Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 11/21/2005 11:43:07 AM EDT
I'm probably not gonna have a lot of agreement on this, but here goes. I dislike M4 barrels. I own one, and have owned several more, but I have come to the conclusion that it is inferior.

Could anyone have intentionally designed a WORSE profile for civilians? Uncle Sam likes M4 barrels because he has cool shit like M203s to attach to the stepdown. Uncle Elmo rarely has an M203. There is no other reason for the profile (that I can see).

The M4 profile is backwards. It is heavier out front, which is bad for accuracy. Some say that the extra front weight on the M4 and the M16A2 barrels is for balance. I don't need that weight for balance--my flashlight already weighs 11 oz. With the stepdown, the exposed part of the barrel is no stronger than the A1 profile, so that is a moot point. Basically you have a pencil barrel in all respects but weight--the stepdown compromises strength anyway.

If I want a lightweight upper and don't need pinpoint accuracy, I will skip right to the superlight. Sure its only .3 pounds lighter (16" barrels) but thats .3 pounds that I don't want or need, and the M4 barrel spends a lot more time chucked up in the lathe--and time (plus tool wear) is money.

If I want midweight, I'll get a barrel that is .760 or so behind the gas system and .750 in front. Thats a good, straight profile. A little heavier than that is the MRP profile, which works pretty well for me. Its a little heavy, but for a GP gun thats OK.

If I want heavy....well, I don't want heavy, except on a barrel like a Noveske SS barrel, where the weight keeps the throat from burning up. Thats a precision gun anyway.

Cliff notes:
The M4 barrel doesn't do anything that the A1 profile doesn't, except mount an M203 and look cool. I wish that A1 barrels were more common.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 11:49:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I wish that A1 barrels were more common.



Me too. I'd love to see some in 1:7 twist and in more lengths (11, 14.5 & 20). All the 20's out there now seem to be 1:12.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 11:53:43 AM EDT
I know Colt has made 11.5, 14.5, 16 and 20 inch 1/7 A1 barrels. The only ones I see for sale regularly are the 11.5 and 16 inch version.

CMMG sells a 14.7 CL 5.56mm 1/7 A1 barrel.

What I really would like to see is a 13.65-14.7 inch mid length A1.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 11:55:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I know Colt has made 11.5, 14.5, 16 and 20 inch 1/7 A1 barrels. The only ones I see for sale regularly are the 11.5 and 16 inch version.
.



I know they made the 20"ers in the past, but they are rarer than hen's teeth, I've only seen the 16" versions.

A 16" middy would be really nice.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 11:55:16 AM EDT
I really don't give it that much thought. It's light enough and I can make the 50 yard string of qualification headshots with it...no problem.

I'm just not that picky. Give me a good solid AR with irons, and I'll succeed, MAMA! I won't whine.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 12:03:49 PM EDT
I'm not whining. I'm in a ranting kinda mood.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 12:10:51 PM EDT
i would prefer the lightweight barrel over the m4 could care less for the m4 profile as i dont own any m203
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 12:11:27 PM EDT



Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I'm probably not gonna have a lot of agreement on this, but here goes. I dislike M4 barrels. I own one, and have owned several more, but I have come to the conclusion that it is inferior.

Could anyone have intentionally designed a WORSE profile for civilians? Uncle Sam likes M4 barrels because he has cool shit like M203s to attach to the stepdown. Uncle Elmo rarely has an M203. There is no other reason for the profile (that I can see).

The M4 profile is backwards. It is heavier out front, which is bad for accuracy. Some say that the extra front weight on the M4 and the M16A2 barrels is for balance. I don't need that weight for balance--my flashlight already weighs 11 oz. With the stepdown, the exposed part of the barrel is no stronger than the A1 profile, so that is a moot point. Basically you have a pencil barrel in all respects but weight--the stepdown compromises strength anyway.

