User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 6:47:25 PM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 7:00:11 PM EDT
[#2]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 7:32:44 PM EDT
[#3]
Wow a whole 1.5". not really worth $200 and a boat load of paperwork, but tthe $200 would be nice to pick up another 1K lot of ammo to shoot with. I'll stick with the 16" and just get out more and shoot and not worry about how UNCOOL my way long 16" looks compared to the super cool, who cares about ballistic's, gotta have 14.5".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 7:39:20 PM EDT
[#4]
I never spent an extra $200.00 on mine. Mine still does just as good a job as I need done also.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 7:44:09 PM EDT
[#5]
I too am in the Pro 16" group...but that's only cause that's what I got!
It does look a bit long, but oh well...that's what money is for. Does anyone have a pic of a Phantom on a 16" M4 profile? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 7:47:22 PM EDT
[#6]
After replacing fake telestock with real telestock I'm glad I stayed with 14.5" with perm. muzzle device.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 7:55:57 PM EDT
[#7]
I dont use multiple muzzle devices so its not an issue.As far as killing effect whats true 60 years ago is true today over 90% of engagements take place at under 100 yds and 75% of the time well under 50 so 14.5 is all you needand fragmentation ranges are 200 yds and under for 20" about 140 yds for 16" and 100 and under for 14.5.Even 11.5 is relevant at real world shooting distances.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 7:58:48 PM EDT
[#8]
The land where we are concerned with hitting other things besides PEOPLE... Then again, I don't own a short AR of any variety - just a 20" |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 8:07:18 PM EDT
[#9]
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 8:37:47 PM EDT
[#10]
And what if I decide I want to add an inexpensive free float tube.... or swap out my FSB for a railed gas tube with flip-up? Off to the gunsmith? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 9:12:58 PM EDT
[#11]
Yes. Decide what you want, then do it. My post 9/14 build was a 1:7 M4 14.5" with KAC MRE. After I got it built, I sent the whole upper to Gemtech for laser welding of the Bi-lock. If I ever need to take it off, back it goes to Gemtech. I don't see why I'd ever want to though. When or if I shoot this barrel out, I'm going to take a chop saw and cut the FS off so I can disassemble it...the barrel is a lot cheaper than the MRE.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 9:17:46 PM EDT
[#12]
Well THAT makes perfect sense. As long as it was planned in advance and you dont change your mind. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 9:25:36 PM EDT
[#13]
Even though it's a little ways off before I can afford the upper, I'm planning on building an M4gery and have also been debating between the two. I think I've decided that I just plain like the looks of the 14.5" with the phantom or vortex plus I'm building this one to be as short as possible with the M4 look since I already have the length with my other 20" AR15. I'm also not as hung up on authenticity as some.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 9:40:06 PM EDT
[#14]
I've owned both, and liked both... Only PITA was when I wanted a DD forend and found out it would cost me $100 to remove my Phantom, install the forend, and then replace with a new Phantom.
BUT I just can't stand the "fishing pole" appearance of the 16" carbines, SOOO... I bought a 16" MID-LENGTH barrel (KevinB's favorite too) and now I just couldn't be happier... Although I did Photoshop a pic of Hoplophile's middie down to a 14.5", and it looks WAY cool. Almost like a Dissipator or SBR. But I've promised myself, NO MORE permanently attached FS. Too much trouble for somebody like me who keeps changing things. In the real world, 14.5" and 16" perform the same... Your gun, your preference. Make up your mind and be happy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 9:58:36 PM EDT
[#15]
I've wanted a carbine for the longest time, now that the AWB has been shot down... So I ordered an upper from BM. I wanted an overall length that would provide flash supression and give me the handiest dandiest length leagally out there without filing a bunch of paperwork. The 14.5 and phantom did this very nicely I might add.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 10:22:35 PM EDT
[#16]
I'm going to do the ARFCOM tradition and get both. My current project is a 16" M4 style and I like it pretty well. I agree the long barrel out of the HG is not my favorite, but it's not really a big issue to me either. I went back and forth and I decided I wanted the extra range over the 1" of length. Fully collapsed it still beats my old fixed length 16", even one notch out it's an inch shorter... and it has the same 150 yard frag range.
