User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/22/2019 10:15:14 PM EDT
BCM 14.5" Lightweight BFH Mid Length FSB w/pinned A2X Upper VLTOR CASV-S Gear Sector short VFG Surefire M600DF Gear Sector Off-Set Light Mount Magpul RSA Magpul MS-1 w/additional sling clip loop tab Weaver Tactical 1-5x24 Butler Creek Occular Caps for both ends ADM AD-Delta Cantilever QD mount Rainier Precision Match Nitride C158 BCG Magpul Pro Rear BUIS Standard GI Charging Handle (no idea who from) Black Rain Ordnance billet 7075 Lower (nice flared magwell, integral trigger guard, trolls well) BCM LPK including Mod3 Grip Magpul ASAP Brownell's 7075 Carbine Buffer Tube H2 Carbine Buffer (Brownells) Sprinco Blue Spring Magpul MOE Fixed Carbine Stock (mil) ETA: I feel as if I've unintionally misled people. This build is not purpose bought to be as is, but the end amalgamation result of parts from previous builds and experiences. Every part was at some point either on a different AR or part of a different configuration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2019 10:17:12 PM EDT
[#1]
I dont do vfg, otherwise looks fine
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2019 10:18:58 PM EDT
[#2]
Nothing wrong with it,maybe ditch the front sling loop that’s not being used or get a lightweight stock
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2019 10:20:44 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I dont do vfg, otherwise looks fine 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2019 10:25:19 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nothing wrong with it,maybe ditch the front sling loop that’s not being used or get a lightweight stock MOE fixed carbine stock (mil) is only 9.5oz, not sure if it's exactly heavy to begin with, and I only do fixed stocks (barring a SBPDW Brace). Yeah, I'm weird. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2019 10:44:41 PM EDT
[#5]
Specs added to OP.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2019 10:48:06 PM EDT
[#6]
Honestly for a setup like that I would have gone with a 6 position adjustable receiver extension with the sock of your choice, and a lo pro gas block with an extended rail. That being said, nothing wrong with that bad boy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2019 10:50:01 PM EDT
[#7]
I would do a dot or prism with backup sights.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2019 10:57:22 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Honestly for a setup like that I would have gone with a 6 position adjustable receiver extension with the sock of your choice, and a lo pro gas block with an extended rail. That being said, nothing wrong with that bad boy. I actually have a LPGB 15" railed 16" Spike's Optimum CHF barreled upper that this replaced two weeks ago because try as I might, it just didn't 'feel right'. I've actually tried a lot of different uppers/barrel/rail configurations. This upper is what I keep coming back to.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2019 10:59:24 PM EDT
[#9]
What is the LOP on that stock?
If I was going to do a fixed stock, I would want a rifle receiver extension. The a2 fits me personally, but would an A1 size work for you? I think the recoil impulse feels a little smoother with rifle and A5 buffer systems. Though there isn't a huge difference truth be told. Otherwise it's a slick rifle. I'd have zero qualms with it being my go-to. Something about a fsb just makes me feel good. It is a real problem since I also prefer long rails due to my gorilla arms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2019 11:00:34 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would do a dot or prism with backup sights. I have a Magpul Pro rear BUIS and FSB on the barrel, but I don't do red dots. Not my thing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2019 11:03:08 PM EDT
[#11]
No reason to have casv, since cantilever mount. So you're just adding weight for no reason.
