I wouldn't go reduced mass unless you like reduced reliability in different operating conditions. I like a nice H2/H3 weight buffer, normal spring, normal BCG, and adjustable gas for my rifles (which I shoot suppressed). The lighter weight stuff is neat for game guns, but you can have nearly the same recoil impulse with the adjustable gas system, but without giving up the reliability since you have a full mass carrier and spring/buffer to put rounds into battery.
One of the issues we saw with the earlier Young’s chrome carriers with the enlarged OD to the carrier rails was sluggish cyclic rate and failure to feed + short stroke malfunctions due to the increased coefficient of friction.
One of the issues we saw with the earlier Young’s chrome carriers with the enlarged OD to the carrier rails was sluggish cyclic rate and failure to feed + short stroke malfunctions due to the increased coefficient of friction.
That’s the thing you have to watch out for with “precision carriers” in the AR. Some carrier designs increase the surface area of the carrier rails, which will also increase the coefficient of friction. To get the coefficient of friction back down to the standard carrier value, they make the surface smoother with a highly polished nitride or some other coating.
I usually polish my carrier rails anyway to establish a “worn-in” smoothness from the start.
Mil-Std/TDP upper receivers have a dry film lube baked onto the inside of the carrier raceway to help suspend thick lubricant for longevity of optimum cyclic rate and reliable function, which is one of the most overlooked aspects of making upper receivers in the after-market. They are also held to a very tight tolerance on ID (Inner Diameter) and receiver face squareness.
I participated in a long-term study conducted by a foreign army on AR-15 carrier coatings run in Arctic conditions over 3 years, with high-volume shooting training throughout each year. Temps ranged from 72˚F in the summer down to -22˚F (-30˚C) in the long winter.
We tested standard Mil-Spec BCM, Titanium Nitride, hard chrome-plated, and Nickel Boron carriers. Keep in mind BCM carriers are held to TDP gauge-tested tolerances in the 3 critical bore diameters within the bolt bore, so they are extremely reliable and not representative of the vast majority of carriers in the civilian market. Notice the 3 different IDs here with the initial bolt alignment bore, gas ring compression bore, and bolt tail bore:
Short story was there really wasn’t any performance advantage in reliability with the specialty coatings compared with standard Mil-Spec carriers. All carriers were lubed, so there wasn’t any corrosion observed on the phosphate mil carriers. Some participants felt that it was easier to wipe down chrome, TiN, and NiB carriers, but residual burnished discolorations were the norm on the bolt tail that forms the gas expansion portion of the Stoner Internal Expansion System. That addresses reliability.
For accuracy, the enlarged carrier rail OD should mechanically provide superior lock-up with the bolt, and I believe Les Baer did something similar with his AR-15s, in addition to many other accurizing techniques.
Any time you tighten up the articulating parts, reliability is usually sacrificed so some method to mitigate the tightness needs to be considered. KAC used a FAL-type sand-cut interrupted carrier rail design on some of their carriers for a while. Not sure if they are still doing it. My whole take on carriers is that I want reliability first and foremost.
No, I appreciate your comments. Looking at the LANTAC, they definitely reduced coefficient of friction with their coating, and you can see the enlarged rail contact surfaces, in addition to something going on with the carrier tail:
No, I appreciate your comments. Looking at the LANTAC, they definitely reduced coefficient of friction with their coating, and you can see the enlarged rail contact surfaces, in addition to something going on with the carrier tail:
They also have the re-profiled and coated cam pin, which seems designed to eliminate the cam pin binding within the cam pin recess in the upper. Looks like they’re using US grade 8 fasteners with good stakes as well.
Has yours run reliably?
Not at all. I’m always trying to learn more about it. I just started studying everything available while shooting the AR-15 since the 1980s. I’m happy to pass-on what I’ve experienced and learned so we all are elevated, just as those before did for me.
I agree. I tried the best FA LMT they had with .223 Wylie Seekins upper and lower thinking what a great option. It wouldn’t always close completely. Had to use forward assist. Geissele super braided 42 and H2 I believe. I’m a firm believer that Frankenstein mixes, no matter how “great” are asking for trouble. Especially in .308 and derivatives. Stick with the company making the barrel and match it.
According to Joe Carlos, a "match" bolt carrier (one that doesn't tilt as much) improves group sizes by 8.8%, so your thinking aligns with his research.
Did you necro-thread this 4 year old discussion just to shill your barrel maker...?
I also want to know how he has determined that the trigger is impressive, on a rifle he hasnt shot. Especially calling it a "high end component" without even knowing what model trigger it is."Granted I do not yet have the rounds through it"" will shoot better than I am capable but what I’ve shot is impressive"
Yeah he has not shot, but it is more accurate than he is
I wish Lantac would offer their enhanced BCG with the MSTN DLC-Over-Chrome finish. I struggle to think of a more perfect BCG.
Does JP's bolt carrier also get the DLC finish? I coudnt quite figure that out with mine.
The JP carriers are black nitride, not black oxide finished.Just the JP bolt is DLC coated.
The JP bolt carrier has a black oxide finish, not nearly as tough as the DLC coating. JP does polish the rails on the bolt carrier nicely.
Les Baer bought a bolt carrier patent from Dan Young of Young Mfg. about 20 years ago. I believe Young Mfg. made all of the Les Baer bolt carrier groups for them.
Dan Young had another design ready, though, and rolled it out in his "N/M" design. He chose not to patent it, because it would be too easy to work around the patent if he did.
Dan did catch a bit of heat early on for using that "N/M" designation.
The Youngs retired a few years ago. Young Mfg. is still in business, however.
View attachment 8394074HM Defense Bolt Technology
www.youngmanufacturing.net
The market opened up for higher end bcg options first (think lmc enhanced, KAC sandcutter , surefire etc), and years later following that, people during Covid increased their purchasing of firearms and components in record numbers.
noveske.com
www.srcarms.com
www.lantac-usa.com
cmctriggers.com
Thats great, so as it burns/vaporized you breath in a known carcinogen. YAY for Cancer!
Only a retard would want to breath in vaporized Teflon but you do you. Hope you have great healthcare.
