Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 6/30/2003 12:56:44 AM EDT
I see some people will only get a 14.5 barrel and others only a 16 incher. With 14.5 you can affix a bayonet, and with an FS the barrel comes out to be 16". There is (a little?) more velocity out of a 16 incher and you can change flash suppressors. So which one do you think is correct and why?

TS
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 2:30:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/30/2003 2:32:21 AM EDT by Tactus]
1) Most folks who buy a 14.5" barrel also permanently affix a 2.5-2.75" flash suppressor. Length = 17 - 17.25" If you get a 16" barrel and use a standard length flash suppressor you wind up with a barrel that's about 1" longer. (If you want to talk about how good the vortex is: first use a standard 3 prong) 2) Most M4 profile barrels get heavy(profile) at the front sight base. This makes them weigh more than a 16" lightweight profile and changes the balance of the weapon. (I hate "front heavy" ARs) 3) I have no use for a grenade launcher or a bayonet. 4) .223 (5.56) ammo is only a reliable stopper when it fragments. A 16" barrel returns 100-150 fps in muzzle velocity for a very slight increase in length. Conclusion: So, rather than build a gun that "looks just like the kind an operator would use." I chose a barrel with better practical accuracy and a higher muzzle velocity.
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 4:35:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Tactus: 1) Most folks who buy a 14.5" barrel also permanently affix a 2.5-2.75" flash suppressor. Length = 17 - 17.25" [blue] A Phantom and aVortex FH brings the OAL on a 14.5" barrel up to about 16.1". (Yes, I measured it.)[/blue] If you get a 16" barrel and use a standard length flash suppressor you wind up with a barrel that's about 1" longer. (If you want to talk about how good the vortex is: first use a standard 3 prong) [blue]A standard 3 prong is better than the new Vortex or the new Phantom??? You are kidding, right?[/blue] 2) Most M4 profile barrels get heavy(profile) at the front sight base. This makes them weigh more than a 16" lightweight profile and changes the balance of the weapon. (I hate "front heavy" ARs) [blue]This is a non issue for me. Everyone has their own personal preference.[/blue] 3) I have no use for a grenade launcher or a bayonet. [blue]A grenade launcher is illegal anyway. All you are allowed is a copycat flare launcher. A SBR shotgun is better.[/blue] 4) .223 (5.56) ammo is only a reliable stopper when it fragments. A 16" barrel returns 100-150 fps in muzzle velocity for a very slight increase in length. [blue]If you really need to reach out and touch someone at a longer distance, 77g .223 will do the job.[/blue] Conclusion: So, rather than build a gun that "looks just like the kind an operator would use." I chose a barrel with better practical accuracy and a higher muzzle velocity.
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 4:55:14 AM EDT
1) A: Woops, measured with barrel extension. - [b]The 16" is still just about an inch longer[/b] B: You have never used a 3 prong have you? 3) Grenade launchers are NOT illegal. They are a title II destructive device and therefore subject to a $200 tax. (good luck finding HE or DP rounds and $200 tax for each) 4) The 16" lightweight will still have greater practical accuracy with 77gr. OTM rounds than a 14.5" I note you utterly failed to justify the reduced performance and greater weight of a M4 profile barrel. ("looks cool" is not a valid point)
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 5:23:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/30/2003 9:05:59 AM EDT by Yojimbo]
I prefer the 16" for the slightly better velocity especially with the lighter rounds like M193. I agree using the 77 gr will cure the issue for the 14.5" barrels but a 16",1/7 will also do better too.[:D] I also prefer not to have the the pinned or welded flash suppressor because I like to be able to upgrade in the future with minimum hassle and I certainly don't want to pay the fees and jump through all the hoops to register an SBR. Just my 2 cents! [;)]
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 8:34:13 AM EDT
Get two of each.
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 9:44:12 AM EDT
I have used an early 3 prong, had one on one of my rifles for about 8 yrs. The Vortex does work better. My AAC Ranger suppresses flash better than both and sound too. As far as muzzle velocity, the 16" will give you better velocity, but only about 100-150 fps or so, not realy enough to make any difference. I have both, a 16" and a 14.5" NFA. The main benefit I see is that since my 16" is a Dissipator style, the accuracy is better due to the longer sight radius. I have noticed no difference in bullet fragmentation. But all things being equal I would rather have the 16" barrel. One inch in compactness does not offset the reduced velocity.