For those who want the absolute smallest rifle they can legally make, go with the 14.5 and weld, I'm going to get an upper for that myself. Personal preference man, nothing wrong with it. My 16" gay rifle will kill as good as the uber-cool 14.5" at any range and better past 120 - 130yds. Don't see the problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 5:58:58 AM EDT
[#17]
I too have a dislike of the fishing pole (mainly becuase it is to much exposed hot barrel). Midlength is definitely a good solution. Two other ways to solve this are evedent in my two 16" configurations - a Bushmaster Dissy configuration for one and a Knights MRE on the other. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 6:04:50 AM EDT
[#18]
ok here's my situation. i was planning to build a 14.5 and get it sbr'd. i went and bought the acog that is set for the ballistic's for the 14.5 barrel. ok so now i'm thinking i really don't want the sbr headache , but still want the ballistics to be on for the acog. so my idea now is to get the perma flashhider to get it to the 16". so any thoughts? as far as the ballistics go on that scope is there going to be much of a difference from the 14.5 w flash hider or the 16" .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 6:19:37 AM EDT
[#19]
The velocity difference noted earlier will definitely effect the ballistics - but you should be aware that the marking will only be correct for the specific load it was calibrated for (probably M855 ball) anyway. IMHO, that is really not the best reason to go 14.5 inches. Using an ACOG in a 16" makes more sense, due to its increasd effective range, zero at 200 yards, or maybe 150 and it will be quite flat across normal engagement ranges. Even if you zero at 100 yards, you will only be dropping maybe 6 inches max at 200 yards. if you think you need more range than that, go with a full 20" barrel. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 6:45:49 AM EDT
[#20]
Do people actually think the M4 with a 14.5" barrel will not kill past 60M? Do people realy think that the 14.5" barrel reduices the rifle down to the effectivness of a pistol? I have read the frangible distances and stuff like that but if you are standing at 2 or 300M and a bullets penetrates your body in a vital area do you think that it is not going to do damage enough to stop your aggression against that other person? I am trying to get a handle on this. Now a good friend of mine was shot in the head with an AK from an EXTREMELY long distance (far enough the shot was not heard), it hit him in his kevelar and still managed to crack his skull enough where he is 100% disabled now. 60M is not the magic "no kill" distance everyone puts it out to be for the M4. Anyway, other than the military or police folks on this board probably NONE of you will EVER shoot a man with an AR. I can understand wanting the best you can for that 1% chance of something happening but you are not going to be Carlos Hathcock slithering around in the jungle waiting for that next kill. Even then if it is within lets say 400M and it is with an M4 with a 14.5" barrel guess what, as long as you are zeroed properly you are still going to either kill the dude or put him in some severe hurt enough where he will wish he was dead. Wake up people, these aint paint balls. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 6:56:27 AM EDT
[#21]
Touting the praises of the 16" barrel. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 7:19:30 AM EDT
[#22]
From the sounds of some people on this board, they would prefer a pistol to a 10.5 inch AR. Me, I'll take the AR. I agree that the obsession over fragmentation is less of an issue past self-defense ranges, but the 16" is more versatile than the 14.5 - and has flatter ballistics - that was my only point in response to the ACOG question. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 7:32:06 AM EDT
[#23]
I can zero an M4 at 25M and still hit a target at 300M with that same zero. It is not as tight of a group as a 20" barrel but it still hits. I will do some shooting on paper targets tomorrow and report my findings then. I still fail to see where the loss is in 1.5". Maybe I don't know what I am talking about. I guess I will just drive on in the real world and continue to use my non-effective rifle that somehow manages to really kill people despite all the data gathered here. I will go to work Monday and scold all of our M4's for killing people in Iraq past 60M and tell them that it is impossible and they need to read this thread so they can start shooting like they "should".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 9:42:29 AM EDT
[#24]
I've read every post in this thread up to this point, and I have noticed that the primary argument coming from the 14.5" side is looks. I know many people want that special M4 look and plan their purchases accordingly, but what's interesting to me is that although they are adamant about getting the appearance right, they don't seem to care about acquiring a proper M4 upper from Colt or LMT.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 10:32:00 AM EDT
[#25]
for me, i want the MOST compact carbine i can get, so the 1.5in difference helps, a little
velocity wise, you loose almost 300ftpersec when compared to the 16in its not really worth the trade off, so i went w/ the 16in eventhough the 16in does looks wierd, its veloscity benefit is essential imo |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 10:46:44 AM EDT
[#26]
Just SBR it and be done. Then you dont' have to worry about perm attached stuff, OR changing muzzle devices, OR sending it to a gunsmith to get shit worked on. That's what I'm doing.