If I want a lightweight upper and don't need pinpoint accuracy, I will skip right to the superlight. Sure its only .3 pounds lighter (16" barrels) but thats .3 pounds that I don't want or need, and the M4 barrel spends a lot more time chucked up in the lathe--and time (plus tool wear) is money.

If I want midweight, I'll get a barrel that is .760 or so behind the gas system and .750 in front. Thats a good, straight profile. A little heavier than that is the MRP profile, which works pretty well for me. Its a little heavy, but for a GP gun thats OK.

If I want heavy....well, I don't want heavy, except on a barrel like a Noveske SS barrel, where the weight keeps the throat from burning up. Thats a precision gun anyway.

Cliff notes:
The M4 barrel doesn't do anything that the A1 profile doesn't, except mount an M203 and look cool. I wish that A1 barrels were more common.



Funny you should say that. My main fighting carbine is a superlight.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 12:13:22 PM EDT
Well thats your opinion. So why rag on stuff other people buy?Makes you sound like a ass.

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I'm probably not gonna have a lot of agreement on this, but here goes. I dislike M4 barrels. I own one, and have owned several more, but I have come to the conclusion that it is inferior.

Could anyone have intentionally designed a WORSE profile for civilians? Uncle Sam likes M4 barrels because he has cool shit like M203s to attach to the stepdown. Uncle Elmo rarely has an M203. There is no other reason for the profile (that I can see).

The M4 profile is backwards. It is heavier out front, which is bad for accuracy. Some say that the extra front weight on the M4 and the M16A2 barrels is for balance. I don't need that weight for balance--my flashlight already weighs 11 oz. With the stepdown, the exposed part of the barrel is no stronger than the A1 profile, so that is a moot point. Basically you have a pencil barrel in all respects but weight--the stepdown compromises strength anyway.

If I want a lightweight upper and don't need pinpoint accuracy, I will skip right to the superlight. Sure its only .3 pounds lighter (16" barrels) but thats .3 pounds that I don't want or need, and the M4 barrel spends a lot more time chucked up in the lathe--and time (plus tool wear) is money.

If I want midweight, I'll get a barrel that is .760 or so behind the gas system and .750 in front. Thats a good, straight profile. A little heavier than that is the MRP profile, which works pretty well for me. Its a little heavy, but for a GP gun thats OK.

If I want heavy....well, I don't want heavy, except on a barrel like a Noveske SS barrel, where the weight keeps the throat from burning up. Thats a precision gun anyway.

Cliff notes:
The M4 barrel doesn't do anything that the A1 profile doesn't, except mount an M203 and look cool. I wish that A1 barrels were more common.

Link Posted: 11/21/2005 12:15:28 PM EDT
Doesn't make any difference to me. A lot of people like them for their looks, Maybe an Army guy who was issued one and wants to recreate his issued weapon for memories. Or maybe just some guy who likes military style weapons. I admit they look pretty cool, but I am into midlengths...

As far as weight, nothing wrong with a lightweight from CMMG. they have them cut all the way down to 14.7 with perm flashhider if you wanna save another .1 pounds... I thought about getting one, but really don't need it, so I'll do without for a while...
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 12:20:06 PM EDT
I'm with you. I agree the M4 and A2 government profile barrels lack the necessary meat where they need it from from accuracy standpoint. I believe when the 20" A2 government profile came out the military wanted a beefed up the area forward of the hand guards in an effort to strengthen the barrels to keep soldiers from bending the barrels when they got used as pry bars for opening crates. At least that what I read back in the 80s in an article. Their reasoning was the hand guards would help strengthen the thinned out section used for the M203. For civilian use give me a 16" HB please. I also agree if you want light weight the A1 style barrel would be the one.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 12:28:14 PM EDT
I wish someone sold an "F" type front sight base that fit a thinner barrel than the M4 and govt., then you could do away with the bugle caused by the FSB. Somebody make (a good) one please!
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 12:35:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cutter1:
Well thats your opinion. So why rag on stuff other people buy?Makes you sound like a ass.



