Blitzkrieg Buffer ????

[Patrick Scott]

4 minutes ago, TRUBL said:

first off......I'm NOT trying to promote mine......I do believe it is the shit, but that is not the point here.......with your wave spring set up, instead of the the hydro buffer....try a std buffer of the same weight

 

Tim, I was not insinuating that you were pushing your product.  
I have 
If you want to know the truth my favorite setup some super lightweight stuff, but the chrono tells me its not a the best of ideas. 

ETA, I am pushing my cousin to buy your setup just so I cant test it. Evil I am 

Edited April 1, 2018 by Patrick Scott

[TRUBL]

I'm an old man......used these shocks in the past in machine design back in the day. ANd years ago when I saw a company using endine shocks for buffers, I knew it was a total fail and it was.....they would only work in a certain temperature range and they never held up to full auto. Now I see these companies coming out with bascially the same thing with the ace shocks and am seeing pretty much the same thing.....better than the endine, but never designed for the cyclic rate of the AR

[L9X25]

Tim,

 

I tried yours, it did not work for me, it gave me the two stage pogo stick feel, similar to the wave spring.  I would rather just get a heavier (single rate) buffer spring and avoid the two-stage feel.

 

I tried the Blitzkrieg and it worked better on the paper, not in my mind.  I still have the JP SCS in my other rifle and it is a close second place in my guns.   

 

[TRUBL]

16 hours ago, L9X25 said:

Tim,

 

I tried yours, it did not work for me, it gave me the two stage pogo stick feel, similar to the wave spring.  I would rather just get a heavier (single rate) buffer spring and avoid the two-stage feel.

 

I tried the Blitzkrieg and it worked better on the paper, not in my mind.  I still have the JP SCS in my other rifle and it is a close second place in my guns.   

 

I assume that you never tried the 3rd stage then.....or you would never make that statement

 

Edited April 1, 2018 by TRUBL

[L9X25]

Actually, yes.   All 3 stages, in all their glory, yet a spring is still just a spring.  

[MikieM]

A smaller spring within a larger spring can only dampen the kinetic energy of the bolt/buffer during the rearward stroke. The problem arises when the bolt/buffer stops and the energy stored within both springs sends the bolt/buffer forward at a greater velocity than a bolt/buffer without the smaller spring.

This explains the "pogo" effect L9 mentioned. 

[L9X25]

Mikie,

 

You had, and sold, one of Taccom's 3 stagers ... right? 

 

You must be another wierdo.

 

There have been several in the classifieds too, so we are not alone.

[Xanatos903]

17 minutes ago, MikieM said:

A smaller spring within a larger spring can only dampen the kinetic energy of the bolt/buffer during the rearward stroke. The problem arises when the bolt/buffer stops and the energy stored within both springs sends the bolt/buffer forward at a greater velocity than a bolt/buffer without the smaller spring.

This explains the "pogo" effect L9 mentioned. 

 

It also dampens the jolt from the bolt closing by giving the buffer another fraction of a second to decelerate, rather than the entire mass of the bolt/buffer combo slamming into the breechface. 

[MikieM]

11 minutes ago, L9X25 said:

Mikie,

 

You had, and sold, one of Taccom's 3 stagers ... right? 

 

You must be another wierdo.

 

There have been several in the classifieds too, so we are not alone.

 

That is correct. 

I have also owned and sold a Blitzkrieg, and an MBX. They are unnecessary when a simple buffer (correctly weighted) will do, and with all those parts moving inside the tube, breakage can ruin your day when you least expect it.

[MikieM]

5 minutes ago, Xanatos903 said:

 

It also dampens the jolt from the bolt closing by giving the buffer another fraction of a second to decelerate, rather than the entire mass of the bolt/buffer combo slamming into the breechface. 

 

Nope. Add the two springs together (the buffer spring and the small spring inside the buffer) and they accelerate the bolt/buffer as it closes toward the breech.

[L9X25]

11 minutes ago, Xanatos903 said:

 

It also dampens the jolt from the bolt closing by giving the buffer another fraction of a second to decelerate, rather than the entire mass of the bolt/buffer combo slamming into the breechface. 

I am pretty sure that is the function of stock buffers, and just about all of the aftermarket types too.  

 

The stock buffers have loose weights on the inside that slide away from the bolt during the acceleration when closing, then strike the bolt a few milliseconds after the bolt comes to a stop to keep it from bouncing off the barrel.  

[Xanatos903]

6 minutes ago, MikieM said:

 

Nope. Add the two springs together (the buffer spring and the small spring inside the buffer) and they accelerate the bolt/buffer as it closes toward the breech.

 

That's a completely different action than what I'm talking about. The Taccom buffer decouples the weight of the bolt and buffer when the bolt first contacts the breechface, decelerating the buffer slowly rather than basically instantaneously. 

 

 

[MikieM]

1 minute ago, Xanatos903 said:

 

That's a completely different action than what I'm talking about. The Taccom buffer decouples the weight of the bolt and buffer when the bolt first contacts the breechface, decelerating the buffer slowly rather than basically instantaneously. 

 

 

 

You'll need to explain what you mean by "decoupling" the weight of the bolt and buffer.

In our systems the bolt/buffer act as one unit because they travel as one unit. They do not separate during their cycle.

[MikieM]

11 minutes ago, L9X25 said:

I am pretty sure that is the function of stock buffers, and just about all of the aftermarket types too.  

 

The stock buffers have loose weights on the inside that slide away from the bolt during the acceleration when closing, then strike the bolt a few milliseconds after the bolt comes to a stop to keep it from bouncing off the barrel.  

