TonytheTiger

I'm sure this is true if you were to do a full on endurance test till failure, but I haven't seen it play out in normal use. I clean my guns once every winter if I feel like it, and the only times I've had any problems in 5 years of match shooting it has been trigger related, a loose gas key, worn gas rings or the death of an aluminum carrier. All serious issues to be sure but none of them related to questionably long gas systems or lack of reciprocating mass. The main downside I see with the ultra light components is how much sooner I run into pressure signs when loading for velocity versus the same loads in more conventional systems.

That has been my experience. I played around a little with light carrier/heavy buffer, light buffer/heavy carrier etc. and I couldn't tell a difference between a given total weight using either method of getting there. You might as well go all the way to the Taccom buffer and 20% reduced power spring and see if it makes the difference you're looking for.

I've tried the SCS and for the life of me can't figure out what the fuss is about. You tune the springs and weights on it just like you tune standard stuff, and any recoil reduction is the same in either system. I think the selling point is that a brand new SCS sounds like a well used and lubricated standard spring. @mrd I have one rifle about the same setup as yours, and I have another rifle I took to the next level with a Boomfab titanium carrier. Combined with the Taccom plastic buffer my reciprocating weight is right around 6oz. Its a little flatter and softer but not the kind of flatter and softer you can see in match scores. If you like to tinker (and I do) go for it but be aware that you're 95% of the way there already and the ultra light parts don't like hot heavy bullet loads as much.

When I was in the market for a range finder eight years ago I decided anything less than $800 was garbage so I never bought one. Snagged a Vortex Impact 850 off a prize table last month and was pleasantly surprised to see the $200 units of today are better than the higher end products of yesteryear.

In my experience a strong breeze or a particularly mean insult will remove Duracoat.

How rough is the inside of your buffer tube? I've got the same setup in 4 rifles and I've never experienced any rattling.

Bummer. It'll still take a long time for any of us catch his post count.

I don't have the three dots in android either.

The short answer is that I've tested the 112's down to the 2.31" oal that my ASC mags allow and everything ran great. The long answer is that I'm using windowed mags and have the magwell and barrel extension cut to accept 2.42" oal. The load I settled on is 2.37ish, lands were 2.38" iirc. Receiver is a Seekins and barrel is an X Caliber 22" 7.7 twist. Tried 8208 and I was happy most of the time but pressure got spiky with temp changes so CFE is the new go to, don't remember powder charge but I'm at around 2640fps. Shoots great!

Not a direct answer to your question because its a 6G and not a Berger VLD, but the Barnes 112gr Match Burner feeds fine.

I know you weren't asking me but when I justify a 6ARC bolt gun to myself I think about the availability of formed brass, unlike a Dasher, burning 2/3rds the powder of 243 and getting 90% of the performance, way better barrel life than any of the bigger 6mm's is a huge selling point for a guy like me that has no interest in buying barrel vices and the tools to re barrel a bolt gun, less recoil is a bonus, factory ammo is a nice thought even though I'd never buy it.

I can't imagine it running any different than the 6 Grendel, which in my experience runs great. Which cartridges are you having trouble with?

I haven't noticed any blast from the shooters perspective. It's definitely not as bad as the M4-72 or the Ultradyne Apollo.

I should rephrase my question. What's wrong with the carbine buffer tube?

I'm going to go crunch some numbers and see if the time gained in fast transitions is enough to offset all the FTE's from not shooting any targets. At the very least I'll save money on ammo.

Whats wrong with the stock thats on it? Also, dibs if you want to sell it cheap..

Ben made a FB post yesterday that made it look like he was working on another dust up with The Beard.

I think its safe to say Ben will not be shooting much USPSA...

Curious to see how that works. I thought a 6 Grendel bolt gun would be cool but have no interest figuring out how to make things work.

There really isn't anything new anymore, just new advertising.

@Gary Stevens what mags are you going to use?

How do you know that?

A moderately clever troll with poor follow-up trolling? Not brilliant scheme to get to 50 posts?

It's 6.5 Grendel necked down with the shoulder pushed back .03" So ballistically identical to all the 6mm Grendel wildcats, but dimensionally just different enough to be called a "new" cartridge.

My 16" rlgs ultra low mass components rifle ejects around 2 o'clock, and adjusting the gas block puts it into no lock back mode, just like yours. The 15" intermediate with low mass parts is much more agreeable, 3:30 ejection, feels like lower carrier speed, but damn if it just wont stack doubles like the other rifle even if it feels more tame. I think the titanium carriers and plastic buffers are just so light that even with the minimum gas required to run they just cycle crazy fast anyways. Weight distribution and stock setup absolutely play a part in perceived recoil. Every time I change barrels I get them a little lighter and the increasingly rearward balance seems to make things jumpier up front till I subconsciously recalibrate to it. Way more so for stock setup. Whenever I want to make a rifle behave like my match rifle I buy a Odin Zulu, measure all the dimensions and then copy it exactly to the new stock. I eyeballed it once and the new rifle behaved terribly. Duplicated my normal setup exactly and suddenly the stars aligned and the rifle shot great.