"Fast" AR

[rob_s]

To further clarify...

I'd like to hear what it means to you. There are a lot of threads around here about:

• brakes to keep the muzzle down
• longer-than-carbine gas tubes to reduce operating pressure
• buffer/receiver extension combos to reduce felt recoil
• triggers that allow one to operate them more quickly
• etc.

So I'm curious all of these would at least equal, if not be greater than, the sum of their parts if combined and if so which specific parts would be chosen.

as an example,

Noveske N4 14.5" midl-length N4. Heavier weight than a "pencil barrel" to keep the muzzle down, 14.5" mid-length is widely reported to have the least amount of pressure.
Battlecomp 1.5. Battlecomp is clearly the new hotness in muzzle devices, and many here will attest to it's ability to reduce muzzle climb.
Vltor A5 stock system. Another part that, if you read through the threads, is reported to reduce muzzle climb, or at least felt recoil.
Geiselle SD 3G trigger. Appears to be pretty widely regarded as a "fast" trigger, and IIRC it was designed to be such.
Eotech XPS. The Eotech fans all seem to use "I'm faster with it" as one reason they like it.
12.0 (at least) Brazillian handguard. Brand immaterial, but one of the reasons we hear for longer tubes is "driving the gun", so while not a speed issue on an individual target, should come into play on multiples.
Noveske FFL lower. The flared magwell seems to get billed as an aid in speed reloads.
Magpul BAD lever. While having largely fallen out of favor, at one time at least it was billed as being faster on emergency reloads.

My goal here is that I'd like to assemble a gun, maybe two to have a control, with the go-fast parts and the legacy parts and attempt to quantify the gains, as well as be able to switch parts back and forth to really verify. The barrel issue may stymie me, as I'd need to either have it pinned (that won't allow me to move it around) or register an SBR just for this project (and I don't want to wait 6 months).

The other, control, gun might have a 16" lightweight barrel with carbine-length gas, A2 flash hider, Aimpint H-1/T-1, fixed irons (they "get in the way), carbine stock, GI trigger, legacy lower, short(er) handguard (possibly railed) etc.

[1911-A1]

This seems like a trap. Too many "quotation marks".

Is there a point you're trying to get someone to make?

I built a "fast" gun similar to what you describe:

KAC IWS lower (ambi and "fast" trigger)
Battlecomp 2.0
H2 buffer
BCM midlength standard profile barrel.
13" Troy Alpha rail
Burris MTAC 1-4x optic.

More than anything else I'd attribute the "speed" to the BC and KAC trigger. I can shoot my girlfriend's stock 6920 nearly as fast, but it takes a bit more concentration on the trigger pull. I've tried different optics, to include T-1, Comp M4, MTAC and haven't really noticed a difference aside from weight. I'm sure the rail helps the BC keep the muzzle down, but it is more fatiguing in the long run than a shorter, lighter unit.

I think the key is recoil reduction and trigger control above all else. If I had a limited budget I'd focus on those areas first.

[rob_s]

This seems like a trap. Too many "quotation marks".

Is there a point you're trying to get someone to make?

repeating myself.

My goal here is that I'd like to assemble a gun, maybe two to have a control, with the go-fast parts and the legacy parts and attempt to quantify the gains, as well as be able to switch parts back and forth to really verify. The barrel issue may stymie me, as I'd need to either have it pinned (that won't allow me to move it around) or register an SBR just for this project (and I don't want to wait 6 months).

If you think it's a trap because I've been vocal about being opposed to some of these parts, maybe you're right. I'm interested in quantifying the differences. if that's a "trap" because someone's "feel' might not turn out to be measurable, then yes, it's a "trap".

how's that for quotes?

[a0cake]

Rob, my question is are you endeavoring to build the "fastest" AR possible, or are you going to compromise on certain things (like barrel length) in order to make a more meaningful comparison between a "standard" 14.5-16 inch AR with and without the enhancements?

