User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/30/2017 5:00:51 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sometimes M193 (the round you tested in the OP) doesn't fragment from a shorter barrel. That is a quantifiable difference in effectiveness, it wouldn't be too hard to figure out that an SBR vs a longer barrel reduces the chance of fragmentation by xx%. That isn't subjective at all. What is the % chance that a longer barrel will have a real effect on your ability to stop a threat because you can't maneuver? That sounds like it's a lot more subjective to me. Like I said, you're sacrificing a real (measurable) loss in effectiveness, for some intangible good feeling about moving around quicker. Even though it may be true that you can run around your house faster with an SBR the trade off is bad, and the instance where you "lose" because your barrel was too long just doesn't exist. This reminds me of "what if the round exits the bad guy after a COM hit and continues on to hit an innocent bystander". It just doesn't happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2017 7:06:27 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2017 10:10:10 PM EDT
[#3]
These are some of my favorite ARFCOM threads. I can't decide if the purse swinging makes it more or less enjoyable.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2017 11:20:02 PM EDT
[#4]
I'm with 10MM on this one.
I think spending an extra $200 for permission, and inviting Uncle Sam into my butt, for less performance is f'ing retarded. Then, if I have to spend another $200 plus ~$1000 to make it just as long, but a little quieter and heavier... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 5:00:34 AM EDT
[#5]
It would be nice if someone made a 5.56 version of the 7N6 with a weight of 40 grains.
They could call it an eco friendly load because it would be mostly bimetal jacket. If only Wolf ammunition knew how to make 7n6. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 8:54:54 AM EDT
[#6]
I agree that a 16" barrel is a superior choice over SBRs. someone mentioned people who get into trouble using shorter stuff, (people who get into trouble have full auto) but the marine corps has mostly ditched the M-4 and gone back to a 20" barrel, because it works better at all ranges (with a slight tradeoff in close quarters I'm sure.) The army seems to be following suit, and I'm seeing more 20" barreled M-16s again like we had in the early 90s and before. I think everyone knows hat the M-4 was always a compromise. And as is usually the case something is lost to gain something else, but I agree with those who say it's objectively a bad trade. remember, kinetic energy is mass x velocity squared, so 200 f.p.s. so at 3000 f.p.s. a 55 grain mass produces 1099 ft.lb of energy, and if we assume a drop of 200 f.p.s. with a "shorter barrel" say, 14" then your at 958 lb.ft that's a drop of nearly 100 lb.ft of energy just going down to 14" if you go to 8" a 55 grain .223 is moving 2380fps and packing a mere 692 ft.lb of energy. that's a loss of about 40% of your "knock down" power from a round that already struggles to kill people. (especially the military ball ammo like m588) Like was said above, this is objectively a major neutering of the platform. It's objectively, scientifically a bad trade.
Now, if you are going to suppress a 16" AR (even 16" has a lot of velocity loss compared to the 20" that the round was designed for) you are going to have a pretty long weapon for home defense / room clearing. (I submit that if you are using an AR for home defense your'e doing it wrong, there are far better tools.) So, I understand the point with a supressor, and SBR makes a litle more sense, but it's still taking what was already a compromise in the M4 and making it worse. However, a suppressor does make a lot of sense in a hypothetical HD scenario. Less muzzle flash, blast and recoil. And, let's be honest, they do look cool. Personally, as a bullpup guy, I have a 16" barrel, very short overall length (insert joke here) and 14 rounds of 12 gauge behind it. That's a home defense gun people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 9:23:00 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree that a 16" barrel is a superior choice over SBRs. someone mentioned people who get into trouble using shorter stuff, (people who get into trouble have full auto) but the marine corps has mostly ditched the M-4 and gone back to a 20" barrel, because it works better at all ranges (with a slight tradeoff in close quarters I'm sure.) The army seems to be following suit, and I'm seeing more 20" barreled M-16s again like we had in the early 90s and before. I think everyone knows hat the M-4 was always a compromise. And as is usually the case something is lost to gain something else, but I agree with those who say it's objectively a bad trade. remember, kinetic energy is mass x velocity squared, so 200 f.p.s. so at 3000 f.p.s. a 55 grain mass produces 1099 ft.lb of energy, and if we assume a drop of 200 f.p.s. with a "shorter barrel" say, 14" then your at 958 lb.ft that's a drop of nearly 100 lb.ft of energy just going down to 14" if you go to 8" a 55 grain .223 is moving 2380fps and packing a mere 692 ft.lb of energy. that's a loss of about 40% of your "knock down" power from a round that already struggles to kill people. (especially the military ball ammo like m588) Like was said above, this is objectively a major neutering of the platform. It's objectively, scientifically a