User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 2:39:31 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not going to get stronger carrying some little 9 lbs rifle. ] eta- did you seriously not follow that? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? Nah, but the 24" barrel can hit plates off hand at 400 yards. Every 4" of additional barrel doubles an ARs accuracy, stopping power, and lethality. You should see a 28" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 2:45:49 AM EDT
[#2]
Has anyone compared the toeloading characteristics of a A4 versus a M4? I don't believe this important quality has been discussed, yet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 2:57:24 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Has anyone compared the toeloading characteristics of a A4 versus a M4? I don't believe this important quality has been discussed, yet.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 3:18:05 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nah, but the 24" barrel can hit plates off hand at 400 yards. Every 4" of additional barrel doubles an ARs accuracy, stopping power, and lethality. You should see a 28" Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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? Nah, but the 24" barrel can hit plates off hand at 400 yards. Every 4" of additional barrel doubles an ARs accuracy, stopping power, and lethality. You should see a 28" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 4:08:20 AM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 5:22:45 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nah, but the 24" barrel can hit plates off hand at 400 yards. Every 4" of additional barrel doubles an ARs accuracy, stopping power, and lethality. You should see a 28" Can't tell if serious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 5:26:17 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can't tell if serious. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nah, but the 24" barrel can hit plates off hand at 400 yards. Every 4" of additional barrel doubles an ARs accuracy, stopping power, and lethality. You should see a 28" Can't tell if serious. The 28" are mostly in Canada. They get all the best stuff, you probably haven't seen one 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 5:27:49 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 28" are mostly in Canada. They get all the best stuff, you probably haven't seen one Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nah, but the 24" barrel can hit plates off hand at 400 yards. Every 4" of additional barrel doubles an ARs accuracy, stopping power, and lethality. You should see a 28" Can't tell if serious. The 28" are mostly in Canada. They get all the best stuff, you probably haven't seen one Ahh yes. Good Comrade Norinco 28" AR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 5:30:03 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ahh yes. Good Comrade Norinco 28" AR. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Nah, but the 24" barrel can hit plates off hand at 400 yards. Every 4" of additional barrel doubles an ARs accuracy, stopping power, and lethality. You should see a 28" Can't tell if serious. The 28" are mostly in Canada. They get all the best stuff, you probably haven't seen one Ahh yes. Good Comrade Norinco 28" AR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 6:16:01 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You were issued a 16" rifle in the military?  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? M27 has a 16" barrel |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 6:22:22 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
M27 has a 16" barrel Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? M27 has a 16" barrel IIRC the M27 barrel is 16.5", not 16". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 6:25:50 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IIRC the M27 barrel is 16.5", not 16". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? M27 has a 16" barrel IIRC the M27 barrel is 16.5", not 16". Correct |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 6:47:58 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because people are not ducks 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. Because people are not ducks You clearly have never seen what #4 buckshot can do to a human body. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 6:50:08 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IIRC the M27 barrel is 16.5", not 16". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? M27 has a 16" barrel IIRC the M27 barrel is 16.5", not 16". something inside of me died with this post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 7:03:14 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
something inside of me died with this post. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? M27 has a 16" barrel IIRC the M27 barrel is 16.5", not 16". something inside of me died with this post. It is always called a 16" barrel in training classes, but he is correct it is technically a 16.5 barrel |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 7:05:31 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is always called a 16" barrel in training classes, but he is correct it is technically a 16.5 barrel And Puller wept.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 7:08:12 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And Puller wept.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It is always called a 16" barrel in training classes, but he is correct it is technically a 16.5 barrel And Puller wept.... His tear were kind of like Chuck Norris in they cure cancer, but instead they cause cancer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 7:09:46 AM EDT
