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
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/29/2006 8:43:21 PM EDT
I don't recall seeing any other than the standard 14.5" M4.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 9:21:44 PM EDT
I would imagine a few have slipped in the front lines from time to time, but I believe they only issue 20's and 14.5's (now at least)
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 9:37:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2006 9:38:25 PM EDT by DocGKR]
Yes, some elements in the U.S. military do issue some form of 16" AR...
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 10:01:40 PM EDT
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=SEAL+Recon+Rifle&curtab=2222_1&linktext=SEAL%20Recon%20Rifle
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 10:05:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DocGKR:
Yes, some elements in the U.S. military do issue some form of 16" AR...


... RECCE ...
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 10:12:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2006 10:12:50 PM EDT by Variablebinary]
Colt Canada (Diemaco) SFW, the perfect iteration of the M16 carbine
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 10:28:41 PM EDT
US military variants that I know of:

14.5 -> M4
18" -> SPR
20" -> M16

I don't think there's a 16" in there...
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 5:56:05 AM EDT
Dave_A,

Your partial list is not inclusive. The true answers are out there, in fact, jmcoy posted a link that provides some relevent info on a 16" system in use.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:57:10 AM EDT
When you look at MV between 14.5, 16 and 20 inches you get a significant improvement in velocity from 14.5 to 16. However, the reduction in velocity from 20 to 16 is not so great. And you get a much handier carbine to boot. Will we be seeing midlengths in our arsenal soon???
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 9:25:23 AM EDT
Thanks doc for 2nd on the link. I have an upper that meets those specs and my interest is renewed. Even though the midlengths are superior (not my words, just what I've been told) it still stands that Uncle Sam is using carbine length for these. Which makes sense. Thanks jmmcoy for the link. It used to be talked about on here about a year and a half ago alot but there's not alot of talk now. The real short barrels are now the "in" thing.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 9:42:46 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 11:58:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fogofwar:
When you look at MV between 14.5, 16 and 20 inches you get a significant improvement in velocity from 14.5 to 16. However, the reduction in velocity from 20 to 16 is not so great. And you get a much handier carbine to boot.



Wrong.

groups.msn.com/TheMarylandAR15ShootersSite/rifleperformance.msnw
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 12:06:45 PM EDT
IIRC the Striker brigade and at least some of the elements of the 101 and 82nd use a variant of the DMR that uses a 16" barrel. Lump had some pics of the 16" rifles being used in Iraq several months ago in his weekly thread.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 12:42:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ne1:

Originally Posted By fogofwar:
When you look at MV between 14.5, 16 and 20 inches you get a significant improvement in velocity from 14.5 to 16. However, the reduction in velocity from 20 to 16 is not so great. And you get a much handier carbine to boot.



Wrong.

groups.msn.com/TheMarylandAR15ShootersSite/rifleperformance.msnw



Wow. My first-ever error on this board. Thanks for keeping me honest.

I didn't see those stats but some others from the Canadian Army which were a little more skewed. So you gain 68 fps (m193) from 14.5 to 16 and 127 fps from 16 to 20" Good to know. Not as dramatic as what I saw elsewhere. I stand corrected.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 1:58:31 PM EDT
I have NOT seen a 16" DMR in the 101st, at least not my brigade of it.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 2:02:10 PM EDT
I have not seen a 16" rifle in use either in my company or on either rotation to Iraq I have been on. IIRC the 14.5" barrel is ballisticaly the same as the 20" barrel at up to 500 meters. I dont think there would be any gain in useing a 16" barrel.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 2:25:06 PM EDT
the only benifit i see to the 16 over the 20 is the rifle is a lil more wieldy persay.. easier target aquisition is one way to put it. one of the reasons i dumped my 20" postban hbar for my current upper. clear a house with a 16" then try it with a 20" you`ll see what i mean.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 2:41:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RiPP3D:
the only benifit i see to the 16 over the 20 is the rifle is a lil more wieldy persay.. easier target aquisition is one way to put it. one of the reasons i dumped my 20" postban hbar for my current upper. clear a house with a 16" then try it with a 20" you`ll see what i mean.