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 9:54:28 AM EDT
Tactus, although most 14.5" barrels are M4, some are also lightweight. Colt makes a lightweight 14.5" bbl, which would weigh less than a lightweight 16" barrel. I personally use a 14.5" HB turned down to midweight, and then fluted. I get more surface area, so I have better cooling. I also don't have to worry about bending the barrel with my bastard Semi-LW profile. Besides, I run a SIR/Aimpoint/SF light so I'm obviously not overly concerned about the extra 4 ounces from a barrel that has the properties that I need. And about the three prong, we have mushroomed out more than a few due to improper heat treating, and 1/3 of them will bend if you bump them too hard into a wall. But hey, it may have just been our bad luck that 6 out of 13 of our USGI 3-prongs ended up non-functional. Also, they don't work as well with NODs as the Phantom or Vortex. But since I only have a Vortex on one gun (there are better choices out there), I really don't have a dog in that fight. Since you use a Colt bbl, then why not pick the 14.5"? 69, 75, and 77 grain bullets make the extra 1.5" dead weight because they frag down to 2200 (I think?) FPS. It would be more lightweight, less apt to bend (less likely to get caught on something, at least), and would be just as accurate. If you think, btw, that the 16" is more accurate, I suggest you try that theory out. You might just change your mind after that. With all of that being said, I chose a 16" for my Rifle-length Carbine, a 13.6" (still in the concept stages)for my Midlength, and a 14.5" for the Carbine length. Why? Certain barrel lengths have certain merits in certain configurations. All in all, it just boils down to what works best for an individual. And just because a gun "looks like the kind an operator would use" doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with it. If my rifles look like something some SF guy would use, then great, I really don't care. I build my rifles to use, not to look at. -Thanks! -Cap'n
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 10:08:19 AM EDT
I went with the 16in because it was cheaper then having Steve at ADCO cut it down to 14.5 then add a muzzlebrake. Instead I just got the pressed on A2 lookalike flashhider that keeps the barrel at 16in.
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 10:25:49 AM EDT
The difference of effective range between 14.5" and 16" barrel is only about 15 yards. This is just my opinion, but 16" barrel with a muzzle device doesn't look right on carbine length handguard. 16" barrel with mid-length handguard would work great.
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 10:40:11 AM EDT
16" for me! Muzzle brakes are worthless to me b/c I don't find the recoil of the 5.56 to mandate a brake. Why would I buy a 14.5" barrel with less performance with a brake that only makes my rifle louder and obnoxious to my shooting buddies? I guess that's why my RRA M4gery has the 16" barrel with the pressed on fake A2 hider!
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 11:22:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/30/2003 11:25:52 AM EDT by Yojimbo]
Originally Posted By MaverickMkii: The difference of effective range between 14.5" and 16" barrel is only about 15 yards. This is just my opinion, but 16" barrel with a muzzle device doesn't look right on carbine length handguard. 16" barrel with mid-length handguard would work great.
View Quote
To me it looks like the effective range between the 14.5" and 16" is a lot more than 15 yards. It's almost double with M855! This is taken from the AR15.com Ammo FAQ. Distance to 2700 fps(Effective Fragmentation Range) 16" Barrel 14.5" Barrel M193 140-150m 95-100m M855 90-95m 45-50m I couldn't care less about looks I feel the 16" barrels have better performance with any ammo compared to 14.5" barrels. IMHO the 16" barrel give the best balance of ballistic performance and compactness for AR style carbines. As always configuring an AR depends on a lot of factors including personal preference so YMMV! [;)] Read the 100gr testing and it really sounds like a 16", 1/7 will be a hot ticket!
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 12:13:18 PM EDT
Pressed on fake flash suppressor??? By whom? How permanent? TS
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 5:27:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Capn_Crunch: Colt makes a lightweight 14.5" bbl...
View Quote
Hey Capn, do you happen to have a Colt part number or other source info for this barrel? Quick
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 5:45:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/30/2003 5:48:28 PM EDT by MaverickMkii]
Originally Posted By Yojimbo:
Originally Posted By MaverickMkii: The difference of effective range between 14.5" and 16" barrel is only about 15 yards. This is just my opinion, but 16" barrel with a muzzle device doesn't look right on carbine length handguard. 16" barrel with mid-length handguard would work great.
