Perfect Union banner

21 - 40 of 98 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
606 Posts
Obviously what you are stating is not true for everyone, lest this thread would not have happened. I guess your honesty, or comprehension, is an issue as well.
The guns I own that came with buffers still have them, those that didn't, including 1911's and mini's, do not. I think the designer knows more than you do about his designs needs.
Loads of shooters that don't subscribe to these forums have no idea that a buffer has even been suggested for their mini. And yet they all work just fine.
Really, you question a well know member's honesty and comprehension that knows much more about Mini's than you probably ever will.
Have you tried a buffer, if not you have no room to talk.
Sandog and most of us have and still do, with a slim buffer you still get full lock up in battery and no short stroking.
This thread happened because the OP has a issue with the trigger group falling out and has not figured out the real reason, which has nothing to do with a buffer "Period".
As far as the designer knowing what's best does not mean it can't be improved. Lets see, the original design had a skinny barrel, took many years of real users asking for a better barrel. Ruger finally listened and they now come with a thicker barrel. They also added what they call a buffer but really is not and has been known to brake. The end users that know this install a real buffer.
Yes, lots of Mini owners know nothing of the buffers and yes they work fine.
But buffers make them work better and last longer.
By the way lots of 1911's come with shock buffers from the factory.
Buffers take up the shock of metal to metal contact, you can not tell me this is not a good thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
Well, if you read the OP, the guy changed a stock, and added buffers, and gun stopped functioning properly. Say fix... start by taking off the “feel good” extra parts not specified for the weapon. Ta-da
Seriously, do the physics, the buffers do next to nothing. Hat minuscule amount of compression barely changes the recoil stroke a bit, so it isn’t saving your optics. The noise reduction has you fooled.
As to the front end buffer, can nobody name another gun, be it auto, semi-auto, bolt, pump, lever, etc...that uses a buffer to lessen the chambering force? That force is the same in your mini whether you release the bolt by hand or fire it and let it cycle. It isn’t a lot of force. Lessening it only makes the weapon less reliable.
Sorry, I do try to deal in facts. The fact is the buffers are
Ike snake oil. You already have a recoil buffer, it’s a spring. I have to wonder, how much shock absorption would you expect if you wore shoes with soles the thickness and composition of your “buffers”? Makes sense, huh.
Have fun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,483 Posts
Well, if you read the OP, the guy changed a stock, and added buffers, and gun stopped functioning properly. Say fix... start by taking off the "feel good" extra parts not specified for the weapon. Ta-da
Seriously, do the physics, the buffers do next to nothing. Hat minuscule amount of compression barely changes the recoil stroke a bit, so it isn't saving your optics. The noise reduction has you fooled.
As to the front end buffer, can nobody name another gun, be it auto, semi-auto, bolt, pump, lever, etc...that uses a buffer to lessen the chambering force? That force is the same in your mini whether you release the bolt by hand or fire it and let it cycle. It isn't a lot of force. Lessening it only makes the weapon less reliable.
Sorry, I do try to deal in facts. The fact is the buffers are
Ike snake oil. You already have a recoil buffer, it's a spring. I have to wonder, how much shock absorption would you expect if you wore shoes with soles the thickness and composition of your "buffers"? Makes sense, huh.
Have fun.
Talk about lack of comprehension. Rev, the use of buffers is nothing about lessening chamber force. Not at all. The round is chambered long before the end of the op-rod reaches the front buffer.
And it's going to chamber whether it starts it's forward motion with or without a rear buffer, less than 1/8" of travel difference is not going to slow down that recoil spring unwinding.

And it's not about noise reduction either. Maybe a dog could tell the difference between the clang of an unbuffered Mini and one with buffers.
But with the report and muzzle blast that dog would be soon deaf.
I don't know about you but I can't keep ear muff protection on my dog for very long.

Buffers are used to eliminate the pure, metal to metal contact.
It's not about whether or not buffers are "needed" or that the designers didn't think about them.
We are all aware that a Mini will shoot fine for decades without them.
But the fact that you choose to ignore is that for the vast majority of us, a buffer or buffers does not bring out the Gremlins, or cause any negative issues at all.

I agree with you in one respect, that the recoil spring does a good job buffering the rearward motion of the op-rod. If I was going to do away with one of my buffers it would be the rear one. but there is still contact between the op-rod and the receiver, and if a thin pad of polymer can act as a go-between without causing issues, why not use one ?

