Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 1/7/2005 1:08:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 6:59:26 PM EDT by URFUBAR]
I am going to get it started for fun and see what everyone say here......
I already know the answer , but I love to see what others say/think......

Which is better -  
M-4 16"      or       regular 16"  
(with no attachments to the barrel, iron sights).
Never mind makers- throw that one out the window - compare barrels by same maker.......

Also- What  is the reasoning behind putting the groove on the M-4?
and
How does it effect a rifle with the above distinctions ?


Alright get busy -
Answer away...........  Let's see if there are any myths out there.



Link Posted: 1/7/2005 1:09:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 1:09:50 PM EDT by OneMoreMag]
I'll be the first...where is that "Not this shit again" picture?

No offense URFUBAR.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 1:10:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 1:13:36 PM EDT by URFUBAR]
Man I am just trying to have some fun..
Did not know it was already posted before...  

SORRY

But come on - answer , please.

Was it this one ---

 
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 1:12:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 1:13:22 PM EDT by URFUBAR]
-
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 1:16:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By URFUBAR:

M-4 16'       or       regular 16'  



IMHO Hands down the M4 due to it's lighter weight.  But which is 'best' is determined by how you intend to use it - there are conditions where the regular HBAR would be 'best'.



Also- What  is the reasoning behind putting the groove on the M-4?

Allows attachment of an M203 grenade launcher



How does it effect a rifle with the above distinctions ?


It doesn't.  It's cosmetic if you don't use a M203.

Link Posted: 1/7/2005 1:25:19 PM EDT
i like the way it looks. and i like the lighter rifle. that just me. couldnt answer your question

sorry
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 1:45:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 1:47:35 PM EDT by shamayim]

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By URFUBAR:

M-4 16'       or       regular 16'  



IMHO Hands down the M4 due to it's lighter weight.  But which is 'best' is determined by how you intend to use it - there are conditions where the regular HBAR would be 'best'.







I don't know what "regular" barrel you are referring to, but the regular 16 inch version of the 14.5 inch carbine barrel, that Colt used on the SP1 and other pre M4 carbines, is considereably lighter in weight than any M4 version. Bushie may call their new version of it lightweight, or featherweight, or some other BS label, but it's simply a dup of the original Colt carbine type.

Personally, I do not consider any of the HB type 16 inchers worth having.  It defeats the purpose of having the shorter barrelled piece in the first place. A CARBINE barrel bears the same relationship to the M4 piece as an A1 barrel does to the A2 type. In both cases, the early type is lighter in weight, and the only advantage the newer model has is the tighter 1in9 or 1in7 twist.

So even though I do have an M4 clone, I consider the true carbine barrel a better unit.  In fact, I'm considering getting one of the new Bushie versions, and building up a clone of what the Israelis used until very recently. If I do, I'll probably cut the barrel back to 15 inches, and have the suppressor permanently mounted. That would make a much handier unit than any M4gery.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 1:49:17 PM EDT
No real difference worth mentioning. Mostly looks
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 2:08:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shamayim:
I don't know what "regular" barrel you are referring to, but the regular 16 inch version of the 14.5 inch carbine barrel, that Colt used on the SP1 and other pre M4 carbines, is considereably lighter in weight than any M4 version. Bushie may call their new version of it lightweight, or featherweight, or some other BS label, but it's simply a dup of the original Colt carbine type.



Shamayim I agree that USED to be the case (20+ years ago).  However TODAY the 'standard' is an HBAR.  Colt even started the trend.

Carbines with 'Lightweight' and 'M4' profiles are considered 'special' - HBARS are the norm.  Check Colt's commercial offerings for a carbine you either get the 6400 (M4 type) or the 6731 which is an HBAR.  All of there commercial 20"ers are HBARS.

Now look to Oly, DPMS, Bushmaster, RRA, etc and what do you primarily find - HBARS.  So HBAR is considered the 'regular' barrel these days.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 2:15:15 PM EDT

So even though I do have an M4 clone, I consider the true carbine barrel a better unit.  In fact, I'm considering getting one of the new Bushie versions, and building up a clone of what the Israelis used until very recently. If I do, I'll probably cut the barrel back to 15 inches, and have the suppressor permanently mounted. That would make a much handier unit than any M4gery.My job takes me to Israel 5 - 6 times a year and I work very closely with the IDF and IAF.  They are still using a lot of the early M-16A1s and CAR-15s.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 2:40:04 PM EDT
I just posted because I wanted to see what people would say about the
knotch in the barrel in front of the front sight post.

