded that fault line more. Get all the way in there, put your toes on it. Much better shooting platform and easier to get out of. I fee like either way, you could have been more aggressive on your exit if you had some faith in your traction. Cough. Good entry and exit into the next. In the third position though I don't think you had to get your gun up that early on the entry, and I wholeheartedly disapprove of you being completely off balance. Plus, from what I can see (not a lot) it looks like you may have even been able to get all of that with one setting of your feet. Dunno. Second video was really good I thought. I will leave you with this: never be afraid to radically change the way you do and think about everything inside of practical shooting. But at the same time, stick with and refine the things that work. It's all about balance!

Wow, that 1-6 has a great FOV and is LIGHT. They have no info on the reticle though. That's kind of an important piece...

55gr Hornady FMJ-BT, 26.5gr W748, 2.20", WSRP, factory crimp. 1 9/16" at 200y out of my 1 in 8 18" Rainier Ultramatch barrel. I'll take it!

I've also got an 18" Rainier UM, rifle length. Next build will be something shorter for club matches

The Syrac uses a locking detent - you have to push in a little button next to the screw to be able to adjust the gas. The Seekins uses two screws - the adjustment screw and a brass locking screw that tensions against the side of the adjustment screw to hold it in place. I think the Syrac is the better design, it's less fiddly and doesn't require you to loctite anything. I have Syracs on both my rifles and my only complaint is that gas leaks out of the detent button and it gets fouled. Not a huge deal but kind of annoying when you go to adjust it again after you shoot it for a while. I do have faith that it won't ever lose it's adjustment. The locking is probably solid enough with the detent disengaged, as it clicks at every quarter turn, but with it engaged, it's not going anywhere.

I would rather use a Micro... but I'm sure it'll work. Run what you've got!

I bet you're right! Thanks Pat.

Does the "deeper" loading port of the Vinci make it pretty well hopeless to try and quad load it? Thanks.

I love everything about this.

On that note -