2010: Year of the "pencil" barrel? [Archive]

rob_s

02-03-10, 10:43

Daniel Defense 16" Pencil Barrels! (http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=45874)
Centurion Arms Hammer forged Light weight Barrel (http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=42471)
BCM 16" Lightweight Upper (http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=38202)
Want a Pencil barrel from Colt? (http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34437)
Clyde's Armory has been keeping a secret (http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=42652)

it would appear that this year is going to be quite the year for the lighweight barrel profile. As someone who has been a big fan of this profile, and owned carbines with almost entirely barrels in the .625" diameter, I have to say I'm impressed (and feeling a little vindicated as well).

Couple this with all the recent claims of free float tubes getting lighter and lighter and it sounds like there are a whole lot of lightweight projects in the works for a whole lot of people.

My own plan right now is for a 14.5", carbine-length gas (*maybe* mid-length), with a 9.0 Troy Xtreme Vtac tube and either a chopped FSB or lightest low-pro gasblock I can find. Thinking either MBUS or DD BUIS, and either an H-1 in Larue mount or Trijicon TA44SG-10 (http://www.trijicon.com/user/parts/products1.cfm?PartID=747&back_row=0&categoryID=3) in LT mount. Might consider alternate mounts if they prove to be lighter. Probably keep it 14.5" and use it on an SBR lower but may pin one of the new AAC Breakout brake/hider mounts (would really like it if the non-mount version came out soon).

Got a lightweight planned? What's your plan? Why? What makes you interested in the lightweight barrels vs. what's out there now?

ForTehNguyen

02-03-10, 10:46

year of the middy too

If I felt like making an all out lightweight rifle, Id use that polymer cavalry arms lower/buttstock, MOE handguard, etc

rob_s

02-03-10, 10:57

H-1 on a DD mount (appears to be lighter than the LT - is it?) and (perhaps)

facepalm.

yes, thanks for catching that. DD mount, much better.

tiger seven

02-03-10, 10:57

I'm excited at the new lightweight prospects for this year as well. The upper I was envisioning the other day (reading Grant's thread about DD pencil barrels) sounds a lot like what you're describing Rob: 14.5" carbine with some version of that Troy/VTAC tube, an H-1 on a DD mount (appears to be lighter than the LT - is it?) and (perhaps) Gen 2 MBUS sights. Keep it 14.5" and run it on my SBR lower.

For me, lighter has always been better. I settled for M4 barrels for years because they were lightest that were easily available and affordable to me. Never particularly liked them. Glad to see plenty of high quality, reasonably priced pencil barrels coming to market.

I think last year was sort of the "Year of the Middy."

Derek

GlockWRX

02-03-10, 11:04

I see the lightweight barrels as part of a larger trend toward weight conciousness. Aimpoint T-1s, lighter rails, smaller lights, etc. For a long time I think people have been throwing stuff on their AR's without paying any attention to weight, and are surprised and disappointed when their rifle ends up weighing 10+ lbs. It's a great development IMHO.

I have a 6520 that I've been mulling over how to set up. But with all these new products coming out, I may just sell it and start over.

It I was to start from scratch, I'd probably get one of those BCM uppers and a BCM lower. From there I'd have to spend some time researching the various options and finding what offers the most performance per ounce.

ForTehNguyen

02-03-10, 11:08

anyone have a Cavalry Arms polymer lower to attest to the weight reduction?

If i was building an all out light weighter:
Cavalry Arms polymer lower/buttstock piece
middy, lightweight barrel, with FST
middy MOE handguards
T1 type optic

carbinero

02-03-10, 11:13

I'm thinking pencil is just one facet of (a) market recovery and (b) access to guns. And it's a good facet! I still like the N4 profile...and I presume it could be "year in which many great things come into fruition with the AR."

Still, I agree with your premise.

Danny Boy

02-03-10, 11:17

Cav Arms lowers are exceptionally light. I sold a couple last year. The only thing that concerned me was that mags wouldn't drop free from them. I'm not sure if anyone has solved that issue with a little sanding, but I'm sure it's very possible.

rob_s

02-03-10, 11:18

I see the lightweight barrels as part of a larger trend toward weight conciousness.

I think that comes from people getting out and using them. I've been attending training classes for a few years now and in the last year or two it's REALLY seemed to explode. I don't know that any one instructor is busier but there are sure an awful lot more "instructors" doing it.

I think with use comes a focus on weight after the shooter gets overly tired by TD1 or TD2 and has trouble supporting the gun.

BAC

02-03-10, 11:20

I see the lightweight barrels as part of a larger trend toward weight conciousness.

I agree with this observation. I've a couple builds in mind but I'm not sure if they're strictly "lightweight" builds. Every now and then I mull over a good "walking gun", but I've never actually planned out a gun that is designed from the onset to be as lighweight as possible while still being functional. This probably has to do with my lack of rifle experience and not knowing from first-hand experience what I would need from the rifle and what I could make due without. I suppose I envision the SBR I want to build as being my lightweight build, even though it doesn't use a lightweight or pencil barrel.

