Seems weird that the most potent variant of our favorite rifle is becoming smaller. You know despite the fact that the cartridge was designed around the 20 inch barrel. Velocity equals tissue destruction is and remains the the key for this newly developed "main battle rifle" contender. Yes, most of us are well educated as to the reason to all of its short comings, initially. Not going to mention that argument initially.
Once the proper propellant was introduced the army signed on long term. I get it. I really do. New ordnance, realistic expectations and the real world and the time it takes to actually deliver. (Anyone remember the f-35?   )

However.......

So far as I know the troops that were in the sand box asked for a harder hitting round because of insufficient" immediate" incapacitation of the the enemy

Well, .....why are we diminishing the capability of our beloved ARs to get smaller and smaller for the sake (assuming this is the case) of greater handling characteristics.

So.... What gives?

Army adopted the M4.

A 16in can still hit at 600yrd effictive,
It's too long and heavier for not much added useful velocity.
With optics a longer sight radius does not matter.

I like the big 20 incher

Its the "Cool Aid" factor, I'd guess.  My goto is an A2 20in.

20 inch barrels are a huge pain in the ass when you are operating out of a cramped military vehicle.

Granted.

Why is smaller and less effective the norm for our military?

The 16 inch is a much more practical, handy Rifle for a very minor cost in velocity.

Love my 10.5" AR pistol.

Try getting in and out of vehicles all day long with an M16A2.  The A2 really fucked up the design, in my opinion.  The A1 was light, had the perfect length stock, and good field sights.  The A2 doesn't add any features that a rifleman needs, and adds a big weight penalty.  Never mind trying to use that long stock with body armor unless you have gorilla arms.  For mobile troops the 14" barrel and collapsing stock is far more practical.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Get out of here with your facts and shit.



btw

Ounces are pounds, pounds are pain...

Its length

The cools kids deployed and cleared buildings for months on end and realized it is worth sacrificing a little distance for compactness

At least for Afghanistan (and in my experience), the majority of longer range fighting was done with M2s and MK19s.  The M4 was fine at the ranges I experienced for closer ranged firefights (villages and such).  The mobility in vehicles and whilst kicking doors was worth the trade off to me. The 5.56 still does disgusting damage at those ranges out of a shorter barrel.  






 

I love to shoot A2's. But having to live with one everyday, compared to a carbine? Carbine is preferable in most every way.

<troll] TROLL

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

The same reason most people prefer, say, a Glock 19 over a Glock 17.  You lose next to nothing in performance (even less so with a rifle that has an optic since sight radius becomes a non-issue) but it is lighter, more mobile, and has the same firepower.

<snip> quote instead of edit...

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

because kids are dumb?



Kidding. 16 or 20 depending on the circumstances I guess.

Try getting into and out of a vehicle a few times with your rifle at the same speed you normally get into and out of your car.  See how long it takes you to think "man, if only this SOB was a few inches shorter."



Same reason the Russians eventually went for the M44 instead of the long-assed mosin--because that shit sucks.



20" barrels in cramped vehicles only work in bullpups these days.



 

From what I understand they need to actually hit what they're aiming at, instead of asking for a bigger, harder hitting round.

What are you getting at when you say less effective?

It's ugly as fuck and as long as a musket.

Yeah, the A2 stock length with body armor is dildoes.


I thing the Canucks had a good idea with the C7A2.

Because the size length is very noticeable in a positive way and the "less effective" ballistics is not noticeable in any appreciable easy.

I really couldn't care any less what the newbies and couch commandos and gear queers think is "cool". I happen to like my 20" and since I learned on the M16A1 of that barrel length i'm sticking with what I have. I ain't "tactical" or " tactic-cool", i'm just a grouchy, middle-aged fat curmudgeon (imagine Walter of Jeff Dunham fame!) who knows his own mind and is not a bit impressed with the "flavor of the day" when it comes to arms and equipment.

The first rifle I was issued was an M16A2.  I trained and used one exclusively while in the Marines.  Heck, even deployed with the same rifle twice.  To me it feels right despite being longer and heavier.  I had an M4 in the NG and quickly adjusted to it.