ET! - if the reason is optic increased height and mounting points on handguard, you could still do it lighter |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2019 11:07:51 PM EDT
[#12]
Can
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2019 11:08:24 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is the LOP on that stock? If I was going to do a fixed stock, I would want a rifle receiver extension. The a2 fits me personally, but would an A1 size work for you? I think the recoil impulse feels a little smoother with rifle and A5 buffer systems. Though there isn't a huge difference truth be told. Otherwise it's a slick rifle. I'd have zero qualms with it being my go-to. Something about a fsb just makes me feel good. It is a real problem since I also prefer long rails due to my gorilla arms. It's actually a bit longer than I want as I like to shoot squared up. My ACE ARFX-Entry stock w/1"DPMS stock extender is actually shorter and perfect, but sling attachment choices/locations (on the original version and even the new updated QD ones) are craptacular IMO. The ASAP location is the perfect rear sling attachment point IMO. I believe the Magpul Fixed Carbine Stock actually was specifically designed to be able to accomodate the A5 receiver extension (the normal one, not BCM's extended one) if memory serves. I just never went with it because I don't have an issue with the standard carbine recoil system and recoil to begin with (not meant as a humblebrag). DD still makes an extended rail around the fixed FSB upper/rifle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2019 11:12:11 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No reason to have casv, since cantilever mount. So you're just adding weight for no reason. ET! - if the reason is optic increased height and mounting points on handguard, you could still do it lighter
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2019 11:14:27 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2019 11:20:31 PM EDT
[#16]
Do bullets come out the barrel and go where you aim whenever you pull the trigger? If so, I say it's fine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2019 11:21:38 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do bullets come out the barrel and go where you aim whenever you pull the trigger? If so, I say it's fine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2019 11:33:35 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
True, but I already have it, know it, and love it, and yes, the inherent increased optic height is icing on the (heavy, especially by today's standards) cake. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No reason to have casv, since cantilever mount. So you're just adding weight for no reason. ET! - if the reason is optic increased height and mounting points on handguard, you could still do it lighter |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2019 11:37:19 PM EDT
[#19]
Look fine to me if you like it. Not like it looks like a gun show threw up on it.
My personal preference would be to ditch the casv and fsb and free float with a light weight rial like bcm. And a adjustable stock. Maybe off set sights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2019 11:45:11 PM EDT
[#20]
"To each his own"
If it works for you, cool. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2019 11:46:03 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then party on 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2019 11:47:45 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Look fine to me if you like it. Not like it looks like a gun show threw up on it. My personal preference would be to ditch the casv and fsb and free float with a light weight rial like bcm. And a adjustable stock. Maybe off set sights.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2019 11:48:18 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"To each his own" If it works for you, cool.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 12:33:29 AM EDT
[#24]
Ambi safety from AIM or JoeBob.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 12:47:55 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ambi safety from AIM or JoeBob.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 1:30:09 AM EDT
[#26]
Those bi-level CASVs are cool, I've got a beat to crap CASV-M on my pistol build. Just need to get one of Vltor's front sights.
Just a heads up, the B5/Kinetic Gripstop holes are perfectly spaced for the CASV. I think Vltor used the CASV spacing when they designed Keymod. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 2:07:14 AM EDT
[#27]
Looks really good.
