Theres nothing inherent in barrel length that adds to accuracy per se, as blikblok points out. But I shoot iron sights mostly, and the short radius on carbines hinders me - optics will fix that. Loss of velocity increases the arc and magnifies the effect of the wind, but not nearly to the extent sectional density plays a part. Same loads from 14.5 and 20 inch mechanically will be very similar in theoretical potential. Lot of variables in the real world though.



Colt;

Hey I shoot 600 yds - and beyond - regularly

Your issue with the fact its a carbine (attendent sight radius and velocity issues) or that ya cant hit sonwthing at 600, hey how about 1000 yds, with .223 consistently? Im looking at a carbine as anything less than 20".

Check here:

[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=12&t=174335&w=searchPop[/url]

If we are talking match/range shooting, shooting at a known distance aint that tough, with no wind. Ive seen brand spanking new shooters at NRA SRM throw decent scores at 600, calm. Hell like me lot of them shoot better scores prone at 600 then closer. Are they shooting 6 inch groups? Hell no - but the black is 36" inches. Good shooter does better. Of course these arent 11 inch carbines, but the caliber will do.  

Really want to be impressed - check out the Long Range (SR) or Service Rifles shooting at the Palma Match - matches out to 1000yds. Ya dont score as well as 'any/any' shooters, but its reasonable.

Off the range, whole different story - now you got plenty of variables to manage - formost distance. Longer the distance the more these variables are magnified, and the more entropy advances. Targets move, intervening obstructions, weather (which goes for match shooting as well - scores look like shit at Perry when the squalls roll in), shooting position, etc. Can you spot your target? Hunting - I rarely take more than a 200 yd shot, rarely.

Proof? Check out the Service Rifle Individual Scores at Perry last summer, and the Palma Match - make sure its a Service Rifle score. Sure you can find them on the net. Look at the scores. There ya go. These arent carbines - but I doubt a 16" ACOG would shoot much less, more likely better.

Luck
Alac

Getting back to the original question; Is FF handguards a must have? If I only had $300 to spend, personally Id spend the money on ammoand/or coaching - it will improve your accuracy more than anything, unless you are already a good shoot. Then I'd spend it on ammo to maintain your proficiency.

For me, FF handguards are not a "must have" on a carbine, but it will, overall, be the one thing that you can do to increase your "consistency" if you have a decent rifle already. The others being a good barrel-chamber, decent trigger and sights. Past that you're getting esoteric.

My thought with a carbine has always been function. Im not looking for match accuracy - so no tight chamber. With a bit of work even bad stock triggers are good enough. Nothing wrong with the sights, so you might as well FF the front. But I think its more fashion than necessary - though it certainly cant hurt.

Luck
Alac

BTW re-read my post - correction carbines 16" or less - not many 16" to 20" barrels around, but I should be precise.

NEWAR - Nicely done - pics speak a 1000 words

Alacrity:
I agree that a carbine must reliably function over all else.  However, one of the reasons I am going FF shortly is to increase reliability and decrease wear on the mechanism by unloading the barrel.  IIRC, that was one of the reasons the various infantry forces are dissatisfied with the non-free float rail systems: they add load to the barrel.

Secondly, I consider part of reliable function not only that the gun goes off, but that I can expect where the bullet will hit.  I'm not too worried if it's 2 MOA or 12 MOA, as long as I know what to expect in terms of group size and point of impact.

My simple answer for M4Fanatic:
The non-freefloating KAC rails are almost as expensive as the FF ones.  If you don't like the hump on the RAS2, check out the FF RAS.

Same reason here, too, and for better heat dissipation.

Not out of the question, I agree. [i]most[/i] does not = [i]effective[/i]



How can you prove that it's done almost everyday?



Resorting to insults to get me to back down on my opinion? Sounds like something a damn kid would say. Until you prove that your 14.5" carbine can hit 600 meter targets [i]effectively[/i], I'll keep my stated opinion.

 

I'm not going to make a trip to Colorado to see this. You are shooting 600 yards with a 14.5" carbine every week? [i]effectively[/i]?

