User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 6:49:43 AM EDT
[#1]
The 16" barrels on carbines look and handles weird. On midlengths the 16" barrels feel more natural. If you can't have SBR's in your state, this is the shortest barrel length you would be able to get.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 7:50:38 AM EDT
[#2]
I don't understand the attraction either. For a basically negligible difference in length (only 1" since the 14.5" has to be pinned 16" anyway) you get a HUGE loss in velocity, esp for the higher velocity cartridges (M855, M193). The fragmentation range with M855 out of a 14.5" barrel is only 50 yards! So you say you'll stock your special ballistically superior ammo so it doesn't matter? Well, that's nice for current rule of law scinarios, but in a SHTF / crises, you might only be able to use whatever is on hand (what you can scrounge up, etc). M855 is the current issue US military round so there is LOTS of it around. I want a rifle that can squeeze as much terminal performance out of any ammo type circumstances might dictate I'll be using in whatever scenario. Now I'm not saying you have to go to a 18" / 20", but for only an 1" more in length, wouldn't you rather have that extra 50 yards of terminal ballistics performance? It's a no brainer to me, and I live in a woodland environment that doesn't have too many long range shots!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 7:55:45 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't understand the attraction either. For a basically negligible difference in length (only 1" since the 14.5" has to be pinned 16" anyway) you get a HUGE loss in velocity, esp for the higher velocity cartridges (M855, M193). The fragmentation range with M855 out of a 14.5" barrel is only 50 yards! So you say you'll stock your special ballistically superior ammo so it doesn't matter? Well, that's nice for current rule of law scinarios, but in a SHTF / crises, you might only be able to use whatever is on hand (what you can scrounge up, etc). M855 is the current issue US military round so there is LOTS of it around. I want a rifle that can squeeze as much terminal performance out of any ammo type circumstances might dictate I'll be using in whatever scenario. Now I'm not saying you have to go to a 18" / 20", but for only an 1" more in length, wouldn't you rather have that extra 50 yards of terminal ballistics performance? It's a no brainer to me, and I live in a woodland environment that doesn't have too many long range shots! Most of these guys are just trying to justify keeping their 16" barrels... if it really came down to it they would rather have a 14.5". |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 8:00:04 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't understand the attraction either. For a basically negligible difference in length (only 1" since the 14.5" has to be pinned 16" anyway) you get a HUGE loss in velocity, esp for the higher velocity cartridges (M855, M193). The fragmentation range with M855 out of a 14.5" barrel is only 50 yards! So you say you'll stock your special ballistically superior ammo so it doesn't matter? Well, that's nice for current rule of law scinarios, but in a SHTF / crises, you might only be able to use whatever is on hand (what you can scrounge up, etc). M855 is the current issue US military round so there is LOTS of it around. I want a rifle that can squeeze as much terminal performance out of any ammo type circumstances might dictate I'll be using in whatever scenario. Now I'm not saying you have to go to a 18" / 20", but for only an 1" more in length, wouldn't you rather have that extra 50 yards of terminal ballistics performance? It's a no brainer to me, and I live in a woodland environment that doesn't have too many long range shots! I'm pretty sure those of us that are either LE or military have, and still see a need for a compromise in barrel lengths. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 8:13:01 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't understand the attraction either. For a basically negligible difference in length (only 1" since the 14.5" has to be pinned 16" anyway) you get a HUGE loss in velocity, esp for the higher velocity cartridges (M855, M193). The fragmentation range with M855 out of a 14.5" barrel is only 50 yards! So you say you'll stock your special ballistically superior ammo so it doesn't matter? Well, that's nice for current rule of law scinarios, but in a SHTF / crises, you might only be able to use whatever is on hand (what you can scrounge up, etc). M855 is the current issue US military round so there is LOTS of it around. I want a rifle that can squeeze as much terminal performance out of any ammo type circumstances might dictate I'll be using in whatever scenario. Now I'm not saying you have to go to a 18" / 20", but for only an 1" more in length, wouldn't you rather have that extra 50 yards of terminal ballistics performance? It's a no brainer to me, and I live in a woodland environment that doesn't have too many long range shots! There is a 77fps difference in initial velocity between a 14.5" barrel and a 16" barrel with M855; not exactly a "HUGE loss in velocity". By your logic you could make the same argument between a 16" and 18" barrel, since there is a 108fps difference in initial velocity. If 77fps is "HUGE" by your standards, 108fps is light years better! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 8:24:17 AM EDT
[#6]
the golden ratio - longer barrels look ugly, shorter barrels look silly
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 8:46:19 AM EDT
[#7]
Get both!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 8:47:04 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have you ever had to egress most haste out of a building with an IED inside? GTFO of a burning vehicle? GTFO of any vehicle and respond without being hung up on equipment and doors? I'm pretty sure those of us that are either LE or military have, and still see a need for a compromise in barrel lengths. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't understand the attraction either. For a basically negligible difference in length (only 1" since the 14.5" has to be pinned 16" anyway) you get a HUGE loss in velocity, esp for the higher velocity cartridges (M855, M193). The fragmentation range with M855 out of a 14.5" barrel is only 50 yards! So you say you'll stock your special ballistically superior ammo so it doesn't matter? Well, that's nice for current rule of law scinarios, but in a SHTF / crises, you might only be able to use whatever is on hand (what you can scrounge up, etc). M855 is the current issue US military round so there is LOTS of it around. I want a rifle that can squeeze as much terminal performance out of any ammo type circumstances might dictate I'll be using in whatever scenario. Now I'm not saying you have to go to a 18" / 20", but for only an 1" more in length, wouldn't you rather have that extra 50 yards of terminal ballistics performance? It's a no brainer to me, and I live in a woodland environment that doesn't have too many long range shots! I'm pretty sure those of us that are either LE or military have, and still see a need for a compromise in barrel lengths. HUGE +1 Considering my Duty Load is Hornaday TAP Urban 40 gr, I think I'm doing fine on velocity  AND if I need to shoot through a vehicle, it's switch mags to Hornaday TAP Barrier.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 9:53:16 AM EDT
[#9]
87! /no, really... get a 14.5 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 10:36:11 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is a 77fps difference in initial velocity between a 14.5" barrel and a 16" barrel with M855; not exactly a "HUGE loss in velocity". By your logic you could make the same argument between a 16" and 18" barrel, since there is a 108fps difference in initial velocity. If 77fps is "HUGE" by your standards, 108fps is light years better! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't understand the attraction either. For a basically negligible difference in length (only 1" since the 14.5" has to be pinned 16" anyway) you get a HUGE loss in velocity, esp for the higher velocity cartridges (M855, M193). The fragmentation range with M855 out of a 14.5" barrel is only 50 yards! So you say you'll stock your special ballistically superior ammo so it doesn't matter? Well, that's nice for current rule of law scinarios, but in a SHTF / crises, you might only be able to use whatever is on hand (what you can scrounge up, etc). M855 is the current issue US military round so there is LOTS of it around. I want a rifle that can squeeze as much terminal performance out of any ammo type circumstances might dictate I'll be using in whatever scenario. Now I'm not saying you have to go to a 18" / 20", but for only an 1" more in length, wouldn't you rather have that extra 50 yards of terminal ballistics performance? It's a no brainer to me, and I live in a woodland environment that doesn't have too many long range shots! There is a 77fps difference in initial velocity between a 14.5" barrel and a 16" barrel with M855; not exactly a "HUGE loss in velocity". By your logic you could make the same argument between a 16" and 18" barrel, since there is a 108fps difference in initial velocity. If 77fps is "HUGE" by your standards, 108fps is light years better! Not sure where you're getting your figures from, but from my chrony tests, there is around 100 fps difference between that 1.5" of barrel for M855 and 150 fps difference for M193 (even more)! Usually get around 2,900 from a 14.5" and 3,000 from a 16" for M855, and 3,000 from a 14.5 for M193 and 3,150 from a 16". That is a HUGE difference. 