Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 10/22/2004 7:16:11 AM EST
I am not trying to step on anyone's toes here, but why does everyone seem to dislike the HBAR? It weighs just a hair more and doesn't look as cool I know, but any other reasons? Some say a lightweight carbine should not have a heavy barrel, which I guess makes sense. Thoughts anyone...
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 7:20:37 AM EST
WEIGHT, too heavy for most......

Mike
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 7:25:48 AM EST
I like the M4 barrel becasue it's light and as accurate as I need for shooting under 200 yds. I sue it for 3 gun matches.

I do have an upper with a 16" H-bar that I use for precision shooting though. I have a Harris bipod on it also along with a magnified scope.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 7:35:52 AM EST
Because its heavy.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 7:41:43 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/22/2004 7:42:50 AM EST by DevL]
Much more than just a "tad heavier" its a pig...

And the benefit of that weight is..... nothing for almost all users.

I will take an optic or flash light or something usefull for the same weight.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 7:45:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By DevL:
Much more than just a "tad heavier" its a pig...

And the benefit of that weight is..... nothing for almost all users.

I will take an optic or flash light or something usefull for the same weight.



Yep - a M4 barrel with a Surefire 650 and mount is still lighter than an HBAR
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 7:54:23 AM EST
I like 'em on a 20". They are more accurate and I'm all about precision. I'm not scared to carry an additional pound. I seriously doubt it would be of any significant benefit on a carbine, however.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 8:04:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By TeuffelHunden1775:
I like 'em on a 20". They are more accurate and I'm all about precision. I'm not scared to carry an additional pound. I seriously doubt it would be of any significant benefit on a carbine, however.





I damn near had to have wheels for my Colt HBAR! It didn't recoil though. But I was 16 at the time, maybe that explains some of it.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 8:13:00 AM EST
The HBAR is NOT more accurate. My 14.5" Bushamster 1/7 M4 barrel does MOA or less. DOes an HBAR make it .25 MOA? Nope. You need a quality match barrel to do better... not a useless pound of flab on your barrel.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 8:16:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By DevL:
The HBAR is NOT more accurate. My 14.5" Bushamster 1/7 M4 barrel does MOA or less. DOes an HBAR make it .25 MOA? Nope. You need a quality match barrel to do better... not a useless pound of flab on your barrel.



There isn't much difference in the barrels accuracy, but the heavy barrel is easier to shoot.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 8:40:10 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/22/2004 9:21:40 AM EST by blikbok]
I hate them because I had them, carried them around, and shot them.
The only 20", 10 pound rifle I want is a 7.62mm.
In 5.56, 16" and 6-7 pounds is better scale.
Also, in any given HBAR, I *could* have a longer barrel for the same weight.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 8:43:19 AM EST
There is no actual "reason" for the HBAR, except that some barrel manufacture'rs didn't want to pay to have the back part of the barrels profiled. Its not for accuracy, heat disapation, or "barrel control", just cost control.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 8:49:05 AM EST
Heavier profiles have their place, such as long range, accurized weapons. SPR, SAM-R, RECCE and competition rifles all have heavier barrels. Combat weapons being humped around daily by military and police forces don't have to have HBARs.

I don't like them 'cause they are heavy and make my legs go numb when I am "deployed" viligently in front of my computer.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 11:16:49 AM EST
Most people don't like them because they aren't used by the military, and they are common place. If the military went to the Hbar, you would see sales jump through the roof as people suddenly had to have them.

In the end, if you aren't going to carry it, it doesn't really matter. If you are going to carry it, and very few people are here, then go with whatever works best for YOU. Try holding all of the different types and see what you like.

30 years ago people hated the light weight barrels used on the military carbines, check around the boards now, and you will find a new appreciation for them.

In my opinion, almost everything weapon related is cyclical.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 11:20:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By Stickman:
Most people don't like them because they aren't used by the military, and they are common place. If the military went to the Hbar, you would see sales jump through the roof as people suddenly had to have them.

In the end, if you aren't going to carry it, it doesn't really matter. If you are going to carry it, and very few people are here, then go with whatever works best for YOU. Try holding all of the different types and see what you like.

30 years ago people hated the light weight barrels used on the military carbines, check around the boards now, and you will find a new appreciation for them.

In my opinion, almost everything weapon related is cyclical.



I like a heavy barrel, but like on the MRP, where you reduce the receiver weight to even it up.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 12:19:25 PM EST
I don't hate them. They are just fine as a poor man's LMG upper and one heck of alot cheaper than the Diemaco LMG uppers. Now if I could find one with a 1:12 twist, chromed.