In closing, as stated earlier. I never said it couldn't be done. All I'm saying is, there are differences in carbines and rifles. Some shooters can make hits on 600 yard targets with a carbine, good for them. While most shooters shouldn't set their expectations that high.
I also saw a some posts saying that it could possibly be done by people who never said they did it.
a 14.5" carbine wasn't made for long distance and try as you might, if you do make shots at 600 yards with it, i'll bet they are all over the place. i keep hearing "in the black". effective shots are "kill" shots, not in the black. you know those silloute targets, the size of a man? those circles are on there for a reason.
in the real world, one would not make a 600 yard shot with a carbine risking a "miss" and give away  their position.
heavy barrels, free float tubes, and good optics along with lots of practice are what makes effective long distance shooting.
not carbines and "in the black" or "most shots" on the paper.

BlikBlok:

No Quibble. I dont hang things, so I never gave that much thought. Theres a reason FF barrels exist - dont disagree with your point. But as a practical matter, shooter mechanics are normally the cause of inaccuracy, if the rifle is decent. I know theres some hyperbole here, but at some point (12MOA) the inconsistency renders a firearm impotent. Got your meaning tho.

Reading this and a number of other threads, I think there is some danger in comparing match/range shooting to expectations for field or combat performance. Shooting at 600 yds on the range is challenging but well within the capabilites of most. Making 600 yd field shots are damn near miraculous under most conditions, but can I think of a situation where they are advisable. Speaking as a hunter here.

Luck
Alac

Do I smell waffles in here?

I believe the original post colt_carbine made was:



new_arguy clearly states he is shooting at a man-sized target at 600yds and colt calls BS on it.

Now that people are pointing out that what was described is entirely in the realm of probability, he claims he was arguing something else entirely



Now [b]that[/b] sounds like something a child would do to me...

Alacrity:
Yes, I was exaggerating on the 12 MOA, but depending on the application, one may or may not care about groups bigger than 3" at 25 yards.

I think you are on the money regarding field versus range shooting, but I see a difference between shooting people and hunting.  I'd never want to wound an animal and let it crawl away and die, but if a grazing wound gets the other guy to stop shooting at me, it might be a win :)

Bartholomew_Roberts: I agree completely

Highlight review:


My goal is not to harp on ColtCarbine.  I'd like to see New Arguy perform, except I'm not going to bet against him.  In fact, I'd like to start a different thread on this topic, starting two pages ago :)

But we haven't been arguing the same point, because ideas like "consistently" and "effective" keep getting added to the debate.

We've already established that the 14.5 or 16 inch carbine is precise enough (small enough groups) to stay on a 600m B27 target consistently, in range conditions.  So that covers "consistent" or "most".  But the addition of "effective" is worthless unless we define it, because "effective" hits on paper involve making a hole through it.  Translating that to effective hits on meat is a red herring: a Z-zone hit on a threat's left pinky that makes him stop shooting is an effective hit for me.

Coltcarbine, no childish name calling was made, or intended if that is how you took it. It was my way of trying to keep things light hearted and casual.

But in any case... I'd like to keep playing. I am rather competitive by nature, but in a non-competitive way. I try hard to meet a challenge set before me, but dont have a big enough ego to feel badly if I fail. And I dont have a problem admitting it.

That being the case... tell me where you would like to see the shots on a B27 target. Considering the range, please be reasonable. I'm doubtful I could make 5 out of 5 head shots, so lets keep it to the body. Tell me what you think is reasonable, and we'll see if we all cant agree.

We have almost 3 weeks to set the specifics. To everyone else, even if ColtCarbine bows out of the challenge, lets keep this going and see whatwe cant come up with. I tell you what... to make it even more intersting, I will shoot both my favorite guns;

The Bushmaster 14.5" M4 with Vortex, JP Trigger, TA31 and #58mod SIR etc...

The Armalite SPR with Krieger stainless barrel, Leupy LRM3, PRI tube with ARMS rail and rings, Knights trigger etc...

I firmly believe the SPR will come up the winner, but by how much?

I might have to bring my two rifles along as well. [devil]

Let me clarify what I am capable of and you can tell me if it is effective.  At about 660 yards laying in the dirt in the midle of a pasture I can hit a 10" by 10" square steel plate 25 to 30 times out of a 30 round mag.  I can do this rapidly enough that when I stop shooting I can sometimes hear two hits.  If the wind is gusting I may miss 6 or 8 times out of 30 rounds.

Now in full disclosure I have a 16" chrome lined barrel, I shoot M193 ammo, I have a DD free float fore end, I have a TA01NSN acog, and I have an accuracy speaks single stage trigger.
My carbine is by no means stock but it is not a match set up either.

