I tried searching, and Im sure its been covered, but I didnt see it.

I am looking in the near future to pick up a 82, 82CQ or M107 (Like the .mil association with this, not that it matters).

I would think the 82CQ would be easier to transport, and easier to use due to the CQ nature.  I feel that 99% of my shooting will be at 600 yds or less.

Opinions fellas?  I realize it will produce less energy/worse trajectory.  How much though? Enough to truly matter enough to offset the gains in convenience?

Thanks

Nothing?

Well, the obvious answer is get one of each....  Failing that, unless you have a huge need for portability I'd go with the longer barrel.  9" is going to give up about 400 feet per second or so, and that's a lot of velocity to lose.  You'll never really notice it at a couple hundred yards, but sure will farther out.  Not much difference in accuracy between barrel lengths.  I can shoot a CQ offhand with great effort by the extra weight/length of the standard barrel is a hair too much for that.  Both collapse to same length, so no storage issues.  But at bottom, a lot of the thrill of the 50 is the delivered energy and you definitely give some of that up with the cq for a modest gain in portability.

Understood.

Any other thoughts?

I will research the ballistics a bit, but I think what you are saying is true, Id hate to lose a lot of the effectiveness of the round just to be able to shoulder the gun easier.

I have fired a few rounds from an AR50 from the shoulder, and hit a five gal. bucket at 100yds (scoped).  It literally took all I had to do it, but it was witnessed.  

From the ferret50.com FAQ page...

Muzzle velocity is approximately 2600fps from an 18" barrel, 2800fps from 29", and 2900 fps from 36". Maximum effective range is approximately 900 yards from an 18" barrel, 1300 yards from 29", and 1450 yards from 36". (This data was compiled from testing at sea level, during F90 degree temperature, using 1952 Lake City API ammo.)

I hope this helps...

Thank you very much.  I appreciate it.  I can clearly see that the .50 is being handicapped by the lost inches.  

I see an 82 or 107 on the horizon

Wise decision. I think the 82 and the 107 would be easier to sell, too. Ya never know.

Get both.

I couldn’t decide between the A1 or the CQ either so I got both (plus an M99). The farthest I have shot any of them is 550 yards and I didn’t notice a difference in performance at that range. All three put holes in the steel gong at the rifle club, blow concrete blocks apart and make bowling pins fly in the air. They all weigh a ton and are all a pain to transport in the Pelican case.  

Shooting the CQ standing isn’t too bad.  I did an offhand, rapid fire 10 round mag dump with mine last weekend. Didn’t hit much, but it was a heck of a lot of fun. I never tried the A1 offhand but the wife wants to go shooting this weekend so maybe I’ll try it.

The main difference I notice between them is that the blast from my CQ is even more insane than from my A1, maybe because it happens 9” closer to your nose. I think it’s kinda fun, but it has bothered a couple of guys who shot it.

I posted these pictures before, but in case you didn’t see them, they show the difference in the blast between the A1 and the CQ. Ammo was some old Talon ball I had laying around.

M82A1
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj20/caveman_043/M82A1night.jpg

M82CQ
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj20/caveman_043/M82CQnight.jpg

Oh Sweet Baby Jesus.  Look at that CQ.  

I love the fireball from my little 6.5" M16, this rivals it!

I will offer a different opinion as I went with the CQ version.

The minor loss of velocity/effective range  generally has a detrimental effect out past 800 yards. At that range with the M82 platform in general, unless you are shooting at humvee sized targets,  the accuracy of the platform isn't going to be knocking over bowling pins at that range with either the 20 or 29" variety.  On the flip side the CQ is supposedly a bit more accurate as the shorter barrel reseats with better repeatibility in the locking collar than the longer barrel version.  However, that said I dont have a 29" barrel version to compare to either.

I like the fact that the CQ is a bit more compact overall (I am personally just more partial to more compact rifles be it a 10" M16 or a 20" M82), weighs a bit less than the longer barrel version, has a fully chrome lined barrel, and is duracoated so I don't have any corosion concerns.

I  never really planned to shoot my M82 past 500 yards and only at civilian-esqe targets (paper, tannerite, used brake rotors, fruit, cinderblocks, old tv's, etc) so having that little extra  200+ft/sec velocity out of the longer barrel to give that extra "punch" that may be critical to harden military type targets didnt outweight the other benefits the CQ offered over the 29" inch version in it's civilian life with me. There was also the hope of slightly better accuracy as that is the biggest downfall of the M82 with its reciprocating/moving  barrell assembly.

I am not a military sniper defending my unit, don't hunt with my M82, and don't have any delusions of SHTF senarios where I am humping a M82 along with my wife taking head shots ala Rambo 4.... so that pretty much puts it's in the "toy" category for me and the CQ just seemed to fit the "more fun" and "easier to deal with" attributes over the M82A1 or M107.

Long term if I find myself wanting to shoot much out past 500 yards or some sort of long range competition,  I would probably aquire an M99 or AR50 and handload or purchase match ammunition to go with it.

Overall you really can't go wrong with either version as it is probably one of (if not) the most fun/exotic/powerful rifles you can purchase without a tax stamp.

James
Aust

I would definately go with the CQ if you think you might ever put a silencer on it down the road.  We have sold SEVERAL of the CQ's and they've had no complaints with accuracy or loss of range.  It all comes down to the shooter.  - Larry Knesek

Does the CQ really have a chromed lined barrel or is the chamber just chromed lined?

I went the CQ for the reasons mentioned above. Mine has been amazingly accurate for such barrel design. I also like the fact that it was chrome lined since the CQ was designed for the Coast Guard and they wanted corrosion protection. And the velocity loss is not 400ft/sec. It is more closer to 200ft/sec which is just fine by me.

Great way to put it. I couldn't agree more. Mine are also in the "big toy" category, but I have more fun shooting them than anything else.

Between the two, I have more fun with my CQ than my A1. For what I do with them, I don't notice a difference in accuracy or miss a couple hundred feet per second in velocity. It is easier to move the CQ around (once it's out of the case and assembled), you can shoot it offhand and at night, it looks and feels like a flashbang grenade just went off. Makes for a pretty entertaining time at the range.