[#18]
They like their barrel like their dick, short. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 7:11:06 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
His tear were kind of like Chuck Norris in they cure cancer, but instead they cause cancer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It is always called a 16" barrel in training classes, but he is correct it is technically a 16.5 barrel And Puller wept.... His tear were kind of like Chuck Norris in they cure cancer, but instead they cause cancer. thats kinda hot. So Chesty Puller's tears rained down upon Liberia to smite his enemies from the grave? Fuckin' A. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 7:11:57 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They like their barrel like their dick, short. If you can't get it done with 14.5 inches, the problem isn't the length. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 7:49:34 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And yet no one has said it? GET BOTH I have both. It was the only way I could solve the dilemma.  .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 8:09:46 AM EDT
[#22]
When did every Luddite on the forum begin considering every accepted progression something inspired by "cool kids?"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 8:19:12 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When did every Luddite on the forum begin considering every accepted progression something inspired by "cool kids?" Duh...you can't show off how you are a stone cold Fudd without dropping in catch phrases like cool kids, tacticool, tapco-fucked or griping about "all that garbage you hang off your ARs". Bonus points for references to poor marksmanship or inability to carry a heavier rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 8:22:47 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Duh...you can't show off how you are a stone cold Fudd without dropping in catch phrases like cool kids, tacticool, tapco-fucked or griping about "all that garbage you hang off your ARs". Bonus points for references to poor marksmanship or inability to carry a heavier rifle. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: When did every Luddite on the forum begin considering every accepted progression something inspired by "cool kids?" Duh...you can't show off how you are a stone cold Fudd without dropping in catch phrases like cool kids, tacticool, tapco-fucked or griping about "all that garbage you hang off your ARs". Bonus points for references to poor marksmanship or inability to carry a heavier rifle.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 8:28:49 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When did every Luddite on the forum begin considering every accepted progression something inspired by "cool kids?" Duh...you can't show off how you are a stone cold Fudd without dropping in catch phrases like cool kids, tacticool, tapco-fucked or griping about "all that garbage you hang off your ARs". Bonus points for references to poor marksmanship or inability to carry a heavier rifle. http://i58.tinypic.com/33abb40.jpg I wonder what Afghanman thinks about all these 10lbs carbines I've been hearing about? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 8:29:47 AM EDT
[#27]
http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=1093
% difference between 16" and 20" illustrated in their study |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 8:31:55 AM EDT
[#28]
shouldn't engagement distances dictate the barrel length used? a 14.5" M4 and a 20 M16A4 are pretty much equally accurate over 300m but its the effectiveness of the 5.56mm round thats reduced with the lower velocities.
i read AARs of operations in Iraq where it was stated that most engagements were under 100m, with many at 25m. at these ranges the M4 works fine. however with operations in Afghanistan, engagements moved to much greater distances due to the terrain. it seems ass-backward to move to a shorter barrel rifle as engagements distances increase, when your primary round is so dependent on velocity for its effectiveness. this time of moving to a shorter barrel + longer ranges also seems to be when more complaints about the 5.56mm 'stopping power' at long range started coming out |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 8:33:38 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
shouldn't engagement distances dictate the barrel length used? a 14.5" M4 and a 20 M16A4 are pretty much equally accurate over 300m but its the effectiveness of the 5.56mm round thats reduced with the lower velocities. i read AARs of operations in Iraq where it was stated that most engagements were under 100m, with many at 25m. at these ranges the M4 works fine. however with operations in Afghanistan, engagements moved to much greater distances due to the terrain. it seems ass-backward to move to a shorter barrel rifle as engagements distances increase, when your primary round is so dependent on velocity for its effectiveness. this time of moving to a shorter barrel + longer ranges also seems to be when more complaints about the 5.56mm 'stopping power' at long range started coming out Please explain to me the difference in terminal effects between a 14.5" M855 at 600M and 20" M855 at 600M. Bonus points for personal experience. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 8:33:41 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: shouldn't engagement distances dictate the barrel length used? a 14.5" M4 and a 20 M16A4 are pretty much equally accurate over 300m but its the effectiveness of the 5.56mm round thats reduced with the lower velocities. i read AARs of operations in Iraq where it was stated that most engagements were under 100m, with many at 25m. at these ranges the M4 works fine. however with operations in Afghanistan, engagements moved to much greater distances due to the terrain. it seems ass-backward to move to a shorter barrel rifle as engagements distances increase, when your primary round is so dependent on velocity for its effectiveness. this time of moving to a shorter barrel + longer ranges also seems to be when more complaints about the 5.56mm 'stopping power' at long range started coming out Thats due more to the red sun in Afghanistan than thing else.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 8:39:40 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please explain to me the difference in terminal effects between a 14.5" M855 at 600M and 20" M855 at 600M. Bonus points for personal experience. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
shouldn't engagement distances dictate the barrel length used? a 14.5" M4 and a 20 M16A4 are pretty much equally accurate over 300m but its the effectiveness of the 5.56mm round thats reduced with the lower velocities. i read AARs of operations in Iraq where it was stated that most engagements were under 100m, with many at 25m. at these ranges the M4 works fine. however with operations in Afghanistan, engagements moved to much greater distances due to the terrain. it seems ass-backward to move to a shorter barrel rifle as engagements distances increase, when your primary round is so dependent on velocity for its effectiveness. this time of moving to a shorter barrel + longer ranges also seems to be when more complaints about the 5.56mm 'stopping power' at long range started coming out Please explain to me the difference in terminal effects between a 14.5" M855 at 600M and 20" M855 at 600M. Bonus points for personal experience. Longer barrel = more thrusts per squeeze It's science and shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 8:49:48 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Longer barrel = more thrusts per squeeze It's science and shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
shouldn't engagement distances dictate the barrel length used? a 14.5" M4 and a 20 M16A4 are pretty much equally accurate over 300m but its the effectiveness of the 5.56mm round thats reduced with the lower velocities. i read AARs of operations in Iraq where it was stated that most engagements were under 100m, with many at 25m. at these ranges the M4 works fine. however with operations in Afghanistan, engagements moved to much greater distances due to the terrain. it seems ass-backward to move to a shorter barrel rifle as engagements distances increase, when your primary round is so dependent on velocity for its effectiveness. this time of moving to a shorter barrel + longer ranges also seems to be when more complaints about the 5.56mm 'stopping power' at long range started coming out Please explain to me the difference in terminal effects between a 14.5" M855 at 600M and 20" M855 at 600M. Bonus points for personal experience. Longer barrel = more thrusts per squeeze It's science and shit. I'm an American. I hate science. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 8:51:46 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When did every Luddite on the forum begin considering every accepted progression something inspired by "cool kids?" Duh...you can't show off how you are a stone cold Fudd without dropping in catch phrases like cool kids, tacticool, tapco-fucked or griping about "all that garbage you hang off your ARs". Bonus points for references to poor marksmanship or inability to carry a heavier rifle. http://i58.tinypic.com/33abb40.jpg  lol wat
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 8:54:09 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm an American. I hate science. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
shouldn't engagement distances dictate the barrel length used? a 14.5" M4 and a 20 M16A4 are pretty much equally accurate over 300m but its the effectiveness of the 5.56mm round thats reduced with the lower velocities. i read AARs of operations in Iraq where it was stated that most engagements were under 100m, with many at 25m. at these ranges the M4 works fine. however with operations in Afghanistan, engagements moved to much greater distances due to the terrain. it seems ass-backward to move to a shorter barrel rifle as engagements distances increase, when your primary round is so dependent on velocity for its effectiveness. this time of moving to a shorter barrel + longer ranges also seems to be when more complaints about the 5.56mm 'stopping power' at long range started coming out Please explain to me the difference in terminal effects between a 14.5" M855 at 600M and 20" M855 at 600M. Bonus points for personal experience. Longer barrel = more thrusts per squeeze It's science and shit. I'm an American. I hate science. Even worse, you're one of those right-wing Americans. I bet you burn books and stuff too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 9:05:11 AM EDT
[#35]
Velocity by itself doesn't mean much.