Sam
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 12:50:29 PM EST
I don't hate them, just think they are useless for my needs.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 4:48:41 PM EST
I like um two. I think they lessen the muzzle climb on hammers and give you a smoother swing. and don't get hot as fast if you doing a lot of shooting. for me the weight is no biggie. Everyone likes um a little bit different
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 4:54:24 PM EST
I love the people who hate HBARs and then go out and buy a Colt 6920HB.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 4:59:23 PM EST
When your fat ass has been on the net all day, you don't want to carry a heavy rifle do you?
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 5:03:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/22/2004 5:03:58 PM EST by Dave_A]
I like the HBAR, but I don't 'carry' my AR anywhere but from the car to the firing line and back...

Extra weight = more inertia = more resistance to movement = easier to shoot accurately...

This is, of course, why competition rifles not only have EXTRA-HBARs (1" diameter on some guns), but put lead weight between the handguards & freefloat tube, and in the buttstiock.

I also see no PERSONAL use for a carbine, my AR is a 20"
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 5:30:00 PM EST
I love the Hbar. mine isn't any heavier than my M4 barreled upper. I'd say they are damn near the same weight. Feels like it anyway. I wasn't big on the Hbar, but after shooting one all weekend last weekend for a defensive edge class I like it alot more. Took it out and played around with it again today. Doing some testing of a Tacpoint and switched out my 1-4 lupy for the days work. I used to not like Hbars, but now I do.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 5:32:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lon_Moer:
There is no actual "reason" for the HBAR, except that some barrel manufacture'rs didn't want to pay to have the back part of the barrels profiled. Its not for accuracy, heat disapation, or "barrel control", just cost control.



I call BS on the heat disipation. My hbar does heat up just as much as my M4, but not as quick as the M4. You get better heat disipation with a full Hbar than with a partial, but you DO still get it.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 5:46:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By Lon_Moer:
There is no actual "reason" for the HBAR, except that some barrel manufacture'rs didn't want to pay to have the back part of the barrels profiled. Its not for accuracy, heat disapation, or "barrel control", just cost control.



I call BS on the heat disipation. My hbar does heat up just as much as my M4, but not as quick as the M4. You get better heat disipation with a full Hbar than with a partial, but you DO still get it.


While your point is true, it is just a consequence of the reason Lon_Moer stated.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 8:11:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By markm:
When your fat ass has been on the net all day, you don't want to carry a heavy rifle do you?



Link Posted: 10/22/2004 8:41:42 PM EST
Hbars are better heat sinks...

They have more capacity for storing heat, 60 rounds through an Hbar does not heat up the barrel nearly as quickly or as much as 60 rounds through a gov't. profile.


I learned that QUICK in an action rifle match where I shot the course of fire and my 20inch Hbar was barely warm to the touch. Then a guy with an SP1 went through the same course of fire and had a jam towards the end, I went to help him with my cleaning rod and inadvertently grabbed the barrel. WHOOOPS! Hot SOB!


Way I've come to accept it.... Light barrels are fast to heat up but also fast to cool off. Heavy barrels are slow to heat up but also slow to cool off. I do not feel that the additional surface area of an Hbar helps it cool off considering the amount of metal within that barrel that is storing heat.


I sold off my Hbar barrels with the sunset of the AW ban moving to lighter weight gov't. and M4 contours, I do like the lighter weight. But I will probably build one more upper in something like a M16 A4 configuration where an Hbar makes a return, 1:7 Hbar with freefloated handguard.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 10:16:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lon_Moer:
There is no actual "reason" for the HBAR, except that some barrel manufacture'rs didn't want to pay to have the back part of the barrels profiled. Its not for accuracy, heat disapation, or "barrel control", just cost control.



In "Black Rifle II" they seem to define the special HBAR M4s purpose for Spec. Ops as a durability issue to deal with the "blown" barrel issue. Certainly, an HBAR barrel should have a longer life and be more durable - less affected by heat-related structural weakness... right?