You are wrong on both counts. Firstly, I am merely trying to lend insight into the deficiencies of the nost popular barrel on the market, and secondly in the implicit presumption that your opinion is of any consequence.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 12:36:28 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 12:37:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jelly:
I'm with you. I agree the M4 and A2 government profile barrels lack the necessary meat where they need it from from accuracy standpoint. I believe when the 20" A2 government profile came out the military wanted a beefed up the area forward of the hand guards in an effort to strengthen the barrels to keep soldiers from bending the barrels when they got used as pry bars for opening crates. At least that what I read back in the 80s in an article. Their reasoning was the hand guards would help strengthen the thinned out section used for the M203. For civilian use give me a 16" HB please. I also agree if you want light weight the A1 style barrel would be the one.



The A2 was designed by the yellow glasses crowd. Not that its wrong for them to design rifles, just wrong to issue them to soldiers who don't give a rat's ass about the 600 yard KD range.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 12:37:49 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 12:38:54 PM EDT
I agree entirely.


I'd also point out that all of that profiling on the M4 just leaves stress risers in the barrel - potential bending points
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 12:46:41 PM EDT
but it looks so cool!

Sure it's not as practical, but what would the point be of beign 100% practical. I'm betting that more likely then not i'm going to shoot paper for the rest of my life, so i might as well indulge my impulses to get something that looks like what the pros use.

Also, many soldiers don't use M203s, with their M4s and I don't think they really mind the tiny amount of extra weight, or stress point. We're debating mere ounces here.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 12:50:46 PM EDT
what a waste
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 12:53:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/21/2005 12:55:17 PM EDT by fight4yourrights]

Originally Posted By gordon_freeman:


but it looks so cool! ..........indulge my impulses to get something that looks like what the pros use.




Well - that says it all.


Frankly, all those crazy cuts and profiles just look out of place, useless.... but we engineers think like that.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 1:01:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By modog:


Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
<SNIP>



Funny you should say that. My main fighting carbine is a superlight.



I'm on a roll today
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 1:05:59 PM EDT
Never owned one,think I will just stick with my pencil barrel.I try to avoid thinks that don't enhance function.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 1:06:14 PM EDT
To the best of my knowledge they increased the forward barrel profile to increase accuracy and found that increasing the area under the handgurad did not increase accuracy any further so its heavy out front only. The notch is of course for the M203 but we also have the reduced profile before the flash hider and the size and slots on the flash hider to correspond to barrel mounted grenades and blank adaptors. We need none of that either but its there because we use military profiled barrels. We dont need bayonete lugs either. I have never ever heard of a case of a civilian of LEO bayoneting someone and yet you have not dissed the needless weight of the lug. All are simply a carry over from the A2 program for the M16 or from other military uses. An M4 is a lot better than an HBAR and sags less and heats up more slowly than a superlight.

Its just a choice.
Much like M855 or M193... there is no need for such stuff. M193 has poor terminal ballistics compared to OTM loads so its really suitable for pracice ammo. You dont need 5.56 pressures for practice ammo. Its excessively expensive and inaccurate. The high pressures just decrease accuracy of a practice load that is already marginal in the accuracy department. Etc. This is the same thing you are going on with as far as the barrels and their lack of need for a civilian. I suspect you wont see it that way but thats how it is. It bridges the gap between .223 pressure FMJ practice loads and 5.56 pressure match loads. Its just another choice that is carried over from old military issue stuff. Nothing more nothing less just like an M4 barrel.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 1:07:40 PM EDT
Who else doesn't like M4 barrels? ME-or any other pencil thin barrel
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 1:20:54 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 1:21:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/21/2005 1:25:45 PM EDT by MonkeyGrip]
I wish someone would address impact of the front sight base (FSB) on barrel thickness here because it's my main issue. AFAIK there's only two sizes of FSB. The standard that fits the 0.75" M4, govt. and HBARs, and one that fits the pencil barrels (something like 0.64" IIRC). Which means that you can't come up with a normally tapered barrel that's in between the pencil and M4 diameters, because you have to bulge at the FSB. And you can't get "F" type FSBs for pencil barrels.