View Quote
To me it looks like the effective range between the 14.5" and 16" is a lot more than 15 yards. It's almost double with M855!
View Quote
Check out PA AR-15 shooter's site - [url]http://groups.msn.com/ThePennsylvaniaAR15ShootersSite/rifleperformance.msnw[/url] But, I do plan to own one of 16" barrels, whatever the reason. I might get a 16" with A2 fs instead of 14.5" and vortex/phantom. However, I still stand by my word that 16" barrels on carbine length handguards look strange. [:)]
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 6:09:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TigerStripe: Pressed on fake flash suppressor??? By whom? How permanent? TS
View Quote
KurtsKF does it. GG
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 8:32:51 PM EDT
Fourteen point five fluted h bar is wunderbar!
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 9:32:40 PM EDT
Quick, i coulda swore that SAWLESALES.com had 'em, but it looks like i was wrong. I've got a pal that has 2 or 3 of them, so I'll ask and see if he knows. StormSurge, why, yes it is ;) -Cap'n
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 6:59:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MaverickMkii: [However, I still stand by my word that 16" barrels on carbine length handguards look strange. [:)]
View Quote
Well, I have a 19" M4 barrel, with carbine/M4 length handguards.[;)]
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 10:41:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Capn_Crunch: Quick, i coulda swore that SAWLESALES.com had 'em, but it looks like i was wrong. I've got a pal that has 2 or 3 of them, so I'll ask and see if he knows. StormSurge, why, yes it is ;) -Cap'n
View Quote
Thanks for the fact-check, Capn. I'm not aware of any non-custom manufacturers producing a 14.5 LW, but with more FF handguards around, someone will catch on. Quick
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 11:06:18 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 11:07:11 AM EDT
I like the 14.5 but I changed my mind for two reasons: 1 I can only hunt in WI with a 16inch barrel 2 I was having trouble mounting a Bipod and Foregrip on the M4 RAS so now with the 16in I can have a rifle length FF RAS and Ras mounted front sight and that way I can have a forearm RAS pannel area, Foregrip and bi-pod all at the same time. The rifle length RAS really expands mounting options and the RAS MRE would require the bi-pod to be mounted foreward of the front sight post area leaving it a little front heavy. [b] The added velocity is just Iceing on the cake- and the ACOG NSN will still work perfectly (with the sights one click low of zero at 100M[/b]
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 11:11:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 12:38:28 PM EDT
Yes 14.5"ers lets win! [:D] I too like 16" on mid-length handguards.
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 1:06:52 PM EDT
16. I prefer not having a permanent muzzle device, so I can replace it myself. I'm not really concerned about the bayonet mounting or extra fps. I agree that the 16" barrels look better with the longer handguard.
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 1:42:10 PM EDT
If you only have a 30 inch space to put the gun into the 31.5 in OAL 16" carbine is just not going to fit. If you were really worried about ballistics you would only use a 20". The only reason to sacrifice ballistics is if you simply don't have room for it. Then you should go to the smallest size the law would allow and a 14.5" with fixed FH is exactly that. Under the current law, where an new AR cant have a flash hider, getting a 16" makes sense. Once the law expires next fall and you can get a new AR with FH it won't make sense.
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 4:05:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: If you only have a 30 inch space to put the gun into the 31.5 in OAL 16" carbine is just not going to fit. If you were really worried about ballistics you would only use a 20". The only reason to sacrifice ballistics is if you simply don't have room for it. Then you should go to the smallest size the law would allow and a 14.5" with fixed FH is exactly that. Under the current law, where an new AR cant have a flash hider, getting a 16" makes sense. Once the law expires next fall and you can get a new AR with FH it won't make sense.
View Quote
WTF? Spoken like a true Liberal, making up crap along the way... What do mean you only have 30" of space??? What are you talking about? Using your logic you should get a 7" SBR, it's legal within the law you know and just in case you only have 23 1/2" of space for your rifle... Also, if you want a carbine why should one go with the smallest size? Ummmm? And...why would it make sense to get a post ban in 16" but not a preban? I just don't get it...[BD] Setting up an AR depends on so many factors, not to mention personal preference as well. There are pros and cons for every configuration so you just have to get it as close to your rifles intended purpose and what works best for you! Oh well, even though you're a Liberal I still love you anyway since you like guns and AR's![:X][;)][:D]
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 4:59:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: If you only have a 30 inch space to put the gun into the 31.5 in OAL 16" carbine is just not going to fit. If you were really worried about ballistics you would only use a 20". The only reason to sacrifice ballistics is if you simply don't have room for it. Then you should go to the smallest size the law would allow and a 14.5" with fixed FH is exactly that. Under the current law, where an new AR cant have a flash hider, getting a 16" makes sense. Once the law expires next fall and you can get a new AR with FH it won't make sense.