bad trade. Now, if you are going to suppress a 16" AR (even 16" has a lot of velocity loss compared to the 20" that the round was designed for) you are going to have a pretty long weapon for home defense / room clearing. (I submit that if you are using an AR for home defense your'e doing it wrong, there are far better tools.) So, I understand the point with a supressor, and SBR makes a litle more sense, but it's still taking what was already a compromise in the M4 and making it worse. However, a suppressor does make a lot of sense in a hypothetical HD scenario. Less muzzle flash, blast and recoil. And, let's be honest, they do look cool. Personally, as a bullpup guy, I have a 16" barrel, very short overall length (insert joke here) and 14 rounds of 12 gauge behind it. That's a home defense gun people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 9:24:10 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You should read more, and post less. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I agree that a 16" barrel is a superior choice over SBRs. someone mentioned people who get into trouble using shorter stuff, (people who get into trouble have full auto) but the marine corps has mostly ditched the M-4 and gone back to a 20" barrel, because it works better at all ranges (with a slight tradeoff in close quarters I'm sure.) The army seems to be following suit, and I'm seeing more 20" barreled M-16s again like we had in the early 90s and before. I think everyone knows hat the M-4 was always a compromise. And as is usually the case something is lost to gain something else, but I agree with those who say it's objectively a bad trade. remember, kinetic energy is mass x velocity squared, so 200 f.p.s. so at 3000 f.p.s. a 55 grain mass produces 1099 ft.lb of energy, and if we assume a drop of 200 f.p.s. with a "shorter barrel" say, 14" then your at 958 lb.ft that's a drop of nearly 100 lb.ft of energy just going down to 14" if you go to 8" a 55 grain .223 is moving 2380fps and packing a mere 692 ft.lb of energy. that's a loss of about 40% of your "knock down" power from a round that already struggles to kill people. (especially the military ball ammo like m588) Like was said above, this is objectively a major neutering of the platform. It's objectively, scientifically a bad trade. Now, if you are going to suppress a 16" AR (even 16" has a lot of velocity loss compared to the 20" that the round was designed for) you are going to have a pretty long weapon for home defense / room clearing. (I submit that if you are using an AR for home defense your'e doing it wrong, there are far better tools.) So, I understand the point with a supressor, and SBR makes a litle more sense, but it's still taking what was already a compromise in the M4 and making it worse. However, a suppressor does make a lot of sense in a hypothetical HD scenario. Less muzzle flash, blast and recoil. And, let's be honest, they do look cool. Personally, as a bullpup guy, I have a 16" barrel, very short overall length (insert joke here) and 14 rounds of 12 gauge behind it. That's a home defense gun people. Oh look a fudd with a KSG |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 3:46:37 PM EDT
[#9]
OK, I'll bite, what do you take issue with in the statement that I made? The objective Data about muzzle energy is out there. look it up for yourself. I must have read that somewhere.....
Sorry if I upset the AR fanboys with their "HD SBRs" 10mm is right about what he said though, and the 2 armed services that actually shoot people for a living seem to agree. And I'll take just about any sort of shotgun over an AR for home defense any day of the week, then I'd take a pistol caliber carbine like a scorpion SBR, an AK or 300 black out, then finally an AR. I like ARs, but I think it's a poor home defense choice, but far better than a sharp stick. While I am not necessarily a kel-tec fan boy, their KSG is an excellent weapon overall, though difficult to load. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 4:43:21 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are there any studies correlating the expansion and fragmentation in gel of any rifle ammo to performance in human soft tissue? The only once I know about is the Fackler study that only measured penetration of a specific 9mm pistol load. Yes. Dr. Fackler shot live, anesthetized pigs and studied the resulting wounds. Also, there have been many studies of battlefield wounds during the last 15 years that correlate ammo performance to gelatin, most of which aren't available to the general public. Dr. Gary Roberts has mentioned that several times. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 6:14:49 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes. Dr. Fackler shot live, anesthetized pigs and studied the resulting wounds. Also, there have been many studies of battlefield wounds during the last 15 years that correlate ammo performance to gelatin, most of which aren't available to the general public. Dr. Gary Roberts has mentioned that several times. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Are there any studies correlating the expansion and fragmentation in gel of any rifle ammo to performance in human soft tissue? The only once I know about is the Fackler study that only measured penetration of a specific 9mm pistol load. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 6:55:41 PM EDT
[#12]
All I know is I don't want to be shot with 5.56, regardless of barrel length. Like REALLY don't.