To me, this is what drives these screwy gov.t profiles. No one else is bothered by this?
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 1:24:01 PM EDT
Superlight is .625". There are no F bases in this size, although it would be a simple matter for a maker of F sight bases to do this.

Others a .75". F sight bases readily available.

Some manufacturers (DPMS comes to mind) make FSBs for larger diameter barrels.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 1:25:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MonkeyGrip:
I wish someone would address impact of the front sight base (FSB) on barrel thickness here because it's my main issue. AFAIK there's only two sizes of FSB. The standard that fits the 0.75" M4, govt. and HBARs, and one that fits the pencil barrels (something like 0.64" IIRC). Which means that you can't come up with a normally tapered barrel that's in between the pencil and M4 diameters, because you have to bulge at the FSB. And you can't get "F" type FSBs for pencil barrels.

No one else is bothered by this?




What is the specific complaint? I don't want a barrel inbetween pencil and M4 - pencil works fine. Is the lack of an "F" type feed into the front sight pin height issue? If so, my BM SLW works just fine with a Troy BUIS.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 1:27:45 PM EDT
I some what agree. I have no M203 and if I want a lighter barrel, I'll go pencil thin.

I pointed this out to a few people who were ragging "tactical" gear while back. They were spouting jibberish about keeping their M4'gerys simple. When asked if they had a M203, many of them became quiet. Not everyone has to have a use for something, but some prefer stuff they will use.

However, I'm not one to judge other's choices, so I say go for it if you want it that bad. I'll take an HBAR in most scenarios.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 1:32:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By olds442tyguy:
I some what agree. I have no M203 and if I want a lighter barrel, I'll go pencil thin.

I pointed this out to a few people who were ragging "tactical" gear while back. They were spouting jibberish about keeping their M4'gerys simple. When asked if they had a M203, many of them became quiet. Not everyone has to have a use for something, but some prefer stuff they will use.

However, I'm not one to judge other's choices, so I say go for it if you want it that bad. I'll take an HBAR in most scenarios.



Not only is the cut only an advantage when using an M203, but LMT and KAC both make superior interfaces that allow the barrel to free float while using the M203. Why does the .mil still want the cut?
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 1:36:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By MonkeyGrip:
I wish someone would address impact of the front sight base (FSB) on barrel thickness here because it's my main issue. AFAIK there's only two sizes of FSB. The standard that fits the 0.75" M4, govt. and HBARs, and one that fits the pencil barrels (something like 0.64" IIRC). Which means that you can't come up with a normally tapered barrel that's in between the pencil and M4 diameters, because you have to bulge at the FSB. And you can't get "F" type FSBs for pencil barrels.

No one else is bothered by this?




What is the specific complaint? I don't want a barrel inbetween pencil and M4 - pencil works fine. Is the lack of an "F" type feed into the front sight pin height issue? If so, my BM SLW works just fine with a Troy BUIS.

WTH is an "F" type feed?
Yes my front pin sticks up too high, with my LaRue BUIS on my 16" pencil barrel. If someone would make a (say) 0.68" "F" quality FSB, you could get barrels with most or all of the strength of the M4, with weight less than the govt. but without the goofy profile.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 1:42:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/21/2005 1:43:04 PM EDT by olds442tyguy]

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By olds442tyguy:
I some what agree. I have no M203 and if I want a lighter barrel, I'll go pencil thin.

I pointed this out to a few people who were ragging "tactical" gear while back. They were spouting jibberish about keeping their M4'gerys simple. When asked if they had a M203, many of them became quiet. Not everyone has to have a use for something, but some prefer stuff they will use.

However, I'm not one to judge other's choices, so I say go for it if you want it that bad. I'll take an HBAR in most scenarios.



Not only is the cut only an advantage when using an M203, but LMT and KAC both make superior interfaces that allow the barrel to free float while using the M203. Why does the .mil still want the cut?


