User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/13/2021 10:48:01 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: M193 was what went down the pipe (including my own) and it was a factory configured rifle. Not sure about lube but he's not an idiot. A lighter buffer would fix it, but it was a factory configured rifle so I'd hardly say he was running on the alleged ragged edge of reliability. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Proper lube/extractor kit/spring and buffer/full power ammo and they will run. Too many run their guns on the ragged edge of reliability/shoot underpowered ammo/and use the wrong lube. M193 was what went down the pipe (including my own) and it was a factory configured rifle. Not sure about lube but he's not an idiot. A lighter buffer would fix it, but it was a factory configured rifle so I'd hardly say he was running on the alleged ragged edge of reliability. My post wasn't specific to your friend's gun, rather ar15s in general. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2021 12:49:28 PM EDT
[#2]
I think 14.5 is pretty close to the sweet spot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2021 1:50:18 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think 14.5 is pretty close to the sweet spot. I tend to agree. Best combination of velocity. Maneuverability, and weight. That is just my opinion based on real world use |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2021 2:42:05 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: I tend to agree. Best combination of velocity. Maneuverability, and weight. That is just my opinion based on real world use Right there with ya...I don't need anything shorter to suit my needs. I grew up on full size muskets, so an M4 length is great in comparison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2021 3:50:04 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Right there with ya...I don't need anything shorter to suit my needs. I grew up on full size muskets, so an M4 length is great in comparison. If I am conducting MOUNT, I have no issues carrying Mk 18, but if I am in an area where engagements are in the 300 meters and further, I want the extra velocity of the M4. Honestly, I like the M4. Add a few inches, take away a few inches, whatever. I can tell you at distance, unless you get a head shot, it takes multiple rounds to kill a full grown adult. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2021 4:59:41 PM EDT
[#6]
when i first built my 556 16" i didn't really have any intention of ever dumping a grand on a supressor. Well now that i have, i fully regret the long 16" vs 10.5 or 12
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2021 5:18:47 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: when i first built my 556 16" i didn't really have any intention of ever dumping a grand on a supressor. Well now that i have, i fully regret the long 16" vs 10.5 or 12 I'd go with a k-length (or something close) suppressor for a 16" barrel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2021 10:51:12 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 16 inch barrels exist because of leftist gun laws, not because of logic. Although a 16 would be slightly better than a 14.5 in terminal ballistics. I would argue that a 16 inch barrel should have a mid length gas system. Or go to 18" rifle & drop the 20. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 12:18:43 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I honestly believe that if there was no NFA, most of us would have a do all carbine gas in 12.5 Fixed |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:58:50 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If I am conducting MOUNT, I have no issues carrying Mk 18, but if I am in an area where engagements are in the 300 meters and further, I want the extra velocity of the M4. Honestly, I like the M4. Add a few inches, take away a few inches, whatever. I can tell you at distance, unless you get a head shot, it takes multiple rounds to kill a full grown adult. Are you talking about MOUT??? https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mout |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 9:06:18 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryCorrect, I fat fingered it |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 8:09:51 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The AR platform and the 5.56mm round are designed for a 20" barrel with a rifle length gas system. Shorter barrels are to get a more maneuverable package while declaring the ballistics as "good enough". This sums it up perfectly. And "good enough" is getting absurd these days. We in the community seem to be able to convince ourselves of anything if we try hard enough. Take the 10.5 -11.5 crowd. Since Vietnam we have known the whole point of the high velocity small lightweight projectile cartridge is lost when you lose the hi velocity part. Yet today somehow a 10.5 inch barrel is good to go out to 300 yards or more. Sure we have better ammo but that better ammo is typically even slower than the original design. It's quite funny actually. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 12:02:11 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This sums it up perfectly. And "good enough" is getting absurd these days. We in the community seem to be able to convince ourselves of anything if we try hard enough. Take the 10.5 -11.5 crowd. Since Vietnam we have known the whole point of the high velocity small lightweight projectile cartridge is lost when you lose the hi velocity part. Yet today somehow a 10.5 inch barrel is good to go out to 300 yards or more. Sure we have better ammo but that better ammo is typically even slower than the original design. It's quite funny actually. What’s funny is that you think the performance limitations of M193 apply to everything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 9:15:22 PM EDT
[#14]
I’ve thought a lot about this. For military applications, where a rifle his handed out to a ton of soldiers for a wide range of applications, and where fighting can be expected over a vast array of distances in excess of 300 yards etc, the 14.5” or even 16” makes a lot of sense. For me personally, I like to have the right tool for the job. 11.5” CQB with a nice red dot and ideally a suppressor, with an SR25 (or high quality .308 of your choosing) and LPVO for anything the 11.5/red dot cant handle. I’ve found this doesn’t sacrifice a thing. It has all the pros, and covers everything for me without clutter.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 10:46:56 PM EDT
[#15]
I actually prefer a 20” with a collapsible stock. But what the hell do I know.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 10:16:15 AM EDT
[#16]
optimum? 11.5
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 10:47:09 AM EDT
[#17]
Life is about compromises and trade offs.
