User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 11:49:45 AM EDT
[#1]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 11:53:43 AM EDT
[#2]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 11:55:14 AM EDT
[#3]
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  .
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 11:55:16 AM EDT
[#4]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 12:03:49 PM EDT
[#5]
I'm not whining. I'm in a ranting kinda mood.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 12:10:51 PM EDT
[#6]
i would prefer the lightweight barrel over the m4 could care less for the m4 profile as i dont own any m203
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 12:11:27 PM EDT
[#7]
Funny you should say that. My main fighting carbine is a superlight. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 12:13:22 PM EDT
[#8]
Well thats your opinion. So why rag on stuff other people buy?Makes you sound like a ass.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 12:15:28 PM EDT
[#9]
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... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 12:20:06 PM EDT
[#10]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 12:28:14 PM EDT
[#11]
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!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 12:35:07 PM EDT
[#12]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 12:36:28 PM EDT
[#13]
I have a 1/7 20" Colt pencil barrel.  If someone were to make a quality pencil barrel similar to Colt in 20" and 16" do you think there would be a market for it? I'm seriously considering one of those carbon fiber wrapped barrels to get a lighter weight barrel that will (supposedly) still handle heat well. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 12:37:32 PM EDT
[#14]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 12:37:49 PM EDT
[#15]
Oh and I agree that I'd rather have a good quality pencil barrel than an M-4, I think there's little point to a civilian M-4, though my main carbine has an M-4 barrel-that was the readily available quality 16" barrel when I was looking for an upper.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 12:38:54 PM EDT
[#16]
 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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 12:46:41 PM EDT
[#17]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 12:50:46 PM EDT
[#18]
what a waste
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 12:53:53 PM EDT
[#19]
Well - that says it all. Frankly, all those crazy cuts and profiles just look out of place, useless.... but we engineers think like that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 1:01:29 PM EDT
[#20]
I'm on a roll today
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 1:05:59 PM EDT
[#21]
Never owned one,think I will just stick with my pencil barrel.I try to avoid thinks that don't enhance function.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 1:06:14 PM EDT
[#22]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 1:07:40 PM EDT
[#23]
Who else doesn't like M4 barrels? ME-or any other pencil thin barrel
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 1:20:54 PM EDT
[#24]
On a personal level; I am a big fan of the lightweight barrels.
My favorate shooter is a plain jain 16" pencil barrel .0625 FSB. At a minimum my personal stuff is all government profile (taken down under the HG) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 1:21:22 PM EDT
[#25]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 1:24:01 PM EDT
[#26]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 1:25:10 PM EDT
[#27]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 1:27:45 PM EDT
[#28]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 1:32:50 PM EDT
[#29]
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? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 1:36:16 PM EDT
[#30]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 1:42:27 PM EDT
[#31]
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. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 1:56:30 PM EDT
[#32]
Me three. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 4:59:55 PM EDT
[#33]
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  
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 5:14:06 PM EDT
[#34]
Holy crap!!! the front sight is canted!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 5:23:40 PM EDT
[#35]
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... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 5:32:25 PM EDT
[#36]
Uh, no. I installed that barrel myself. It's w/in about 2 clicks.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 5:54:14 PM EDT
[#37]
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
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 6:25:49 PM EDT
[#38]
Amen.
I hate the notch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 6:33:17 PM EDT
[#39]
ah, there's nothing like feeling superior over the "newbies" to unite arfcommers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 6:34:28 PM EDT
[#40]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 6:47:00 PM EDT
[#41]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 7:21:08 PM EDT
[#42]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 7:28:17 PM EDT
[#43]
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). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 8:32:41 PM EDT
[#44]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 8:35:33 PM EDT
[#45]
I love M4 bbls
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 9:47:50 PM EDT
[#46]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 10:17:32 PM EDT
[#47]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 11:35:24 PM EDT
[#48]
I like mine and its lighter than my 20" HBAR!!! looks cool too.
 (post 87)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2005 12:14:01 AM EDT
[#49]
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2005 2:49:56 AM EDT
[#50]
I read on the internet really bad stuff happens when you dont have an H-Bar
|
|
|
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.