The simple answer would be they don't want to spend the extra money when what they have already works good enough. I completely agree though. I know I'll piss off some people, but to me the M4 profile is just a trend. It has it's purpose, but 99% of civilian shooters have no purpose for it.

I won't even start on permanently attached muzzle devices.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 1:56:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I wish that A1 barrels were more common.



Me too. I'd love to see some in 1:7 twist and in more lengths (11, 14.5 & 20). All the 20's out there now seem to be 1:12.



Me three.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 4:59:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/21/2005 5:03:25 PM EDT by fight4yourrights]

Originally Posted By MonkeyGrip:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By MonkeyGrip:
I wish someone would address impact of the front sight base (FSB) on barrel thickness here because it's my main issue. AFAIK there's only two sizes of FSB. The standard that fits the 0.75" M4, govt. and HBARs, and one that fits the pencil barrels (something like 0.64" IIRC). Which means that you can't come up with a normally tapered barrel that's in between the pencil and M4 diameters, because you have to bulge at the FSB. And you can't get "F" type FSBs for pencil barrels.

No one else is bothered by this?




What is the specific complaint? I don't want a barrel inbetween pencil and M4 - pencil works fine. Is the lack of an "F" type feed into the front sight pin height issue? If so, my BM SLW works just fine with a Troy BUIS.

WTH is an "F" type feed?
Yes my front pin sticks up too high, with my LaRue BUIS on my 16" pencil barrel. If someone would make a (say) 0.68" "F" quality FSB, you could get barrels with most or all of the strength of the M4, with weight less than the govt. but without the goofy profile.




Does the lack of an "F type" feed (become part of) into the problem?

Bushmaster SLW 16", Troy BUIS, no problem. Notice the front pin is recessed




Link Posted: 11/21/2005 5:14:06 PM EDT
Holy crap!!! the front sight is canted!!!
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 5:23:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/21/2005 5:25:02 PM EDT by cowboy7242001]

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I wish that A1 barrels were more common.



Me too. I'd love to see some in 1:7 twist and in more lengths (11, 14.5 & 20). All the 20's out there now seem to be 1:12.



I have some cool guns (for fun and otherwise) and I think most of them would see the EE if I could get some A1s in tighter twists

Then an A1 middy.....oh lordy...
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 5:32:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ch0wd3r:

Holy crap!!! the front sight is canted!!!




Uh, no.


I installed that barrel myself. It's w/in about 2 clicks.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 5:54:14 PM EDT
I got mine because it was there. I pretty much only know the differences from reading this sight, but it didn't seem to make much difference. If I had to choose, it'd be a HBar. FWIW
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 6:25:49 PM EDT
Amen.

I hate the notch.

Link Posted: 11/21/2005 6:33:17 PM EDT
ah, there's nothing like feeling superior over the "newbies" to unite arfcommers.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 6:34:28 PM EDT
Never really saw any need for it, at least for my uses. Never gunna have a m203 (and wouldn't want one). Also, having more weight foward on a rifle increases accuracy by deadening muzzle swing (I shot small bore rifle, and won Colorado state rifle championships in smallbore and air rifle......no jokes plz). Now, with as little weight diff as there is between pencil, m4, and a2 style barrels, I doubt that it is going to make much difference, however it may be why placing that weight towards the muzzle versus towards the upper made a difference. If you don't believe me about the heavy barrel thing, I'll snap a pic of my Ancuhutz smallbore rifle and its HBAR that would make an AR HBAR look like a pencil.....just a thought.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 6:47:00 PM EDT
i really like the idea of a 14.5" barrel but when i got into the carbine game when it came to AR's the only thing avaliable in the 14.5" barrel was the M4 type....i will never own a M203 so the M4 cuts have no usage to me, but i have very much gotten used to the M4 style....i do really like the 14.5" heavy barrel that bushmaster offers and the 14.5" lightweights that CMMG offers....but for now i am just sticking to what i have and have easy access to....


camaro
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 7:21:08 PM EDT
HATE the A2 and M4 profiles.