So where would this benifit over the 14.5 inch barrel?
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 2:50:08 PM EDT
I have seen more than a couple of 16" in use, however they are private uppers that we put on the weapon by the users. Our issue weapons generally are either 14.5 or 20" barrelled, other than a few guys over at the TF, you don't see anything other than that.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 2:55:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DM1975:

Originally Posted By RiPP3D:
the only benifit i see to the 16 over the 20 is the rifle is a lil more wieldy persay.. easier target aquisition is one way to put it. one of the reasons i dumped my 20" postban hbar for my current upper. clear a house with a 16" then try it with a 20" you`ll see what i mean.



So where would this benifit over the 14.5 inch barrel?



well.. personal preference, as a civilianized weapon. i dont like the idea of having a perma flash hider to bring it to 16"
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 3:11:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RiPP3D:

Originally Posted By DM1975:

Originally Posted By RiPP3D:
the only benifit i see to the 16 over the 20 is the rifle is a lil more wieldy persay.. easier target aquisition is one way to put it. one of the reasons i dumped my 20" postban hbar for my current upper. clear a house with a 16" then try it with a 20" you`ll see what i mean.



So where would this benifit over the 14.5 inch barrel?



well.. personal preference, as a civilianized weapon. i dont like the idea of having a perma flash hider to bring it to 16"



I think the question is does the MILITARY use a 16" CAR, I completely understand your point from a civilian aspect of not wanting a permanently attached flash hider but for military purposes the 14.5 prevales in this case I believe.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 3:28:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DM1975:
I have not seen a 16" rifle in use either in my company or on either rotation to Iraq I have been on. IIRC the 14.5" barrel is ballisticaly the same as the 20" barrel at up to 500 meters. I dont think there would be any gain in useing a 16" barrel.



Unless it was a RECCE/RECON variant and application by the end-users, you would not have seen one. The big Army would typically not deploy or historically not embrass such a concept.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 3:33:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DM1975:

Originally Posted By RiPP3D:

Originally Posted By DM1975:

Originally Posted By RiPP3D:
the only benifit i see to the 16 over the 20 is the rifle is a lil more wieldy persay.. easier target aquisition is one way to put it. one of the reasons i dumped my 20" postban hbar for my current upper. clear a house with a 16" then try it with a 20" you`ll see what i mean.



So where would this benifit over the 14.5 inch barrel?



well.. personal preference, as a civilianized weapon. i dont like the idea of having a perma flash hider to bring it to 16"



I think the question is does the MILITARY use a 16" CAR, I completely understand your point from a civilian aspect of not wanting a permanently attached flash hider but for military purposes the 14.5 prevales in this case I believe.



hands down... dont get me wrong.. a 14.5 would make alot more sense as a CQB weapon than a 16.. just as a 16 makes more sense than a 20..
im sure there is some drop in accuracy between all lengths. but in the military they put you where you belong.. be it snipe,cqb,gaurd. :)
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 3:45:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pcurtis:

Originally Posted By DM1975:
I have not seen a 16" rifle in use either in my company or on either rotation to Iraq I have been on. IIRC the 14.5" barrel is ballisticaly the same as the 20" barrel at up to 500 meters. I dont think there would be any gain in useing a 16" barrel.



Unless it was a RECCE/RECON variant and application by the end-users, you would not have seen one. The big Army would typically not deploy or historically not embrass such a concept.



I am just answering the question, I realy dont care the specifics as I am happy with what Uncle Sugar issues me.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 3:45:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RiPP3D:
hands down... dont get me wrong.. a 14.5 would make alot more sense as a CQB weapon than a 16.. just as a 16 makes more sense than a 20..
im sure there is some drop in accuracy between all lengths. but in the military they put you where you belong.. be it snipe,cqb,gaurd. :)



There is no measurable (real world) drop in accuarcy as a function of barrel length between 16" to 14.5" at other true long range shooting. It is all about terminal ballistics of the weapon/ammo. PERIOD!
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 4:34:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/31/2006 4:41:27 PM EDT by Dace]
This is not me, these pictures are not mine, I dont remember where I found them. If anyone is offended by me posting pictures of guys in the military who arent me just tell me and I will take them down. The rifles with the 16 inch barrels are obvious. I could also very well be a personal weapon.










