Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 7/28/2003 9:27:52 AM EDT
I was looking at the M-17s online, and read its specs. With a 21.5" barrel, the gun is 31.5" overall. That is roughly 3 to 3.5 in. shorter than an AR carbine, which, of course, uses a 16 " barrel. I was wondering why anyone hasn't shortened the barrel of the M-17s bullpup by 5.5 in. It would still be at legal barrel length (16 in.) and would shorten the rifle's overall length to about 26 in., roughly 8-9 in. shorter than the AR with a 16" barrel. It seems to me that it would be more handy than a 16" AR, while offering near equal muzzle velocity. However, the gun is ugly as sin, and has about a 4" sight radius without the scope rail mounted. Your thoughts? Use this URL to see the M-17s; just scroll down to the 6th picture on the page. http://www.azweapons.com/BUSHMASTERAR15main.html
Link Posted: 7/31/2003 9:43:32 PM EDT
I would handle one in person before buying. I found it to be pretty bulky and heavy. Not sure what the legal minimum overall length for a rifle is, but I was under the impression it was 26". I think the reason you don't see more variations of the M-17 is that it isn't all that popular of a choice in rifles.
Link Posted: 7/31/2003 10:21:13 PM EDT
I also believe 26" is the minimum OAL for a rifle... The M17 is great for Rightys! But those of us wrong handed people would get some hot brass in the cheek! [furious]
Link Posted: 8/10/2003 10:40:08 AM EDT
Look at kurt's custom firearms web site, I he takes m-17 and really tricks them out, improving a lot of aspects. Here'e a link: http://www.kurtskustomfirearms.citymax.com/page/page/42606.htm
Top Top