Are Lightweight Builds the Pinnacle?

[AKS-74U]

It depends where and how you're losing the weight. I've seen lots of lw guns that are just plain fragile.

[jimjc]

Silly statement without further identifying at what, for what, for whom.



Huh?



Needs to be quantified. Needs a capable shooter to quantify it.



What about the guns weight affected it's functional reliability?



I like you. Shoot my ammo.

The OP stated is the lightweight the pinnacle,,,To build the pinnacle light weight AR simply costs more than a standard build. I don't know why you don't think so.

[Outlander Systems]

Define, "pinnacle."

[The_War_Wagon]

I see it plastered all over the internet, Facebook, guys my own age (just turned 26) -that lightweight builds are better.

Maybe for us old, out-of-shape guys. You youngsters needing to be toting BAR's or some such.

[Mr. Goodtimes]

The SR-15 is the pinnacle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ghostly]

I don't believe one can claim any rifle is the pinnacle or that one gun fills all roles.

For example, SBRs really don't do well last 400 yards. SPRs done so well in a house.

I have a what I consider a "Jack of all trades" that I think is hard to improve on for general shooting. My formula is a robust rail, a quality hammer forged 14.5" pencil barrel, mil-spec upper and lower, comfy furniture, a quality trigger, good irons, and a 1-6x optic. Overall, I could have built a heavier gun to fill the role, or I could have gone overboard and made it lighter....but I went with a functional gun.

It shoots sub-MOA, it doesn't get hot and lose accuracy as some would suggest, and I can use it well in a house as well as at 600 yards. I recently took a RECCE class with Defoor Proformance and I believe my rifle performed as well as if not better than the bolt-actions and SPR rifles there. I believe I was the only cold-bore hit on the 500ish BC steel and had a second round hit on the little tiny 4-6" diamond.

Ironically, didn't see any 6920s there nor will my 6920 make such hits. Mine must be broken.

Anyway, I don't think going as light as possible is advantageous nor do I think ignoring weight is. Be smart about it and end up with something that works. If you don't know what works, don't build your own and let somebody like BCM configure the rifle for you.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Outlander Systems]

You probably didn't see too many basic bitch carbines because 10/10 bubbas can't help themselves but to buy an AR15 and piss as many shekels as possible into it to get that "competitive edge."

[Beat Trash]

Hey guys,

I see it plastered all over the internet, Facebook, guys my own age (just turned 26) -that lightweight builds are better.

Do you find this to be true? Should this be a goal for every build? Just SBRs?

I've never been bothered by "normal" weight or slightly heavy. M1As come to mind.

Better for what? You need to first define the intended use for the gun.

For an all around gun to be used from 0-300 yards, I prefer a lighter weight gun.

My concept of lighter weight still uses a standard M16 BCG. I save weight with a lighter weight barrel and a lighter weight FF hand guard. A 16" BCM EWL barrel or a Faxon Gunner barrel are what I am referring to. I like the 14.5" barrels, but having a pinned and welded flash suppressor limits you in the future should you want to change out hand guards. Add a 13" - 15" M-Lok hand guard like the Centurion or the DD and call it a day.

Some like to use skeletonize BCG's and even lowers. I don't get it. For the extra ounce or two I might save, I'll do two extra pushups to counter the difference.

A simple carbine like the Colt 6720 is a light and handy weapon that I would trust for a lot of basic needs. Add a MagPul MOE-sl furniture set and you have a versatile setup.

If you plan on using your gun in and around buildings and cars, then an SBR would be preferred. If you live in an open environment and you idea of a close shot is 200 yards, and you do your shooting from the prone, then a bit of weight and barrel length are a good thing.

First decide what the intended use for the gun is. Unfortunately for too many people, especially younger people, the intended use for the gun is to take cool pictures and post them on the internet.

[G.B.]

I have a lightweight and a medium contour. I prefer the medium contour. It's more accurate and the weight difference is negligible. I believe it's about four ounces difference on the barrels.

[Outlander Systems]

Hey Beat,

TLDR;

Fruitcakes run light buffers, low mass carriers, add brakes, run lightweight profile barrels, 1lb triggers and run mouse fart hand loads so they can get faster split times and Jack themselves off.

The end.

Better for what? You need to first define the intended use for the gun.

For an all around gun to be used from 0-300 yards, I prefer a lighter weight gun.

My concept of lighter weight still uses a standard M16 BCG. I save weight with a lighter weight barrel and a lighter weight FF hand guard. A 16" BCM EWL barrel or a Faxon Gunner barrel are what I am referring to. I like the 14.5" barrels, but having a pinned and welded flash suppressor limits you in the future should you want to change out hand guards. Add a 13" - 15" M-Lok hand guard like the Centurion or the DD and call it a day.

Some like to use skeletonize BCG's and even lowers. I don't get it. For the extra ounce or two I might save, I'll do two extra pushups to counter the difference.

A simple carbine like the Colt 6720 is a light and handy weapon that I would trust for a lot of basic needs. Add a MagPul MOE-sl furniture set and you have a versatile setup.

If you plan on using your gun in and around buildings and cars, then an SBR would be preferred. If you live in an open environment and you idea of a close shot is 200 yards, and you do your shooting from the prone, then a bit of weight and barrel length are a good thing.

First decide what the intended use for the gun is. Unfortunately for too many people, especially younger people, the intended use for the gun is to take cool pictures and post them on the internet.