User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 10:22:29 PM EDT
[#1]
I think it is because back in the day after the A2 was phased in most civlian 20" barrels were HBAR. In case you have never humped a 20" HBAR, it fucking sucks balls. the A1 barrel is great tho. but anyway for a 30 year period most 20" barrels were HBAR and that is why they fell out of favor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 10:26:06 PM EDT
[#2]
Weak arms
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 10:30:23 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Bingo. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 10:33:37 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly. It's also ridiculous because they haven't been using those same accessories on the A4s. The extra 5" of barrel and 600FPS totally makes low-light accessories and optics completely pointless. 
20" gun threads are almost as stupid as KISS threads. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From what pics Ive seen the M4 isn't really at an advantage considering all the shit those guys have hanging off of it. Yea, all that crazy "tactacool" crap like IR lasers and lights to deal with darkness. Totally useless shit. Exactly. It's also ridiculous because they haven't been using those same accessories on the A4s. The extra 5" of barrel and 600FPS totally makes low-light accessories and optics completely pointless.
20" gun threads are almost as stupid as KISS threads. Relax Francis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 10:37:43 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
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? 
SF has been using the shorter barrels since the 60s. With the push towards more urban fighting and vehicle mounted infantry I believe the military wanted a shorter rifle. Also keep in mind be throw on lasers, optics, ect. now to. So that 8lb M16 becomes heavier. The slight weight reduction in the M4 was probably favorable for regular infantry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 10:40:30 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? 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. Now imagine your car was on fire while you were being shot at, and you and all your buddies ahead of you have to get out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 10:44:40 PM EDT
[#7]
 Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 10:50:41 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: knockdown power. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What does a 20 inch do that a 14.5 inch can't? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile knockdown power. I really dont understand why we dont use a 24 inch shotgun with adjustable choke, for long and short ranges.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 10:50:58 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The funny thing is people complain that a 20' A2 is too heavy but will have a 10lb M4gery. No. Just....no. http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=67057 yes there is an advantage to magnified sights and shorter barrels with collapsible stocks but i don't see a weight advantage unless its with a kiss rifle |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 10:58:59 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I really dont understand why we dont use a 24 inch shotgun with adjustable choke, for long and short ranges. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What does a 20 inch do that a 14.5 inch can't? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile knockdown power. I really dont understand why we dont use a 24 inch shotgun with adjustable choke, for long and short ranges. Or a halalberd with an adjustable buttstock. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 11:15:20 PM EDT
[#11]
Hey, military guys:
What would be your ideal barrel length and gas system, for the jobs you were doing overseas? I think that for a civilian 11.5'' is probably the sweet spot. Only reason those aren't sold more is because of NFA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 11:16:11 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I really dont understand why we dont use a 24 inch shotgun with adjustable choke, for long and short ranges. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What does a 20 inch do that a 14.5 inch can't? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile knockdown power. I really dont understand why we dont use a 24 inch shotgun with adjustable choke, for long and short ranges. Because people are not ducks |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 11:38:16 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
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?
A lot of walter mitty types want to have what the .mil has. If they adopt a 56 inch weapon they would buy it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 11:51:19 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I really dont understand why we dont use a 24 inch shotgun with adjustable choke, for long and short ranges. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What does a 20 inch do that a 14.5 inch can't? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile knockdown power. I really dont understand why we dont use a 24 inch shotgun with adjustable choke, for long and short ranges. It's not about winning, it's about how you play the game. 24" shotgun makes it too easy. Like shooting ducks in a barrel I bet you would have favored guerrilla warfare over linear tactics in the Civil War. Barbarian |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 12:02:10 AM EDT
[#15]
Rifle / Carbine
Depends on what kind of war you are fighting |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 12:08:12 AM EDT
[#16]
Terrain dictates.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 12:10:42 AM EDT
[#17]
There is some epically hilarious trolling in this thread, LOL?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 12:27:17 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bullshit, You add a quad rail, red dot, magnifier, and vertical grip, you can easily push a M4 clone close to 10lbs. yes there is an advantage to magnified sights and shorter barrels with collapsible stocks but i don't see a weight advantage unless its with a kiss rifle Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The funny thing is people complain that a 20' A2 is too heavy but will have a 10lb M4gery. No. Just....no. http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=67057 yes there is an advantage to magnified sights and shorter barrels with collapsible stocks but i don't see a weight advantage unless its with a kiss rifle You do realize rails, optics, lasers and flashlights get attached to M16A4s and they weigh that much more over an M4? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 12:27:58 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
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?