Link Posted: 10/22/2004 10:30:36 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/22/2004 10:31:54 PM EST by chrome1]
Nothing cracks me up more then someone complaining about the weight
of a heavy barrel while they are decked out in full tactical gear to shoot
paper at a range

Sure I would choose a lightest weapon I could find if I was faced with
a 50 mile trek in the mountains . Or I had to hump it , a full pack and ammo for
more then a few days , but let's face it . The majority of people shoot
an AR less then 500 yds from their vehicle . With most considerably less .
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 11:19:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By chrome1:
Nothing cracks me up more then someone complaining about the weight
of a heavy barrel while they are decked out in full tactical gear to shoot
paper at a range



Not everyone on these boards is a paper puncher. I think for many on the boards it's not just about weight, it's about dead weight. Any added weight should come from something useful like a light and a vertical foregrip. The added weight from a heavy barrell is just not practical.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 11:24:54 PM EST

Originally Posted By knightone:

Originally Posted By chrome1:
Nothing cracks me up more then someone complaining about the weight
of a heavy barrel while they are decked out in full tactical gear to shoot
paper at a range



Not everyone on these boards is a paper puncher. I think for many on the boards it's not just about weight, it's about dead weight. Any added weight should come from something useful like a light and a vertical foregrip. The added weight from a heavy barrell is just not practical.



Bingo.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 11:45:41 PM EST
Pack it light. Freeze at night!
I like heavy barrells on sniper or competition type rifles since, in my opinion, the extra weight dampens recoil. I also prefer a heavy barrell while hunting. If people bitch about barrell weight when hunting, to me atleast, it's just useless complaining. If you have to drag that 200 lb. buck 3 miles back to your truck, an extra pound shouldn't be worth moaning about, in my opinion. But for home defense or practical field use, such as while on patrol, I prefer a lighter barrell. To each his own, as long as you hit your target.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 11:51:24 PM EST
It weighs a mere 5.3 oz. more than the standard barrel. Thtat's about 1/3 of a pound. Get your lazy asses out and excercise for a few minutes a day. What are all these weaklings crying about?
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 11:54:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By knightone:
Not everyone on these boards is a paper puncher. I think for many on the boards it's not just about weight, it's about dead weight. Any added weight should come from something useful like a light and a vertical foregrip. The added weight from a heavy barrell is just not practical.



Bingo.



Many ?

This statement would hold more veracity if majority of pictures that members here
post of themselves shooting supported what your saying .

Link Posted: 10/23/2004 12:13:55 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/23/2004 12:22:23 AM EST by knightone]

Originally Posted By niceguymr:
It weighs a mere 5.3 oz. more than the standard barrel. Thtat's about 1/3 of a pound. Get your lazy asses out and excercise for a few minutes a day. What are all these weaklings crying about?



Like i said, dead weight is dead weight and useful wieght is better. When you have a carbine that is already around two or three pounds heavier than the full size rifle it was based on, then every ounce does count.

If you want a 5.56mm rifle that is already heavier tha it should be before you even add anything to it, get then get a Robinson M96.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 12:14:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/23/2004 12:23:15 AM EST by knightone]

Originally Posted By chrome1:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By knightone:
Not everyone on these boards is a paper puncher. I think for many on the boards it's not just about weight, it's about dead weight. Any added weight should come from something useful like a light and a vertical foregrip. The added weight from a heavy barrell is just not practical.



Bingo.



Many ?

This statement would hold more veracity if majority of pictures that members here
post of themselves shooting supported what your saying .




I stand by my statement. Many professionals come to these boards. I don't think any of them have to prove who they are and very, very few of them paste their pictures all over the internet.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 5:15:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By knightone:

Originally Posted By niceguymr:
It weighs a mere 5.3 oz. more than the standard barrel. Thtat's about 1/3 of a pound. Get your lazy asses out and excercise for a few minutes a day. What are all these weaklings crying about?



Like i said, dead weight is dead weight and useful wieght is better. When you have a carbine that is already around two or three pounds heavier than the full size rifle it was based on, then every ounce does count.

If you want a 5.56mm rifle that is already heavier tha it should be before you even add anything to it, get then get a Robinson M96.



Like I said, my M4 and my Hbar weight damn near the same thing with no optics, forgrips or lights. There is such a small weight differeance that bitching about 1/3 of a pound more weight is just picking nits. Thats it it's that simple. I went though the defensive edge carbine 1&2 class with an Hbar, not a problem at all. I switched up to the M4 for about 200 or so rounds, just because I wanted to try out shooting some stuff with a red dot, and guess what I didn't notice the weight differance. With 12 loaded mags, a pistol, SMP, extra pistol mags, 3 liter camelback,and first aid kit an extra 1/3 of a pound in barrel weight IS NOT NOTICEABLE even after 8 hours of shooting. So where is the advantage in having a 1/3lb less "dead weight".

If people want to bitch about 1/3lb, they need to stop bitching hit the weights, take a mile walk daily or something to get their asses in shape so that big bad 1/3lb isn't such a big deal. It's not that much weight and is insignificant as far as being "dead weight".
Top Top