In the end, all that matters is what's important to you. I chose the ease of working on the damn thing myself. A suppressor is in my future. Can't I buy a flash suppressor from Gemtech that has that "Bi-lock" attachment system on it? Eh, if not I'll just thread a suppressor on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 11:51:09 AM EDT
[#27]
I believe we can't have SBR in WA. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 11:59:57 AM EDT
[#28]
Yes, there are retards out there that think a 14.5" barrel won't shoot past 50 yds.  If a 14.5" barrel was such a piece of shit do you really think the military would be using them? If I shoot my BM SBR w/ 14.5" M4 barrel @100 yds. I can tell no difference at all when compared to my RRA CAR with a 16" barrel. They both shoot nice tight groups. I prefer the 14.5" because of the shorter OAL and the lighter weight. P.S. and with a SBR you don't need to weld anything and it is well worth the trouble. I now have a SBR lower that I can do whatever the hell I want to with it and that's priceless. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 12:01:38 PM EDT
[#29]
To vinh the reason why there is no line trying to get an LMT or COLT M4 upper is 1 colt is way too expensive,hell you could by another AR for that money.I have heard LMT is good and not priced like colt but too alot of people M4 feedramps are not vital wich I think is the main point of colt or LMT.If you want those then those are the comanies to go too but I have never seen the need for the ramps.Heck the model 653 colt carbine didnt need them and that rifle had a 14.5 barrel also,thinner even.But Ill tell you if colt uppers were normal priced and they supported the consumer better id have one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 12:46:41 PM EDT
[#30]
Stop bitching over 1.5 inches
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 12:55:27 PM EDT
[#31]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 1:01:21 PM EDT
[#32]
I like it because its shorter without losing THAT much ballistically.
Buy whatever the hell you want. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 2:16:11 PM EDT
[#33]
Hey, this is a valid discussion.... nobody is "bitching" about anything...... but lets try and keep it centered at least *loosely* on FACTS.
Really? I havent ever met any.... not have there been any on this thread.... interesting point.
Most likely not.... but the military has used turds from time to time. When the M16 was first deployed, for a multitude of reasons, including training issues, chroming, powder, etc... it was a piece of shit. I wouldnt preclude that from being a possiblity.... but I havent seen anyone here state "the 14.5" barrel is a piece of shit". So.... what was your point?
Uhhhh.... NOBODY has made any issue with accuracy dude. The discussion thus far has pretty much centered on terminal ballistics/muzzle velocity, weight, length, and the permanent;y attached issue.
Excellent! That at least is applicable!
Good point. Not for me, but maybe for some. Or as Lumpy put it.... "buy whatever the hell you want" I dont think this thread is bad, bitching, arguing...etc... I think it is loaded with good information to help people decide what is right for them.... just like any other modular part ofthe AR15/M16 weapon system.