I have 11.5", 16", and 18" ARs. I like shooting the 11.5" the most because it's compact and light and I'm a little girly man. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 8:20:38 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because people like to use really short barrels for fantasy scenarios that never happen and short barrels don't help that much for anyway. Short barrels are tacticool and M193 isn't as good when you slow it down, although it is still very good.  Attached FileBut can you fit an A2 in a mandolin case? 
Butdidyoudiememe.jpeg I think if using ball 5.56mm your best bet is 20" but most of what I use is expanding ammo so I'm cool with 10.5-16. All I currently have is a 14.5 and 16 (that AR pistol pictured is a 3 hunnid), but funny enough my next rifle is going to be 20" A4 cloneish thing. I'm ashamed to say I've never even shot a 20 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2017 5:17:56 AM EDT
[#14]
Love the vids and the frequency in which they are posted
Please keep them coming. Any chance for some testing on .300 Blackout loads? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2017 5:28:09 AM EDT
[#15]
LOL
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2017 6:20:19 AM EDT
[#16]
Thanks OP
For all you others, If I'm using an SBR or an AR pistol for self defense, I won't be attempting 100yd shots. Any commercial .223/5.56 load at across the room distances, which is where you'll most likely be defending yourself, from say a 7 to 10 inch barrel is going to be devastating to your target. Even more so from a 16 to 20 inch barrel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2017 8:38:01 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree that a 16" barrel is a superior choice over SBRs. someone mentioned people who get into trouble using shorter stuff, (people who get into trouble have full auto) but the marine corps has mostly ditched the M-4 and gone back to a 20" barrel, because it works better at all ranges (with a slight tradeoff in close quarters I'm sure.) The army seems to be following suit, and I'm seeing more 20" barreled M-16s again like we had in the early 90s and before. To say that extra barrel length is a bad trade off for a home defense gun is ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY crazy. Shots are going to be inside 25 yards, worse case scenario. Yes, another 200-250 FPS would help, but not as much as having a short and useable gun. May as well use a 24+ inch barreled shotgun because you can use a longer mag tube. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2017 11:06:15 PM EDT
[#18]
By some of your replies, why does anyone even need an AR? You think some fantasy shtf war is coming? I have a 10 1/2 " sbr because I can and I like it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2017 10:24:53 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL For HD, IMO, an 8" 300 w/110g tac-tx or 115g cc > any auto pistol round, and any 5.56 round from anything less than a 14.5". |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2017 10:29:36 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whats so funny about what he said? For HD, IMO, an 8" 300 w/110g tac-tx or 115g cc > any auto pistol round, and any 5.56 round from anything less than a 14.5". |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2017 10:38:15 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not so fast on that last part. Lots of ammo does really well from a 10.5" 5.56mm barrel. I've got a test coming up of M855 from an 11.5" barrel that will surprise you. Tagged for that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2017 3:01:56 PM EDT
[#22]
Been so long since i've come over to read you guys arguing lol. Love my 9mm 5" sbr, it's closest thing to an mp5 i'll ever be able to own and a lot cheaper than a scorpion. IMO best 200$ i've spent(expect maybe the suppressor). I've never given thought to an SBR 5.56 though and not going to pursue 300blk because thats just another caliber to add in.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2017 12:20:35 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree that a 16" barrel is a superior choice over SBRs. someone mentioned people who get into trouble using shorter stuff, (people who get into trouble have full auto) but the marine corps has mostly ditched the M-4 and gone back to a 20" barrel, because it works better at all ranges (with a slight tradeoff in close quarters I'm sure.) The army seems to be following suit, and I'm seeing more 20" barreled M-16s again like we had in the early 90s and before. I think everyone knows hat the M-4 was always a compromise. And as is usually the case something is lost to gain something else, but I agree with those who say it's objectively a bad trade. remember, kinetic energy is mass x velocity squared, so 200 f.p.s. so at 3000 f.p.s. a 55 grain mass produces 1099 ft.lb of energy, and if we assume a drop of 200 f.p.s. with a "shorter barrel" say, 14" then your at 958 lb.ft that's a drop of nearly 100 lb.ft of energy just going down to 14" if you go to 8" a 55 grain .223 is moving 2380fps and packing a mere 692 ft.lb of energy. that's a loss of about 40% of your "knock down" power from a round that already struggles to kill people. (especially the military ball ammo like m588) Like was said above, this is objectively a major neutering of the platform. It's objectively, scientifically