1" in length is barely noticeable. To you guys quoting buildings, and vehicle, etc are making it sound like we're comparing a 20" to a 14.5" (really pinned 16"). IT IS A ONE INCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PINNED 14.5" and a 16" Why do the police and gov use it? Because that is what is provided to them from Colt as the M4 type rifle, etc. If the design was for a 15" barrel (like the first CAR type rifles were) they would be using that instead. Honestly, for vehicles and room clearings they would prob be better off with an even shorter barrel. Most people just want the 14.5" because it's what the military uses, and it's the shortest legal limit they can own by law (giving a middle finger to the gov). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 10:54:20 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure where you're getting your figures from, but from my chrony tests, there is around 100 fps difference between that 1.5" of barrel for M855 and 150 fps difference for M193 (even more)! Usually get around 2,900 from a 14.5" and 3,000 from a 16" for M855, and 3,000 from a 14.5 for M193 and 3,150 from a 16". That is a HUGE difference. 1" in length is barely noticeable. To you guys quoting buildings, and vehicle, etc are making it sound like we're comparing a 20" to a 14.5" (really pinned 16"). IT IS A ONE INCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PINNED 14.5" and a 16" Why do the police and gov use it? Because that is what is provided to them from Colt as the M4 type rifle, etc. If the design was for a 15" barrel (like the first CAR type rifles were) they would be using that instead. Honestly, for vehicles and room clearings they would prob be better off with an even shorter barrel. Most people just want the 14.5" because it's what the military uses, and it's the shortest legal limit they can own by law (giving a middle finger to the gov). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't understand the attraction either. For a basically negligible difference in length (only 1" since the 14.5" has to be pinned 16" anyway) you get a HUGE loss in velocity, esp for the higher velocity cartridges (M855, M193). The fragmentation range with M855 out of a 14.5" barrel is only 50 yards! So you say you'll stock your special ballistically superior ammo so it doesn't matter? Well, that's nice for current rule of law scinarios, but in a SHTF / crises, you might only be able to use whatever is on hand (what you can scrounge up, etc). M855 is the current issue US military round so there is LOTS of it around. I want a rifle that can squeeze as much terminal performance out of any ammo type circumstances might dictate I'll be using in whatever scenario. Now I'm not saying you have to go to a 18" / 20", but for only an 1" more in length, wouldn't you rather have that extra 50 yards of terminal ballistics performance? It's a no brainer to me, and I live in a woodland environment that doesn't have too many long range shots! There is a 77fps difference in initial velocity between a 14.5" barrel and a 16" barrel with M855; not exactly a "HUGE loss in velocity". By your logic you could make the same argument between a 16" and 18" barrel, since there is a 108fps difference in initial velocity. If 77fps is "HUGE" by your standards, 108fps is light years better! Not sure where you're getting your figures from, but from my chrony tests, there is around 100 fps difference between that 1.5" of barrel for M855 and 150 fps difference for M193 (even more)! Usually get around 2,900 from a 14.5" and 3,000 from a 16" for M855, and 3,000 from a 14.5 for M193 and 3,150 from a 16". That is a HUGE difference. 1" in length is barely noticeable. To you guys quoting buildings, and vehicle, etc are making it sound like we're comparing a 20" to a 14.5" (really pinned 16"). IT IS A ONE INCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PINNED 14.5" and a 16" Why do the police and gov use it? Because that is what is provided to them from Colt as the M4 type rifle, etc. If the design was for a 15" barrel (like the first CAR type rifles were) they would be using that instead. Honestly, for vehicles and room clearings they would prob be better off with an even shorter barrel. Most people just want the 14.5" because it's what the military uses, and it's the shortest legal limit they can own by law (giving a middle finger to the gov). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 10:59:16 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seriously, not trying to be a dick dude, but your on the verge of going full retard, and just being a space shuttle door gunner. Yes, LE gets hands me down from the mil surplus chain, but there's a very good reason things get picked, and it's not based on looks that get things chosen. Their's a fine line between pricing and compromising to meet actual needs versus wants. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't understand the attraction either. For a basically negligible difference in length (only 1" since the 14.5" has to be pinned 16" anyway) you get a HUGE loss in velocity, esp for the higher velocity cartridges (M855, M193). The fragmentation range with M855 out of a 14.5" barrel is only 50 yards! So you say you'll stock your special ballistically superior ammo so it doesn't matter? Well, that's nice for current rule of law scinarios, but in a SHTF / crises, you might only be able to use whatever is on hand (what you can scrounge up, etc). M855 is the current issue US military round so there is LOTS of it around. I want a rifle that can squeeze as much terminal performance out of any ammo type circumstances might dictate I'll be using in whatever scenario. Now I'm not saying you have to go to a 18" / 20", but for only an 1" more in length, wouldn't you rather have that extra 50 yards of terminal ballistics performance? It's a no brainer to me, and I live in a woodland environment that doesn't have too many long range shots! There is a 77fps difference in initial velocity between a 14.5" barrel and a 16" barrel with M855; not exactly a "HUGE loss in velocity". By your logic you could make the same argument between a 16" and 18" barrel, since there is a 108fps difference in initial velocity. If 77fps is "HUGE" by your standards, 108fps is light years better! Not sure where you're getting your figures from, but from my chrony tests, there is around 100 fps difference between that 1.5" of barrel for M855 and 150 fps difference for M193 (even more)! Usually get around 2,900 from a 14.5" and 3,000 from a 16" for M855, and 3,000 from a 14.5 for M193 and 3,150 from a 16". That is a HUGE difference. 1" in length is barely noticeable. To you guys quoting buildings, and vehicle, etc are making it sound like we're comparing a 20" to a 14.5" (really pinned 16"). IT IS A ONE INCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PINNED 14.5" and a 16" Why do the police and gov use it? Because that is what is provided to them from Colt as the M4 type rifle, etc. If the design was for a 15" barrel (like the first CAR type rifles were) they would be using that instead. Honestly, for vehicles and room clearings they would prob be better off with an even shorter barrel. Most people just want the 14.5" because it's what the military uses, and it's the shortest legal limit they can own by law (giving a middle finger to the gov). Why don't you come back to me when you can structure a real rational argument, and are able to drop the ad hominem attacks. When it comes to bureaucracy, especially MASSACHUSETTS bureaucracy, there is often very little good reason for why many things get done. Many departments have and do use 16" guns too, FYI! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 11:12:47 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IT IS A ONE INCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PINNED 14.5" and a 16" I DON'T follow your "math"! I run an AAC 51T Blackout flash suppressor permanently attached on my 14.5" Colt lightweight barrel. If I was running a 16" barrel with the aforementioned flash suppressor, the difference is 1.5" ! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 11:13:28 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why don't you come back to me when you can structure a real rational argument, and are able to drop the ad hominem attacks. When it comes to bureaucracy, especially MASSACHUSETTS bureaucracy, there is often very little good reason for why many things get done. Many departments have and do use 16" guns too, FYI! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't understand the attraction either. For a basically negligible difference in length (only 1" since the 14.5" has to be pinned 16" anyway) you get a HUGE loss in velocity, esp for the higher velocity cartridges (M855, M193). The fragmentation range with M855 out of a 14.5" barrel is only 50 yards! So you say you'll stock your special ballistically superior ammo so it doesn't matter? Well, that's nice for current rule of law scinarios, but in a SHTF / crises, you might only be able to use whatever is on hand (what you can scrounge up, etc). M855 is the current issue US military round so there is LOTS of it around. I want a rifle that can squeeze as much terminal performance out of any ammo type circumstances might dictate I'll be using in whatever scenario. Now I'm not saying you have to go to a 18" / 20", but for only an 1" more in length, wouldn't you rather have that extra 50 yards of terminal ballistics performance? It's a no brainer to me, and I live in a woodland environment that doesn't have too many long range shots! There is a 77fps difference in initial velocity between a 14.5" barrel and a 16" barrel with M855; not exactly a "HUGE loss in velocity". By your logic you could make the same argument between a 16" and 18" barrel, since there is a 108fps difference in initial velocity. If 77fps is "HUGE" by your standards, 108fps is light years better! Not sure where you're getting your figures from, but from my chrony tests, there is around 100 fps difference between that 1.5" of barrel for M855 and 150 fps difference for M193 (even more)! Usually get around 2,900 from a 14.5" and 3,000 from a 16" for M855, and 3,000 from a 14.5 for M193 and 3,150 from a 16". That is a HUGE difference. 