"The force is the same whether you release the bolt by hand or fire it and let it cycle" you said.
Well, that is true for the forward motion of the op-rod. But what does that have to do with the buffer ? The strength of the recoil spring determines how fast the op-rod goes forward, not the buffer.
The op-rod slams against the gas block pretty hard, with nothing to cushion it. That's why I run a front buffer, even a thinned down one like I use.

As far as the rearward motion, I doubt you could rack it back by hand as fast as it is slammed back by the gas action. A pretty violent force at work there.
The stout recoil spring being compressed does slow it down considerably, but there is still contact.

I went to your profile reverend, and read some of your past replies to threads.
Pretty somber and cynical about everything.
And I thought reverends were supposed to be full of praise and uplifting thoughts. An inspiration to others.
Maybe try some helpful and constructive interaction for a change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
I some how missed the OP's statement that he put his receiver/etc. into a wood stock. Now I am convinced the stock is the culprit in the dropping trigger group problem. As I stated in my reply(#5), I had a new to me Mini do the same thing until I swapped stocks. The original one was much too thick top to bottom in the receiver/ trigger area.
So, I am sure the buffers had nothing to cause the trigger group release.

One book I have on the M1 Garrand talks about swelling and compression of stocks in target competition rifles in the trigger lock-up area.

If I decide to keep the laminate stock, I'll shave down the trigger group and receiver areas to the specs of my synthetic stocks. And yes, I'll have buffers installed!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
606 Posts
Well, if you read the OP, the guy changed a stock, and added buffers, and gun stopped functioning properly. Say fix... start by taking off the "feel good" extra parts not specified for the weapon. Ta-da
Seriously, do the physics, the buffers do next to nothing. Hat minuscule amount of compression barely changes the recoil stroke a bit, so it isn't saving your optics. The noise reduction has you fooled.
As to the front end buffer, can nobody name another gun, be it auto, semi-auto, bolt, pump, lever, etc...that uses a buffer to lessen the chambering force? That force is the same in your mini whether you release the bolt by hand or fire it and let it cycle. It isn't a lot of force. Lessening it only makes the weapon less reliable.
Sorry, I do try to deal in facts. The fact is the buffers are
Ike snake oil. You already have a recoil buffer, it's a spring. I have to wonder, how much shock absorption would you expect if you wore shoes with soles the thickness and composition of your "buffers"? Makes sense, huh.
Have fun.
Ta-Da nothing.
Maybe you would like to explain how the buffer is making the trigger group fall out, it does not. It is with the trigger group itself or trigger group to stock fit.
You are dead wrong that the buffer does not help protect the scope from the sharp recoil.
No the force is not the same hand cycling the rifle compared to cycling under pressure. Something tells me you know nothing about physics.
Apparently you do not deal in facts. You have done none of the research or any of the testing with any of this yourself. You keep posting on a subject you know nothing about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
Talk about lack of comprehension. Rev, the use of buffers is nothing about lessening chamber force. Not at all. The round is chambered long before the end of the op-rod reaches the front buffer.
And it's going to chamber whether it starts it's forward motion with or without a rear buffer, less than 1/8" of travel difference is not going to slow down that recoil spring unwinding.

And it's not about noise reduction either. Maybe a dog could tell the difference between the clang of an unbuffered Mini and one with buffers.
But with the report and muzzle blast that dog would be soon deaf.
I don't know about you but I can't keep ear muff protection on my dog for very long.

Buffers are used to eliminate the pure, metal to metal contact.
It's not about whether or not buffers are "needed" or that the designers didn't think about them.
We are all aware that a Mini will shoot fine for decades without them.
But the fact that you choose to ignore is that for the vast majority of us, a buffer or buffers does not bring out the Gremlins, or cause any negative issues at all.

I agree with you in one respect, that the recoil spring does a good job buffering the rearward motion of the op-rod. If I was going to do away with one of my buffers it would be the rear one. but there is still contact between the op-rod and the receiver, and if a thin pad of polymer can act as a go-between without causing issues, why not use one ?

"The force is the same whether you release the bolt by hand or fire it and let it cycle" you said.
Well, that is true for the forward motion of the op-rod. But what does that have to do with the buffer ? The strength of the recoil spring determines how fast the op-rod goes forward, not the buffer.
The op-rod slams against the gas block pretty hard, with nothing to cushion it. That's why I run a front buffer, even a thinned down one like I use.

