Originally Posted by
Joeywhat
It's impossible to have a 'standard' AR15 with 16" barrel be under 30" OAL. You'd have to have a folding stock to get there, or a barrel less then 16" in length.
Even with just the receiver extension it's a little over the limit.
This thread wasn't about the "30 inch rule". Anyway, what I'm getting at is a permanent muzzle device on a sub-16 inch barrel severely limits the adaptive nature of muzzle threads. In other words, the barrel is married to an individual muzzle device, so if something better comes along you are ditching the barrel instead of simply removing the muzzle device and indexing a replacement. Furthermore, I don't think the perception of "gain" in maneuverability in an "end result" 16 inch barrel over a 16 inch barrel plus muzzle device is on solid ground. The inch or so OAL is of no consequence, even for professional door kickers.
Originally Posted by
Coleslaw
Many people are enamored with the 14.5" barrel and probably not for the right reasons. The 14.5" barrel length came about after lessons learned by the XM177 issues from the Viet Nam era. Colt had problems with short barrels - 10" and 11.5" - running consistently. Changes in gas port hole size, moderators, etc. were used in an effort to enable proper function. Other ‘remedies’ i.e. H type buffers, springs, modified carriers, etc., were down the road some years away.
After some testing, the conclusion was the 14.5" barrel offered the best combination of reliability while maintaining some level of efficacy from the M193 round in a 'shorty". So allot of guys get hung up on that length I suppose because it is the length the military has traditionally used for some time now, and/or because of the ‘cool’ factor. It is not like some magic - the 14.5” length.
From former military that has seen the coming and going of the Commando and the M4 carbine, it was explained to them (and stated to me) the reason for the 14.5 inch barrel length on the carbine was it was the shortest barrel length that could still facilitate the attachment of the standard issue bayonet. The M4 carbine was to replace the M16 as the MBR, which historical military doctrine says it has to have bayonet mounting capability. I don't know if any of what I've been told is true, but if so, makes it interesting.
I'm an FFL/gunsmith, not the holster company. We specialize in subsonic ammunition and wholesale rifles.
Bookmarks