a bad trade. Now, if you are going to suppress a 16" AR (even 16" has a lot of velocity loss compared to the 20" that the round was designed for) you are going to have a pretty long weapon for home defense / room clearing. (I submit that if you are using an AR for home defense your'e doing it wrong, there are far better tools.) So, I understand the point with a supressor, and SBR makes a litle more sense, but it's still taking what was already a compromise in the M4 and making it worse. However, a suppressor does make a lot of sense in a hypothetical HD scenario. Less muzzle flash, blast and recoil. And, let's be honest, they do look cool. Personally, as a bullpup guy, I have a 16" barrel, very short overall length (insert joke here) and 14 rounds of 12 gauge behind it. That's a home defense gun people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2017 12:09:55 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree that a 16" barrel is a superior choice over SBRs. someone mentioned people who get into trouble using shorter stuff, (people who get into trouble have full auto) but the marine corps has mostly ditched the M-4 and gone back to a 20" barrel, because it works better at all ranges (with a slight tradeoff in close quarters I'm sure.) The army seems to be following suit, and I'm seeing more 20" barreled M-16s again like we had in the early 90s and before. I think everyone knows hat the M-4 was always a compromise. And as is usually the case something is lost to gain something else, but I agree with those who say it's objectively a bad trade. remember, kinetic energy is mass x velocity squared, so 200 f.p.s. so at 3000 f.p.s. a 55 grain mass produces 1099 ft.lb of energy, and if we assume a drop of 200 f.p.s. with a "shorter barrel" say, 14" then your at 958 lb.ft that's a drop of nearly 100 lb.ft of energy just going down to 14" if you go to 8" a 55 grain .223 is moving 2380fps and packing a mere 692 ft.lb of energy. that's a loss of about 40% of your "knock down" power from a round that already struggles to kill people. (especially the military ball ammo like m588) Like was said above, this is objectively a major neutering of the platform. It's objectively, scientifically a bad trade. Now, if you are going to suppress a 16" AR (even 16" has a lot of velocity loss compared to the 20" that the round was designed for) you are going to have a pretty long weapon for home defense / room clearing. (I submit that if you are using an AR for home defense your'e doing it wrong, there are far better tools.) So, I understand the point with a supressor, and SBR makes a litle more sense, but it's still taking what was already a compromise in the M4 and making it worse. However, a suppressor does make a lot of sense in a hypothetical HD scenario. Less muzzle flash, blast and recoil. And, let's be honest, they do look cool. Personally, as a bullpup guy, I have a 16" barrel, very short overall length (insert joke here) and 14 rounds of 12 gauge behind it. That's a home defense gun people. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2017 12:23:29 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree that a 16" barrel is a superior choice over SBRs. someone mentioned people who get into trouble using shorter stuff, (people who get into trouble have full auto) but the marine corps has mostly ditched the M-4 and gone back to a 20" barrel, because it works better at all ranges (with a slight tradeoff in close quarters I'm sure.) The army seems to be following suit, and I'm seeing more 20" barreled M-16s again like we had in the early 90s and before. I think everyone knows hat the M-4 was always a compromise. And as is usually the case something is lost to gain something else, but I agree with those who say it's objectively a bad trade. remember, kinetic energy is mass x velocity squared, so 200 f.p.s. so at 3000 f.p.s. a 55 grain mass produces 1099 ft.lb of energy, and if we assume a drop of 200 f.p.s. with a "shorter barrel" say, 14" then your at 958 lb.ft that's a drop of nearly 100 lb.ft of energy just going down to 14" if you go to 8" a 55 grain .223 is moving 2380fps and packing a mere 692 ft.lb of energy. that's a loss of about 40% of your "knock down" power from a round that already struggles to kill people. (especially the military ball ammo like m588) Like was said above, this is objectively a major neutering of the platform. It's objectively, scientifically a bad trade. Now, if you are going to suppress a 16" AR (even 16" has a lot of velocity loss compared to the 20" that the round was designed for) you are going to have a pretty long weapon for home defense / room clearing. (I submit that if you are using an AR for home defense your'e doing it wrong, there are far better tools.) So, I understand the point with a supressor, and SBR makes a litle more sense, but it's still taking what was already a compromise in the M4 and making it worse. However, a suppressor does make a lot of sense in a hypothetical HD scenario. Less muzzle flash, blast and recoil. And, let's be honest, they do look cool. Personally, as a bullpup guy, I have a 16" barrel, very short overall length (insert joke here) and 14 rounds of 12 gauge behind it. That's a home defense gun people. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2017 8:30:35 AM EDT
[#26]
Sorry, hard to have an argument with someone who responds with memes as heir rebuttal.