Because if you're going for fastest, it's hard to argue against 18'' Rifle Gas. An 18'' BCM SS410 barrel with MB556K or similar is the winning ticket (not the Battlecomp BTW).

But if you're trying to keep it standard with a 14.5 or 16'' barrel so that you can make a direct comparison between times with and without the enhancements on a common use type rifle, then I think you've made pretty good selections (insofar as you've cherry picked certain items that rate high on the "new-hotness" scale...not necessarily what is being used in competition...the Battlecomp, for example, is not commonly used by top 3 gun competitors as being the best for speed, but is commonly lauded around here for other reasons).

Your initial post leads me to think it's the former, while your last few replies suggest the latter.

[ASH556]

Interesting topic. I'll admit I feel the pull a little bit towards the new light, fast, hotness. Costa's new setup epitomizes this for me, though I don't think he's even running the VLTOR A5.

I would like to shoot this gun:
14.5" mid gas w/pinned BC1.5
12" DD MFR
VLTOR A5
Geissele SD3G

Against mine and see if I notice any appreciable difference:


Even so, what would it really be good for? It's probably not an ideal 3-gun setup. Maybe you could nickname it, "The Classmaster!"

[rob_s]

I was going to ask that question of the group as well.

Because I too see a disconnect in what people say vs. what they do. If the 18" rifle-gas is the softest recoiling (less than the 20"? Less than the 18" intermediate?) then are people choosing the 14.5" mid-length because it's the softest-shooting, non-NFA, shortest package? is the Battlecomp a similar compromise?

so on one hand the truly softest-shooting would be 18" rifle-gas with Surefire (for example) brake, while the 14.5" mid-length with Battlecomp is the softest shooting... tactical rifle? How do we define that?

and yes, I'm definitely looking to evaluate the new hotness. Some of it I already have on another New Hotness project so I have minimal gear that I would need to invest in and may be able to enlist the help of some industry partners.

[justin_247]

It sounds like Rob is focusing less on a competition / multigun rifle than he is on a combat-oriented rifle.

For example, he chose a shorter barrel length with a CHF barrel instead of a longer stainless steel barrel, a Battlecomp instead of a large ported brake, and an EOTech instead of a variable power optic.

[ICANHITHIMMAN]

Because rifle sports usually call for multiple shots on a single target (at least the cardboard ones) and swinging "through" the target isn't reccommended. A rifle has to be quick on target aquisition, and equally quick to stop once sights are on target.

At least that's been my experience.

I see your point, but I guess I think a heavy rifle is better. The trigger and practice are the most conducive to increased speed. I still see it as the same as shotgunning just stoping short to engage. The added weight will help with controling the recoil impulse.

[rob_s]

The trigger and practice are the most conducive to increased speed.

In the rifle and pistol sports that is often not the case.

Shooters are classified with those of like, or similar, ability and hardware. The order, then, within a division is typically determined by who makes the least mistakes and who has the shortest amount of time BETWEEN SHOTS. You're not going to beat a Grand Master by missing, but among the Grand Masters the time between the shots is a major factor.

Very interesting writeup from Shannon Smith on his win in Limited at the USPSA Nationals here.

Also interesting to review the scores here.

[ra2bach]

...Because I too see a disconnect in what people say vs. what they do. If the 18" rifle-gas is the softest recoiling (less than the 20"? Less than the 18" intermediate?) then are people choosing the 14.5" mid-length because it's the softest-shooting, non-NFA, shortest package? is the Battlecomp a similar compromise?

so on one hand the truly softest-shooting would be 18" rifle-gas with Surefire (for example) brake, while the 14.5" mid-length with Battlecomp is the softest shooting... tactical rifle? How do we define that?

maybe the difference is someone looking to carry the rifle longer than a stage of competition? does this define the difference between tactical and competition guns?

where is weight beneficial? angular momentum and inertia and all that - resisting movement of the muzzle from recoil good, transition between targets bad... comps seem to substitute for muzzle weight to aid in recoil stability.