1" in length is barely noticeable. To you guys quoting buildings, and vehicle, etc are making it sound like we're comparing a 20" to a 14.5" (really pinned 16"). IT IS A ONE INCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PINNED 14.5" and a 16" Why do the police and gov use it? Because that is what is provided to them from Colt as the M4 type rifle, etc. If the design was for a 15" barrel (like the first CAR type rifles were) they would be using that instead. Honestly, for vehicles and room clearings they would prob be better off with an even shorter barrel. Most people just want the 14.5" because it's what the military uses, and it's the shortest legal limit they can own by law (giving a middle finger to the gov). Why don't you come back to me when you can structure a real rational argument, and are able to drop the ad hominem attacks. When it comes to bureaucracy, especially MASSACHUSETTS bureaucracy, there is often very little good reason for why many things get done. Many departments have and do use 16" guns too, FYI! Dood, at least get a 16" middy.... But jeez, get rid of that 16" vaccinator.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 11:14:53 AM EDT
[#15]
Blain,
The truth of the matter is you are overweighting the value of fragmentation range. In the minuscule chance any of us have to fire an AR in self defense - statistically speaking as civilians ... It will not be far. I have difficulty envisioning a situation where I need to take a legal, self-defense shot at over 50 yards, much less 100. Close to 90% of police shootings happen within a few yards - right? I see more benefit in setting up a gun for close range than long range. Up close - speed matters. Tell me - what does a 16 do for me better than my 14.5 LW at 100 yards or less? Better yet - 0-15 yards and inside my house? You're insistence on 16 is like saying I should by a car based soley on top speed. I'd rather have a car that handles well, I don't get to drive 200 mph .... Ever. That said ... 16s are great too. But length, balance and weight of a gun are very material when figuring out what you want. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 11:18:22 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why don't you come back to me when you can structure a real rational argument, and are able to drop the ad hominem attacks. When it comes to bureaucracy, especially MASSACHUSETTS bureaucracy, there is very little good reason for what many things get done. Many departments have and do use 16" guns too, FYI! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't understand the attraction either. For a basically negligible difference in length (only 1" since the 14.5" has to be pinned 16" anyway) you get a HUGE loss in velocity, esp for the higher velocity cartridges (M855, M193). The fragmentation range with M855 out of a 14.5" barrel is only 50 yards! So you say you'll stock your special ballistically superior ammo so it doesn't matter? Well, that's nice for current rule of law scinarios, but in a SHTF / crises, you might only be able to use whatever is on hand (what you can scrounge up, etc). M855 is the current issue US military round so there is LOTS of it around. I want a rifle that can squeeze as much terminal performance out of any ammo type circumstances might dictate I'll be using in whatever scenario. Now I'm not saying you have to go to a 18" / 20", but for only an 1" more in length, wouldn't you rather have that extra 50 yards of terminal ballistics performance? It's a no brainer to me, and I live in a woodland environment that doesn't have too many long range shots! There is a 77fps difference in initial velocity between a 14.5" barrel and a 16" barrel with M855; not exactly a "HUGE loss in velocity". By your logic you could make the same argument between a 16" and 18" barrel, since there is a 108fps difference in initial velocity. If 77fps is "HUGE" by your standards, 108fps is light years better! Not sure where you're getting your figures from, but from my chrony tests, there is around 100 fps difference between that 1.5" of barrel for M855 and 150 fps difference for M193 (even more)! Usually get around 2,900 from a 14.5" and 3,000 from a 16" for M855, and 3,000 from a 14.5 for M193 and 3,150 from a 16". That is a HUGE difference. 1" in length is barely noticeable. To you guys quoting buildings, and vehicle, etc are making it sound like we're comparing a 20" to a 14.5" (really pinned 16"). IT IS A ONE INCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PINNED 14.5" and a 16" Why do the police and gov use it? Because that is what is provided to them from Colt as the M4 type rifle, etc. If the design was for a 15" barrel (like the first CAR type rifles were) they would be using that instead. Honestly, for vehicles and room clearings they would prob be better off with an even shorter barrel. Most people just want the 14.5" because it's what the military uses, and it's the shortest legal limit they can own by law (giving a middle finger to the gov). Why don't you come back to me when you can structure a real rational argument, and are able to drop the ad hominem attacks. When it comes to bureaucracy, especially MASSACHUSETTS bureaucracy, there is very little good reason for what many things get done. Many departments have and do use 16" guns too, FYI! I can't help what happens with the laws of this state, it just so happens this is an anti gun state that has long ago forsaken it's past when they once stood up and said no to gun control. It doesn't make things right because lawmakers who happened to have never served, or been in LE, made the laws, either. But sure, base your retorts on that location, see how far it goes. Have you ever been in a blowned up and burning vehicle, and need to get out ASAP? You can keep your beloved 20" or 16", I'll pass. I'd rather be mission capable during an ambush than struggling to get out of an overturned vehicle where things aren't where they should be, and space reduction is heavenly. And hey, you know all about procurement than the rest of us, and woe be to us who get "stuck" with a 14.5. Even police snipers who use mostly .308's don't even engage threats even closely to the max effective range of a 20" or 16" AR, so why would a LEO need an overkill rifle platform? Have you seen just how limited their space is inside a cruiser? It's stuffed to the gills with crap. I'd rather let my communities LE have the best equipped SBR's to be able to put down a threat without struggling, because it's not just their lives at risk with those lost seconds. while trying to egress. But again, you know moar then those who've BTDT, so go on ahead going against the grain. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 11:21:13 AM EDT
[#17]
I went with the 14.5" barrel because I wanted the shortest possible without having to deal with getting a tax stamp and it looked better than a 16" barrel with a muzzle device in my opinion. I didn't do it for any tactical purpose (I'm not getting in and out of vehicles with it, or clearing any buildings) as I'm just a civilian. If I were to be using my rifle for that purpose I would probably go with a 10.5" barrel as I don't see the 14.5" (pinned to 16" overall) as being that easy to maneuver in a vehicle with.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 11:28:00 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Blain, The truth of the matter is you are overweighting the value of fragmentation range. In the minuscule chance any of us have to fire an AR in self defense - statistically speaking as civilians ... It will not be far. I have difficulty envisioning a situation where I need to take a legal, self-defense shot at over 50 yards, much less 100. Close to 90% of police shootings happen within a few yards - right? I see more benefit in setting up a gun for close range than long range. Up close - speed matters. Tell me - what does a 16 do for me better than my 14.5 LW at 100 yards or less? Better yet - 0-15 yards and inside my house? You're insistence on 16 is like saying I should by a car based soley on top speed. I'd rather have a car that handles well, I don't get to drive 200 mph .... Ever. That said ... 16s are great too. But length, balance and weight of a gun are very material when figuring out what you want. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile This. And is this Blain guy really trying to act like the velocity difference between a 14.5" and 16" rifle is significant?  That's comical.
Have fun telling the guys in the sandbox that they're gonna come up short because they're fielding 14.5" rifles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 11:43:17 AM EDT
[#19]
First, in terms of total numbers of AR rifles sold, the 14.5 isn't popular at all, is it? Maybe it is among us AR geeks, but not really for the Nation At Large.