View Quote
God knows there are SO many situations where being an inch shorter makes all the difference. (like when you need two barrels from a 30" blank)
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 6:41:11 PM EDT
I'd go with the 16" barrel. When it comes to the 5.56mm round, every bit of velocity is important to aid fragmentation... I'd also stick with M193 Ball ammo unless I knew I'd be up against bad guys wearing body armor, in which case I'd pick the M855 round. Just my $0.02...
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 9:10:49 PM EDT
[b]"The difference of effective range between 14.5" and 16" barrel is only about 15 yards."[/b] I know there are people out there who would like to convince you that the 5.56 round is only capable of killing at 45-50meters; after which it becomes as weak and impotent as an airsoft BB at 350FPS. [b]I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that that is COMPLETE HORSE SHIT. THat info comes from the same people who often warn hunters that .22lr is dangerous to 2.5miles [as they read off the box] even though it has been proven that .22lr will not pass 1400yds at it's approx optimum angle of attack of 38.5degrees if I remember correctly from the study I read. The way I see it I've seen deer taken with .223 at greater than 75yds with a 16inc barrel. I read about documented 600meter kills made by the 10th MT DIV in Afghanistan with ACOG equipped M4 carbines with M855 ammo. I put both the 14.5 and 16inch barrels in the same category both have 600M effective ranges as far as I am concerned.[/b] Let those 50M people stand out there at 51meters or 600M and put their money were their mouth is and get shot at by the impotent 5.56 round.
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 9:18:37 PM EDT
Wow, that is about as close to an even split as I would expect on a vote! I'll take a 16" "naked" end barrel for a post-ban (which is exactly what I did when I got my M4). Can't have a bayonet lug, so no need to worry about mounting a bayonet, and the muzzle brake is more trouble than it is worth IMHO. If the 16" gives fractionally more velocity then why not? Of course, if asthetics are important, i.e. muzzle brake and "proper" barrel length, then be my guest and take a 14.5" barrel. Empirical testing has shown my paper target bad guys drop from either quite effectively [:)]
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 9:58:28 PM EDT
Green0, calm down sir. That was more specifically about 5.56mm fragmentation range, not kill-potential range. Should have clarified that.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 7:57:58 AM EDT
My irritation is that I want a 1/7" twist. That severely limits my barrel choices. I may have to settle for a 14.5 in M4 profile to get it. :(
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 3:22:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/2/2003 3:22:54 PM EDT by Luckystiff]
All my carbines are 14.5 inch with Vortex FH permanently installed. I do not hear a great deal of the Military or SWAT types bitching that they need 16 inch barrels. One of my rifles sports a Colt 14.5 inch lightweight barrel 1/7. It is only the second one I have ever seen and I would grab up the next one I could find, if I could find one again. I wish Bushmaster or DPMS would make one just like my little Colt. Or if Colt would import the 14.5 inch lightweight make by Diemaco. Those barrles are the shit.
Link Posted: 7/3/2003 9:59:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/3/2003 10:15:26 AM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
Originally Posted By Yojimbo:
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: If you only have a 30 inch space to put the gun into the 31.5 in OAL 16" carbine is just not going to fit. If you were really worried about ballistics you would only use a 20". The only reason to sacrifice ballistics is if you simply don't have room for it. Then you should go to the smallest size the law would allow and a 14.5" with fixed FH is exactly that. Under the current law, where an new AR cant have a flash hider, getting a 16" makes sense. Once the law expires next fall and you can get a new AR with FH it won't make sense.