That has to do with ammo selection not the bbl length, so much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 12:34:39 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Get out of here with your facts and shit. btw Ounces are pounds, pounds are pain... http://www.captainsjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/khanjar_ii.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
20 inch barrels are a huge pain in the ass when you are operating out of a cramped military vehicle. Get out of here with your facts and shit. btw Ounces are pounds, pounds are pain... http://www.captainsjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/khanjar_ii.jpg 11C, this GD is why so many of our boys have come back with fucked up knees and backs. That is a bunch of weight. IMO unless you are shooting well beyond 500-600 meters the added velocity is not worth the length penalty, compactness is nice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 12:45:50 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Granted. Why is smaller and less effective the norm for our military? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 12:50:56 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You do realize rails, optics, lasers and flashlights get attached to M16A4s and they weigh that much more over an M4? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The funny thing is people complain that a 20' A2 is too heavy but will have a 10lb M4gery. No. Just....no. http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=67057 yes there is an advantage to magnified sights and shorter barrels with collapsible stocks but i don't see a weight advantage unless its with a kiss rifle You do realize rails, optics, lasers and flashlights get attached to M16A4s and they weigh that much more over an M4? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 1:03:26 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Terrain dictates. Not as much as the solar spectrum.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 1:12:33 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't have much use for the A2/heavy barrel 20", would be great for a SPR build but if its 20 and not a precision rifle I will choose a M16A1 every day of the week, light or lighter than the m4 and feels like a rifle when aiming. The real advantage of a 20" over a carbine is the Iron sights, have abosulutly no problem hotting steal with irons out to 200 with 20" rifles, I have seen people with carbines have trouble hitting 12" plates at 100 resting. Who the fuck are you shooting with? 16" barreled AR I can hit easily at 200 yards open sights. So can anyone one else I know who owns an AR. You must shoot with children or some really shitty shooters or just trying to convince yourself you made the right choice with your 20" AR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 1:13:36 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Terrain dictates. Not as much as the solar spectrum. Stop using big words. It's giving me a headache. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 1:15:11 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or a halalberd with an adjustable buttstock. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What does a 20 inch do that a 14.5 inch can't? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile knockdown power. I really dont understand why we dont use a 24 inch shotgun with adjustable choke, for long and short ranges. Or a halalberd with an adjustable buttstock. Battering ram. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 1:15:56 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Not as much as the solar spectrum. Stop using big words. It's giving me a headache. Then I will explain in pictures:  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 1:21:30 AM EDT
[#28]
What if I have to pole vault over a mountain? How am I going to do that with a carbine?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 1:25:40 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Terrain dictates. Not as much as the solar spectrum. That's just macro terrain. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 1:29:19 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Stop using big words. It's giving me a headache. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not as much as the solar spectrum. Stop using big words. It's giving me a headache. Then I will explain in pictures:  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 1:29:48 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 You were issued a 16" rifle in the military? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 1:33:33 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because huge, long rifles suck. Most killing happens with crew serves in the military. Most civilians don't need a rifle that makes shots at a few hundred yards. Shorter guns are cooler. Smaller guns suit people's needs better, such as home defense or truck rifles, Suppressors are more popular that ever. Not to mention, modern ammo is a lot better, and often designed to work out of carbines, so the velocity loss isn't as big of a deal as it used to be. There are lots of reasons why people choose shorter barrels. The JSP bullets loaded in Federal Fusion expand reliably all the way down to 1900 FPS IIRC. Most other bonded JSP loadings are right around the same. That's right around 200m out of a 10.5" barrel. Proper ammo selection beats barrel length and it's accompanying higher velocity any day of the week. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 1:35:38 AM EDT
[#33]
It is simple.
The shorter and smaller your primary weapon, the cooler you are. It has nothing to do with ballistics or science maths. Why do you think SEALs uses these: 
It's because tiny = cool. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 1:37:21 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is simple. The shorter and smaller your primary weapon, the cooler you are. It has nothing to do with ballistics or science maths. Why do you think SEALs uses these: https://33.media.tumblr.com/c38e21237da16b02ae5fac21d669d81a/tumblr_mhxt7mlAi81s2rz7ko1_500.jpg It's because tiny = cool. Pfft, noobs. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 1:37:50 AM EDT
[#35]
Did just fine with my 20" Colt Sporter today when I shot CMP.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 1:37:55 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't have much use for the A2/heavy barrel 20", would be great for a SPR build but if its 20 and not a precision rifle I will choose a M16A1 every day of the week, light or lighter than the m4 and feels like a rifle when aiming. The real advantage of a 20" over a carbine is the Iron sights, have abosulutly no problem hotting steal with irons out to 200 with 20" rifles, I have seen people with carbines have trouble hitting 12" plates at 100 resting. That is an issue of people being poor marksmen, not an issue of having a shorter barrel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 1:45:25 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is an issue of people being poor marksmen, not an issue of having a shorter barrel. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't have much use for the A2/heavy barrel 20", would be great for a SPR build but if its 20 and not a precision rifle I will choose a M16A1 every day of the week, light or lighter than the m4 and feels like a rifle when aiming. The real advantage of a 20" over a carbine is the Iron sights, have abosulutly no problem hotting steal with irons out to 200 with 20" rifles, I have seen people with carbines have trouble hitting 12" plates at 100 resting. That is an issue of people being poor marksmen, not an issue of having a shorter barrel. Seriously. 100 yards is childsplay with anything. I've hit as far as 600 with my carbine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 1:45:43 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is simple. The shorter and smaller your primary weapon, the cooler you are. It has nothing to do with ballistics or science maths. Why do you think SEALs uses these: https://33.media.tumblr.com/c38e21237da16b02ae5fac21d669d81a/tumblr_mhxt7mlAi81s2rz7ko1_500.jpg It's because tiny = cool. Only one MP7 as a primary weapon? pfft...shit's weak bro! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 1:48:05 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And those vehicles are being phased out. Anything without armor is going away. No more need for short barrels. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
20 inch barrels are a huge pain in the ass when you are operating out of a cramped military vehicle. You must be trolling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 1:58:09 AM EDT
[#40]
20" guns are fine. They are light, easy to move around whatever.