Forest hit it dead on when he said that the knotch
is on there for the "M-203 to attach" and also that there really is not difference.



I just wanted to hear if anyone had any other MYTHs about why the knotch was there...

I get a kick out of that sort of stuff.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 2:51:21 PM EDT
Worlds biggest rifles, he DID say 16'... which is SIXTEEN FEET in the real world!

Paladin
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 3:32:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PALADIN-hgwt:
Worlds biggest rifles, he DID say 16'... which is SIXTEEN FEET in the real world!

Paladin



+1 Glad I wasn't the only one to notice that.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 6:58:58 PM EDT
Hey whatever...

You could have let me know.
I will fix it now.

hahahaha

Math is/was not my high point.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 7:02:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 7:03:17 PM EDT by Onslaught]

I just wanted to hear if anyone had any other MYTHs about why the knotch was there...

I get a kick out of that sort of stuff.


So you came to the most knowledgeable AR15 website on the planet to see if anybody thought the "knotch" was so the condom troops use to keep the sand out of their barrels had a place to be tied off so it would stop rolling up?
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 7:04:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 7:06:35 PM EDT by Variablebinary]
Lets not forget that the profiled barrels take longer to make and have weight savings intended for soldiers that carry around their rifle all day.  For the patrolman that keeps his weapon in his trunk all day, or the professional competition shooter that carries his rifle from the safe to his car to the bench, a couple of extra onces isnt as much of an issue and the civilan and LEO rifles reflect that, hence HBAR being the norm
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 9:41:29 PM EDT
ONSLAUGHT WROTE - - - -

So you came to the most knowledgeable AR15 website on the planet to see if anybody thought the "knotch" was so the condom troops use to keep the sand out of their barrels had a place to be tied off so it would stop rolling up?

Man - We actually used it for that when I was in the Marines when we did zodiac work or hydrographic surveys.

But -  Not the reason why it was cut ....                  It does work for that.........

Link Posted: 1/7/2005 9:46:15 PM EDT
[standard answer]Who cares, GET BOTH!!![/standard answer]
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 10:04:53 PM EDT
Skinny barrel, too light and whippy.
HBAR, too heavy and cumbersome
M4, just right.

But that's my personal preference.

I have a Colt MT6731 16" HBAR that if I decide to keep I will have threaded and turned down to approximate the weight of an M4 barrel but without the specific M203 mounting cuts.
Link Posted: 1/8/2005 12:25:03 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/8/2005 7:29:39 AM EDT
The M-4 barrel is stupid.

Its backwards.

Reverse the countours by making the diameter under the handguards .710" and then .650" in front of the front sight base...then you'd have a great barrel!
Link Posted: 1/8/2005 7:36:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:
Lets not forget that the profiled barrels take longer to make and have weight savings intended for soldiers that carry around their rifle all day.  For the patrolman that keeps his weapon in his trunk all day, or the professional competition shooter that carries his rifle from the safe to his car to the bench, a couple of extra onces isnt as much of an issue and the civilan and LEO rifles reflect that, hence HBAR being the norm



Production time and tooling costs do add up, but with today's CNC technology, while you got the barrel chucked up, it wouldn't take all that much longer to leave it HBAR or turn it down.  Either way, it still requires machining.
Link Posted: 1/8/2005 12:01:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By URFUBAR:
Which is better -  
M-4 16"      or       regular 16"  
(with no attachments to the barrel, iron sights).
Never mind makers- throw that one out the window - compare barrels by same maker.......



M4 because of the lighter weight, assuming we're talking about a chrome-lined barrel, both of which are say, Bushmasters. If we were talking about a match grade stainless steel barrel, then there would be an accuracy difference obviously. There isn't (if at all) an accuracy difference between a 16" HBAR and M4.


Also- What  is the reasoning behind putting the groove on the M-4?
and
How does it effect a rifle with the above distinctions ?



It's meant to be the M203 grenade launcher cut out.

I took off my Bushmaster's HBAR and replaced it with a CMMG 16" M4 barrel + Vortex. The weight savings is noticeable, and I love it.



It will be getting a Magpul stock soon.

themao
Top Top