That is why my two new midlength gov't profile barrels from Sabre will have the barrel in front of the gas block reduced to .600" diameter.

I'm not going to bitch about it. I'm just gonna DO it.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 7:28:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/21/2005 7:35:22 PM EDT by Gamma762]

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I'm probably not gonna have a lot of agreement on this, but here goes. I dislike M4 barrels. I own one, and have owned several more, but I have come to the conclusion that it is inferior.

Could anyone have intentionally designed a WORSE profile for civilians? Uncle Sam likes M4 barrels because he has cool shit like M203s to attach to the stepdown. Uncle Elmo rarely has an M203. There is no other reason for the profile (that I can see).

The M4 profile is backwards. It is heavier out front, which is bad for accuracy. Some say that the extra front weight on the M4 and the M16A2 barrels is for balance. I don't need that weight for balance--my flashlight already weighs 11 oz. With the stepdown, the exposed part of the barrel is no stronger than the A1 profile, so that is a moot point. Basically you have a pencil barrel in all respects but weight--the stepdown compromises strength anyway.

If I want a lightweight upper and don't need pinpoint accuracy, I will skip right to the superlight. Sure its only .3 pounds lighter (16" barrels) but thats .3 pounds that I don't want or need, and the M4 barrel spends a lot more time chucked up in the lathe--and time (plus tool wear) is money.

If I want midweight, I'll get a barrel that is .760 or so behind the gas system and .750 in front. Thats a good, straight profile. A little heavier than that is the MRP profile, which works pretty well for me. Its a little heavy, but for a GP gun thats OK.

If I want heavy....well, I don't want heavy, except on a barrel like a Noveske SS barrel, where the weight keeps the throat from burning up. Thats a precision gun anyway.

Cliff notes:
The M4 barrel doesn't do anything that the A1 profile doesn't, except mount an M203 and look cool. I wish that A1 barrels were more common.


I disagree - I don't think M4 barrels even LOOK cool. And A1 barrels accept M203's just fine, that's the whole reason for the cut in the M4 barrels, to get the diameter down to A1 size. M4 and "government profile" barrels are a good example of how NOT to make a barrel IMHO, and I am continually baffled by the adoration for them. Then again, to a whole lot of people it's just the look of the weapon that matters (or seems to).
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 8:32:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/21/2005 8:33:11 PM EDT by WIZZO_ARAKM14]
I got my M4gery kit from M&A Parts almost a year before I joined this site.

I was either gonna buy a LW or the M4 barrel......I flipped a coin.

Personally, I couldn't care less what other people buy and don't feel inclined to question them about it

WIZZO
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 8:35:33 PM EDT
I love M4 bbls
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 9:47:50 PM EDT
I dont especially like the M4 barrel. I personally think barrels should be consistant from bore to flash hider, and medium profile. Notches and contours are just points of weakness.

Rigid barrels of uniform strength at all points would be the best for serious abuse and function under extreme conditions
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 10:17:32 PM EDT
Can't we all just get along?

I like my Bushmaster M4A3 16". I don't hang a wad of uber tactical shhhhtuff of the front end. The HBAR felt front heavy. The M4A3 balanced very nicely.

You make yours the way you want it and I'll go with what I like. It's nice to have options.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 11:35:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/21/2005 11:36:42 PM EDT by john575]
I like mine and its lighter than my 20" HBAR!!! looks cool too. (post 87)

Link Posted: 11/22/2005 12:14:01 AM EDT
I agree that the M4 profile is pointless and has no advantages whatsoever over a pencil barrel. As stated, the M203 will mount to a pencil barrel just fine.

I'd love to have a 14.5" pencil barrel in 1/7. I'd love it even more if it was a Colt barrel. I think I'd pee myself if it was all the above and had a "F" FSB.
Link Posted: 11/22/2005 2:49:56 AM EDT
I read on the internet really bad stuff happens when you dont have an H-Bar
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top