Surely that little buffer is not the only thing thats stops the bolt?Originally Posted by Caballoflaco
Surely that little buffer is not the only thing thats stops the bolt?
Are you loyal to the constitution or the “institution”?
That buffer doesn’t stop the bolt, it’s just supposed to slow the bolt down. Theoretically it reduces wear on the back of the bolt from where the bolt actually reaches the end of its travel. The factory configuration of a 1301 has such a buffer but Beretta must not think it’s necessary for reliable function because they sell the Aridus stock adapter on their website. When GG&G ripped off all the Aridus 1301 parts, they included the buffer in their stock adapter. That led to people concluding the GG&G one was better so Aridus started to include one so as not to lose sales. I bought one primarily to support Adam, not because I think it’s a requirement for long term function of the gun.
My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.
It''s not.
The factory setup has a similar spring-loaded buffer primarily as an insurance policy. The weight of the bolt, carrier assembly, and the recoil spring are what primarily slow the bolt down as it approaches the rear of the receiver. The very tiny spring and plunger on the factory part isn't capable of stopping the bolt on its own.
Aridus released it because it was a marketing point used to promote GG&G. "See, the GG&G design has a buffer in it! Just like the factory! That makes it better!"
...even though it is not better in any objective way because the buffer isn't necessary (which nobody argued until GG&G brought out a full line of products that look a whole lot like Aridus' product catalog, only slightly worse) and their implementation actually lengthens the LOP.
The Aridus plunger arrangement allows you to have the plunger if you want it, but it also keeps the shorter LOP that the Aridus SGA adapter offers. So if anyone's concern was aroused by the marketing campaign, they can now ameliorate any of those concerns by installing the new part.
The 1301 isn't going to break without the buffer. When the SGA adapter was introduced I asked the folks at Beretta who knew the most about the 1301 if it would be a problem and got a definitive no, it won't. So I'm not concerned. Both my 1301's are buffer-less and I have no plans to change that anytime soon. But it is nice that Aridus offers the option for those who are worried about it. And the new Aridus buffered part doesn't impact the shorter length of pull, which is the entire point of the exercise. Win/win.
3/15/2016
My guess is the bolt carrier rarely even makes contact with that plunger unless you're shooting the really high powered shells.
Are you loyal to the constitution or the “institution”?
My attitude is that Beretta included it for a reason.
Ken
BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”
I still don't understand why the a300 UP can have a forend grip with integral m-lok slots molded in, but the 1301 doesn't have that option.
Erm...
The A300 has been on the market for eight months. The 1301 has been on the market for...um...what...eight years now?
The A300 was just designed. The 1301 was not.
I absolutely GUARANTEE that there is a new variant of the 1301 in the works which will include an updated handguard and stock.
Will we see it at shot 2024? Maybe.
From left to right; the OEM, the original Aridus, the GG&G, the new Aridus. Notice how much shorter the original Aridus is. The bolt carrier makes no contact with the original Aridus.
Below you can see where the finish has worn off the plunger where it makes contact with the bolt carrier. You can see the bolt/carrier only makes contact with a very small portion of the plunger.
The spring on the OEM is the strongest of the 3 types.
Are you loyal to the constitution or the “institution”?
On the original ASA fastener, since the bolt/carrier does not make contact with the fastener it looks to me like the charging handle could potentially bottom out at the rear of the reciprocating slot in the receiver. I'm wondering if that could be what caused the Aridus charging handles to snap off?
Since this is just a theory could someone running the original ASA inspect the rear of that reciprocating slot for any sign of that happening?
Are you loyal to the constitution or the “institution”?
The A300 and the 1301 look very similar, but they have very different dimensions and fitting issues underneath the forend.
The A300UP was designed with input from the Haughts who campaigned for MLOK slots and a more aggressive texture to give folks a forend that could mount a light and a sling out of the box. That required CAD work, prototyping, and most expensively creating the injection molds for the parts. On a per piece basis, injection molded plastic is dirt cheap. But creating the molds that create those cheap pieces most definitely is not. That is the most expensive aspect of doing any polymer gizmo used in firearms.
And I'm betting that the polymer used is done with embedded glass fiber for toughness as well as significant heat-handling capacity, neither of which are cheap and both of which will wear molds much faster than milder plastics. So to get a production run requires creation of multiple molds for multiple machines, and multiple molds per machine because there's only so many parts that a particular mold can make before it is worn to the point that the parts no longer meet spec. With multiple key dimensions that have to be right (like multiple MLOK slots) that means a mold has lots of key areas where wear can junk the mold.
The 300UP was intended to be rolled out with that improvement from the jump. New product, new budget lines, new parts.
The 1301 wasn't rolled out with those improvements...which came from feedback from folks very familiar with the 1301...and because it's different and would require the entire R&D process to create at least an adapter that would allow fitting the UP's forend on it and potentially creating an entirely new set of molds for an entirely new yet similar part in the hopes that people would buy enough to make the venture profitable. That's a big risk.
The short answer is $$$,$$$.
3/15/2016
Reply With Quote