And then this picture came from another place completely different. Notice the different stock but almost exact same set up for the upper. Makes me think that they arent personel.

Link Posted: 3/31/2006 4:45:16 PM EDT
I would say they were personal uppers. I believe that a commander can sign off on this but am not sure, either that or it was through a unit purchase, but not the norm.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 4:49:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DM1975:
I would say they were personal uppers. I believe that a commander can sign off on this but am not sure, either that or it was through a unit purchase, but not the norm.



According to "Big Army" no mods are allowed. I heard they were cracking down on people swapping uppers and installing stocks, but you still see them every once and a while.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 4:51:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STLRN:

Originally Posted By DM1975:
I would say they were personal uppers. I believe that a commander can sign off on this but am not sure, either that or it was through a unit purchase, but not the norm.



According to "Big Army" no mods are allowed. I heard they were cracking down on people swapping uppers and installing stocks, but you still see them every once and a while.



The best is this one.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 4:52:44 PM EDT
It is possible they were picked up by the unit during RFI.

I don't think they are personal in this case because you notice every one else in the squad has M-4s. All of the suspect uppers have A2 stocks. I can see two different soldiers installing personal uppers, but not A2 stocks. Definitely looks like they were "official" retrofits.

You can also guess about personal uppers by looking at the other kit the guy is wearing. If they were personal purchase, odds are that the guy would be wearing TT/HSGI/SO Tech/Paraclete, ____fill in the blank high speed tactical gear....and more velcro.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 4:52:53 PM EDT
That soun ds about right for the Army, the minute they cant provide something for their soldiers they start hammering the ones who get it themselvs.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 4:55:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By STLRN:

Originally Posted By DM1975:
I would say they were personal uppers. I believe that a commander can sign off on this but am not sure, either that or it was through a unit purchase, but not the norm.



According to "Big Army" no mods are allowed. I heard they were cracking down on people swapping uppers and installing stocks, but you still see them every once and a while.



The best is this one.
209.200.17.142/images/r2870098208.jpg



That is exactly what I am talking about..............wrist gps..........stobe on MICH.......non-issue flag (to him)........and velcro.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 4:56:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cpt_en_ca:
It is possible they were picked up by the unit during RFI.

I don't think they are personal in this case because you notice every one else in the squad has M-4s. All of the suspect uppers have A2 stocks. I can see two different soldiers installing personal uppers, but not A2 stocks. Definitely looks like they were "official" retrofits.

You can also guess about personal uppers by looking at the other kit the guy is wearing. If they were personal purchase, odds are that the guy would be wearing TT/HSGI/SO Tech/Paraclete, ____fill in the blank high speed tactical gear....and more velcro.



I would say the A2 buttstocks would be a sign that they "were" personal uppers. I know that we never received anything like this in RFI but hey, who knows. Seeing as how they are different kinds of uppers and rails and all I would not think it to be RFI and to my knowledge the Army has no 16" barrels in inventory so it would kinda knock RFI out of the water.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 4:57:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/31/2006 4:59:33 PM EDT by DM1975]

Originally Posted By cpt_en_ca:

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By STLRN:

Originally Posted By DM1975:
I would say they were personal uppers. I believe that a commander can sign off on this but am not sure, either that or it was through a unit purchase, but not the norm.



According to "Big Army" no mods are allowed. I heard they were cracking down on people swapping uppers and installing stocks, but you still see them every once and a while.



The best is this one.
209.200.17.142/images/r2870098208.jpg



That is exactly what I am talking about..............wrist gps..........stobe on MICH.......non-issue flag (to him)........and velcro.



That strobe is issue now, and garmins are RFI items now (never seen the wrist ones issued tho), as for the pockets and the velcro most the camps have alteration shops that do this.