Second, if you read the history on its adoption in the carbine, it becomes obvious that the 14.5 length represented the limit to decreased ballistic performance that was acceptable when, as has been said, an even shorter barrel would be more desireable for various operations involving The Housecleaners {etc}. Third, there is nothing wrong with the 14.5 as a legit length {or as the minimum cobble-job acceptable with a pinned muzzlebrake}. I do not own one but if I get another AR, it will be a very short one, actually, shorter than a 14.5. As far as there being a big or noticeable difference in handling between 1 inch of OAL, that seems a bit of a stretch, don't you guys think? I cannot blame anyone for wanting a SHORT gun for home defense for example, but if I was to get that setup is certainly would not be loaded with FMJ's. I am always curious as to why for civilian use anyone recommends or uses FMJ's for just about anything except plinking. Remember, Uncle is STUCK with FMJ's. We aren't. For those of us who have used .223/5.56 on game and varmints, there is such a staggering amount of difference as to simply place the FMJ, ANY FMJ, in the plinking category. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 11:48:54 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First, in terms of total numbers of AR rifles sold, the 14.5 isn't popular at all, is it? Maybe it is among us AR geeks, but not really for the Nation At Large. Second, if you read the history on its adoption in the carbine, it becomes obvious that the 14.5 length represented the limit to decreased ballistic performance that was acceptable when, as has been said, an even shorter barrel would be more desireable for various operations involving The Housecleaners {etc}. Third, there is nothing wrong with the 14.5 as a legit length {or as the minimum cobble-job acceptable with a pinned muzzlebrake}. I do not own one but if I get another AR, it will be a very short one, actually, shorter than a 14.5. As far as there being a big or noticeable difference in handling between 1 inch of OAL, that seems a bit of a stretch, don't you guys think? I cannot blame anyone for wanting a SHORT gun for home defense for example, but if I was to get that setup is certainly would not be loaded with FMJ's. I am always curious as to why for civilian use anyone recommends or uses FMJ's for just about anything except plinking. Remember, Uncle is STUCK with FMJ's. We aren't. For those of us who have used .223/5.56 on game and varmints, there is such a staggering amount of difference as to simply place the FMJ, ANY FMJ, in the plinking category. Do you know how m193 works? It violently fragments when it hits a target traveling over 2700 fps. Are there better rounds? Yes; however M193 does the job just fine. It's effective, plentiful and cheap. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 11:49:17 AM EDT
[#21]
Don't quite understand it unless it is the whole NFA thing which is appealing for its own reasons.
What I absolutely cannot in any way fathom is the popularity of 16" carbine barrels. No positive attributes. Midlengths I understand (and enjoy). 20" are my preferred (but I seem to be alone). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 12:01:51 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll repeat this isn't to hack on anyone, I was just curious as to the attraction for 14.5" barrels. Intellectually I see a couple of oddities to the choice. (1) if you go with a straight 14.5" barrel then you have to spent and extra $200 tax to the ATF, (2) if you permanently attach a muzzle device, then you wind up with a 16" which was probably came on the rifle. As one responded said the 1.5" shorter barrel only cost about 60 fps. If someone goes the SBR route without the ATF route and God forbid gets in a legal shooting they will still be facing two federal felonies. Conviction of this means all your guns are gone, thousands of dollars defending themselves, and upon conviction the lose of the 2nd Amendment Rights. I was a SWAT cop for a major police department and after a Hollywood movie I saw some of the cops cutting the barrels off their shotguns to 14" a clear federal firearms violation. With the pistol grip, horrible recoil, lack of hit ability, a couple of split lips (I thought this was hilarious) and lack of penetration, the barrels were replace to 18" and stocks replaced. All of this was done without benefit of completion of the necessary ATF which is free to police departments. Had they used them in a shoot out, they would have been charged with two federal felonies, one of manufacturing and the other possession of a saw off shot gun. As for 75-77 grain bullets in 1/7 these were validated in the book, "Triggermen". The author interviewed all branches of our great military, snipers all, and the common complain was the lack of "drop 'em in their tracks" with m855 ball when fired out of the M4. As soon as the went to the m16a4 and couple it with the 77 grain bullet they found little difference that round and the 7.62 up to 600 meters. The 75-77 is my go to bullet except for my 16" barrel coyote/jackrabbit rifle. This isn't the only time I probably put my foot in my mouth. As a FNG Marine grunt, I, while cleaning my 16E1, I said. to my squad I heard the M-16 couldn't kill anyone. Cards stopped mid air, the radio quit playing and 10 heads turned my way. Asking where I heard this I said I read it. "Oh, at least we know he can read bull$shit. They told me the 3000 NVA they killed on the last operation must have been faking death. 12 days later I learned for myself not to believe everything I read. The rifles we used were m16E1's with m193 55 grain ball. I didn't set out to insult anyone but to understand the attraction to this barrel length. Most of my AR's have 20 barrels for CMP matches fired out to 1000 yds, while one 16" barreled rifle is used for 3 gun competition and the other my coyote/jackrabbit rifle. I apologize if I ruffled any feather, so please forgive me. It is true that to avoid NFA, 14.x barrels must have a pinned/welded muzzle device to bring the barrel to 16". The resulting 16" overall length is still a muzzle device shorter than a 16" barrel with a muzzle device, and I've never seen a 16" barreled AR without a muzzle device, so there is a small benefit in maneuverability without much loss of accuracy or power. My 14.7 w/pinned FH is my favorite AR, it just feels right. It is a stunning amount of firepower for such a compact, light, easy to handle, inexpensive weapon. My 70 year old parents were up from FL a few weeks back, and I took them both out shooting once and my Dad 2 more times. Both of my parents shot at least one of my ARs. Talking to my Dad the day after one of the outings, he said, "you know, I think I should have one of those ARs, can you put one together for me?" It's just such an alluring weapon. I had his AR assembled 2 days later; it's nice being able to do stuff for your parents... Joe |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 12:02:26 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you know how m193 works? It violently fragments when it hits a target traveling over 2700 fps. Are there better rounds? Yes; however M193 does the job just fine. It's effective, plentiful and cheap. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
First, in terms of total numbers of AR rifles sold, the 14.5 isn't popular at all, is it? Maybe it is among us AR geeks, but not really for the Nation At Large. Second, if you read the history on its adoption in the carbine, it becomes obvious that the 14.5 length represented the limit to decreased ballistic performance that was acceptable when, as has been said, an even shorter barrel would be more desireable for various operations involving The Housecleaners {etc}. Third, there is nothing wrong with the 14.5 as a legit length {or as the minimum cobble-job acceptable with a pinned muzzlebrake}. I do not own one but if I get another AR, it will be a very short one, actually, shorter than a 14.5. As far as there being a big or noticeable difference in handling between 1 inch of OAL, that seems a bit of a stretch, don't you guys think? I cannot blame anyone for wanting a SHORT gun for home defense for example, but if I was to get that setup is certainly would not be loaded with FMJ's. I am always curious as to why for civilian use anyone recommends or uses FMJ's for just about anything except plinking. Remember, Uncle is STUCK with FMJ's. We aren't. For those of us who have used .223/5.56 on game and varmints, there is such a staggering amount of difference as to simply place the FMJ, ANY FMJ, in the plinking category. Do you know how m193 works? It violently fragments when it hits a target traveling over 2700 fps. Are there better rounds? Yes; however M193 does the job just fine. It's effective, plentiful and cheap. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Yes, I am familiar with M193. No, it absolutely does NOT always fragment. At all. I have tested thousands of rounds of various FMJ's in a whole host of media and killed thousands of varmints and somewhat larger-bodied animals with FMJ's, even thin jacketed FMJ's, are extremely UNpredictable in their terminal performance. Most soft point ammo is very predictable. And relevant to the discussion, various softs will expand very well even at AR "subgun" velocities common to the shorter barrelled guns and even very-short barreled 5.56 guns. Honestly, the whole love affair with .223/5.56 cal FMJ's for self defense is quite odd, when there are so many far superior options available for the civilian. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 12:12:01 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, I am familiar with M193. No, it absolutely does NOT always fragment. At all. I have tested thousands of rounds of various FMJ's in a whole host of media and killed thousands of varmints and somewhat larger-bodied animals with FMJ's, even thin jacketed FMJ's, are extremely UNpredictable in their terminal performance. Most soft point ammo is very predictable. And relevant to the discussion, various softs will expand very well even at AR "subgun" velocities common to the shorter barrelled guns and even very-short barreled 5.56 guns. Honestly, the whole love affair with .223/5.56 cal FMJ's for self defense is quite odd, when there are so many far superior options available for the civilian. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