As far as the rearward motion, I doubt you could rack it back by hand as fast as it is slammed back by the gas action. A pretty violent force at work there.
The stout recoil spring being compressed does slow it down considerably, but there is still contact.

I went to your profile reverend, and read some of your past replies to threads.
Pretty somber and cynical about everything.
And I thought reverends were supposed to be full of praise and uplifting thoughts. An inspiration to others.
Maybe try some helpful and constructive interaction for a change.
What a joke. So according to you, the buffers do nothing at all. Thanks for clarifying.
If you think the spring forces the bolt forward too hard, think hard, what other gun asa buffer regarding its forwardchambering motion. Go ahead, think really hard. Lol.
You keep proving my point. Buffers are a joke, a bad joke, and can be problematic. If you think that little spring pushes the bolt forward too hard, and needs buffering, maybe you should stick with BB guns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
Ta-Da nothing.
Maybe you would like to explain how the buffer is making the trigger group fall out, it does not. It is with the trigger group itself or trigger group to stock fit.
You are dead wrong that the buffer does not help protect the scope from the sharp recoil.
No the force is not the same hand cycling the rifle compared to cycling under pressure. Something tells me you know nothing about physics.
Apparently you do not deal in facts. You have done none of the research or any of the testing with any of this yourself. You keep posting on a subject you know nothing about.
Actually, I am correct. Learn some physics. Whether the spring is compressed by the gases or by your hand, the energy stored and released in the forward direction is the same. Elementary school stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,483 Posts
Where did I say buffers do nothing at all ? Reading comprehension is not your strong suite.
Neither are your debate skills.
I also use reduced gas bushings in all my Minis, and I agree that Minis are over gassed as is.
I doubt any of us on here would say otherwise.

It's not the force of the "little" spring as you call it going forward that is the issue, it is the fixed gas block stopping the moving mass of the heavy, mostly solid, steel op-rod.

A joke, a bad joke, huh ? There are a good half dozen of us on this thread alone that will disagree with buffers being "problematic".
We actually use them in Minis and have experience with them.

I think most following this thread, myself included, have found someone else to put on ignore.
A member here for going on 12 years and you only have 350 likes ?
I'm really surprised that you have that many considering your attitude.

With 7,582 likes, others have found my contributions useful, however dishonest and dense you think I am.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,753 Posts
Reverendg:
Some improvements on factory products not originally designed by the manufacturer:
1) Barrel strut for the pencil-barreled Minis
2) Seat belts for older cars
3) FM Radio, 8-track, Cassette Deck, CD, MP3 Player, Bluetooth on early cars that only offered AM radio (if that, even)
4) Rubber grips on ball peen hammers as opposed to solid steel handles
5) Eye glasses and hearing aids
6) Snow tires

And the list can go on and on...
1) makes the Mini pencil-barrel more accurate
2) makes the car safer in the event of an accident
3) doesn't do anything to improve car performance, but makes driving it far more enjoyable - none of which were in early cars (up through the 50s and 60s)
4) the rubber grip attenuates the shock of a ball peen hammer smacking steel; doesn't make the force stronger but reduces shock to the hammerer's wrist
5) Our Creator didn't include these things in the original design
6) Came about due to a need and market demand; not original equipment, but an improvement for those who need/want added traction in snow

Or consider why gymnasts do their thing on mats, rather than on a concrete floor. Same force of impact, but cushioning reduces the effect (kinda like a buffer in a Mini). Or a padded helmet

A buffer (front or rear or both) attenuates the metal-metal shock, which IS tough on optics not designed for the forward impact. Has nothing to do with reducing the force, it just smooths the "moment" out.

Do you go jogging in WingTips or running shoes? Same idea...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
Where did I say buffers do nothing at all ? Reading comprehension is not your strong suite.
Neither are your debate skills.
I also use reduced gas bushings in all my Minis, and I agree that Minis are over gassed as is.
I doubt any of us on here would say otherwise.

It's not the force of the "little" spring as you call it going forward that is the issue, it is the fixed gas block stopping the moving mass of the heavy, mostly solid, steel op-rod.

A joke, a bad joke, huh ? There are a good half dozen of us on this thread alone that will disagree with buffers being "problematic".
We actually use them in Minis and have experience with them.