You either make enough to frag or you don't. A longer barrel increases the range at which 5.56mm can be expected to frag reliably. At 100m, a 14.5" bbl makes plenty of velocity for explosive fragmentation. At 300m, I would want something longer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 9:19:27 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 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. 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. Perhaps the point he was trying to make is that when using open sights, the 20" AR will have the advantage, because the front sight is further out there, closer to the target. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 9:53:31 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Velocity by itself doesn't mean much. You either make enough to frag or you don't. A longer barrel increases the range at which 5.56mm can be expected to frag reliably. At 100m, a 14.5" bbl makes plenty of velocity for explosive fragmentation. At 300m, I would want something longer. At what range does one become unshot if I use a 14.5? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 9:55:26 AM EDT
[#38]
My 20" heavy barrel is a varmint killer, don't like to carry it very far though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 9:55:44 AM EDT
[#39]
Too long, and most are too slow a twist rate.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 9:59:29 AM EDT
[#40]
Higher velocity gives the bullet more RPMs for better stabilization, so a 20" 1:9 might stabilize a heavier bullet whereas a 14.5" 1:9 might not.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 10:13:20 AM EDT
[#41]
I skipped the middle pages, but have we discussed that 5.56 is too flaccid and weak to reach the end of a 10.5" barrel yet?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 10:13:50 AM EDT
[#42]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 10:53:43 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The 24" barrel would be 17.4 lbs lighter than what I got used to humping. I heard you humped a lot of 200-pounders. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 10:57:51 AM EDT
[#44]
I like my barrels as short as possible for reliable operation. That way, at longer ranges, I can use it as an indirect fire weapon to deny the enemy defilade.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 11:15:23 AM EDT
[#45]
I like my 10.5". I like my 12.5" more.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 11:22:18 AM EDT
[#46]
I think Suppressors, and their increasing popularity and availability are part of it. Put a can on a 20" rifle, now you got a 26" rifle with an extra pound or so out on the end. Drop your barrel down and you can get a suppressed 14.5" carbine with about the same overall length, but the benefit of having a suppressor. If your 14.5" rifle isn't "doing the job", then maybe you just need a different tool. Everyone wants to think there's 1 rifle to do it all, but you run into "jack of all trades, master of nothing". And that's where other calibers come in as well, you can get shorter suppressed packages with a better round, but then you run into supply chain issues...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 12:43:42 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Please explain to me the difference in terminal effects between a 14.5" M855 at 600M and 20" M855 at 600M. Bonus points for personal experience. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: shouldn't engagement distances dictate the barrel length used? a 14.5" M4 and a 20 M16A4 are pretty much equally accurate over 300m but its the effectiveness of the 5.56mm round thats reduced with the lower velocities. i read AARs of operations in Iraq where it was stated that most engagements were under 100m, with many at 25m. at these ranges the M4 works fine. however with operations in Afghanistan, engagements moved to much greater distances due to the terrain. it seems ass-backward to move to a shorter barrel rifle as engagements distances increase, when your primary round is so dependent on velocity for its effectiveness. this time of moving to a shorter barrel + longer ranges also seems to be when more complaints about the 5.56mm 'stopping power' at long range started coming out Please explain to me the difference in terminal effects between a 14.5" M855 at 600M and 20" M855 at 600M. Bonus points for personal experience. The shooter is part of the system right? ;) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 12:44:03 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Velocity by itself doesn't mean much. You either make enough to frag or you don't. A longer barrel increases the range at which 5.56mm can be expected to frag reliably. At 100m, a 14.5" bbl makes plenty of velocity for explosive fragmentation. At 300m, I would want something longer. Relying on fragmentation rather than shot placement is really unsmart. A 45 grain hollow point fragments awesome, you should use that out of a 24" barrel for MAXIMUM FRAGMENTATION!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 12:53:19 PM EDT
[#49]
The reason we have 5.56 NATO and not .222 Remington is because of an arbitrary 500m steel helmet perforation requirement set by the 30 cal nazi's at Army Ordnance. They were trying to kill the SCHV rifle concept by moving the goal posts, but failed to do so.
Even 11.5" carbines exceed the capability of most soldiers at 300m. Since the "cool kids" have been stacking bodies with 5.56 Colt Commando's since the 1960's, they never got the memo that they needed 20" guns. It isn't about looks, but performance. 20" is not needed to get it done. Even the 18" SPR's have been set aside in favor of Block II SOPMOD with Mk.262 or other loads. If a carbine has already been proving itself to be more than adequate for its intended use, why would I ever want a 20" gun? Keep in mind that the minority in Army Ordnance who were proponents of the SCHV wanted 3400fps mv. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 12:55:47 PM EDT
[#50]
Not as tacticool
|
|
|
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.