Here is the NSN for the strobe if you need them in your unit by chance 6230-01-411-8535
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 5:00:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DM1975:

Originally Posted By cpt_en_ca:
It is possible they were picked up by the unit during RFI.

I don't think they are personal in this case because you notice every one else in the squad has M-4s. All of the suspect uppers have A2 stocks. I can see two different soldiers installing personal uppers, but not A2 stocks. Definitely looks like they were "official" retrofits.

You can also guess about personal uppers by looking at the other kit the guy is wearing. If they were personal purchase, odds are that the guy would be wearing TT/HSGI/SO Tech/Paraclete, ____fill in the blank high speed tactical gear....and more velcro.



I would say the A2 buttstocks would be a sign that they "were" personal uppers. I know that we never received anything like this in RFI but hey, who knows. Seeing as how they are different kinds of uppers and rails and all I would not think it to be RFI and to my knowledge the Army has no 16" barrels in inventory so it would kinda knock RFI out of the water.




If everyone on the squad had A2s I would agree with you, but it appears that the only A2s are the questioned upppers. In other words, looks like the squad got M4s, but the one guy that changed his upper also changed his stock?

RFI has changed, as well as the fielding of SORs, it is possible the unit put those on an IMPACT card purchase, off the shelf. I don't know, but it is possible. We sent guys to the PX to buy M9 mags with the unit credit card because they tried to issue 1 per weapon.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 5:03:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cpt_en_ca:

Originally Posted By DM1975:

Originally Posted By cpt_en_ca:
It is possible they were picked up by the unit during RFI.

I don't think they are personal in this case because you notice every one else in the squad has M-4s. All of the suspect uppers have A2 stocks. I can see two different soldiers installing personal uppers, but not A2 stocks. Definitely looks like they were "official" retrofits.

You can also guess about personal uppers by looking at the other kit the guy is wearing. If they were personal purchase, odds are that the guy would be wearing TT/HSGI/SO Tech/Paraclete, ____fill in the blank high speed tactical gear....and more velcro.



I would say the A2 buttstocks would be a sign that they "were" personal uppers. I know that we never received anything like this in RFI but hey, who knows. Seeing as how they are different kinds of uppers and rails and all I would not think it to be RFI and to my knowledge the Army has no 16" barrels in inventory so it would kinda knock RFI out of the water.




If everyone on the squad had A2s I would agree with you, but it appears that the only A2s are the questioned upppers. In other words, looks like the squad got M4s, but the one guy that changed his upper also changed his stock?

RFI has changed, as well as the fielding of SORs, it is possible the unit put those on an IMPACT card purchase, off the shelf. I don't know, but it is possible. We sent guys to the PX to buy M9 mags with the unit credit card because they tried to issue 1 per weapon.



I dont guess I am following. A2's have a 20" barrel and a fixed buttstock. In an Infantry squad if they do not have all M4's then usually only SL's and TL's have them and the joes have A2's or A4's, therefore I would think some of the joes bought 16" uppers to go on their A2 or A4's to be like the SL or TL with the M4 and just didnt worry about changing the buttstock.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 5:08:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cpt_en_ca:

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By STLRN:

Originally Posted By DM1975:
I would say they were personal uppers. I believe that a commander can sign off on this but am not sure, either that or it was through a unit purchase, but not the norm.



According to "Big Army" no mods are allowed. I heard they were cracking down on people swapping uppers and installing stocks, but you still see them every once and a while.



The best is this one.
209.200.17.142/images/r2870098208.jpg



That is exactly what I am talking about..............wrist gps..........stobe on MICH.......non-issue flag (to him)........and velcro.



I was kind of referring to the permanently attached Mini Y Comp
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 5:12:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dace:
This is not me, these pictures are not mine, I dont remember where I found them. If anyone is offended by me posting pictures of guys in the military who arent me just tell me and I will take them down. The rifles with the 16 inch barrels are obvious. I could also very well be a personal weapon.