Where are you putting your left thumb when you are not operating the light? Can you get a "C clamp" grip on it? I think I'd rather have a Geissele scope mount. Also I don't care for the Magpul "Pro" BUIS. I'd rather have Troy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 2:27:29 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those bi-level CASVs are cool, I've got a beat to crap CASV-M on my pistol build. Just need to get one of Vltor's front sights. Just a heads up, the B5/Kinetic Gripstop holes are perfectly spaced for the CASV. I think Vltor used the CASV spacing when they designed Keymod. Thank you for the heads up on compatible parts and good luck getting that front sight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 2:41:40 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Looks really good. Where are you putting your left thumb when you are not operating the light? Can you get a "C clamp" grip on it? I think I'd rather have a Geissele scope mount. Also I don't care for the Magpul "Pro" BUIS. I'd rather have Troy. My thumb rests parallel to the barrel on the left side of the handguard, thumb pointed forward, not quite flush with the side of the palm of my hand, if looking from stock to muzzle, when not on the tailcap. Geissele unforunately doesn't do QD, which is a requirement for me. My only issues with Troy (and a lot of others) is the lack of ability to choose which aperture is 'at the ready' as well as the old POA shift when switching between apertures.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 3:02:42 AM EDT
[#30]
Looks like it could be a bit lighter for the capability it is offering.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 3:38:43 AM EDT
[#31]
stock, rail, and VFG are ugly as hell but I'm sure the gun is 100% reliable and I saw your posts about fixed stocks so I don't see much to be gained from a functionality standpoint from swapping/upgrading. My criticisms are strictly cosmetic.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 3:40:23 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Looks like it could be a bit lighter for the capability it is offering.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 3:45:36 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
stock, rail, and VFG are ugly as hell but I'm sure the gun is 100% reliable and I saw your posts about fixed stocks so I don't see much to be gained from a functionality standpoint from swapping/upgrading. My criticisms are strictly cosmetic.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 6:27:29 AM EDT
[#34]
I really like that line of Weaver scopes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 10:06:35 AM EDT
[#35]
Looks heavy but fine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 10:58:30 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I really like that line of Weaver scopes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 10:59:23 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Looks heavy but fine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 12:19:34 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, 9lb 10.7oz as it sits in the pics. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Looks heavy but fine. Anyway, you asked for critiques so here are mine. You seem to me to be confused as to what your main goal is. I would never pick a 14.5" barrel as a "do all" esp when paired with the bulk and weight of a long range optic like that! I'm not sure what part of the country you're in, but if you want something more suited for long range, I would go 16" minimum, and perhaps even 18". 16" - 18" barrels are still plenty effective for up close and mid range. If you want to concentrate on close in or urban fighting, even if still wanting occasional long range use, I would definitely ditch that optic. Also, as another said, if you're going to have a fixed stock I would go with a rifle receiver extension w/ cav arms C1 stock, which is not only more durable, but more reliable than the carbine extension as well. Either way, I much prefer 16" barrels to 14.5" in all cases. They give a significant velocity advantage for a negligible length increase (~100 fps with fmj 5.56) along with less noise, flash, and blast. I see you have a mid length gassed 14.5" barrel, I am dubious about the overall reliability of such, I believe that carbine gas for a 14.5" leads to more reliability. Either way a 16" mid length is much more reliable than either, with a smoother gas system that is lower recoil impulse and much easier on parts life / wear than a 14.5" barrel. Go with a 16"! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 12:26:19 PM EDT
[#39]
I like it. Much like mine save for the 14", VFG and big optic. A2 front sight post is still the bestest!
16" mid gas is my fave. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 1:08:27 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That was going to be my question, how heavy is that thing? Almost 10 lbs for an AR "carbine" is ridiculous IMHO! I could hump an M14 for that! That must be a very un-nimble little beast. Anyway, you asked for critiques so here are mine. You seem to me to be confused as to what your main goal is. I would never pick a 14.5" barrel as a "do all" esp when paired with the bulk and weight of a long range optic like that! I'm not sure what part of the country you're in, but if you want something more suited for long range, I would go 16" minimum, and perhaps even 18". 