View Full Version : HBAR Carbines
HBAR rifles (usually 20 inch barrels) are normally billed as target/competition guns. Are carbine versions also targeted toward the competition crowd or just heavy for heavy's sake?:
https://www.bushmaster.com/firearms/xm-15-moe/16-moe-mid-length
I'm not sure that HBARs are geared specifically toward the competition crowd. I do find the connotation that goes along with a heavier profile is that they produce better accuracy. Or, at the very least, that groups won't open up quite as quickly with those types of profiles. Whether or not that's in line with reality is hard to say; given a number of other variables. I do know that Bushmaster's varmint rigs have always been pretty solid in the accuracy department.
With the linked rifle, maybe I'm missing the portion that calls out the barrel profile being an HBAR. Is that listed somewhere? Or, are you just assuming based upon the appearance?
If you go to their online catalog on that website, that particular model/part number is billed as having a "16 inch heavy profile chrome lined barrel".
It does look pretty nice with all the Magpul furniture, though (although I realize that beauty is in the eye of the beholder).
If you go to their online catalog on that website, that particular model/part number is billed as having a "16 inch heavy profile chrome lined barrel".
It does look pretty nice with all the Magpul furniture, though (although I realize that beauty is in the eye of the beholder).
Gotcha. I didn't dig into the nitty-gritty of their catalogue.
I like the look of it. It's still pretty traditional, yet the Magpul hardware wouldn't be cheap if you wanted to swap it all on your own. A quick look around the web shows you could probably get it in the $800-$850 range. Maybe even less if you're patient.
I've always been pleased with the XM-15 line of rifles, and have been going back and forth over purchasing a different model in that line; actually in the lighter direction. If a heavy barrel is what you're looking for, it looks like an option worth putting on the list.
I had a Bushmaster HBAR carbine as a duty gun for a while. For all the faults that rifle had it was really damn accurate for a non free float barrel.
I had a Bushmaster HBAR carbine as a duty gun for a while. For all the faults that rifle had it was really damn accurate for a non free float barrel.
Unreliable?
The HBAR is desirable from the manufacturer point of view because they have to do less work with it. Not needing to profile and thin out a barrel saves time and money. Those things add up quickly.
Unreliable?
Unreliable in the sense that parts broke. Only tone I ever had a failure to feed or extract was once when using M193 as it didn't have a true 5.56 chamber.
Mrgunsngear
04-18-17, 08:46
The HBAR is desirable from the manufacturer point of view because they have to do less work with it. Not needing to profile and thin out a barrel saves time and money. Those things add up quickly.
Concur with this and stated as much in my S&W Sport II review.
Interestingly a large manufacture talked to me about that comment after the review and stated that their research indicated that "less informed" buyers tended to equate weight with quality and the easiest way to add weight to the design is in the barrel. Thought it was in interesting comment so I figured I'd share...
Looking through Bushmaster's catalog, I notice that they point out that their carbines feature M4 feed ramps, HPT/MPI bolts, M16 bolt carriers, F-marked FSB's, staked castle nuts, 4150 CMV barrels, etc.
That's nice, but what did they use before?
They are not known for making quality guns. Known for largest of gas ports and skimp gas on QC. And their price is no better than Colt Magpul gun. It's a no brainer to buy a Colt. IMHO.
Grant, or other vendors could get you squared away with a quality stick.
PB
The HBAR is desirable from the manufacturer point of view because they have to do less work with it. Not needing to profile and thin out a barrel saves time and money. Those things add up quickly.
Just wanted to let you know that your knowledge continues to provide mind blows from time to time.
As soon as I read your comment the lightbulb flickered on so to speak. I had wondered why so many HBARs have been offered on cheaper rifles as an extra selling point.
Makes sense though, they market it as heavier, more durable, less apt to heat, etc. When in reality, its doubling as a sale point and a manufacturing cut.
Nonetheless, thanks for your insight in this industry.
Looking through Bushmaster's catalog, I notice that they point out that their carbines feature M4 feed ramps, HPT/MPI bolts, M16 bolt carriers, F-marked FSB's, staked castle nuts, 4150 CMV barrels, etc.
That's nice, but what did they use before?
Those specs have been a part of their XM-15 line for a while. Previously (maybe about 5 years ago) is when they started including FA carriers instead of Semi, F-marked FSBs and staked CNs. I believe MPI has always been done, not 100% sure how long they've been doing HPT. M4 Ramps and 4150 CL barrels have been used for a long time. There are some exceptions with versions like the Carbon 15 and ORC that were aimed at budget conscious consumers.
I own an M4A3 that's been excellent. It's probably 5-6 years old and has been flawless for ~5000 rounds. Mine has the M4 feed ramps, 4150 CL, MPI bolt. It has a semi-auto carrier, standard FSB, and no staked CN. The carrier, FSB and CM have never given me any problems. In fact, I've heard that the CNs are actually a *^!? to get off. It's a 16" barrel, and I've had no issues zeroing for a 50/200. It's nice that they've made the changes, but the absence of those things wasn't nearly the travesty that some have made it out to be. I do like that they're being more overt in the specs, in spite of the fact that many have been standard for a long time. In fact, the specs were always available for consumers to look up, but they weren't broadcast as much as they are now in their marketing materials.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.