would changing the bolt carrier & buffer assembly's weight to be as close to the shoulder as possible to better balance the weight of the rifle have a legitimate effect on recoil?
would changing the bolt carrier & buffer assembly's weight to be as close to the shoulder as possible to better balance the weight of the rif...
Sure, I guess
Yes, a negative one.
The further away from your shoulder the mass is the less muzzle rise you are going to get.
I concur, you want the weight up front to counteract muzzle rise and recoil
Why do you tell lies on the internet? Having mass wiggling around far from a fixed (or nearly fixed) point is going to cause more instability.
To answer OP's question: it would reduce recoil but it wouldn't be enough to be noticeable by most people.
The force of gravity having an effect on the further forward parts at a 90 degree angle would have a stronger effect negating muzzle rise than the parts moving linearly at an extremely negligible angle would. Draw a force balance diagram.
It does not make a difference since the distance from the force vector is the same in both cases.
A nose can be too heavy but generally speaking I agree.
In truth, I like the center of balance to where I would grip the rifle to carry it. For ARs, generally directly in front of the receiver which places it between the two hands.
That's a moronic solution. Having weight at the muzzle makes the gun harder to aim. You can get the same effect on recoil by adding a compensator. minimal weight penalty but you still get a force acting against muzzle rise. Should come as no surprise that this is what they did IRL.
>makes the gun harder to aim
If you stop being weak it actually makes it easier to aim as the increased angular momentum of the gun makes it more stable. The same mechanism helps control recoil.
This accuracy benefit is why competition shooters often put barrel weights on their guns.
attaching an M203 to the front negates all recoil
Strangely enough I just watched this video a couple mins ago
thats actually what inspired me to make the thread
How does a rifle buffer setup compare to say, a carbine H1 or H2?
I'm sure in all the years of firearms, it's already been thought of and didn't work, but what about a delay action where it's a flywheel? In the same idea of blowback, but imagine a wheel 2" wide made of heavy metal that the bullet pushes against to delay opening of the bolt, and by then when the rotary part starts moving it just has a clock spring on the same shaft that provides resistance as the flywheel rotates until it bounces back closed?
in MS paint. The blue part is what moves back and forth to feel the bullets in and out, there's an opening in the top to kick the round out, it's linked to a mechanism to attach to the wheel like a connecting rod on a crankshaft. The wheel is on either side of the bolt. Obviously nothing is to scale
you ever see evan jones designs?
>constant gear ratio from a rack and pinion
Garbage design.
yet none the less interesting
If he weren't an idiot he would already have a functional design with all that work
and if youtube didn't threaten every video he made with a strike he'd be even farther
It would more or less work similarly as any other blowback gun.
I just feel like it would be easier to have the weight in a thing that rotates in the receiver, instead of back into the stock, it would hinder design options like stocks less
How many guns have a thing that goes back into the stock? You can count the designs with one hand.
AR-15 brainrot has consumed you.
But its a thread about AR-15 buffers and bolts? It just activated my almonds, thinking about how the system works compared to other systems like roller delay or whatever, that's all. Sorry for having an independent thought?