I use m855 ammo in my discussion because that us standard milspec ammo commonly issued. (my dyslexia got the better of me on the nomenclature, apologies.) Are the better rounds for home defense for an AR-15, yes, probably almost anything else. https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/newsletters/daily-news-roundup/2017/08/15/marines-want-50000-more-infantry-automatic-rifles-to-replace-m4/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2017/08/13/army-ups-its-order-for-short-term-m4-replacement-in-762-mm/ 2 of many articles out there about replacing the M-4. There are many others. I am recently retired from the Army. Spent some of my time in the last few years working in proximity to marines and special operators. most of the marines I saw were sporting 20" heavy barreled models. Still seeing some M-4s out there in a lot of guard and reserve units on the army side but seeing more and more a return to a 20" barrel in both off the services that kill people for a living. Seen a lot of battle reports, and a fair share of combat wounds in battalion aid stations, so I have seen what the round does to actual people, as well as some live tissue labs where we also shot some anesthetized pigs. All of which leads me to conclude that an AR with ball ammo is a poor choice for killing people. Is it better with different ammo, I sure hope so and believe so, is it better with a longer barrel? Objectively, absolutely yes. I still maintain that an AR is a poor choice for home defense. the round was designed for a 20" barrel, and the rifle was designed for engagements at hundreds of meters, not tens of feet. That doesn't mean it cannot be pressed into service in that role, but it does mean there are many better choices. I love my ARs, AKs, and other weapons in my inventory, but I'm not so much of a fanboy of one platform that I think it's the best answer for every problem. Now, please, commence with your memes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2017 10:10:08 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry, hard to have an argument with someone who responds with memes as heir rebuttal. I use m855 ammo in my discussion because that us standard milspec ammo commonly issued. (my dyslexia got the better of me on the nomenclature, apologies.) Are the better rounds for home defense for an AR-15, yes, probably almost anything else. https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/newsletters/daily-news-roundup/2017/08/15/marines-want-50000-more-infantry-automatic-rifles-to-replace-m4/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2017/08/13/army-ups-its-order-for-short-term-m4-replacement-in-762-mm/ 2 of many articles out there about replacing the M-4. There are many others. I am recently retired from the Army. Spent some of my time in the last few years working in proximity to marines and special operators. most of the marines I saw were sporting 20" heavy barreled models. Still seeing some M-4s out there in a lot of guard and reserve units on the army side but seeing more and more a return to a 20" barrel in both off the services that kill people for a living. Seen a lot of battle reports, and a fair share of combat wounds in battalion aid stations, so I have seen what the round does to actual people, as well as some live tissue labs where we also shot some anesthetized pigs. All of which leads me to conclude that an AR with ball ammo is a poor choice for killing people. Is it better with different ammo, I sure hope so and believe so, is it better with a longer barrel? Objectively, absolutely yes. I still maintain that an AR is a poor choice for home defense. the round was designed for a 20" barrel, and the rifle was designed for engagements at hundreds of meters, not tens of feet. That doesn't mean it cannot be pressed into service in that role, but it does mean there are many better choices. I love my ARs, AKs, and other weapons in my inventory, but I'm not so much of a fanboy of one platform that I think it's the best answer for every problem. Now, please, commence with your memes. Affordable training ammo. Highly reliable. More than powerful enough for close combat. 30 round basic magazine, with the Magpul D60 you can increase the capacity to more than almost anyone would reasonably need, while remaining compact and lightweight. One of the most popular rounds in the US, available anywhere ammo is sold. Light recoil for follow up shots. Nearly all models come standard with an optics rail for effortless mounting of optics. Huge variety of iron and optical sights can be mounted. Affordable on nearly any budget. The "Designed for 20 inch barrel" ammo can be stoked with premium bullets which are not so velocity dependent. Did I mention lightweight? Is that enough memes for you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2017 1:37:10 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/425939/20170824_141524-295559.JPG But can you fit an A2 in a mandolin case?