First, in terms of total numbers of AR rifles sold, the 14.5 isn't popular at all, is it? Maybe it is among us AR geeks, but not really for the Nation At Large. Second, if you read the history on its adoption in the carbine, it becomes obvious that the 14.5 length represented the limit to decreased ballistic performance that was acceptable when, as has been said, an even shorter barrel would be more desireable for various operations involving The Housecleaners {etc}. Third, there is nothing wrong with the 14.5 as a legit length {or as the minimum cobble-job acceptable with a pinned muzzlebrake}. I do not own one but if I get another AR, it will be a very short one, actually, shorter than a 14.5. As far as there being a big or noticeable difference in handling between 1 inch of OAL, that seems a bit of a stretch, don't you guys think? I cannot blame anyone for wanting a SHORT gun for home defense for example, but if I was to get that setup is certainly would not be loaded with FMJ's. I am always curious as to why for civilian use anyone recommends or uses FMJ's for just about anything except plinking. Remember, Uncle is STUCK with FMJ's. We aren't. For those of us who have used .223/5.56 on game and varmints, there is such a staggering amount of difference as to simply place the FMJ, ANY FMJ, in the plinking category. Do you know how m193 works? It violently fragments when it hits a target traveling over 2700 fps. Are there better rounds? Yes; however M193 does the job just fine. It's effective, plentiful and cheap. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Yes, I am familiar with M193. No, it absolutely does NOT always fragment. At all. I have tested thousands of rounds of various FMJ's in a whole host of media and killed thousands of varmints and somewhat larger-bodied animals with FMJ's, even thin jacketed FMJ's, are extremely UNpredictable in their terminal performance. Most soft point ammo is very predictable. And relevant to the discussion, various softs will expand very well even at AR "subgun" velocities common to the shorter barrelled guns and even very-short barreled 5.56 guns. Honestly, the whole love affair with .223/5.56 cal FMJ's for self defense is quite odd, when there are so many far superior options available for the civilian. From my post above "It is a stunning amount of firepower for such a compact, light, easy to handle, inexpensive weapon." Joe Edit: perhaps I misunderstood, were you talking about FMJ exclusively... making my response inappropriate. My SD ammo for the AR is 55 gr softpoints from MidSouth Shooters Supply, since I'm not limited to FMJ. I do keep a few mags of SS109s loaded up in case I need to shoot through a car door or windshield (defensively, of course). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 12:14:09 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, I am familiar with M193. No, it absolutely does NOT always fragment. At all. I have tested thousands of rounds of various FMJ's in a whole host of media and killed thousands of varmints and somewhat larger-bodied animals with FMJ's, even thin jacketed FMJ's, are extremely UNpredictable in their terminal performance. Most soft point ammo is very predictable. And relevant to the discussion, various softs will expand very well even at AR "subgun" velocities common to the shorter barrelled guns and even very-short barreled 5.56 guns. Honestly, the whole love affair with .223/5.56 cal FMJ's for self defense is quite odd, when there are so many far superior options available for the civilian. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
First, in terms of total numbers of AR rifles sold, the 14.5 isn't popular at all, is it? Maybe it is among us AR geeks, but not really for the Nation At Large. Second, if you read the history on its adoption in the carbine, it becomes obvious that the 14.5 length represented the limit to decreased ballistic performance that was acceptable when, as has been said, an even shorter barrel would be more desireable for various operations involving The Housecleaners {etc}. Third, there is nothing wrong with the 14.5 as a legit length {or as the minimum cobble-job acceptable with a pinned muzzlebrake}. I do not own one but if I get another AR, it will be a very short one, actually, shorter than a 14.5. As far as there being a big or noticeable difference in handling between 1 inch of OAL, that seems a bit of a stretch, don't you guys think? I cannot blame anyone for wanting a SHORT gun for home defense for example, but if I was to get that setup is certainly would not be loaded with FMJ's. I am always curious as to why for civilian use anyone recommends or uses FMJ's for just about anything except plinking. Remember, Uncle is STUCK with FMJ's. We aren't. For those of us who have used .223/5.56 on game and varmints, there is such a staggering amount of difference as to simply place the FMJ, ANY FMJ, in the plinking category. Do you know how m193 works? It violently fragments when it hits a target traveling over 2700 fps. Are there better rounds? Yes; however M193 does the job just fine. It's effective, plentiful and cheap. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Yes, I am familiar with M193. No, it absolutely does NOT always fragment. At all. I have tested thousands of rounds of various FMJ's in a whole host of media and killed thousands of varmints and somewhat larger-bodied animals with FMJ's, even thin jacketed FMJ's, are extremely UNpredictable in their terminal performance. Most soft point ammo is very predictable. And relevant to the discussion, various softs will expand very well even at AR "subgun" velocities common to the shorter barrelled guns and even very-short barreled 5.56 guns. Honestly, the whole love affair with .223/5.56 cal FMJ's for self defense is quite odd, when there are so many far superior options available for the civilian. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 12:15:30 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Blain, The truth of the matter is you are overweighting the value of fragmentation range. In the minuscule chance any of us have to fire an AR in self defense - statistically speaking as civilians ... It will not be far. I have difficulty envisioning a situation where I need to take a legal, self-defense shot at over 50 yards, much less 100. Close to 90% of police shootings happen within a few yards - right? I see more benefit in setting up a gun for close range than long range. Up close - speed matters. Tell me - what does a 16 do for me better than my 14.5 LW at 100 yards or less? Better yet - 0-15 yards and inside my house? You're insistence on 16 is like saying I should by a car based soley on top speed. I'd rather have a car that handles well, I don't get to drive 200 mph .... Ever. That said ... 16s are great too. But length, balance and weight of a gun are very material when figuring out what you want. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Agreed. Well said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 12:39:02 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
First, in terms of total numbers of AR rifles sold, the 14.5 isn't popular at all, is it? Maybe it is among us AR geeks, but not really for the Nation At Large. Second, if you read the history on its adoption in the carbine, it becomes obvious that the 14.5 length represented the limit to decreased ballistic performance that was acceptable when, as has been said, an even shorter barrel would be more desireable for various operations involving The Housecleaners {etc}. Third, there is nothing wrong with the 14.5 as a legit length {or as the minimum cobble-job acceptable with a pinned muzzlebrake}. I do not own one but if I get another AR, it will be a very short one, actually, shorter than a 14.5. As far as there being a big or noticeable difference in handling between 1 inch of OAL, that seems a bit of a stretch, don't you guys think? I cannot blame anyone for wanting a SHORT gun for home defense for example, but if I was to get that setup is certainly would not be loaded with FMJ's. I am always curious as to why for civilian use anyone recommends or uses FMJ's for just about anything except plinking. Remember, Uncle is STUCK with FMJ's. We aren't. For those of us who have used .223/5.56 on game and varmints, there is such a staggering amount of difference as to simply place the FMJ, ANY FMJ, in the plinking category. Do you know how m193 works? It violently fragments when it hits a target traveling over 2700 fps. Are there better rounds? Yes; however M193 does the job just fine. It's effective, plentiful and cheap. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Yes, I am familiar with M193. No, it absolutely does NOT always fragment. At all. I have tested thousands of rounds of various FMJ's in a whole host of media and killed thousands of varmints and somewhat larger-bodied animals with FMJ's, even thin jacketed FMJ's, are extremely UNpredictable in their terminal performance. Most soft point ammo is very predictable. And relevant to the discussion, various softs will expand very well even at AR "subgun" velocities common to the shorter barrelled guns and even very-short barreled 5.56 guns. Honestly, the whole love affair with .223/5.56 cal FMJ's for self defense is quite odd, when there are so many far superior options available for the civilian. A member with good experience reccomended I use TAP rounds for home defense. It make's sense with how he explained it to me. That member is suggesting a good one. There are many other good ones, too. As for FMJ's; There is a tendency, and I am not pointing fingers at anyone, but there is a tendency, for some to assume that if the military uses something, almost anything, it must have had extensive research applied to it and the result is perfection or at least excellence. Often this is true with small arms design. Take the AR for example. But we civvies are not military, and the military NEED is not always the same as the civilian need. Case in point is with bullets. Military bullets must meet certain criteria and design spec to avoid running afoul of the various international agreements. However, it is those bullets that meet those selfsame agreements that hamper performance and thus all those bullets are as a result, when used against unarmored aggressors, NOT optimal, meaning, in many cases, they suck or are very UNpredictable, which actually means the same thing. Now, enter Mr Fudd. The devotees of miltype guns have a tendency to demean Mr Fudd, but truth is, Fudd has a lot of experience killing