I think most following this thread, myself included, have found someone else to put on ignore.
A member here for going on 12 years and you only have 350 likes ?
I'm really surprised that you have that many considering your attitude.

With 7,582 likes, others have found my contributions useful, however dishonest and dense you think I am.
I didn't realize that this was a popularity contest. I prefer honest commentary. Apparently you do not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
Reverendg:
Some improvements on factory products not originally designed by the manufacturer:
1) Barrel strut for the pencil-barreled Minis
2) Seat belts for older cars
3) FM Radio, 8-track, Cassette Deck, CD, MP3 Player, Bluetooth on early cars that only offered AM radio (if that, even)
4) Rubber grips on ball peen hammers as opposed to solid steel handles
5) Eye glasses and hearing aids
6) Snow tires

And the list can go on and on...
1) makes the Mini pencil-barrel more accurate
2) makes the car safer in the event of an accident
3) doesn't do anything to improve car performance, but makes driving it far more enjoyable - none of which were in early cars (up through the 50s and 60s)
4) the rubber grip attenuates the shock of a ball peen hammer smacking steel; doesn't make the force stronger but reduces shock to the hammerer's wrist
5) Our Creator didn't include these things in the original design
6) Came about due to a need and market demand; not original equipment, but an improvement for those who need/want added traction in snow

Or consider why gymnasts do their thing on mats, rather than on a concrete floor. Same force of impact, but cushioning reduces the effect (kinda like a buffer in a Mini). Or a padded helmet

A buffer (front or rear or both) attenuates the metal-metal shock, which IS tough on optics not designed for the forward impact. Has nothing to do with reducing the force, it just smooths the "moment" out.

Do you go jogging in WingTips or running shoes? Same idea...
Nice list of things that do nothing to improve the function of the device. One can argue the accu-strut does improve, but if the original weapon was within design specs for accuracy, it does not. Certainly cheap plastic bump stops that reduce nothing to any real degree, do not help. Often they are detrimental. Hence this thread.
No, whether the shock is metal/ metal or rock/rock or whatever makes no difference, it is the magnitude of the shock that matters. Buffers make no real diminishment in that shock. Sorry. They make it quieter, despite what was said here a few posts back. Kind of silly, all kinds of people tell about the noise reduction, then someone says maybe a dog could hear the difference. Running in circles trying to defend something that does little, very little, to nothing of use.
It's your money, spend it how you like. But the reality is they do next to nothing, and can be detrimental.
Maybe you should put an extra muffler on your car, or xtra bumpers? Do you wear air bags when you walk? Oh, sorry, just playing your irrelevance back at you. The buffer does not have any padding or thickness like the other examples you mention, it ones next to nothing. Go ahead, measure the compression/rebound of those buffers, then take measurements of the force that is imposed upon the rifle with and without them. You know I am right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
606 Posts
Actually, I am correct. Learn some physics. Whether the spring is compressed by the gases or by your hand, the energy stored and released in the forward direction is the same. Elementary school stuff.
No you are not correct,
Concerning the rearward movement, you can not pull the op rod handle back with as much force as the gas pressure driving it rearward.
Do you have any actual experience with any of what is being discussed here?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,483 Posts
All I've said about how buffers are beneficial in this thread, and your take on my replies was that I said that buffers do nothing at all.
Seems like you want to read into something only what you want to hear.
It does no good for someone to type their comments or beliefs, and then you twist them to your liking.
That's your version of 'honest commentary" ?
Did you learn that from watching CNN and ABC ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,753 Posts
Well, I guess this whole "flatten the curve" thingy had no basis in fact. It isn't the force, it is how quickly (or not) the force is absorbed.

But this seems to be responding to an educated idiot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
No you are not correct,
Concerning the rearward movement, you can not pull the op rod handle back with as much force as the gas pressure driving it rearward.
Do you have any actual experience with any of what is being discussed here?
First, read carefully. I was talking about the forward force of the spring. Regardless of how it is compressed, it has the same energy stored it in for forward notion.
Second, I am pretty certain I can impart the same degree of rearward motion as the gas system does. Maybe you can't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
Well, I guess this whole "flatten the curve" thingy had no basis in fact. It isn't the force, it is how quickly (or not) the force is absorbed.

But this seems to be responding to an educated idiot.
Poor analogy, but you are correct...flatten the curve was a marketing gimmick. Glad you bought into it. Lol.
 
21 - 40 of 98 Posts
Top