Butdidyoudiememe.jpeg I think if using ball 5.56mm your best bet is 20" but most of what I use is expanding ammo so I'm cool with 10.5-16. All I currently have is a 14.5 and 16 (that AR pistol pictured is a 3 hunnid), but funny enough my next rifle is going to be 20" A4 cloneish thing. I'm ashamed to say I've never even shot a 20 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Because people like to use really short barrels for fantasy scenarios that never happen and short barrels don't help that much for anyway. Short barrels are tacticool and M193 isn't as good when you slow it down, although it is still very good. But can you fit an A2 in a mandolin case?
Butdidyoudiememe.jpeg I think if using ball 5.56mm your best bet is 20" but most of what I use is expanding ammo so I'm cool with 10.5-16. All I currently have is a 14.5 and 16 (that AR pistol pictured is a 3 hunnid), but funny enough my next rifle is going to be 20" A4 cloneish thing. I'm ashamed to say I've never even shot a 20 You're gonna love that buttery smooth 20 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2017 1:40:36 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where do you get your info? Infantry Marines are all getting M4s instead of M16s. I don't have any friends in the Army currently, but as far as I know, anyone front lines was getting an M4 not an M16. To say that extra barrel length is a bad trade off for a home defense gun is ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY crazy. Shots are going to be inside 25 yards, worse case scenario. Yes, another 200-250 FPS would help, but not as much as having a short and useable gun. May as well use a 24+ inch barreled shotgun because you can use a longer mag tube. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I agree that a 16" barrel is a superior choice over SBRs. someone mentioned people who get into trouble using shorter stuff, (people who get into trouble have full auto) but the marine corps has mostly ditched the M-4 and gone back to a 20" barrel, because it works better at all ranges (with a slight tradeoff in close quarters I'm sure.) The army seems to be following suit, and I'm seeing more 20" barreled M-16s again like we had in the early 90s and before. To say that extra barrel length is a bad trade off for a home defense gun is ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY crazy. Shots are going to be inside 25 yards, worse case scenario. Yes, another 200-250 FPS would help, but not as much as having a short and useable gun. May as well use a 24+ inch barreled shotgun because you can use a longer mag tube. Why don't you break down the scenario where a 16" gun will be so cumbersome you can't put rounds on target like you could with an SBR? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2017 3:17:34 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That implies that a 16" gun is not usable. Why don't you break down the scenario where a 16" gun will be so cumbersome you can't put rounds on target like you could with an SBR? 16" with even one of the shorter suppressors will put you at 20" and longer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2017 3:28:45 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That implies that a 16" gun is not usable. Why don't you break down the scenario where a 16" gun will be so cumbersome you can't put rounds on target like you could with an SBR? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2017 3:50:16 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry, hard to have an argument with someone who responds with memes as heir rebuttal. I use m855 ammo in my discussion because that us standard milspec ammo commonly issued. (my dyslexia got the better of me on the nomenclature, apologies.) Are the better rounds for home defense for an AR-15, yes, probably almost anything else. https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/newsletters/daily-news-roundup/2017/08/15/marines-want-50000-more-infantry-automatic-rifles-to-replace-m4/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2017/08/13/army-ups-its-order-for-short-term-m4-replacement-in-762-mm/ 2 of many articles out there about replacing the M-4. There are many others. I am recently retired from the Army. Spent some of my time in the last few years working in proximity to marines and special operators. most of the marines I saw were sporting 20" heavy barreled models. Still seeing some M-4s out there in a lot of guard and reserve units on the army side but seeing more and more a return to a 20" barrel in both off the services that kill people for a living. Seen a lot of battle reports, and a fair share of combat wounds in battalion aid stations, so I have seen what the round does to actual people, as well as some live tissue labs where we also shot some anesthetized pigs. All of which leads me to conclude that an AR with ball ammo is a poor choice for killing people. Is it better with different ammo, I sure hope so and believe so, is it better with a longer barrel? Objectively, absolutely yes. I still maintain that an AR is a poor choice for home defense. the round was designed for a 20" barrel, and the rifle was designed for engagements at hundreds of meters, not tens of feet. That doesn't mean it cannot be pressed into service in that role, but it does mean there are many better choices. I love my ARs, AKs, and other weapons in my inventory, but I'm not so much of a fanboy of one platform that I think it's the best answer for every problem. Now, please, commence with your memes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2017 4:18:42 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wanting your hd weapon suppressed is one scenario. 