View Quote
WTF? Spoken like a true Liberal, making up crap along the way... What do mean you only have 30" of space??? What are you talking about? Using your logic you should get a 7" SBR, it's legal within the law you know and just in case you only have 23 1/2" of space for your rifle... Also, if you want a carbine why should one go with the smallest size? Ummmm? And...why would it make sense to get a post ban in 16" but not a preban? I just don't get it...[BD] Setting up an AR depends on so many factors, not to mention personal preference as well. There are pros and cons for every configuration so you just have to get it as close to your rifles intended purpose and what works best for you! Oh well, even though you're a Liberal I still love you anyway since you like guns and AR's![:X][;)][:D]
View Quote
Geeze man, did you stop and think at all about this before you posted?[;)] I thought it should be self explanitory. If you only have room to store in your boat car or plane something 30 inches long, a M4 with its stock fully closed (according to the BM catalog at any rate) you are not going to fit something any longer. To my way of thinking the only reason to give up the shooting performance of the 20" AR-15 is if you simply don't have the room for it. Its too awkward to store, or to manipulate in whatever space you have to fight through. On a pre-ban or a post-post ban that would be, (without going to a NFA gun and the extra cost plus having to inform the ATF if you ever want to travel with it) a 14.5"+a vortex or phantom. I had forgotten that if you want a 1 in 7 barrel you are also stuck with 14.5" as well. Thanks to blikbok for remembering that. The reason I said that it doesn't matter with guns built under current law is that they CANT have a telestock or a FH at all! 4in shorter than a 20" AR is as good as you are going to get if you want compactness. Might as well get someting for it, so a plain 16" makes more sense than a 14.5 built up by some kind of muzzle brake that doesn't conceal flash and makes the gun waay louder. Unless you want the 1 in 7 twist for heavy bullet performance, then you kind of are stuck with the 14.5" If I was going to spend the money on a SBR, and never intended to take it out of Arizona except on planned excursions to bulletfest, I would consider a 10.5 or 11.5 inch SBR. They ARE easier to stow in a vheicle, and are easier to get into and out of action. If the weather is right you can even carry them concealed under a coat. And in a urban setting you are not going to be presented with a shot that would challenge its ballistics. And they can be had with a 1 in 7 twist. I havent heard any good reports about the reliability or effectiveness of 7" ARs yet. There is a limit to everything. I am a belever in the necessity of a flash hider for doing defensive shooting at night. If I did have the money to go NFA it would be to get a can on a 14.5 or shorter and solve both the flash AND blast problems! Without going NFA I still want the shortest gun I can and still have a FH so it will fit in the largest number of places. If space isn't a concern, if I was traveling afoot in farely open country, I would just carry my 20". That is my opinion on the matter. YMMV.
Link Posted: 7/3/2003 10:28:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/3/2003 10:53:20 AM EDT by Yojimbo]
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Yadda, yadda, yadda....
View Quote
First, if I only had 30 inches of space to store stuff on my boat, car, truck or plane I'd get new one with bigger storage! BTW, I have a pre-ban upper and barrel by CMMG/DPMS that's 16", 4150 steel, 1/7 twist, 5.56 chambered, fully chromlined with M4 feed ramps! See the details here ->[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=12&t=162739[/url] Colt makes a 16", 1/7 barrel. I've even heard rumors that somtimess Bushy makes a special run of 16", 1/7 barrels. So, we're not in anyway limited to 14.5" if you want a 1/7 barrel![nana] With AR's you can have it your way, my way, anyway! Everyone can be happy my Liberal friend![kiss][;)][beer]
Link Posted: 7/3/2003 1:05:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/3/2003 1:36:05 PM EDT by blikbok]
I agree with Armed Liberal on a few points. First off, we need to be clear that we are talking pre- or post-ban. Secondly, anything hand-held is a compromise. An ideal post-ban rifle would depend on the ammo. I understand some of the better commercial loads have much less flash than imported military-style loads. The only post-ban 1/7 barrels I see are BM's 20" A2 Profiles. Maybe the 14.5" M4 with muzzle-breaks are 1/7 as well. Yojimbo: I know I was not being precise on the 16" 1/7 barrels. Features like 1/7 twist and chrome lining force my hand towards 14.5, even if I want 16". Most of them are M4 profiles also, further reducing options, especially when compared to the wide variety for the 16". My point was, even if I want a 16 or a 13, I'm likely to buy a 14.5 to get the other options I want. In the last post on this topic, before the poll, I suggested we track what people want versus what they have, since they are likely to be different. Other information, such as "I had a 16 but swapped it for a 14.5" would paint a more accurate picture.
Top Top