User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 8:41:01 AM EDT
[#1]
I can't give you balistics, but I recently received my FAL carbine from Todd at Rapidfire and I love it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 8:53:05 AM EDT
[#2]
tagged because I have the same question
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 9:55:38 AM EDT
[#3]
I can't say anything about effective ranges, I've killed paper at 200 yards (longest range where I shoot)
When I was sighting in the iron sights on my DSA, from sand bags at 100 yards I had a three round group, two holes were touching, the other was just outside. About 3/4" of an inch group. I was very happy with that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 9:57:23 AM EDT
[#4]
Barrel length has almost nothing to do with accuracy. It does cost you velocity. I haven't chronographed mine, but I suspect you'll loose close to 200 fps when dropping from the standard 21" down to 16".
I'm partial to a compromise of 18" where you retain more velocity but gain handyness of the gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 1:50:14 PM EDT
[#5]
One of the gentlemen who works at our shop, and is the former chief instructor for Glock, says the general rule of thumb is you lose about 60 fps for each inch of barrel loss.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 6:31:18 PM EDT
[#6]
I posed the same question to DSA regarding their 21" and 16.5" STG58 and was told to expect a 200FPS velocity loss.
I agree with cliffy109 that 18" is the best of both worlds. Of course, I am biased because that's what I went with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 6:45:43 AM EDT
[#7]
are there any pics of carbines from todd?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 7:00:49 AM EDT
[#8]
you can see pics at www.ohiorapidfire.com under the FAL section.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 9:40:50 AM EDT
[#9]
One of the reasons most military 7.62 cal rifle barrels are 19 inches or so is that length allows the muzzle flash to be sufficiently attenuated by a flash suppressor. Recall that the Springfield, M1917 Enfield, and the M1 Garand were of considerably longer length as they did not have integral flash suppressors installed.
Personally, I would not own a rifle that produced the sort of fireball that a non-flash-suppressed 16.5 inch 7.62 cal rifle is known to belch forth. For that matter, I'd like to be assured that a flash suppressor would even be satisfactory on such a length barrel before I bought it. The fact that the decrease in length fron OEM configuration not only causes a loss in range but also serves to render useless your OEM sight graduations as well as any Bullet Drop Compensator in your optics is also a matter of concern. YMMV. |
|
|
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.