For me, living in a wooded area of the US, the closest to optimum for my present and more than likely future needs is my 11.5" suppressed. Cant really see a scenario where I would ever want to engage past 75-100 yards. If I lived in the desert with 500 yard open spaces, it would probably be a different story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 11:36:59 AM EDT
[#18]
I don't think there is a consensus on optimum length as it is all based on one's individual needs.
I think 16" barrels are a think because of the NFA. I think mid-gas systems are a thing because of 16" barrels (proper dwell time and all that). I prefer mid-gas over carbine. Because I don't feel like dealing with NFA stuff, or going P&W, I have a bunch of 16" middy's. When you say M4, that is 14.5 with a carbine gas system, but with so many options available, it does not really matter. 14.5 with carbine gas? 14.5 with mid gas? 16" with carbine gas? 16" with mid gas? I go with 16" mid gas because it would shoot the softest, be the most reliable, and have the least amount of red tape, but my optimal is not someone else's optimal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 2:00:42 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: To think of all of those unreliable MK18s down range....  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Army uses the 14.5" M4 barrel because anything shorter causes too much concusive noise in small spaces and has reliability issues . To think of all of those unreliable MK18s down range.... HawHaa/HAW HA HA HA AH! TRUFT! I wish we had a "Like" and a "Dumb-Ass" button/option on this sight to issue here... Agreed Tiggy! Logic and experience "Trumps" innie-net commando's for sure! I also wish there was a "STFU" button to add as well here but I'm just dreamin' at this point aren't I?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 3:34:59 PM EDT
[#20]
14.5 is the happy medium. I have done CQB with them and engaged at distance. That is why the military went that way with conventional ground forces. Now, a more specific weapon for specific environments is usually going to be better. That is why most of us have like 10 different ARs all in different configurations. I have 14.5 in carbine and in mid length and I feel zero distance between the two and don’t notice any difference between shooting the two.
Me personally, both in general, and in combat, I would much rather have a 14.5 over a 16. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 4:28:01 PM EDT
[#21]
One topic that is never mentioned when it comes to barrel length is that longer barrels point much easier and much faster than short barrels. This will not make sense to many people who started shooting in the age of optics but old school shooters who started with irons can often relate. Firearms with a long barrel and a sight mounted low near the muzzle can be oriented to the target faster and more accurately than super short barrels that require a full sight picture to make sure they are pointed at the target. Compare a long barrel over under shotgun to a serbu super shorty and you will get the picture.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 5:43:24 PM EDT
[#22]
I like 16 mid with a LPVO. I have some 14.5 but honestly my 18 gets shot the most because of 3gun. I have from 10.3 to 24in. I have a 14.5 I really like but it’s because of the optic and it’s a thin barrel profile. The whole 14.5 vs 16 is silly because most people end up putting a brake/flash hider that makes it well over 16in. A lot of 3gun guys run 18in or 16in guns and in 3gun you end up shooting stages going in and out of ports, barriers, and all sorts of other things. Where I usually shoot we usually get a vehicle stage, and some places have a legit shoot house. Being able to handle a weapon in and around makes a bigger difference than having a shorter barrel.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 7:15:32 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I like 16 mid with a LPVO. I have some 14.5 but honestly my 18 gets shot the most because of 3gun. I have from 10.3 to 24in. I have a 14.5 I really like but it’s because of the optic and it’s a thin barrel profile. The whole 14.5 vs 16 is silly because most people end up putting a brake/flash hider that makes it well over 16in. A lot of 3gun guys run 18in or 16in guns and in 3gun you end up shooting stages going in and out of ports, barriers, and all sorts of other things. Where I usually shoot we usually get a vehicle stage, and some places have a legit shoot house. Being able to handle a weapon in and around makes a bigger difference than having a shorter barrel. Twenty two seconds in, it debunks that the longer barrels are easier to use around around barriers. And it's plainly obvious that he's been trained to use both.  Vietnam M16A1 vs Modern AR-15 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 7:22:12 PM EDT
[#24]
