TACCOM ULW Buffer system - what am I missing?

[MickB]

I installed 2 new TACCOM carbine ULW buffer systems in 2 rifles, replacing the existing standard carbine buffers.

Both rifles are equipped with JP LMOS BCG's.

One rifle has a JP GS5 lo pro adjustable gas block, the other has an SLR SA7 adjustable gas block.

Both are 16" barrels. One a JP with mid length gas, the other a Voodoo ultra-light with rifle length gas.

In both cases, there was no difference in gas setting using the TACCOM ULW carbine buffer. Dialling in from completely closed gas yielded the exact same setting as with the standard carbine buffer.

What am I missing?

Mick

Edited May 10, 2014 by MickB

[openclassterror]

About 2 oz . SOMEBODY had to say it! Gas setting is how much you need to overcome the initial bolt resistance and get it moving. The Taccom buffer is affecting reciprocating weight, but not nearly as significantly as the LMOS bolt. It affects felt recoil from the cycling impulse more than gas consumption, esp in the rifle length system. I would assume that it FEELS different, regardless of the similar gas setting, right?

Also, when you say "standard" carbine buffer, do you mean H2? There are several Carbine buffers that could be considered standard, and weights may or may not be removed from any of them. Did you spec the buffers that were in the rifles, or did they come with pre-assembled lowers?

[MickB]

Both rifles had 3 oz, standard carbine buffers.

One is a factory JP-15 with 16" mid-length gas, and other was assembled by me.

On both rifles, I could honestly not feel any difference in recoil impulse. I will try shooting again tomorrow.

It's been said that with the TACCOM buffers, the gas has to be turned down.

Not in my case, apparently....

Mick

[EaZeNuTZ33]

Both my voodoo mid gas and voodoo rifle gas barreled uppers require the gas to be within 2-4 clicks from gas-off with the same ULW buffered lower. Both uppers have RCA LW carriers. I had the same carrier in the mid gas rifle with silent captured system and it was 6-7 clicks out. Recoil "feels" a smidge lighter to my shoulder and eyes, but I don't know how else you could objectively test it with what I have available.

If you were shaving weight like myself, it's 2pz of weight savings and could help felt recoil, for a great price.

[bigbrowndog]

its the same issue we see with people saying "they need" to have the bolt on a shotgun shaved!!!! most people, shooters will not or cannot tell a difference in the recoil impulse. This is not to say that there isn't one, just that it can take a lot of attention to whats actually going on to be able to feel or tell the difference.........whether or not there is a benefit is is purely a personal or mental perception.

There is recip. mass, there is blast, there is shove to the shoulder, there is a lot going on. and a lot of what you perceive depends on what you are most used to and what you personally like or dislike, as to the actual gas setting, do we really know how precise or inprecise that amount of flow is????? NO!!!

It was explained to me by someone that knows AR's better than me and has been doing it for years longer than me, with regards to an adjustable gas block, and how to actually utilize it or prep it for what we do. the reply was quite simple......................We need our guns to work!!!

not work most of the time, but, all of the time. So while we don't want over gassed guns, we really don't want undergassed guns. So we set them to work and then give it a bit more for insurance and peace of mind. BTW, the answer was from someone that makes one of the earliest adjustable gas blocks, and has for years.

Trapr

[TRUBL]

Oh boy....this is gonna be long winded....hope it's understandable:

Trapr is correct. We want rifles that WORK!! And that the recoil/muzzle rise can be a very personal thing.

The AR15 is over gassed and over sprung…..actually leading to a rifle that could be made better for recoil/muzzle rise by going down many different avenues.

Remember….you are using a gas system developed for a closed bolt machine gun and timing is EVERYTHING in that design.

Now….go back to 1911 pistols…..how do we control muzzle flip? Once we develop our ‘pet’ load…..it’s pretty much all been in the recoil spring and to some extent…the main spring. Now think about this…..just how many companies out there make recoil springs in all different weights and configurations as well as main springs. Recently….there’s been a huge drive towards making the slides lighter as well….basically….reducing the reciprocating mass. That’s not a catch all problem solver…..you still need to do your homework, develop your pet load and spring it accordingly. Open guns also have the muzzle brake as a device to mess with everything as well….adding another factor in the mix.

Lets go forward up the AR15.….the number one way (and the way things started) to reduce recoil and rise is (was) the brake. Think about this…..just how many brakes are out there that were developed specifically for the AR15? Everyone, their Mother’s, son’s and cousin’s have one for sale.

Seldom heard back in the day was lighter spring weights, but lots of people cut springs, trying to duplicate the same theory as how they set up their 1911‘s….but adjustable gas came in view…..the OTHER thing that can work. Only thing is…..with the standard BCG and Buffer, there was very little difference between ‘just enough’ and wide open. Going with lightened BCG’s seemed to make that spread a little wider. And now….you are starting to see MANY light weight BCG’s coming out on the market. The more weight that you remove…..the wider that spread will be on your gas system between ‘just enough’ and ‘wide open’. The idea is to get the lighter set up to move as fast as (or close to) the original weight carrier and buffer for reliability and if you have the same speed…..with lightened mass….your felt recoil will be less and you could also see less muzzle rise as well.