16" - 18" barrels are still plenty effective for up close and mid range. If you want to concentrate on close in or urban fighting, even if still wanting occasional long range use, I would definitely ditch that optic. Also, as another said, if you're going to have a fixed stock I would go with a rifle receiver extension w/ cav arms C1 stock, which is not only more durable, but more reliable than the carbine extension as well. Either way, I much prefer 16" barrels to 14.5" in all cases. They give a significant velocity advantage for a negligible length increase (~100 fps with fmj 5.56) along with less noise, flash, and blast. I see you have a mid length gassed 14.5" barrel, I am dubious about the overall reliability of such, I believe that carbine gas for a 14.5" leads to more reliability. Either way a 16" mid length is much more reliable than either, with a smoother gas system that is lower recoil impulse and much easier on parts life / wear than a 14.5" barrel. Go with a 16"! It balances right at the front of the magwell/juuuust behind the pivot pin, which is right between the VFG and grip, making it surprisingly nimble. I don't believe i've ever come across anyone that considers a 14.5" barrel as inadequate for 'do-all', but 16" (or longer) is. Thank you for being the first. I am genuinely confused as to how a 1-5x24 is considered a long range optic. I am equally confused as to how it is inadequate for CQB as it has 1x magnification and illumination. I'd like to read/see the testing done showing how much poorer durability a Magpul MOE Fixed Carbine Stock (mil) has versus the CavArms C1 stock. I believe you are inadvertantly confusing stock durability/reliability with recoil system type. The entire gas recoil system is a balancing act of many different variables, and can be run both reliably and smoothly in nearly any condition with an incredibly wide array of different setups. Carbine length gas with a rifle length recoil system is but one possible setup. A rifle receiver extension also increases the LOP to an unacceptable length, precluding my preferred way of shooting, which is squared up behind the rifle, as opposed to the more traditional blading. Regardless, I don't personally have either reliability or recoil issues with this setup. I completely agree that my or any 16" barrels offer more velocity, and therefore terminal performance range, drop, and wind drift. But that extra ~1 and 3/8 inches is noticable in OAL and therefore handling, and for the sake of argument, that 100fps difference really is negligable in every way. I've also not noticed any noticable increase in either blast or flash with this barrel versus my 16" barrels. What I have noticed is an increase in light occlusion from smoke and barrel shadow due to the light being that far back. The barrel shadow is only noticable when looking for it though, as I am a right handed shooter. I've already done 16", many times, I don't see the benefit in real life.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 1:21:21 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I like it. Much like mine save for the 14", VFG and big optic. A2 front sight post is still the bestest! 16" mid gas is my fave.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 1:28:43 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I cannot C-clamp if using the VFG, which is pretty much the only way I grip unless shooting position prevents it. My thumb rests parallel to the barrel on the left side of the handguard, thumb pointed forward, not quite flush with the side of the palm of my hand, if looking from stock to muzzle, when not on the tailcap. Geissele unforunately doesn't do QD, which is a requirement for me. My only issues with Troy (and a lot of others) is the lack of ability to choose which aperture is 'at the ready' as well as the old POA shift when switching between apertures. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 1:38:14 PM EDT
[#43]
Looks great, now go wear that barrel out!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 2:03:47 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The way I deal with the Troy BUIS is I grind off the large aperture with a dremel tool and then glue the aperture in place after zeroing so that it can never rotate or move unless I chisel the glue away later. Although I was told that you can just unscrew the aperture and switch it around if you want it to be folded down with the small aperture ready to go. You can also take the double aperture from a ARMS#40 sight and replace the Troy aperture. This allows you to have the sight flipped down with either aperture you want ready when flipped up. The ARMS aperture threads on the Troy sight and is still adjustable as normal but I had to glue a little piece of rubber on the bottom of the aperture so they stay straight up correctly. Notice how the Apertures are stacked, it allows the smaller aperture to flip up when the sight is folded down, without being in the way. Troy sights are nice but a stack-able aperture would have been an even better design. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 2:07:31 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The way I deal with the Troy BUIS is I grind off the large aperture with a dremel tool and then glue the aperture in place after zeroing so that it can never rotate or move unless I chisel the glue away later. Although I was told that you can just unscrew the aperture and switch it around if you want it to be folded down with the small aperture ready to go. ), I prefer and only really the large aperture anymore. I don't think I could bring myself to glue/affix an aperture in place on an iron sight for fear of possibly needing to adjust it for some reason in the furture. I actually tried to remove the apertures on a troy sight by unscrewing the allen head bolt while holding the windage in place with a flathead screwdriver because I wanted to replace them with a XS CSAT aperture years ago. Wouldn't budge, apply some more elbow grease, and the allen bolt ended up stripping, and I ended up sending the sight and the aperture back to Brownells.