I have no reason to make this up.  I don't consider myself a great shooter.  Most of my shooting buddies can out shoot me.  I just want people to know it is possible if they just work at it.  Go try it.  You will be supprised.

I love a good shooting debate! [:D]

You guys are the best

Colt - can you tell me why you think this? Barrel length? Sight Radius? Just a bias? M4 and other carbines were not designed with  long distance shooting as a priority, but I have been surprised at their capability. There is no inherent inacuracy in shorter barrels. Im betting we will see AR and a few others end up with some interesting results.



If we are talking "kill" shots, why are we discussing 5.56 past 200, out of any barrel. The round is plenty accurate a good ways out, but bluntly, its at best adequate as far as intermediate range terminal ballistics is concerned. Even out of full length barrels, it'd not be my first, or even second choice. But it would do.

Those circles are normally on pistol targets. Most military pop ups register on any hit. Long range targets are normally steel. Some do have reactive "kill zones", but most register on any hit. I cant tell you the distribution of either. In general they conform to 20-24" by 20-36". Anyone have a pic of an Iron Maiden? Might clarify my point.

BTW, the DCM, which originally administered the Civilian Marksmanship Program was created to instill marksmanship into civilians in expectation of their joining the military. So the targets and scoring approximate "kill zones". Not coincidently, they approximate the dimensions mentioned above. Carbines arent used, or legal, but I think we've determined that short barrel length is not necessarily an indication of inconsistency. Optics MORE than overcome any disadvantage carbines have over CMP type rifles. Irons suck.



Most long shots are missed for one reason, misjudging distance to target. Cant see if it matters if its a long or short barrel. Optics, esp with a correct BDC, make the ranging and correction immensely easier, and permit reasonable adjustments quickly. I'd be much more concerned with my optics than the length of my barrel. What makes effective shooting is good ranging, good wind estimation, good support, and good shooter mechanics. Mechanical limits of a carbine vs a 20" is one of the least variables. Currently, my real world doesnt include engaging targets that might discover my position. Otherwise I dont really disagree with your points.

If my only concern was long and intermediate range shooting, I would not choose an AR at all.  But if I had to make a shot with a shorter barrel AR, I am comfortable under some conditions I would have a reasonable odds. My least concern is with the mechanical limits of the accuracy of a carbine. 600yd shots in the field arent going to be common or advisable, but as BR pointed out, that wasnt the gist of your original post.

Good to see theres no rancor here - pissing matches are always unseemly.  

Luck
Alac

Just in case anyone wants to beat me about my head and shoulders for this comment:



Just came across this and Im throwing it out as cover.

[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=174774[/url]

Nice to have experiences validated. Maybe MK262 is the answer, but from what Ive seen buys you 250m in a 16in barrel. Fragmentation aint the end all be all, but its an indication of serious performance. Hey Im not uncomfortable with even M193 loads, but its hard to argue that if 55 grains are good, 168 grains are better. Is MY bias apparent?

Luck
Alac

Want to see how it went??

[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=12&t=175636&page=1[/url]

Firstr I wanna say Great Job on documenting what you did.

Second I just wanna say this kinda thing really chaps my ass to see some person who obviously spends more time at the keyboartd then at the firing line say ya can't do some thing then call every one "damn kids".

I have been around alot longer then I like to admit. and I remember seeing bs like this when shooters first started pullin up to the firing line with AR's in Service Rifle matches I used to mess around with.

I suppose I should not always test my 45 colt handloads at the 100 yard line out or my 4 5/5 Blackhawk. Nor should I shoot my old XM with it's 11 1/2" BBL at 200 and 300 yards all the time.

All I got to say to the old fool is keep your trap shut al let us get on the with sharing of ideas and information that the majority of the members of this sight do so well.

Keep up the great works her folks and don't let anyone tell ya ya can't try some thing new, we would still be reading by candle light and not have technology such as what makes the sharing of ideas so readily possible today.

My favorite aspects of the FFRAS are not its FF'ing, but its rock solid construction.  It just doesn't budge and its bbl cooling potential (ventilation) is superior.

So many parts of the AR system have wobble potential: collapsable stocks, upper/lwr fit, handguard/delta ring etc.  Solid FF systems remove the wobble factor from the reciever forward.  Whether it benefits accuracy or not I just love a solid feel.