stuff and even those military who have experience killing MEN are almost to a man forced to do it with less-than-optimal small arms ammunition. And tho Fudd isn't killing men, he is often killing man-sized game, and Fudd knows enough to avoid using poor performing gear in the doing. In many or most states he isn't even allowed to use FMJ's for game due to the poor performance of FMJ's on game. Trying to say this as best I can not to throw rocks. Short barrelled rifles like 14.5's, 16's and such are ALREADY at an external and terminal ballistic DISadvantage compared to longer-barreled rfles. They "need all the help they can get" so-to-speak. Soft point expanding bullets are the friend of the short barreleled home defense rifle. This is so easily demonstrated in testing media and in animals and can be reinforced in those cases where law enforcement uses similarly loaded weapons on aggressors. There is no free lunch, and the owners of 14.5 inch bblled guns should be aware of that fact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 12:57:00 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That member is suggesting a good one. There are many other good ones, too. As for FMJ's; There is a tendency, and I am not pointing fingers at anyone, but there is a tendency, for some to assume that if the military uses something, almost anything, it must have had extensive research applied to it and the result is perfection or at least excellence. Often this is true with small arms design. Take the AR for example. But we civvies are not military, and the military NEED is not always the same as the civilian need. Case in point is with bullets. Military bullets must meet certain criteria and design spec to avoid running afoul of the various international agreements. However, it is those bullets that meet those selfsame agreements that hamper performance and thus all those bullets are as a result, when used against unarmored aggressors, NOT optimal, meaning, in many cases, they suck or are very UNpredictable, which actually means the same thing. Now, enter Mr Fudd. The devotees of miltype guns have a tendency to demean Mr Fudd, but truth is, Fudd has a lot of experience killing stuff and even those military who have experience killing MEN are almost to a man forced to do it with less-than-optimal small arms ammunition. And tho Fudd isn't killing men, he is often killing man-sized game, and Fudd knows enough to avoid using poor performing gear in the doing. In many or most states he isn't even allowed to use FMJ's for game due to the poor performance of FMJ's on game. Trying to say this as best I can not to throw rocks. Short barrelled rifles like 14.5's, 16's and such are ALREADY at an external and terminal ballistic DISadvantage compared to longer-barreled rfles. They "need all the help they can get" so-to-speak. Soft point expanding bullets are the friend of the short barreleled home defense rifle. This is so easily demonstrated in testing media and in animals and can be reinforced in those cases where law enforcement uses similarly loaded weapons on aggressors. There is no free lunch, and the owners of 14.5 inch bblled guns should be aware of that fact. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
First, in terms of total numbers of AR rifles sold, the 14.5 isn't popular at all, is it? Maybe it is among us AR geeks, but not really for the Nation At Large. Second, if you read the history on its adoption in the carbine, it becomes obvious that the 14.5 length represented the limit to decreased ballistic performance that was acceptable when, as has been said, an even shorter barrel would be more desireable for various operations involving The Housecleaners {etc}. Third, there is nothing wrong with the 14.5 as a legit length {or as the minimum cobble-job acceptable with a pinned muzzlebrake}. I do not own one but if I get another AR, it will be a very short one, actually, shorter than a 14.5. As far as there being a big or noticeable difference in handling between 1 inch of OAL, that seems a bit of a stretch, don't you guys think? I cannot blame anyone for wanting a SHORT gun for home defense for example, but if I was to get that setup is certainly would not be loaded with FMJ's. I am always curious as to why for civilian use anyone recommends or uses FMJ's for just about anything except plinking. Remember, Uncle is STUCK with FMJ's. We aren't. For those of us who have used .223/5.56 on game and varmints, there is such a staggering amount of difference as to simply place the FMJ, ANY FMJ, in the plinking category. Do you know how m193 works? It violently fragments when it hits a target traveling over 2700 fps. Are there better rounds? Yes; however M193 does the job just fine. It's effective, plentiful and cheap. Yes, I am familiar with M193. No, it absolutely does NOT always fragment. At all. I have tested thousands of rounds of various FMJ's in a whole host of media and killed thousands of varmints and somewhat larger-bodied animals with FMJ's, even thin jacketed FMJ's, are extremely UNpredictable in their terminal performance. Most soft point ammo is very predictable. And relevant to the discussion, various softs will expand very well even at AR "subgun" velocities common to the shorter barrelled guns and even very-short barreled 5.56 guns. Honestly, the whole love affair with .223/5.56 cal FMJ's for self defense is quite odd, when there are so many far superior options available for the civilian. A member with good experience reccomended I use TAP rounds for home defense. It make's sense with how he explained it to me. That member is suggesting a good one. There are many other good ones, too. As for FMJ's; There is a tendency, and I am not pointing fingers at anyone, but there is a tendency, for some to assume that if the military uses something, almost anything, it must have had extensive research applied to it and the result is perfection or at least excellence. Often this is true with small arms design. Take the AR for example. But we civvies are not military, and the military NEED is not always the same as the civilian need. Case in point is with bullets. Military bullets must meet certain criteria and design spec to avoid running afoul of the various international agreements. However, it is those bullets that meet those selfsame agreements that hamper performance and thus all those bullets are as a result, when used against unarmored aggressors, NOT optimal, meaning, in many cases, they suck or are very UNpredictable, which actually means the same thing. Now, enter Mr Fudd. The devotees of miltype guns have a tendency to demean Mr Fudd, but truth is, Fudd has a lot of experience killing stuff and even those military who have experience killing MEN are almost to a man forced to do it with less-than-optimal small arms ammunition. And tho Fudd isn't killing men, he is often killing man-sized game, and Fudd knows enough to avoid using poor performing gear in the doing. In many or most states he isn't even allowed to use FMJ's for game due to the poor performance of FMJ's on game. Trying to say this as best I can not to throw rocks. Short barrelled rifles like 14.5's, 16's and such are ALREADY at an external and terminal ballistic DISadvantage compared to longer-barreled rfles. They "need all the help they can get" so-to-speak. Soft point expanding bullets are the friend of the short barreleled home defense rifle. This is so easily demonstrated in testing media and in animals and can be reinforced in those cases where law enforcement uses similarly loaded weapons on aggressors. There is no free lunch, and the owners of 14.5 inch bblled guns should be aware of that fact. Start a new thread in the ammo forum so this can be debated and lets keep this on track. I'm willing to listen and learn. I'd like to know more about that distances and what M193 you were shooting. Not everything labeled M193 meets velocity spec. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 1:05:26 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Start a new thread in the ammo forum so this can be debated and lets keep this on track. I'm willing to listen and learn. I'd like to know more about that distances and what M193 you were shooting. Not everything labeled M193 meets velocity spec. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Fair enough, but it has been hashed and rehashed. Maybe start and I'll tell you what I know, and others can comment. As for the issue, you are right, it is edging outside the topic. Having said that, I think some folks buy stubby-barreled guns thinking they perform a certain way when in fact they may, or do, not. Closer to home here, I don't see much reason to argue between those who have 16's and those who have 14.5" bbled guns. With same length muzzle devices, they vary by so little that they are very similar indeed. I think the issue isn't between 14.5's and 16's, but rather stands in stark relief between a 14.5/16 and a say 20. That extra length DOES seem to be very noticeable and anyone can tell the difference. I think everybody can agree on that. {I think... }
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 1:52:55 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This may be a bit off topic but I want to build a 14.5 and Im wondering if you guys can tell me the pros and cons of running a 14.5 mid length barrel vs. a 14.5 carbine barrel? This is my first build and really want to avoid buying the wrong set up. Thanks in advance as this is also my first post. Still looking for some help here guys... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 2:11:08 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still looking for some help here guys... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This may be a bit off topic but I want to build a 14.5 and Im wondering if you guys can tell me the pros and cons of running a 14.5 mid length barrel vs. a 14.5 carbine barrel? This is my first build and really want to avoid buying the wrong set up. Thanks in advance as this is also my first post. Still looking for some help here guys... Mid-length Pro's - Allegedly longer bolt life, softer recoil, you can mount an M7 bayonet Con's - none VS Carbine Pro's - none Con's - Allegedly shorter bolt life, slightly higher recoil, you can't mount an M7 bayonet |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 2:43:19 PM EDT
[#32]
One thing to point out, is that in a non-nfa gun there is only a little more then a half-inch difference (.7 if I remember right) in real length.