16" with even one of the shorter suppressors will put you at 20" and longer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That implies that a 16" gun is not usable. Why don't you break down the scenario where a 16" gun will be so cumbersome you can't put rounds on target like you could with an SBR? 16" with even one of the shorter suppressors will put you at 20" and longer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2017 4:20:03 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One word? Your going to hang your hat on that one word in my argument. Sure a 16 inch rifle is useable, but there is no doubt that an SBR length is superior in the handling department. The average user, it also puts less out front for a home intruder to grab onto. That's a plus in a close quarters scenario. No one is arguing that more velocity is a bad thing, but if it was only about ballistics, we'd be chambering ARs in 22-250 instead of 5.56 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That implies that a 16" gun is not usable. Why don't you break down the scenario where a 16" gun will be so cumbersome you can't put rounds on target like you could with an SBR? Sure you can swing it around faster, slightly. So what? Nobody has been able to explain what exactly happens with the longer barrel that the SBR prevents, other than "it handles better". |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2017 4:40:39 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nobody has been able to explain what exactly happens with the longer barrel that the SBR prevents, other than "it handles better". |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2017 4:56:45 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And with a 20" gun you die? You can't turn around? I'm looking for the specific part where the long barrel makes your gun unusable. Personally I can manipulate a shorter barrel much faster, and chances are good that your target, or targets, will be moving. And yeah, a gun that "handles better" is kinda important in an already stressful situation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2017 5:44:37 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Weapon retention means nothing to you? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nobody has been able to explain what exactly happens with the longer barrel that the SBR prevents, other than "it handles better". |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2017 5:51:13 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you're saying that someone will take a 16" carbine from you but not be able to take an SBR from you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2017 5:52:18 PM EDT
[#39]
Why is this in GD?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2017 6:13:23 PM EDT
[#40]
So we can swing purses without getting into trouble.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2017 6:15:27 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why is this in GD? Yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2017 6:59:05 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are there any studies correlating the expansion and fragmentation in gel of any rifle ammo to performance in human soft tissue? . |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2017 7:27:02 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And with a 20" gun you die? You can't turn around? I'm looking for the specific part where the long barrel makes your gun unusable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That implies that a 16" gun is not usable. Why don't you break down the scenario where a 16" gun will be so cumbersome you can't put rounds on target like you could with an SBR? 16" with even one of the shorter suppressors will put you at 20" and longer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2017 8:08:30 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would be nice if someone made a 5.56 version of the 7N6 with a weight of 40 grains. They could call it an eco friendly load because it would be mostly bimetal jacket. If only Wolf ammunition knew how to make 7n6. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2017 8:10:51 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.. then your at 958 lb.ft that's a drop of nearly 100 lb.ft of energy just going down to 14" if you go to 8" a 55 grain .223 is moving 2380fps and packing a mere 692 ft.lb of energy. that's a loss of about 40% of your "knock down" power from a round that already struggles to kill people. A post with 'energy' and 'knock down power' in the same paragraph. 