|
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 3:07:04 PM EDT
[#34]
Does that mean I should sell my AR? Since I won't be shooting anybody and it is my primary home defense weapon that is. I know you're in the military and you may think high and mighty of those in the military and those that are police officers, but here's a clue for you: I nearly got put in a situation today where I would have possibly used my AR, at least to show force. If he was armed he'd have been shot. My mother's purse was stolen a few nights ago, and they got her keys and driver's license. Well, today she heard somebody try and open the door and some jingling of keys but thought it was my 17 year old brother coming home. Luckily, I changed all of the locks. After he never came in, she got up and looked and the guy was driving off. She then put two and two together. Sorry, but although I don't ever want to have to use it, you should think before you make such comments. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 3:08:39 PM EDT
[#35]
What are this weekend's Power Ball numbers? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 3:49:03 PM EDT
[#36]
I didn't say none, just probably none... Like I said in the same post I can see why you would want thye best you can get for self defense (I have a SIG and a Glock for this purpose myself) but still realisticly in most any self defense situation a civilian would run into a 14.5" barrel is NOT going to limit you. I myself have used a weapon (pistol) in self defense as a civilian and have used it in self defense when I was a police officer as well. I have also spent my fare share of time in more than one hot spot around the world so I know that anything is possible but I still do not think a 14.5" barrel is going to limit you enough to cause harm in a self defense situation. I have been in situations where all I had was a pistol and I would have givin everything I had ever owned for just a rifle so I can see where someone would want a rifle for this but still a 14.5" barrel is not going to hinder you. My major point is that you as a civilian will more than likely never need any kind of rifle for self defense where it would have to reach out past 400M and that is a stretch in its self.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 3:49:43 PM EDT
[#37]
Oh and Lumpy they are 22 48 76 54 and 37
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 4:25:51 PM EDT
[#38]
I have not read the whole thread but I will tell you same as I tell anyone who asks. 14.5" with a perm flas suppressor gets you a much better flash supressor in a shorter package. The longer Phantoms and Vortex's are MUCH better at reducing and even eliminating flash than the A2 suppresssors or any of the other shorter ones you might come by. If you have a threaded 16" barrel and put a Vortex of Phantom on it, you have great flash suppression but now have a overall barrel length of close to 18". Most of the 16" threaded barrels get A2 flash suppressors, and they are decent, but do not come close to getting rid of flash like a Vortex or Phantom. Not even close. So, I preffer the shorter, slightly lighter profile of the gun with the much better flash suppression and will live with the blind pin.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 5:41:55 PM EDT
[#39]
Lumpy They draw the numbers at 2300 EDT. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 5:45:29 PM EDT
[#40]
I'm seriously considering a 14.5/phantom, nice package.
I really like my 16" pencil barrel, lighter than an M4 and all the 16" advantages. I think m4 profile barrels, particularly in 16",worse with a 16" and bayo lug, are kinda pointless for a civvie anyway. My favorite is still the 20" A1. Get both, and then get a couple more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 5:47:18 PM EDT
[#41]
Truer words never spoken! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 5:48:37 PM EDT
[#42]
I've got to get the 16" because I want to put a sound supressor on it one day
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 5:53:10 PM EDT
[#43]
Yes, there are mis-informed people out here that think a 14.5" barrel can't hit squat. And as far as the M16 of 40 years ago......I'm not trying to compare a 14.5" barrel to when the M16 was first introduced. Pull yourself away from the TV and the Star Trek re-runs from the 60's and come back to reality. It's almost 2005!
|
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 6:10:29 PM EDT
[#44]
And I say again, none of that is in this thread, I have never met anyone who felt that way, or seen anyone post that on this board, nor has that been a topic of dicussion here.... so it's just a baseless opinion of yours that really doesn't have much bearing here.
Uhhh... I was trying to just use the very weapon as an example.... that not everything the military chooses historically turns out to be the best thing.... Surely you understand that?
Well, try to stick to the FACTS... instead of personal smears.... and your statements might carry a little more weight. When you cant back up what you say, and refute to slinging mud.... your lower your effectiveness in discussion even more than where you started. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 6:18:23 PM EDT
[#45]
16" sux and that's a fact!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 6:20:47 PM EDT
[#46]
Now THAT we can work with! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 7:44:19 PM EDT
[#47]
Actually that has been the basis of some arguments. If you read back they are saying that a 14.5" barreld M4 is only effective to 60 to 100M as far as ballistics are concerned which is a ton of BS.
I just might be missing this whole frangible range thing... |
||||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 7:50:29 PM EDT
[#48]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 7:59:37 PM EDT
[#49]
I do understand the concept behind it and agree that it does cause more damage and quicker death. What I don't agree with is that people think if the bullet does not fragmentate then the attacker will keep going like nothing ever happened. I understand if someone is fucked up on drugs it will have an effect but if you hit someone with a round and it doesn't kill them unless it was in the arm or leg (with no bone contact) they are pretty much out of the fight. Not only are they out of the fight but someone else has to care for their wounded ass and then there is someone else (temporarily) out of the fight. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:03:19 PM EDT
[#50]
Talked to a LOT of police officers involved in actual shootings who would disagree with the above.
Thats why I always shoot to wound. |
||
|
|
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.