IMO not worth having the permanently mounted muzzle device, nor the velocity loss, nor the carbine gas system, etc all over .7". A real 14.5? Different story, or even better a 12.5. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 2:52:57 PM EDT
[#33]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 3:48:27 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mid-length Pro's - Allegedly longer bolt life, softer recoil, you can mount an M7 bayonet Con's - none VS Carbine Pro's - none Con's - Allegedly shorter bolt life, slightly higher recoil, you can't mount an M7 bayonet Well said. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 3:56:24 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryGood stuff nemsis. I did something similar some time ago. Go to link below. Some differences between 20" and 16", both chrono'd and then tested against steel plate. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/617680_Chrono_Results_16_20_inch_barrel__Plate_Test.html PMC 55FMJ 20/2903, 16/2741 Rem/UMC 20/3111, 16/2966 Prvi 62 {RL15 @ 26 gr} 20/2777, 16/2618 Hornady 60SP {RL15 @ 26 gr} 20/2874, 16 2702 Hornady 55 {AA2460 @ 26 gr} 20/3309, 16/3201 Click on the above link to a picture of the test plate showing 50 meters advantage to the 20" bbl with the Remington 55 FMJ load.; |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 4:11:25 PM EDT
[#36]
...
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 4:20:36 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mid-length Pro's - Allegedly longer bolt life, softer recoil, you can mount an M7 bayonet Con's - none VS Carbine Pro's - none Con's - Allegedly shorter bolt life, slightly higher recoil, you can't mount an M7 bayonet Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This may be a bit off topic but I want to build a 14.5 and Im wondering if you guys can tell me the pros and cons of running a 14.5 mid length barrel vs. a 14.5 carbine barrel? This is my first build and really want to avoid buying the wrong set up. Thanks in advance as this is also my first post. Still looking for some help here guys... Mid-length Pro's - Allegedly longer bolt life, softer recoil, you can mount an M7 bayonet Con's - none VS Carbine Pro's - none Con's - Allegedly shorter bolt life, slightly higher recoil, you can't mount an M7 bayonet |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 4:42:57 PM EDT
[#38]
I wouldnt worry about dwell time too much. YES, it was an SBR lower and YES it cycled fine.
Check out this thread: http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=543391 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 5:12:46 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wouldnt worry about dwell time too much. YES, it was an SBR lower and YES it cycled fine. Check out this thread: http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=543391 http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3817/015mn.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 5:31:24 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm thoroughly impressed. Does he still post? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I wouldnt worry about dwell time too much. YES, it was an SBR lower and YES it cycled fine. Check out this thread: http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=543391 http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3817/015mn.jpg HAHA!! Me, too. Very cool Stubby!! Sometimes it is easier to take it off the back... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 5:50:01 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
HAHA!! Me, too. Very cool Stubby!! Sometimes it is easier to take it off the back... <a href="http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Skaapskieter/media/Paratrooper94/Paratrooper94f.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/Skaapskieter/Paratrooper94/Paratrooper94f.jpg</a> <a href="http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Skaapskieter/media/Paratrooper94/RangeDay01092011i.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/Skaapskieter/Paratrooper94/RangeDay01092011i.jpg</a> <a href="http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Skaapskieter/media/Paratrooper94/lionhunt1.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/Skaapskieter/Paratrooper94/lionhunt1.jpg</a> <a href="http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Skaapskieter/media/Paratrooper94/94Foldere.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/Skaapskieter/Paratrooper94/94Foldere.jpg</a> <a href="http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Skaapskieter/media/CoyoteSnaring/2YoteSnaredH.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/Skaapskieter/CoyoteSnaring/2YoteSnaredH.jpg</a> Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I wouldnt worry about dwell time too much. YES, it was an SBR lower and YES it cycled fine. Check out this thread: http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=543391 http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3817/015mn.jpg HAHA!! Me, too. Very cool Stubby!! Sometimes it is easier to take it off the back... <a href="http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Skaapskieter/media/Paratrooper94/Paratrooper94f.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/Skaapskieter/Paratrooper94/Paratrooper94f.jpg</a> <a href="http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Skaapskieter/media/Paratrooper94/RangeDay01092011i.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/Skaapskieter/Paratrooper94/RangeDay01092011i.jpg</a> <a href="http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Skaapskieter/media/Paratrooper94/lionhunt1.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/Skaapskieter/Paratrooper94/lionhunt1.jpg</a> <a href="http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Skaapskieter/media/Paratrooper94/94Foldere.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/Skaapskieter/Paratrooper94/94Foldere.jpg</a> <a href="http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Skaapskieter/media/CoyoteSnaring/2YoteSnaredH.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/Skaapskieter/CoyoteSnaring/2YoteSnaredH.jpg</a> We seriously need a WTF  pic thread for these projects. It would be awesome and nuclear at the same time to see all the purists here with their heads about to implode.
I'm actually inspired to find myself a cheapy beater at some gunshow at create my own  and create a thread about it. But no one I believe can beat Boris from what I think was the Northeast Shooters forum and his legendary AK Shovel.
AK Shovel |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 6:10:45 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One thing to point out, is that in a non-nfa gun there is only a little more then a half-inch difference (.7 if I remember right) in real length. IMO not worth having the permanently mounted muzzle device, nor the velocity loss, nor the carbine gas system, etc all over .7". MORE "Fuzzy Math"
I run an AAC 51T Blackout flash suppressor permanently attached on my 14.5" Colt lightweight barrel. If I was running a 16" barrel with the aforementioned flash suppressor, the difference is 1.5" ! Will you explain to me how the difference is .7? I may be a "dumb Cop", but frankly I don't see how you come up with that
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 6:48:34 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
14.5 and carbine gas system works. plus the OAL while marginally shorter, does make a difference in "feel', this is entirely subjective though. I love a good 14.5 <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/the-dorsal-fin/9336587113/" target="_blank">http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7286/9336587113_3ba295e26d_b.jpg</a> the mutt by The Dorsal Fin, on Flickr Is this a 14.5" barrel with 11" VTAC Alpha? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 7:15:41 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
I DON'T follow your "math"! I run an AAC 51T Blackout flash suppressor permanently attached on my 14.5" Colt lightweight barrel. If I was running a 16" barrel with the aforementioned flash suppressor, the difference is 1.5" ! Well, I don't know why you'd have an extended flash hider on a 16” where you don't need it when you're so preoccupied about minimum length? Most 16” guns carry an A2 and they work great. So you're making your assumptions of me based on that MA location? Awesome.
I can't help what happens with the laws of this state, it just so happens this is an anti gun state that has long ago forsaken it's past when they once stood up and said no to gun control. It doesn't make things right because lawmakers who happened to have never served, or been in LE, made the laws, either. But sure, base your retorts on that location, see how far it goes. Have you ever been in a blowned up and burning vehicle, and need to get out ASAP? You can keep your beloved 20" or 16", I'll pass. I'd rather be mission capable during an ambush than struggling to get out of an overturned vehicle where things aren't where they should be, and space reduction is heavenly. And hey, you know all about procurement than the rest of us, and woe be to us who get "stuck" with a 14.5. Even police snipers who use mostly .308's don't even engage threats even closely to the max effective range of a 20" or 16" AR, so why would a LEO need an overkill rifle platform? Have you seen just how limited their space is inside a cruiser? It's stuffed to the gills with crap. I'd rather let my communities LE have the best equipped SBR's to be able to put down a threat without struggling, because it's not just their lives at risk with those lost seconds. while trying to egress. But again, you know moar then those who've BTDT, so go on ahead going against the grain. Quoted:
Blain, The truth of the matter is you are overweighting the value of fragmentation range. In the minuscule chance any of us have to fire an AR in self defense - statistically speaking as civilians ... It will not be far. I have difficulty envisioning a situation where I need to take a legal, self-defense shot at over 50 yards, much less 100. Close to 90% of police shootings happen within a few yards - right? I see more benefit in setting up a gun for close range than long range. Up close - speed matters. Tell me - what does a 16 do for me better than my 14.5 LW at 100 yards or less? Better yet - 0-15 yards and inside my house? You're insistence on 16 is like saying I should by a car based soley on top speed. I'd rather have a car that handles well, I don't get to drive 200 mph .... Ever. That said ... 16s are great too. But length, balance and weight of a gun are very material when figuring out what you want. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Oh, I disagree. I'd say you guys are WAAAY over weighing the value of a difference in rifle length of 1”. Citing room cleaning, and vehicle carry. First of all, that barrel length isn't even ideal for either of those scenarios. Second of all, statistically, how often are you as a “civilian” (as you like to put it, I'm a citizen, btw) going to be “room clearing” and engaging in armed vehicle rifle carry situations with an AR? Like the 1” difference between them would even be negligible for either, like I said, you'd want a shorter barrel or totally different weapon for those scenarios anyway. It's ironic that you want to chastise me for wanting to maximize performance over a negligible difference in weight and length when you want to specialize your weapon to where it will be as short as legally possible at any cost. Like I said before, 16” isn't my ideal or favorite length, but would I choose it over a 14.5” that has to be pinned to 16”? Any day, and twice on Sunday! For SHTF / COMBAT purposes (the main reason I have an AR, shotguns are for home defense) 50 yards of extra fragmentation range is VERY important. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 7:30:17 PM EDT
[#45]
After reading this thread from stem to stern.....