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 2:09:59 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Looks great, now go wear that barrel out! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 2:11:46 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, you can switch the aperture around. You can also take the double aperture from a ARMS#40 sight and replace the Troy aperture. This allows you to have the sight flipped down with either aperture you want ready when flipped up. The ARMS aperture threads on the Troy sight and is still adjustable as normal but I had to glue a little piece of rubber on the bottom of the aperture so they stay straight up correctly. Notice how the Apertures are stacked, it allows the smaller aperture to flip up when the sight is folded down, without being in the way. Troy sights are nice but a stack-able aperture would have been an even better design. https://www.mountsplus.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/arms_AR-15_Sights_40LSP.jpg
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 2:12:30 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That M14 won't have an optic or light on it, to be the same weight. It balances right at the front of the magwell/juuuust behind the pivot pin, which is right between the VFG and grip, making it surprisingly nimble. I don't believe i've ever come across anyone that considers a 14.5" barrel as inadequate for 'do-all', but 16" (or longer) is. Thank you for being the first. I am genuinely confused as to how a 1-5x24 is considered a long range optic. I am equally confused as to how it is inadequate for CQB as it has 1x magnification and illumination. I'd like to read/see the testing done showing how much poorer durability a Magpul MOE Fixed Carbine Stock (mil) has versus the CavArms C1 stock. I believe you are inadvertantly confusing stock durability/reliability with recoil system type. The entire gas recoil system is a balancing act of many different variables, and can be run both reliably and smoothly in nearly any condition with an incredibly wide array of different setups. Carbine length gas with a rifle length recoil system is but one possible setup. A rifle receiver extension also increases the LOP to an unacceptable length, precluding my preferred way of shooting, which is squared up behind the rifle, as opposed to the more traditional blading. Regardless, I don't personally have either reliability or recoil issues with this setup. I completely agree that my or any 16" barrels offer more velocity, and therefore terminal performance range, drop, and wind drift. But that extra ~1 and 3/8 inches is noticable in OAL and therefore handling, and for the sake of argument, that 100fps difference really is negligable in every way. I've also not noticed any noticable increase in either blast or flash with this barrel versus my 16" barrels. What I have noticed is an increase in light occlusion from smoke and barrel shadow due to the light being that far back. The barrel shadow is only noticable when looking for it though, as I am a right handed shooter. I've already done 16", many times, I don't see the benefit in real life. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: That was going to be my question, how heavy is that thing? Almost 10 lbs for an AR "carbine" is ridiculous IMHO! I could hump an M14 for that! That must be a very un-nimble little beast. Anyway, you asked for critiques so here are mine. You seem to me to be confused as to what your main goal is. I would never pick a 14.5" barrel as a "do all" esp when paired with the bulk and weight of a long range optic like that! I'm not sure what part of the country you're in, but if you want something more suited for long range, I would go 16" minimum, and perhaps even 18". 16" - 18" barrels are still plenty effective for up close and mid range. If you want to concentrate on close in or urban fighting, even if still wanting occasional long range use, I would definitely ditch that optic. Also, as another said, if you're going to have a fixed stock I would go with a rifle receiver extension w/ cav arms C1 stock, which is not only more durable, but more reliable than the carbine extension as well. Either way, I much prefer 16" barrels to 14.5" in all cases. They give a significant velocity advantage for a negligible length increase (~100 fps with fmj 5.56) along with less noise, flash, and blast. I see you have a mid length gassed 14.5" barrel, I am dubious about the overall reliability of such, I believe that carbine gas for a 14.5" leads to more reliability. Either way a 16" mid length is much more reliable than either, with a smoother gas system that is lower recoil impulse and much easier on parts life / wear than a 14.5" barrel. Go with a 16"! It balances right at the front of the magwell/juuuust behind the pivot pin, which is right between the