Then again, hump SASR's and 240's around, and everything else is pretty childs play... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 1:58:47 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think it is because back in the day after the A2 was phased in most civlian 20" barrels were HBAR. In case you have never humped a 20" HBAR, it fucking sucks balls. the A1 barrel is great tho. but anyway for a 30 year period most 20" barrels were HBAR and that is why they fell out of favor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 2:09:23 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Get stronger. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think it is because back in the day after the A2 was phased in most civlian 20" barrels were HBAR. In case you have never humped a 20" HBAR, it fucking sucks balls. the A1 barrel is great tho. but anyway for a 30 year period most 20" barrels were HBAR and that is why they fell out of favor. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 2:10:04 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Get stronger. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think it is because back in the day after the A2 was phased in most civlian 20" barrels were HBAR. In case you have never humped a 20" HBAR, it fucking sucks balls. the A1 barrel is great tho. but anyway for a 30 year period most 20" barrels were HBAR and that is why they fell out of favor. Get stronger Use lighter rifle ???? Profit |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 2:12:20 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
20" guns are fine. They are light, easy to move around whatever. Then again, hump SASR's and 240's around, and everything else is pretty childs play... I can't disagree more, that shorter rifles are easier to maneuver under any circumstances, 20" belongs on the KD range, though it'd be better to axe them entirely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 2:12:52 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think it is because back in the day after the A2 was phased in most civlian 20" barrels were HBAR. In case you have never humped a 20" HBAR, it fucking sucks balls. the A1 barrel is great tho. but anyway for a 30 year period most 20" barrels were HBAR and that is why they fell out of favor. http://www.impactguns.com/Data/Default/Images/uploads/rock_river/rra_varmint_specs.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 2:13:50 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 24" barrel would be 17.4 lbs lighter than what I got used to humping. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think it is because back in the day after the A2 was phased in most civlian 20" barrels were HBAR. In case you have never humped a 20" HBAR, it fucking sucks balls. the A1 barrel is great tho. but anyway for a 30 year period most 20" barrels were HBAR and that is why they fell out of favor. http://www.impactguns.com/Data/Default/Images/uploads/rock_river/rra_varmint_specs.jpg How is that relevant? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 2:17:24 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I can't disagree more, that shorter rifles are easier to maneuver under any circumstances, 20" belongs on the KD range, though it'd be better to axe them entirely. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 20" guns are fine. They are light, easy to move around whatever. Then again, hump SASR's and 240's around, and everything else is pretty childs play... I can't disagree more, that shorter rifles are easier to maneuver under any circumstances, 20" belongs on the KD range, though it'd be better to axe them entirely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 2:21:14 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How is that relevant? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The 24" barrel would be 17.4 lbs lighter than what I got used to humping. How is that relevant? eta- did you seriously not follow that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 2:22:00 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess shorter barrels are cool if you like decreased reliability and lethality. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
20" guns are fine. They are light, easy to move around whatever. Then again, hump SASR's and 240's around, and everything else is pretty childs play... I can't disagree more, that shorter rifles are easier to maneuver under any circumstances, 20" belongs on the KD range, though it'd be better to axe them entirely. Then why do pretty much all the pipe hitters choose to carry shorties? People who get to run whatever they want almost universally choose sub 20" barrels of one flavor or another. It's not just to look cool, it's because the benefits outweigh the liabilities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 2:37:10 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Then why do pretty much all the pipe hitters choose to carry shorties? People who get to run whatever they want almost universally choose sub 20" barrels of one flavor or another. It's not just to look cool, it's because the benefits outweigh the liabilities. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 20" guns are fine. They are light, easy to move around whatever. Then again, hump SASR's and 240's around, and everything else is pretty childs play... I can't disagree more, that shorter rifles are easier to maneuver under any circumstances, 20" belongs on the KD range, though it'd be better to axe them entirely. Then why do pretty much all the pipe hitters choose to carry shorties? People who get to run whatever they want almost universally choose sub 20" barrels of one flavor or another. It's not just to look cool, it's because the benefits outweigh the liabilities. |
|
|
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.