I , for one ..... have decided to continue to buy what I want. Lol !! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 7:34:51 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
After reading this thread from stem to stern..... I , for one ..... will decided to continue to buy what I want. Lol !! As for Blain, dude, your not even on the earth anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 8:36:05 PM EDT
[#47]
This hasn't been talked about before, that's for sure.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 11:03:28 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
I just have to find out why the 14.5" barrels are so popular. As I understand the U.S. military went to the 14.5" so they could still mount a bayonet. To avoid ATF problems most guys seem to be putting on a flash hider to bring it up to 16" length to avoid having to pay the $200 SBR tax. Again as I understand the terminal ballistics, 75-77 grain bullets are necessary as a 1/7 barrel. As for ballistics shorter doesn't seem to make sense. I'm not hacking on anyone just curious as most of us aren't jumping out of planes or doing a lock out from a submarine. 1. 99.999% of the 14.5" AR's you see have a pinned muzzle device. Most folks would not bother getting a $200 tax stamp unless they're going shorter than 14.5". 2. Muzzle devices are important, which is why you see them just as often on SBR's and 20" rifles as well. Most people want a muzzle device, either a brake or flash hider (or hybrid of the two), regardless of barrel length. 3. Don't believe everything you read/hear. 1/7 twist barrels are good for 50 grain on up. 4. If you actually used a rifle for a while, you'd see why shorter is better...even when you're not parachuting out of a submarine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 6:04:35 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
HAHA!! Me, too. Very cool Stubby!! Sometimes it is easier to take it off the back... <a href="http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Skaapskieter/media/Paratrooper94/Paratrooper94f.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/Skaapskieter/Paratrooper94/Paratrooper94f.jpg</a> <a href="http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Skaapskieter/media/Paratrooper94/RangeDay01092011i.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/Skaapskieter/Paratrooper94/RangeDay01092011i.jpg</a> <a href="http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Skaapskieter/media/Paratrooper94/lionhunt1.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/Skaapskieter/Paratrooper94/lionhunt1.jpg</a> <a href="http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Skaapskieter/media/Paratrooper94/94Foldere.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/Skaapskieter/Paratrooper94/94Foldere.jpg</a> <a href="http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Skaapskieter/media/CoyoteSnaring/2YoteSnaredH.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/Skaapskieter/CoyoteSnaring/2YoteSnaredH.jpg</a> Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I wouldnt worry about dwell time too much. YES, it was an SBR lower and YES it cycled fine. Check out this thread: http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=543391 http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3817/015mn.jpg HAHA!! Me, too. Very cool Stubby!! Sometimes it is easier to take it off the back... <a href="http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Skaapskieter/media/Paratrooper94/Paratrooper94f.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/Skaapskieter/Paratrooper94/Paratrooper94f.jpg</a> <a href="http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Skaapskieter/media/Paratrooper94/RangeDay01092011i.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/Skaapskieter/Paratrooper94/RangeDay01092011i.jpg</a> <a href="http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Skaapskieter/media/Paratrooper94/lionhunt1.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/Skaapskieter/Paratrooper94/lionhunt1.jpg</a> <a href="http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Skaapskieter/media/Paratrooper94/94Foldere.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/Skaapskieter/Paratrooper94/94Foldere.jpg</a> <a href="http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Skaapskieter/media/CoyoteSnaring/2YoteSnaredH.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/Skaapskieter/CoyoteSnaring/2YoteSnaredH.jpg</a> That is really cool. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 6:04:38 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, I don't know why you'd have an extended flash hider on a 16” where you don't need it when you're so preoccupied about minimum length? Most 16” guns carry an A2 and they work great. Dude, You need to READ prior to commenting! I stated IF, NOT I DO. I was trying to clearly point how your "math" is WRONG! And as to the "Most 16" guns carry an A2 and they work great". That statement shows how little night firing experience that you have had! There is NO comparison between an AAC Blackout and a Birdcage. Oh, I disagree. I'd say you guys are WAAAY over weighing the value of a difference in rifle length of 1”. Again, your math is WRONG! it is 1.5" difference, yes a small error, but STILL an error!Citing room cleaning, and vehicle carry. First of all, that barrel length isn't even ideal for either of those scenarios. I'm glad you can set me straight as to what is correct for vehicle carry & room cleaning, considering I only have 30+ years wearing a badge, several years on an SRT Team (many years ago) That would be like me trying to tell a 20 year Recon Marine what he needs for a Combat scenario Second of all, statistically, how often are you as a “civilian” (as you like to put it, I'm a citizen, btw) going to be “room clearing” and engaging in armed vehicle rifle carry situations with an AR? Like the 1” difference between them would even be negligible for either, like I said, you'd want a shorter barrel or totally different weapon for those scenarios anyway.
It's ironic that you want to chastise me for wanting to maximize performance over a negligible difference in weight and length when you want to specialize your weapon to where it will be as short as legally possible at any cost. Like I said before, 16” isn't my ideal or favorite length, but would I choose it over a 14.5” that has to be pinned to 16”? Any day, and twice on Sunday! For SHTF / COMBAT purposes (the main reason I have an AR, shotguns are for home defense) 50 yards of extra fragmentation range is VERY important. Within the distance that I'm concerned with, Hornaday TAP will do just fine on fragmentation! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I DON'T follow your "math"! I run an AAC 51T Blackout flash suppressor permanently attached on my 14.5" Colt lightweight barrel. If I was running a 16" barrel with the aforementioned flash suppressor, the difference is 1.5" ! Well, I don't know why you'd have an extended flash hider on a 16” where you don't need it when you're so preoccupied about minimum length? Most 16” guns carry an A2 and they work great. Dude, You need to READ prior to commenting! I stated IF, NOT I DO. I was trying to clearly point how your "math" is WRONG! And as to the "Most 16" guns carry an A2 and they work great". That statement shows how little night firing experience that you have had! There is NO comparison between an AAC Blackout and a Birdcage. Oh, I disagree. I'd say you guys are WAAAY over weighing the value of a difference in rifle length of 1”. Again, your math is WRONG! it is 1.5" difference, yes a small error, but STILL an error!Citing room cleaning, and vehicle carry. First of all, that barrel length isn't even ideal for either of those scenarios. I'm glad you can set me straight as to what is correct for vehicle carry & room cleaning, considering I only have 30+ years wearing a badge, several years on an SRT Team (many years ago) That would be like me trying to tell a 20 year Recon Marine what he needs for a Combat scenario Second of all, statistically, how often are you as a “civilian” (as you like to put it, I'm a citizen, btw) going to be “room clearing” and engaging in armed vehicle rifle carry situations with an AR? Like the 1” difference between them would even be negligible for either, like I said, you'd want a shorter barrel or totally different weapon for those scenarios anyway.
It's ironic that you want to chastise me for wanting to maximize performance over a negligible difference in weight and length when you want to specialize your weapon to where it will be as short as legally possible at any cost. Like I said before, 16” isn't my ideal or favorite length, but would I choose it over a 14.5” that has to be pinned to 16”? Any day, and twice on Sunday! For SHTF / COMBAT purposes (the main reason I have an AR, shotguns are for home defense) 50 yards of extra fragmentation range is VERY important. Within the distance that I'm concerned with, Hornaday TAP will do just fine on fragmentation! Frankly, I don't care what length of barrel you use....16" or SIXTEEN FEET, I DON'T CARE!!!! I'm out of this thread before I incurr the wrath of Cold or Zhukov. What is the line that Ron White is famous for? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
