Barrel Profile For Defense and Combat

[Eurodriver]

I don't think its trivial, and apparently neither does the military (since they've changed barrel profiles repeatedly....light, government and now "SOCOM"). What's the purpose of a forum if not to discuss the object of the forum. What do you consider to be non-trivial?

This is general discussion, and what's wrong with someone asking a question that many of us have considered? If you don't like the question - don't respond. It takes less effort. It's not like the guy asked if his Olympic Arms was as good as his friend's BFH BCM.

Because, as IG alluded to, this aspect of the rifle is so far down the list of importance it shouldn't even be given bandwidth. How many guys here have ever shot 400 rounds through their AR in thirty minutes or less because of superiority in numbers of the enemy, lack of fire discipline and a shortage of crew served weapons? Is that really a contingency we should be planning for given that anyone in that environment is going to have a government issued rifle anyway?

More to your question - people could be using their time and the valuable resource that is M4C to learn how to become more proficient with their rifle instead of discussing this. Don't misunderstand me as being annoyed or upset or demanding this be stopped. I legit dgaf what people want to talk about on a discussion forum. But I sorely miss when people discussed what their rifles actually did rather than what they looked like.

[MistWolf]

The military switched from the original barrel profile to the government profile to fix a misdiagnosed problem, thus setting the stage for the M4 profile.

The current 14.5" SOCOM profile is actually a step in the right direction as it places barrel mass back at the chamber end where it will help deal with heat

[Eurodriver]

The current 14.5" SOCOM profile is actually a step in the right direction as it places barrel mass back at the chamber end where it will help deal with heat

Wouldn't the BCM ELW is a better step in the right direction as it does the same thing without making the entire barrel assembly weigh a metric ton?

I mean, unless you're undergunned and being overrun by Taliban...

[BrigandTwoFour]

Just to clarify, here is why I asked:
1) The AR platform was originally designed as a combat and defense platform for military use.
2) The barrel is a fundamental, if not the most important, component of the rifle
3) Everybody and his pet monkey seems to be making several different profiles
4) Even the military as noted by @Arch has made several changes to the standard profile
5) The AR platform is plagued by various "fashion" trends, few of which actually enhance performance and will be replaced by a new "fashion" in a year or two.

Considering all that I don't think my question about the best barrel profile (knowing what we currently know) for the original purpose of the rifle is all that trivial. Fortunately there have been some very good well thought out responses above.

The last bullet is your most important one. As Arch and others have noted, the military has indeed changed profiles over the years. However, do not think that the military is immune from fashion trends as well. Have you ever seen the military acquisition and contracting process up close? It is awful. It is a system that literally rewards project managers for wasting money. So long as the project officer can claim that they "saved money" or "increased capability," then the actual results have no bearing on anything. Completing a big money acquisitions contract is the ticket to promotion, where that individual now expect the same behavior of those who follow them.

The ground truth is that nearly any configuration of the AR will do a passable job at just about anything. All the special configurations and variations on barrel profile come down to marketing gimmicks or slight improvements on capability that really only matter in very specific circumstances that the average person will never see. Even more so, those slight advantages only come to those who are already very proficient. To reference the high power community, a world class shooter can still take an off the rack M16A2 and destroy the Average Joe, even if Average Joe is using a $6,000 custom competition rifle. SOCOM-trained killers who shoot thousands of rounds every month in training and rehearsal will still take a pencil-profile 16" carbine and destroy Average Joe in an exercise of door kicking and room clearing, no matter what gun Average Joe brings to the table.

Most users are far better off with a generic rifle/carbine configuration of high quality and investing the rest of their money in good training and focused practice. Hardware is not a replacement for software, even though the gun community tries to pretend otherwise every day.

[MistWolf]

Euro, yes, it would. I like the tapered barrel profile (sporter weight profile) such as used on the ELW, the Faxon GUNNER series barrels and the S&W MP10

[Arch]

Euro, yes, it would. I like the tapered barrel profile (sporter weight profile) such as used on the ELW, the Faxon GUNNER series barrels and the S&W MP10

I agree. For my usage, a BFH ELW is the best option.

ETA: I also have and use BFH "LW" and Colt LW (6520 and 6720). All suit my purposes equally well. However, I get better accuracy with the BCM barrels. The Colts are plenty accurate enough for their intended purpose, but if I use a bench for a side by side comparision (all other things being equal: optic and ammo) the BCM will print smaller groups every time. I actually retested this issue last week. Three range trips and all three times I had the same result. I don't have a technical explanation, but suspect the BCM's PNT trigger is the real reason. The two test Colts have awful factory triggers.

ETA 2: I installed a MBT in one of the 6720's. I'll retest with the update.

[jpmuscle]

And now this thread has me considering a bcm elw barrel for my 11.5 in place of my sionics barrel for no other reason than to save 8 ounces in weight. Great.

[Arch]

And now this thread has me considering a bcm elw barrel for my 11.5 in place of my sionics barrel for no other reason than to save 8 ounces in weight. Great.

8 ounces is about 15 rounds in a 30rd USGI mag...

[jpmuscle]

8 ounces is about 15 rounds in a 30rd USGI mag...

Correct. But ounces is pounds and all that, especially once you add PEQ, light, suppressor etc.

Maybe I'll just build another rifle lol.

[Arch]

Absolutely - I was saying I'd take another 15rds over 8ozs of barrel. Ounces are pounds and pounds are pain! Ammo is a consumable that will decrease over time while barrel weight seems to grow as the day goes long...

Absolutely 2 - there is always a good reason for another rifle! In fact, I can never think of a valid reason NOT to build another.

ETA: Not having enough money for food or rent/mortgage does not constitute a valid reason to NOT buy or build another AR15.