 

I'm not 100% certain but the loose weight buffers are generally used in the AR15. They add a bit of impetus in the locking and unlocking of the bolt. Our bolts, as you know don't lock but are held in place by the buffer spring.

In addition, all the buffers I've used, from 6 ounces on up, have been solid.

[Xanatos903]

 

When returning to battery, the "head" of the piston compresses into the buffer, keeping the bolt in place while decelerating the weight of the buffer. 

 

I'm also not entirely convinced that the buffer cycles with an appreciably higher velocity. If it does, it's likely not enough to notice, and will likely be offset by the deceleration I'm talking about.  

[MikieM]

 

If the smaller spring inside the buffer is weaker than the larger buffer spring it probably does lag behind a bit but that is of no consequence. They both must give up the energy they have stored. Other than what little was lost by friction from within the tube that energy has to send the bolt/buffer back at the same velocity.

What damping effect achieved by the two springs working in tandem is given up on the return to battery.  

Edited April 1, 2018 by MikieM

[Xanatos903]

I'm not arguing that the springs must give up the energy that they store, only that the buffer does make a difference in ways that you're misunderstanding. You're overstating the spring's ability to send the bolt back with a higher velocity, and totally negating the decelerating effect on closing. 

 

A solid buffer works, the Taccom buffer works smoother. Is it worth the money? That depends on whether you're at a high enough level of shooting to notice the difference, and whether you like the recoil impulse. 

 

 

[Patrick Scott]

23 minutes ago, MikieM said:

 

I'm not 100% certain but the loose weight buffers are generally used in the AR15. They add a bit of impetus in the locking and unlocking of the bolt. Our bolts, as you know don't lock but are held in place by the buffer spring.

In addition, all the buffers I've used, from 6 ounces on up, have been solid.

All the info I have looked at states the weights are for "anti-bounce" and cyclic rate changing(using types of weights), also if you you look at a Colt 9mm smg bolt(not a semi auto one, a full auto one) its a two piece design for the same reason. Anit-bounce at high cyclic rates. Colt decided the 9mm semi-auto guns didnt need anti-bounce as they wouldnt be cycling fast enough for it to matter so those got a one piece buffer. 

[MikieM]

Let me put it another way. I think I mentioned this earlier.

Some automobile engines, because of their cam profiles, require their valves to be double sprung. An inner and outer spring. The outer spring does most of the work and the inner spring helps out. Sometimes in higher revving engines a valve may 'float', or be slow to close. These two springs working together provide a stronger closing pressure to prevent this from happening.

The smaller spring inside the buffer does the same thing the smaller spring does inside the larger valve spring. It lessens the impact of the bolt/buffer against the end of the buffer tube but increases the closing speed (return to battery) of the bolt/buffer. 

 

[MikieM]

8 minutes ago, Patrick Scott said:

All the info I have looked at states the weights are for "anti-bounce" and cyclic rate changing(using types of weights), also if you you look at a Colt 9mm smg bolt(not a semi auto one, a full auto one) its a two piece design for the same reason. Anit-bounce at high cyclic rates. Colt decided the 9mm semi-auto guns didnt need anti-bounce as they wouldnt be cycling fast enough for it to matter so those got a one piece buffer. 

 

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Patrick Scott]

Really good info here from a former Colt employee. Its not 9mm specific, but 9mm stuff is touched on. 23 minute mark is 9mm 

 

Edited April 1, 2018 by Patrick Scott

[Xanatos903]

3 minutes ago, MikieM said:

Let me put it another way. I think I mentioned this earlier.

Some automobile engines, because of their cam profiles, require their valves to be double sprung. An inner and outer spring. The outer spring does most of the work and the inner spring helps out. Sometimes in higher revving engines a valve may 'float', or be slow to close. These two springs working together provide a stronger closing pressure to prevent this from happening.

The smaller spring inside the buffer does the same thing the smaller spring does inside the larger valve spring. It lessens the impact of the bolt/buffer against the end of the buffer tube but increases the closing speed (return to battery) of the bolt/buffer. 

 

 

Again, it allows the buffer to decelerate independently of the bolt, an effect you're completely ignoring. This action would counter the negligible amount of additional velocity. Let's think this through: 

 

During the bolt's rearward travel, the "head" of the buffer is compressed, likely until it hits the rear of the buffer tube. At this point, I suspect that the head of the buffer then re-extends until the bolt face contacts the breech. Then the head is compressed as the buffer's mass continues forward. This last action not only keeps the bolt in battery without bounce, but also decelerates the buffer's weight over an additional 3/8" or so of travel. 

 

 

[MikieM]

 

The bolt cannot (when the gun is fired, or any other time for that matter) travel independently from the buffer. They are as one. 

At what point the smaller spring gives up it's stored energy is irrelevant. All of the energy stored by both springs is imparted to the breech.

[Xanatos903]

If the Taccom buffer were a solid piece, I'd agree with your first sentence. However, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works. 

 

And you're right that all that same energy is imparted to the breech, but the time over which it's delivered matters. It's the same reason why a seatbelt saves your life in a car crash. Like I said, the standard buffer works, the Taccom buffer works smoother. 

[Patrick Scott]

12 minutes ago, Xanatos903 said:

 

 

 

During the bolt's rearward travel, the "head" of the buffer is compressed, likely until it hits the rear of the buffer tube. At this point, I suspect that the head of the buffer then re-extends until the bolt face contacts the breech. Then the head is compressed as the buffer's mass continues forward. This last action not only keeps the bolt in battery without bounce, but also decelerates the buffer's weight over an additional 3/8" or so of travel. 

 

 

This is how I picture it happening with a hyd buffer. Waiting to hear back from Kynshot to see what they say about that idea.