209.200.17.142/images/Image-C8ED2346A2BC11D9.jpg
209.200.17.142/images/Image-F9129CB27C2011D9.jpg
209.200.17.142/images/Image-F90F87897C2011D9.jpg
209.200.17.142/images/Image-8B7F88873FB911D9.jpg
209.200.17.142/images/Image-B2637B8B28FB11D9.jpg
209.200.17.142/images/Image-B1B66A7728FB11D9.jpg
209.200.17.142/images/Image-1963E12628F911D9.jpg


And then this picture came from another place completely different. Notice the different stock but almost exact same set up for the upper. Makes me think that they arent personel.

209.200.17.142/images/050101-A-3978J-030.jpg

Anyone else notice that all these guys are with 25th Infantry Division? Perhaps they're not "Standard" - but isntead Command-Authorized/Local-Purchase items?

Of course, that could never happen . . . . . . because everyone always does exactly what "Big Army" wants . . . . .
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 5:15:28 PM EDT
I gues I didn't make my point clear.

I understand you were looking at the Y-Comp. My point was that when you see guys with the personal uppers, like this one with the Y-Comp, they usually have other tell-tale signs, like non-issue tactical nylon, the latest "assault pack" or other ninja gear.

This Y-Comp is also an example of why the army has to crack down. If everyone who bought a personal upper bought mil-spec it might not be an issue, but you have this guy with the Y-Comp, and he may have a buddy with the AK Brake.

Link Posted: 3/31/2006 5:15:46 PM EDT
Thats what I have been trying to say
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 5:18:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/31/2006 5:18:37 PM EDT by DM1975]

Originally Posted By cpt_en_ca:
I gues I didn't make my point clear.

I understand you were looking at the Y-Comp. My point was that when you see guys with the personal uppers, like this one with the Y-Comp, they usually have other tell-tale signs, like non-issue tactical nylon, the latest "assault pack" or other ninja gear.

This Y-Comp is also an example of why the army has to crack down. If everyone who bought a personal upper bought mil-spec it might not be an issue, but you have this guy with the Y-Comp, and he may have a buddy with the AK Brake.




Why would the difference in the breaks be an issue? You dont use a BFA in combat and most the issued supressors come with their own FH that is unit installed.

As for the gear, I see your point on that but when there are more obvious signs I think it would kinda be a sign right there.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 5:40:15 PM EDT
The Air Force uses 16" bareled CARs. Old 16" uppers with no forward assist. I used to see pictures here depicting Air Force security / PJs carrying 16" CARs
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 5:58:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DM1975:

Originally Posted By cpt_en_ca:
I gues I didn't make my point clear.

I understand you were looking at the Y-Comp. My point was that when you see guys with the personal uppers, like this one with the Y-Comp, they usually have other tell-tale signs, like non-issue tactical nylon, the latest "assault pack" or other ninja gear.

This Y-Comp is also an example of why the army has to crack down. If everyone who bought a personal upper bought mil-spec it might not be an issue, but you have this guy with the Y-Comp, and he may have a buddy with the AK Brake.




Why would the difference in the breaks be an issue? You dont use a BFA in combat and most the issued supressors come with their own FH that is unit installed.

As for the gear, I see your point on that but when there are more obvious signs I think it would kinda be a sign right there.



Maybe a FH is better than a comp in combat, not igniting crap, blinding your pals, huge concussion for the guy to your left and right, and giving off a huge front side signature????????????????
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 6:05:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/31/2006 6:07:34 PM EDT by DM1975]

Originally Posted By M4Guru:

Originally Posted By DM1975:

Originally Posted By cpt_en_ca:
I gues I didn't make my point clear.

I understand you were looking at the Y-Comp. My point was that when you see guys with the personal uppers, like this one with the Y-Comp, they usually have other tell-tale signs, like non-issue tactical nylon, the latest "assault pack" or other ninja gear.

This Y-Comp is also an example of why the army has to crack down. If everyone who bought a personal upper bought mil-spec it might not be an issue, but you have this guy with the Y-Comp, and he may have a buddy with the AK Brake.




