I am ordering my upper receiver on Tuesday, so I have to decide on which one.
Help me out here, what are the pro's and con's if any?
I am ordering my upper receiver on Tuesday, so I have to decide on which one.
Help me out here, what are the pro's and con's if any?
I don't think there is a "wrong" answer here, but I prefer the mid-length. Many will cite a softer recoil impulse and less stress on the bolt, both due to the longer gas system resulting in lower pressures and less violent cycling. True but I think it is less noticeable unless you are a high-volume shooter. In a standard configuration, I like the longer handguards, they allow better hand placement especially with a light. Of course if you add oversized railed handguards over a lo-pro gas block then that aspect is a toss up. Honestly I don't think the carbine gas system holds any advantage over a midlength in a 16" carbine, unless you're trying to make it match a another rifle that's a carbine setup (like maybe an issued weapon).
--Josh H.
LOKNLOD pretty much covered it. I personally chose the BCM 16" Midlength and love it FWIW.
I would get a 16" midlength, or possibly a pinned 14.5 BCM from G&R if you want it for home defense. I would choose either way before a 16" carbine.
Don't forget about the midlength's longer sight radius.
I like girl scout cookies.
Middy all the way. No comparison.
C4
With the profiles of the two barrels currently available I would take the mid-length.
Once BCM gets their lightweight barrels to market an argument could be made for sticking with carbine-length as it will allow for an overall lighter carbine.
Hard to say, really. I guess I could weigh a carbine-length handguard and gas tube and a mid-length and see what the differences are. But it's as much about where the weight falls (on the support hand almost entirely) as how much it is.
I'm thinking of a lightweight gun in this case for a smaller-statured person like a woman or child.
Bookmarks