You know how I know you don't know terminal ballistics? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2017 8:15:06 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry, hard to have an argument with someone who responds with memes as heir rebuttal. I use m855 ammo in my discussion because that us standard milspec ammo commonly issued. (my dyslexia got the better of me on the nomenclature, apologies.) Are the better rounds for home defense for an AR-15, yes, probably almost anything else. https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/newsletters/daily-news-roundup/2017/08/15/marines-want-50000-more-infantry-automatic-rifles-to-replace-m4/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2017/08/13/army-ups-its-order-for-short-term-m4-replacement-in-762-mm/ 2 of many articles out there about replacing the M-4. . |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2017 9:14:38 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you saying that 62 gr Fusion from a 20" is a fucking death ray, but it turns into Nerf darts in a 10.5" barrel? It cuts both ways. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So you're saying that someone will take a 16" carbine from you but not be able to take an SBR from you? You know exactly what my point is, and it's not that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2017 9:20:41 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm looking for the specific part where anyone said a 20" was unusable. We only said that it is LESS maneuverable than an SBR. Just like a 10" barrel has LESS energy. It's all a trade off, and you are trying to reduce it to an all or nothing discussion, which is pretty disingenuous for someone who claims to provide unbiased gun opinions and reviews. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That implies that a 16" gun is not usable. Why don't you break down the scenario where a 16" gun will be so cumbersome you can't put rounds on target like you could with an SBR? 16" with even one of the shorter suppressors will put you at 20" and longer. And I said that implies that a 16" is unusable, which it does. I'm not trying to reduce it to all or nothing, that is something you made up. I'm not the one that said an SBR was the "useable" option. What I said (50 fucking times) was, that the trade off for "maneuverability" is a bad one for the velocity loss. Because there is no plausible scenario that I have heard where a 16" barrel will limit you in a way that you lose a fight, and in the same scenario an SBR would have saved the day. This is a group of people who like the way their short barrels look and feel, and that's fine. Have fun with them, they'll still kill people just great. But stop pretending that a 16" carbine is so cumbersome it'll get you killed where an SBR would have saved the day. That is a fantasy. It's all about looks and feels lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2017 10:59:26 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
WantsanRRA said this "Yes, another 200-250 FPS would help, but not as much as having a short and useable gun." And I said that implies that a 16" is unusable, which it does. I'm not trying to reduce it to all or nothing, that is something you made up. I'm not the one that said an SBR was the "useable" option. What I said (50 fucking times) was, that the trade off for "maneuverability" is a bad one for the velocity loss. Because there is no plausible scenario that I have heard where a 16" barrel will limit you in a way that you lose a fight, and in the same scenario an SBR would have saved the day. This is a group of people who like the way their short barrels look and feel, and that's fine. Have fun with them, they'll still kill people just great. But stop pretending that a 16" carbine is so cumbersome it'll get you killed where an SBR would have saved the day. That is a fantasy. It's all about looks and feels lol Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That implies that a 16" gun is not usable. Why don't you break down the scenario where a 16" gun will be so cumbersome you can't put rounds on target like you could with an SBR? 16" with even one of the shorter suppressors will put you at 20" and longer. And I said that implies that a 16" is unusable, which it does. I'm not trying to reduce it to all or nothing, that is something you made up. I'm not the one that said an SBR was the "useable" option. What I said (50 fucking times) was, that the trade off for "maneuverability" is a bad one for the velocity loss. Because there is no plausible scenario that I have heard where a 16" barrel will limit you in a way that you lose a fight, and in the same scenario an SBR would have saved the day. This is a group of people who like the way their short barrels look and feel, and that's fine. Have fun with them, they'll still kill people just great. But stop pretending that a 16" carbine is so cumbersome it'll get you killed where an SBR would have saved the day. That is a fantasy. It's all about looks and feels lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2017 11:04:34 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. One. Said. That a 16" carbine is so cumbersome that it will get you killed. No one. Ever. Your strawman is going up in flames. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That implies that a 16" gun is not usable. Why don't you break down the scenario where a 16" gun will be so cumbersome you can't put rounds on target like you could with an SBR? 16" with even one of the shorter suppressors will put you at 20" and longer. And I said that implies that a 16" is unusable, which it does. I'm not trying to reduce it to all or nothing, that is something you made up. I'm not the one that said an SBR was the "useable" option. What I said (50 fucking times) was, that the trade off for "maneuverability" is a bad one for the velocity loss. Because there is no plausible scenario that I have heard where a 16" barrel will limit you in a way that you lose a fight, and in the same scenario an SBR would have saved the day. This is a group of people who like the way their short barrels look and feel, and that's fine. Have fun with them, they'll still kill people just great. But stop pretending that a 16" carbine is so cumbersome it'll get you killed where an SBR would have saved the day. That is a fantasy. It's all about looks and feels lol |
|
|
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.