Why would the difference in the breaks be an issue? You dont use a BFA in combat and most the issued supressors come with their own FH that is unit installed.

As for the gear, I see your point on that but when there are more obvious signs I think it would kinda be a sign right there.



Maybe a FH is better than a comp in combat, not igniting crap, blinding your pals, huge concussion for the guy to your left and right, and giving off a huge front side signature????????????????



Ever been next to an M240 in combat? A little worse than a muzzle break on an M16. Also the short barrel kits for the 249's have breaks on them instead of FH's. combat is loud period, and I dont think igniting things with the break is a problem seeing the muzzle flash that comes out of other infantry weapons.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 3:30:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/1/2006 3:34:19 PM EDT by JJREA]
Not to nitpick, but I think you all missed the point. They are used. Whether these were unissued or not is really neither here nor there. I was under the assumption that there really wouldn't be ton's of them out there running around.

I thought that patch (pepper with a lightning bolt) was Special Forces. If I'm correct, wouldn't that sort of tell us something? It's a non standard item. The one guy seems to be wearing that patch. Although, not all of them were.



edited to add: woops, my bad, the SF patch is an arrowhead. Sorry. I still think you won't see alot of the 16's running around because they are going to be rare.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 3:39:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DM1975:

Originally Posted By cpt_en_ca:
I gues I didn't make my point clear.

I understand you were looking at the Y-Comp. My point was that when you see guys with the personal uppers, like this one with the Y-Comp, they usually have other tell-tale signs, like non-issue tactical nylon, the latest "assault pack" or other ninja gear.

This Y-Comp is also an example of why the army has to crack down. If everyone who bought a personal upper bought mil-spec it might not be an issue, but you have this guy with the Y-Comp, and he may have a buddy with the AK Brake.




Why would the difference in the breaks be an issue? You dont use a BFA in combat and most the issued supressors come with their own FH that is unit installed.

As for the gear, I see your point on that but when there are more obvious signs I think it would kinda be a sign right there.



1) Perm-attached pre-04 brakes -> no unit-issue muzzle attachments will work

2) AK brake... If you can't see the front sight post, or all you see is the muzzle flash pattern at night, WHAT does it look like he's shooting? An AK, maybe?
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 3:43:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/1/2006 3:45:33 PM EDT by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By JJREA:
Not to nitpick, but I think you all missed the point. They are used. Whether these were unissued or not is really neither here nor there. I was under the assumption that there really wouldn't be ton's of them out there running around.

I thought that patch (pepper with a lightning bolt) was Special Forces. If I'm correct, wouldn't that sort of tell us something? It's a non standard item. The one guy seems to be wearing that patch. Although, not all of them were.



edited to add: woops, my bad, the SF patch is an arrowhead. Sorry. I still think you won't see alot of the 16's running around because they are going to be rare.



Pepper & Lightning bolt is 25th ID (Tropic Lightning, out of HI - a plain-jane light infantry division)

Arrowhead, Sword & Lightning bolts is SF (of the literal 'Green Beret' variety - no comment on DF & other socom units, I don't know theirs)

Arrowhead & Sword (no lighning) is 160th SOAR (Special Opertions Aviation Regiment - an aviation unit created to handle SF's unique helicopter-ride needs)....

Link Posted: 4/1/2006 4:29:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/1/2006 5:04:58 PM EDT by M4Guru]

Originally Posted By DM1975:

Originally Posted By M4Guru:

Originally Posted By DM1975:

Originally Posted By cpt_en_ca:
I gues I didn't make my point clear.

I understand you were looking at the Y-Comp. My point was that when you see guys with the personal uppers, like this one with the Y-Comp, they usually have other tell-tale signs, like non-issue tactical nylon, the latest "assault pack" or other ninja gear.

This Y-Comp is also an example of why the army has to crack down. If everyone who bought a personal upper bought mil-spec it might not be an issue, but you have this guy with the Y-Comp, and he may have a buddy with the AK Brake.




