Quoted: It's also been said and posted many times on this board that barrel length does not affect accuracy. My 11.5" is just as accurate as my 14.5", or 16". Velocity in the shorter lengths is what is lacking. And less velocity equals less range at which the type of ammo is effective. I think I got that right. Danny

A few weeks ago I shot my M16 with its 11½ inch barrel from a bipod at a target 200 yards away.
Except for eye fatigue making me see an extra target after the first 400-500 rounds, the groups I was getting were about what I got when I used its 20 inch upper.

Quoted: Sub: It's kinds like the old M1 Carbine thing.  65 years ago back in WWII and later Korea everyone bitched about what a big heavy mother the Garand was.  A lot of guys wanted Carbines because they were light and handy.  Then again, after a few negative encounters with teh enemy and shitty terminal performance some knowledgeable fellas said "screw it, gimme that big heavy sumbitch". Everyone wants a 16 inch.  many people are paying good money to have barrels shortened ever farther and then having permanently installed flash hiders that bring tehm to minimum legal length.  its all about having a nice neat little handy light package. Of course velocity sucks.  And when people start pushing teh heavier 62 grain bullets at these lower speeds, and they do not fragment, there is all kinds of crabbing about shitty terminal performance (sounds like an old issue don't it).  Instead of going to a 20" barrel and/or lighter, faster, easier to fragment 55s, the gubbermint has to go teh expsnive route:  Lets design a whole new cartridge!!!  welcome 6.8 SPC..........

frozenny,

 Uncle Sam didn't spend alot of tax payers money on the 6.8mm SPC.  That was developed as a project between 5th SFG and AMU.  Realize that most combat is close range and not open country.  IE urban warfare, fighting and dismounting from vehicles, CQB.  We want to put the targets down and have them out of the fight.   Tactics and technology change.  Now to fight and operate 24/7 in all terrain and weather things get added to the weapon and weight increases (rail systems).  Add body armor and then the extra long A2 stock (longer then the A1)is too long, hence collasapable stocks.  The carbine length barrel is a good compromise that the military understands from mounted, airborne, maritime operations.  Trust me when it is easier to ski with a carbine and rucksack or swim with one also.  How far can and do most civilian shooters shoot?  I can teach most shooters to stay on target at 500 yds with a M4 carbine but you see have to see and identify the threat.  Hence most engagements are at short range.  So, all this long winded response boils down to easier and lighter to handle, veristale and cool!

CD

Quoted: Quoted: It's also been said and posted many times on this board that barrel length does not affect accuracy. My 11.5" is just as accurate as my 14.5", or 16". Velocity in the shorter lengths is what is lacking. And less velocity equals less range at which the type of ammo is effective. I think I got that right. Danny A few weeks ago I shot my M16 with its 11½ inch barrel from a bipod at a target 200 yards away. Except for eye fatigue making me see an extra target after the first 400-500 rounds, the groups I was getting were about what I got when I used its 20 inch upper.

I think Minuteman419 was talking about Terminal Performance (fragmentation).

Quoted: frozenny,  Uncle Sam didn't spend alot of tax payers money on the 6.8mm SPC.  That was developed as a project between 5th SFG and AMU.  Realize that most combat is close range and not open country.  IE urban warfare, fighting and dismounting from vehicles, CQB.  We want to put the targets down and have them out of the fight.   Tactics and technology change.  Now to fight and operate 24/7 in all terrain and weather things get added to the weapon and weight increases (rail systems).  Add body armor and then the extra long A2 stock (longer then the A1)is too long, hence collasapable stocks.  The carbine length barrel is a good compromise that the military understands from mounted, airborne, maritime operations.  Trust me when it is easier to ski with a carbine and rucksack or swim with one also.  How far can and do most civilian shooters shoot?  I can teach most shooters to stay on target at 500 yds with a M4 carbine but you see have to see and identify the threat.  Hence most engagements are at short range.  So, all this long winded response boils down to easier and lighter to handle, veristale and cool! CD

All very true
I am an Officer of Marines, my service probably prides itself more than any other service on "long range" shooting.  But what has finally bubbled to the surface is question whether the long course of fire relevant in the modern world?  There were a few of us who would ask the question prior to the GWOT, but we were all told by our shooting proponent, the rifle team, we weren't qualified to discuss it.  We were combat arms guys but not competition shooters, so we didn't know rifles as well as they did so we would do things there way.  This mentality of being able to shoot paper at 500 meters was the final test as to whether we selected the A4 instead of the M4 as our standard weapon.  When the M4 was tested, the Battalion loved them.  The M4 was ideal for everything till they went to the SLR and about 50 percent of them didn't qualified.