12.5 master race reporting in.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 8:30:45 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This sums it up perfectly. And "good enough" is getting absurd these days. We in the community seem to be able to convince ourselves of anything if we try hard enough. Take the 10.5 -11.5 crowd. Since Vietnam we have known the whole point of the high velocity small lightweight projectile cartridge is lost when you lose the hi velocity part. Yet today somehow a 10.5 inch barrel is good to go out to 300 yards or more. Sure we have better ammo but that better ammo is typically even slower than the original design. It's quite funny actually. Quote HistoryQuoted: This sums it up perfectly. And "good enough" is getting absurd these days. We in the community seem to be able to convince ourselves of anything if we try hard enough. Take the 10.5 -11.5 crowd. Since Vietnam we have known the whole point of the high velocity small lightweight projectile cartridge is lost when you lose the hi velocity part. Yet today somehow a 10.5 inch barrel is good to go out to 300 yards or more. Sure we have better ammo but that better ammo is typically even slower than the original design. It's quite funny actually. Modern ammunition is not dependent on high velocity. Also the longer the shot, the less important the target dies immediately. Quoted: I honestly believe that if there was no NFA, most of us would have a do all carbine gas in 14.5. That gas system is almost 3” shorter than it should be for the barrel length so I hope not. 12.5 mid would be nice though. Quoted: Are you seriously contending that the NSWC Crane 16" "Recce" barrel it specified to custom barrel maker Lilja and Lilja made for Navy SEALs exists because of leftist gun laws Lilja still makes it. I'll follow their logic - oh, I already did. It's an excellent blend of weight, length (maneuverability vs velocity) and balance. The profile is heavy under the handguard, but straight .725" from the front of the gas block forward. Crane had a good idea. It still is. What killed the Recce? The M4A1 barrel with a free floating rail being sufficiently accurate to use at long range with a magnified optic. Quoted: To think of all of those unreliable MK18s down range.... The Mk18 isn’t unreliable it just declines rapidly at end of life and requires more frequent rebuilding. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 8:38:53 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Mk18 isn’t unreliable it just declines rapidly at end of life and requires more frequent rebuilding. Sarcasm man. Sarcasm.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 9:39:41 PM EDT
[#27]
I'd say in the choice between 14.5 and 16, let your intended use and environment decide. If you dont ever see yourself shooting past 300-400 then 14.5 probably makes more sense. If you might want to shoot out to 600 then a 16 makes more sense. If its for home defense then 14.5 is objectively better.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 9:58:01 PM EDT
[#28]
You wouldn't think there is much difference in feel and balance between a 16" and 14.5" PW, but to me there is. It's only an inch or so shorter, but feels so much more than that for some reason.
Also, I've had several 16" middies that were more gassed than my very soft shooting 14.5" BCM carbine. Proper gas port size has a lot to do with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 11:16:47 PM EDT
[#29]
For defensive purposes, there is no reason to not go down to 10.5-11" IF, but only if, you have modern ammo (e.g., 62 grain soft point). 10.5 to 11.5 is more maneuverable (especially when adding suppressors to the equation), it's lighter, and has great ballistics with soft point.
If I'm limited to FMJ, then I'm grabbing 14.5-16". But I live in a semi-free country where I can buy superior ammunition. The military doesn't have that luxury. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2021 2:30:19 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually wrong. The only reason the military uses a 14.5 barrel is that it fits a bayonet. The objective of the M4 project is that parts can be interchanged between the M4 and M16 rifles. That is the silliest thing I have ever heard. The "only reason"? If they simply wanted bayonet commonality, they would have just moved where the front sight base sits for a 16 inch, or any other length barrel, rifle. Yeah, it would have been a different length gas system than carbine, but if it didn't matter for any other reason besides fixing a bayonet, I'm pretty sure the engineers would have had a much easier time settling on the 14.5" barrel. If interchangeability was the objective, they failed pretty miserably. The upper receiver, stock, buffer tube, buffer spring, buffer, barrel, gas tube, handguards, and even the front sight are all different between the M4 and M16. That leaves commonality between the lower, fire control group, bolt carrier group, delta ring group, and the grip. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 6:10:43 AM EDT
[#31]
As far as I'm concerned, 14.5 is the ideal length for a carbine. With no NFA, I think most ARs would be that length.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 11:50:04 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This sums it up perfectly. And "good enough" is getting absurd these days. We in the community seem to be able to convince ourselves of anything if we try hard enough. Take the 10.5 -11.5 crowd. Since Vietnam we have known the whole point of the high velocity small lightweight projectile cartridge is lost when you lose the hi velocity part. Yet today somehow a 10.5 inch barrel is good to go out to 300 yards or more. Sure we have better ammo but that better ammo is typically even slower than the original design. It's quite funny actually. Exactly. I like to think of this as Platform Infatuation. With most, it really becomes less about ballistics than it does about their blind love for the AR-15 platform resulting in the train of thought- Wull....it's an AR, so it'll kill no matter what! The ballistics of the 5.56 out of a 10" or so barrel are roughly the equivalent of those from ancient .22 caliber cartridges such as the .218 Bee for example, which is generally thought of as a cartridge to be used on small critters under 200 yds. It's amusing to read dozens of posts in which grown men argue over 1.5" of barrel length.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 3:05:12 PM EDT
[#33]
11.5 inch is optimal.
Especially suppressed.Love my 11.5s. |
|
|
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.