Why would the difference in the breaks be an issue? You dont use a BFA in combat and most the issued supressors come with their own FH that is unit installed.

As for the gear, I see your point on that but when there are more obvious signs I think it would kinda be a sign right there.



Maybe a FH is better than a comp in combat, not igniting crap, blinding your pals, huge concussion for the guy to your left and right, and giving off a huge front side signature????????????????



Ever been next to an M240 in combat? A little worse than a muzzle break on an M16. Also the short barrel kits for the 249's have breaks on them instead of FH's. combat is loud period, and I dont think igniting things with the break is a problem seeing the muzzle flash that comes out of other infantry weapons.



Actually, 6 trips now, with 31 months OCONUS since 9/11. First as an 11B and now as an 18B. I was a 240 gunner as a private. How about FM 7-8, since you want to debate tactics. You never use more force than is necessary to neutralize the opposing forces. Why let the bad guys know you have a 240 when it could be done with an M4? Ever fired a weapon at night with no supressor or FH, like an SPR with an OPS 2 port? The flash will blind you, too. As for igniting things, a FH helps not blow up the propane stove/heater in hajis kitchen where you're not going to fire a SAW or 240. That's where flash makes a difference. But hey, you're not in my unit, so give off whatever signature to the bad guys you feel OK with.

I'm not trying to bust your balls DM1975, but I understand it may come across like that. I'm just trying to get ya thinkin. The blast from bushy Y-Comp can disorient your buddies with it's concussion, and the fireball out of an AK brake is HUGE even with military-grade ammo. You're right about the belt-feds, but the average engagement sees far more use of M4s and M16s than the belt-feds, especially inside buildings.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 5:27:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/1/2006 5:43:30 PM EDT by DM1975]
Hey, good on ya, you probably know more than I do about this stuff and I agree in a house things are amplified. Yes I have fired at night with no FH and I agree there too. And you are busting my balls but you probably deserve to be able to. I am able to admit when I am wrong. I still dont ever remember hearing much of anything during a shootout other than faint pops tho, even in doors.

ETA: I still dont think it is any worse than the new breaks on the short barrel kits for the SAW's tho. Them things are loud and bright. And the way we use the SAW's we dont hold them in reserve, even in 7-8 the AR engages from the start.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 6:52:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/4/2006 5:41:25 AM EDT by captrichardson]
Not sure if this will help,

In the late 80’s while I was at Ft Campbell we did have a couple of Colt Carbines with 16” barrels. These were COTS (commercial off the shelf) purchases. We needed a Carbine for CQB and PSD work, and the only other option that would have been USGI was a Colt Model 653, which we had trouble getting a hold of, hence the decision to go COTS. Of course this was pre-M4 days, and at that point Colt was probably making as many, if not more 16” Carbines (for the civie market), as they were 14.5” Carbines.

This is just a SWAG, but the 16” Carbines pictured with the 25th ID may actually be a “DMR” or "SDM" carbines, that were built or purchased by 25th ID. At least one of the troops also has an M-14 which would make him a “Shooter”. Looks like the majority of these also have FF Handguards and Bipods, something that you would find on a DMR or SDM setup, not a CQB setup.

This has been discussed here on a number of occasions, but once again certain Units will purchase non USGI items, when they can justify the need for the variation, or when the supply chain can not meet the demand.

Also if you want a run down on the Pre-M4 Carbines, you can check out the Colt Technical & Historical Carbine Guide:
Carbine Guide

If you check the Guide you will see the USAF Carbines. I have seen 10”, 11.5”, and 14.5” in USAF inventory. If they had any 16”, they would have been non USGI items that were acquired by Special Ops or Security Forces (SRT/SWAT).

If anyone does run across any Carbines with a 16” barrel, especially if they are pre-M4, please post them in the Carbine Guide or drop me an email.

Thanks,
“Capt Richardson”

PS: The patch on the left of my Avatar is Special Forces, and the one on the right would cover Special Ops Aviation.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 8:08:19 PM EDT
Sorry about my patch mix up.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top