VFG and grip, making it surprisingly nimble. I don't believe i've ever come across anyone that considers a 14.5" barrel as inadequate for 'do-all', but 16" (or longer) is. Thank you for being the first. I am genuinely confused as to how a 1-5x24 is considered a long range optic. I am equally confused as to how it is inadequate for CQB as it has 1x magnification and illumination. I'd like to read/see the testing done showing how much poorer durability a Magpul MOE Fixed Carbine Stock (mil) has versus the CavArms C1 stock. I believe you are inadvertantly confusing stock durability/reliability with recoil system type. The entire gas recoil system is a balancing act of many different variables, and can be run both reliably and smoothly in nearly any condition with an incredibly wide array of different setups. Carbine length gas with a rifle length recoil system is but one possible setup. A rifle receiver extension also increases the LOP to an unacceptable length, precluding my preferred way of shooting, which is squared up behind the rifle, as opposed to the more traditional blading. Regardless, I don't personally have either reliability or recoil issues with this setup. I completely agree that my or any 16" barrels offer more velocity, and therefore terminal performance range, drop, and wind drift. But that extra ~1 and 3/8 inches is noticable in OAL and therefore handling, and for the sake of argument, that 100fps difference really is negligable in every way. I've also not noticed any noticable increase in either blast or flash with this barrel versus my 16" barrels. What I have noticed is an increase in light occlusion from smoke and barrel shadow due to the light being that far back. The barrel shadow is only noticable when looking for it though, as I am a right handed shooter. I've already done 16", many times, I don't see the benefit in real life. BTW, since you don't have an SBR, and your rifle's barrel is pinned to 16", there is only 0.75" in length difference between a 16" barrel with an A2 and your barrel. Basically a 2% length difference, which has no benefit in real life. In which case, what I said before about the 14.5" vs. 16" barrel difference is doubly true. A length difference that small is pure psychological, and you are giving up performance and reliability for basically no reason. Those noise, blast, and flash differences are real, however, whether you notice them or not. 14.5" mid lengths are NOT as reliable as 14.5" carbine gas guns, this is fairly well proven. Maybe it runs fine with your pet load, but if you ever had to fire something different, or fire your weapon under adverse conditions, you could have function problems. 14.5" midlength is really restricting the gas, and you are coupling that restricted gas flow with an H2 buffer on top of it. Bad combo for route reliability! Also, an A1 length stock is basically the same length as the stock you're running, you're thinking of the length of an A2 (which is longer). Again, if you're going to go with a fixed stock, pick the more reliable rifle system with a 16" barrel, and can better performance all around. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 2:18:13 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My 50 lbs. dumbbell is perfectly balanced too. A brick is perfectly balanced. Would hardly call them nimble. BTW, since you don't have an SBR, and your rifle's barrel is pinned to 16", there is only 0.75" in length difference between a 16" barrel with an A2 and your barrel. Basically a 2% length difference, which has no benefit in real life. In which case, what I said before about the 14.5" vs. 16" barrel difference is doubly true. A length difference that small is pure psychological, and you are diving up performance and reliability for basically no reason. Those noise, blast, and flash differences are real, however, whether you notice them or not. 14.5" mid lengths are NOT as reliable as 14.5" carbine gas guns, this is fairly well proven. Maybe it runs fine with your pet load, but if you ever had to fire something different, or fire your weapon under adverse conditions, you could have function problems. 14.5" midlength is really restricting the gas, and you are coupling that restricted gas flow with an H2 buffer on top of it. Bad combo for route reliability! Also, an A1 length stock is basically the same length as the stock you're running, you're thinking of the length of an A2 (which is longer). Again, if you're going to go with a fixed stock, pick the more reliable rifle system with a 16" barrel, and can better performance all around. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: That was going to be my question, how heavy is that thing? Almost 10 lbs for an AR "carbine" is ridiculous IMHO! I could hump an M14 for that! That must be a very un-nimble little beast. Anyway, you asked for critiques so here are mine. You seem to me to be confused as to what your main goal is. I would never pick a 14.5" barrel as a "do all" esp when paired with the bulk and weight of a long range optic like that! I'm not sure what part of the country you're in, but if you want something more suited for long range, I would go 16" minimum, and perhaps even 18". 