Going this route…..there is one thing that is over looked…..the muzzle brake effectiveness. Or….what you really need at that point. Do you want a 6 ounce weight on the end of your barrel? Or will one that weighs 1/3 that amount work just as well. I believe that if you ask Mr. Pat Kelly…..on std AR15 rifles….the difference between brakes is in fact, while one or two may float to the top….just how much better….can be subjective as well. This becomes less of a factor once you have reduced mass in your carrier system.

One thing that really hasn’t been talked about…..is the other part of the equation that is used in 1911 pistols….the recoil spring. Ever see that vast array of recoil spring weights for the AR15? I do know that our good friends at TTI have a 10% reduced recoil spring…..TUBB’s has a flat wound one, JP may even have one or two. But that is pretty much it. WHY??? Well…..either you can go with reducing the speed of the stock BCG or Reduce the weight…..either one will work….either one gets you to the same end result….reduced felt recoil/muzzle rise. It’s pretty much been perceived that it’s easier to adjust the gas rather than changing out the recoil spring. The biggest opportunity I see is that you really need to lighten up your BCG/buffer system to get that spread I talked about earlier to take advantage of the entire system.

What can be the result? Well…..what is the result with tuning your 1911? Double taps at XX yards and the impact distance is 2”? I would think that is the end result that you are looking for with your AR15 as well.

Tim

PS….now that I used your name, Pat….if I’m wrong on what you’ve stated….please, correct me.

Oh yeah.....Tommy over at Armalite is actually going on the reduced recoil spring theory with their new 3gun rifle, I believe. (again, if I'm worng Tommy.....please chime in)

Edited May 10, 2014 by TRUBL

[MickB]

Update,

myself and Kampr tested the Voodo ULW barrel upper at the end of today's 3 Gun match.

With the standard 3 oz carbine buffer, there was some noticable muzzle dip.

Moving to the TACCOM ULW buffer system, the muzzle dip was a little less.

This rifle barely weighs 6 lbs and has a JP muzzle brake on the end of the barrel.

So, it would appear that the lower reciprocating mass is having an impact when the bolt closes.

So, I am wondering if next steps are to change the recoil spring, or try tuning/changing the brake.

The recoil spring in this particular lower may be some "enhanced" version that came in a kit. I will change out the spring and check the effect....

Mick

[PacMan]

... there was some noticable muzzle dip.

Moving to the TACCOM ULW buffer system, the muzzle dip was a little less.

So, it would appear that the lower reciprocating mass is having an impact when the bolt closes.

....

Mick

Same with the 12 ga after I had the bolt shaved...recoil is the same, just a little less muzzle dipping after the shot.

[AustinWolv]

TACCOM ULW buffer

So, it is 1oz?

[JonF]

Is any other user of the Taccom ULW buffer not able to get bolt lock back on empty? I recently installed one in my setup and am having some issues with it and have some observations about what might be the issue but i understand there are various things at work in lightening the recoil systems and adjusting gas to suit.

So I installed this new buffer plus a Voodoo LW carrier and a SLR adj block on my 16" BCM mid. I was able to tune everything to cycle just fine with several different ammo's, but none would really lock back. I shot some Russian and PMC brass 223 and neither would ever lock back, even with the block opened up several more clicks than needed to cycle. Then i tried some PPU M193 and it cycled much more authoritatively and i did get lock back maybe twice in trying dozens of times but still no real luck there. I then whipped out an empty carbine buffer (with all weights removed) and threw that in there, readjusted the block and would get lock back reliably with all ammo.

After all the live fire testing, I compared and measured the two buffers and i can see that the Taccom is 1/16 - 3/32" *longer* than the carbine buffer which means that when the buffer assembly is fully to the rear in recoil, the bolt carrier will be in a more forward position when bottomed out thus giving the bolt catch less dwell time to spring up and and jump in front of the carrier. Further, a standard carbine buffer has a rubber bumper with more compression yield so it will likely have more "give" for even more dwell time. the Taccom buffer has just a small pad so there is virtually no extra compression it can yeild. I know that 1/16 - 3/32" isn't much, but its really the only thing obvious to me between the two, and testing it by hand by racking the bolt back and trying to engage the bolt catch manually, you can feel that the bolt is only back far enough to just barely allow the catch to engage, but there is no extra rearward travel beyond that minimum needed to clear.

Could my buffer tube (not sure what brand being something i assembled from parts myself) be just a hair too short or could the overall length be an actual issue?