His rifle/carbine is the least of his problems.
Needs moar M3A4 hand cart.

If they're far enough away to need a few more inches of barrel, they're far enough away to call artillery on.  Or so I'd always heard it.

That, or let the guy with the DMR take the shots while the rest of y'all move or do other interesting things.

completely unscientific, but IMO the most likely scenario; second kind of cool.
its all about looks and having the "same thing as tier 1"
exactly the same reason why people build mk12 clones, buy semi auto DD MK18's, and build m4gerys.
people think they are cool and are attracted to them.
nothing wrong with that, especially considering most of them spend more time in a safe than being used.
with the vast majority of our military now using m4's and mk18's what do you expect?
oh and don't forget the SCAR.

now lets talk about practical civilian application of firearms for a second.
the only reason I own barrels  (in 556) longer than 16" is because it is illegal to have shorter stuff with a stock on it (luckily sbr stamp should be here any day now)
that being said i would like to build an m16a4 clone, you know because I like the looks
But back on  the subject of practical. in virtually any citation a civilian would need to employ a firearm of any type for defensive purposes how far is the range of engagement typically? 10yards maybe? 10 feet?  have you every heard of a  domestic situation where some civilian needed to get accurate, effective lead on target at 500 yards?
plain and simply if the plan is to use a firearm for defensive purposes, keep it by the bed or whatever, the extra 600fps simply isn't necessary for terminal performance at 20 feet.
longer barrels are harder to maneuver indoors, heavier, and slower to get on target at close range. besides, with suppressors more popular than ever, add a can to the front of a 20 inch bbl and you might as well be rocking an m1garand

if we're being honest, to increase effectiveness of the ar15, a different caliber would be a far more effective solution than a 6 inch longer barrel.
6.8spc for example is a far superior option vs 223 out of any barrel length, which is exactly why there are so many alternative calibers for ar15s these days. people recognize the limitations of the cartridge and since they are not limited by military supply chain, they buy whatever caliber they want: 6.8 for hunting 223 for plinking and varmints 300 blk for bing quite and short range hunting with a can, wild-cats galore, etc etc.

223 was picked as a compromise between range, cost, and troop carrying capacity. it is by no mean the "holy grail" of cartridges. no cartridge is a "do all" cartridge

We used A4s in OSUT, the stock length wasn't a problem, but the fucking thing was just huge.   Getting into/out of Humvee was a mother fucker.  Trying to bring your weapon to bear, if it wasn't already propped on the window was a mother fucker.

I'll take a 20" over a 16" inch  everyday of the year.....   I was issued both while in the  military   and optic or no optics  I was always better with the 20

 

And yet no one has said it?


GET BOTH

We should switch to a 24" barrel.

Game changer.

 

Is that a kitchen sink on the top of his pack?

then walk.

From what pics Ive seen the M4 isn't really at an advantage considering all the shit those guys have hanging off of it.   Barrel length of course is understandable.  I carried a 60 so all of this was a nonissue

Yea, all that crazy "tactacool" crap like IR lasers and lights to deal with darkness. Totally useless shit.

I don't have the ammo limitations that the military does.

For me, with proper ammo, I'm comfortable with the capabilities of my 11.5" SBR for any defensive situation within 300 yards.  After that I'd be grabbing my bolt gun, not a longer AR.

What does a 20 inch do that a 14.5 inch can't?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Be a pain in the ass to all and be damn near unusable for smaller individuals with armor (for all intensive purposes 20" is always accompanied by a fixed stock in .mil)

knockdown power.

I carry an M16 for work (with a m203) and would choose a 14.5" M4 ANY day over a full size. Full size = garbage.

These threads really bring out the Einsteins. This one by design, I believe.

Why not a 24 incher?  It'll really help squeeze that last bit of terminal performance and velocity out of the round.

This.
There's a proper tool for every job. I'm trying to fill the toolbox.


" />

It's ArfCom, get both!  I did.