16" - 18" barrels are still plenty effective for up close and mid range. If you want to concentrate on close in or urban fighting, even if still wanting occasional long range use, I would definitely ditch that optic. Also, as another said, if you're going to have a fixed stock I would go with a rifle receiver extension w/ cav arms C1 stock, which is not only more durable, but more reliable than the carbine extension as well. Either way, I much prefer 16" barrels to 14.5" in all cases. They give a significant velocity advantage for a negligible length increase (~100 fps with fmj 5.56) along with less noise, flash, and blast. I see you have a mid length gassed 14.5" barrel, I am dubious about the overall reliability of such, I believe that carbine gas for a 14.5" leads to more reliability. Either way a 16" mid length is much more reliable than either, with a smoother gas system that is lower recoil impulse and much easier on parts life / wear than a 14.5" barrel. Go with a 16"! It balances right at the front of the magwell/juuuust behind the pivot pin, which is right between the VFG and grip, making it surprisingly nimble. I don't believe i've ever come across anyone that considers a 14.5" barrel as inadequate for 'do-all', but 16" (or longer) is. Thank you for being the first. I am genuinely confused as to how a 1-5x24 is considered a long range optic. I am equally confused as to how it is inadequate for CQB as it has 1x magnification and illumination. I'd like to read/see the testing done showing how much poorer durability a Magpul MOE Fixed Carbine Stock (mil) has versus the CavArms C1 stock. I believe you are inadvertantly confusing stock durability/reliability with recoil system type. The entire gas recoil system is a balancing act of many different variables, and can be run both reliably and smoothly in nearly any condition with an incredibly wide array of different setups. Carbine length gas with a rifle length recoil system is but one possible setup. A rifle receiver extension also increases the LOP to an unacceptable length, precluding my preferred way of shooting, which is squared up behind the rifle, as opposed to the more traditional blading. Regardless, I don't personally have either reliability or recoil issues with this setup. I completely agree that my or any 16" barrels offer more velocity, and therefore terminal performance range, drop, and wind drift. But that extra ~1 and 3/8 inches is noticable in OAL and therefore handling, and for the sake of argument, that 100fps difference really is negligable in every way. I've also not noticed any noticable increase in either blast or flash with this barrel versus my 16" barrels. What I have noticed is an increase in light occlusion from smoke and barrel shadow due to the light being that far back. The barrel shadow is only noticable when looking for it though, as I am a right handed shooter. I've already done 16", many times, I don't see the benefit in real life. BTW, since you don't have an SBR, and your rifle's barrel is pinned to 16", there is only 0.75" in length difference between a 16" barrel with an A2 and your barrel. Basically a 2% length difference, which has no benefit in real life. In which case, what I said before about the 14.5" vs. 16" barrel difference is doubly true. A length difference that small is pure psychological, and you are diving up performance and reliability for basically no reason. Those noise, blast, and flash differences are real, however, whether you notice them or not. 14.5" mid lengths are NOT as reliable as 14.5" carbine gas guns, this is fairly well proven. Maybe it runs fine with your pet load, but if you ever had to fire something different, or fire your weapon under adverse conditions, you could have function problems. 14.5" midlength is really restricting the gas, and you are coupling that restricted gas flow with an H2 buffer on top of it. Bad combo for route reliability! Also, an A1 length stock is basically the same length as the stock you're running, you're thinking of the length of an A2 (which is longer). Again, if you're going to go with a fixed stock, pick the more reliable rifle system with a 16" barrel, and can better performance all around. You keep harping on using an A2 flash hider and comparing that to the 14.5 pin/weld setups. Some people prefer having a QD suppressor mount. While the A2 can work with the Gemtech Halo, it's heavy, has high gas blowback and doesn't suppress as well as other cans. I'd prefer to have the 14.5 with the suppressor QD mount flash hider over a standard 16" with A2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2019 2:20:44 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually hasn't really been proven at all. Crane also has data that is contrary to your statement. You keep harping on using an A2 flash hider and comparing that to the 14.5 pin/weld setups. Some people prefer having a QD suppressor mount. While the A2 can work with the Gemtech Halo, it's heavy, has high gas blowback and doesn't suppress as well as other cans. I'd prefer to have the 14.5 with the suppressor QD mount flash hider over a standard 16" with A2. Any time you restrict gas flow and dwell time, you are effecting reliability. Especially when coupled with a heavier buffer which requires more gas to move. |
|
|
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.