[LoganbillJ]

Can you lock the bolt back manually using the ULW buffer? If you have the buffer in and you pull the charging handle all the way to the rear where does the front of the bolt line up in relation to the catch?

[JonF]

I can lock the bolt back manually with both the Taccom and a standard carbine buffer. the difference is with the Taccom buffer, the carrier will go back only far enough to allow the latch to barely spring up--therye's probably more more than a mm or 2 of clearance.

I just did some digging in my records... i may have used a cheap ATI buffer tube and found some comments on other forums that that brand is known for being out of spec and a hair short. perhaps that is whats exacerbating my clearance issue.

[TitoR]

Mine is working fine in lock back. Buffer tube internal length 6 15/16". Clearance between bolt face and catch 1/8". Clearance was measured just with the ULW buffer and BCG in the tube as assembled in my rifle.

Tito

[LoganbillJ]

If the bolt clears and you can lock it back you should be fine. You don't want a lot of clearance as the bolt slamming on the catch is not good for it. Where is your gas setting for your standard buffer in comparison to the Taccom? Can you not get lock back even with full gas?

[EaZeNuTZ33]

I'm running a 16.5" rifle gas voodoo barrel, Syrac genII block, Taccom ULW buffer, and RCA lightweight carrier without issue. If your gas setting is wife open and you're still getting those problem with mid gas, I would suspect the gas block to be slightly misaligned. You should be getting more gas than my gun.

The gun locks back with M193, but not low power ammo like wolf/PMC. Keep in mind we are tuning these guns closer to the edge, and running less consistent or weak ammo may induce problems.

[MarkCO]

gas setting is wife open

Not sure if this is locked up tight or way too much...

[JonF]

some facts:

1. Bolt will lock back with 223 or 5.56 with standard carbine buffer. This was true for both my old fixed gas block and new SLR block.

2. SLR block is properly adjusted for ammo. I run it on 8 clicks from closed for PPU 55gr m193 5.56 and 10 for PMC 55gr 223. Ammo cycles perfectly with these settings (and locks back with standard buffer)

3. Using standard buffer, there's about 1/8" clearance between carrier and catch.

4. using Taccom buffer, there's about 1 mm clearance between carrier and catch.

5. I'm using an ATI buffer tube. This could be out of spec. I will try to compare this with another carbine that does not have the same tube manufacturer.

404. no wife found

[EaZeNuTZ33]

ULW system is delrin.....if needed, shave ~1mm off the buffer length to exact length of the standard carbine buffer and recheck?

[Stlhead]

Then you could call it a super ultra lightweight buffer!

[TRUBL]

Hey Jon......get in touch with us. I'm thinking that you may have one a little long and we'll send you out a new one (that I will personally inspect to make sure) that is the correct length. Just call us, email us, whatever....We'll get a new one to you.

update.......I called you, new one on it's way

Tim

Is any other user of the Taccom ULW buffer not able to get bolt lock back on empty? I recently installed one in my setup and am having some issues with it and have some observations about what might be the issue but i understand there are various things at work in lightening the recoil systems and adjusting gas to suit.

So I installed this new buffer plus a Voodoo LW carrier and a SLR adj block on my 16" BCM mid. I was able to tune everything to cycle just fine with several different ammo's, but none would really lock back. I shot some Russian and PMC brass 223 and neither would ever lock back, even with the block opened up several more clicks than needed to cycle. Then i tried some PPU M193 and it cycled much more authoritatively and i did get lock back maybe twice in trying dozens of times but still no real luck there. I then whipped out an empty carbine buffer (with all weights removed) and threw that in there, readjusted the block and would get lock back reliably with all ammo.

After all the live fire testing, I compared and measured the two buffers and i can see that the Taccom is 1/16 - 3/32" *longer* than the carbine buffer which means that when the buffer assembly is fully to the rear in recoil, the bolt carrier will be in a more forward position when bottomed out thus giving the bolt catch less dwell time to spring up and and jump in front of the carrier. Further, a standard carbine buffer has a rubber bumper with more compression yield so it will likely have more "give" for even more dwell time. the Taccom buffer has just a small pad so there is virtually no extra compression it can yeild. I know that 1/16 - 3/32" isn't much, but its really the only thing obvious to me between the two, and testing it by hand by racking the bolt back and trying to engage the bolt catch manually, you can feel that the bolt is only back far enough to just barely allow the catch to engage, but there is no extra rearward travel beyond that minimum needed to clear.

Could my buffer tube (not sure what brand being something i assembled from parts myself) be just a hair too short or could the overall length be an actual issue?

Edited June 19, 2014 by TRUBL

[JonF]

Tim to the rescue! Thanks again buddy.

I had pondered modifying one of the pieces to address the length, but figured i was still in the debugging phase to know if that was even the issue. Plus I lack the type of tooling to mill something like that with any semblance of precision. But hey, its just two things that smash into each other, how bad could it be?