Oh, and thank you for pointing out that AAC Breakout, Rob. That looks like a winner for sure.

-B

armakraut

02-03-10, 12:20

14.5 LW BBL
vortex or surefire hider
11'' vtac extreme handguards
milspec upper/lower/trigger-group
TR44SR-10 or an RMR
Troy or Larue/DD BUIS
Noveske sling plate with a vltor std modstock

I'm guessing rainier will be getting the new barrels if daniel defense is making them.

Mark21

02-03-10, 12:33

; I think with use comes a focus on weight after the shooter gets overly tired by TD1 or TD2 and has trouble supporting the gun.

I'm surprised by this. Is it because shooters are out of shape? Most of the time the gun is supported by the sling from my own course experiences at EAG and others. I could see this if you are hiking long distance or going over rough terrain like for a recon, but personally, it doesn't seem that big of a deal to me as a civvy. Then again, I was never one to tote around netbooks instead of laptops while I traveled either. :D

Curious as to what is the tradeoff? Barrel heats up faster? Maybe fails faster under sustained fire? If there is no tradeoff then this is a no-brainer for me and a lot of folks, as why not save a few pounds (vs the laptop example, where the netbook gives up DVD drive, has shorter battery life, etc -- def fits a certain user profile, but not others)

C45P312

02-03-10, 12:39

Curious as to what is the tradeoff? Barrel heats up faster? Maybe fails faster under sustained fire? If there is no tradeoff then this is a no-brainer for me and a lot of folks, as why not save a few pounds (vs the laptop example, where the netbook gives up DVD drive, has shorter battery life, etc -- def fits a certain user profile, but not others)
I'm sure it's all those. Especially having less material means more heat will pass through. I remember seeing a video of barrel bending trough continous full-auto rate of fire.

rob_s

02-03-10, 12:44

Heats up faster and also cools faster. No discernible impact on accuracy with sustained semi-auto firing within my own use and given the kind of ammo that most people shoot.

I frankly think this is as much a realistic view of the end use as anything else. The HBAR lie that was foisted on all of us is pretty well dispelled at this point and putting XM193 or Wolf ammo through a barrel that's supposedly maximized for accuracy is just silly.

The idea of "sustained fire" actually goes right along with this. What does that mean? Why are you doing it? What are you hoping to achieve? Do you need gnat's ass accuracy AND a high rate of fire?

Lightweight barrels won't be for everyone, but it's been my opinion for a very long time that the profile makes the most sense for the most users by a huge margin.

chadbag

02-03-10, 12:56

I like the idea. I have one pencil barrel LW gun planned as a demo. Will have to consider some others.

glocktogo

02-03-10, 13:27

Daniel Defense 16" Pencil Barrels! (http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=45874)
Centurion Arms Hammer forged Light weight Barrel (http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=42471)
BCM 16" Lightweight Upper (http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=38202)
Want a Pencil barrel from Colt? (http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34437)

it would appear that this year is going to be quite the year for the lighweight barrel profile. As someone who has been a big fan of this profile, and owned carbines with almost entirely barrels in the .625" diameter, I have to say I'm impressed (and feeling a little vindicated as well).

Couple this with all the recent claims of free float tubes getting lighter and lighter and it sounds like there are a whole lot of lightweight projects in the works for a whole lot of people.

My own plan right now is for a 14.5", carbine-length gas (*maybe* mid-length), with a 9.0 Troy Xtreme Vtac tube and either a chopped FSB or lightest low-pro gasblock I can find. Thinking either MBUS or DD BUIS, and either an H-1 in Larue mount or Trijicon TA44SG-10 (http://www.trijicon.com/user/parts/products1.cfm?PartID=747&back_row=0&categoryID=3) in LT mount. Might consider alternate mounts if they prove to be lighter. Probably keep it 14.5" and use it on an SBR lower but may pin one of the new AAC Breakout brake/hider mounts (would really like it if the non-mount version came out soon).

Got a lightweight planned? What's your plan? Why? What makes you interested in the lightweight barrels vs. what's out there now?

I want an 11.5" pencil barrel with a total build that's as light as practicable with alloy receivers and good gas management. I'd be interested in a 16" middy pencil build too.

I think the old thoughts that a rifle was for shooting 100 yds + has given way to the CQB rifle. There the emphasis is on fast handling rather than pinpoint accuracy in the prone position. I think we'll continue to see lighter builds and ultra lightweight materials showing up in non-traditional areas.

rob_s

02-03-10, 13:52

I want an 11.5" pencil barrel with a total build that's as light as practicable with alloy receivers and good gas management.

Colt 6933 (https://policeguns.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=16_236&products_id=5702&osCsid=5v3v2qlcbou4cveeonsb3rhc06)

glocktogo

02-03-10, 13:57

Colt 6933 (https://policeguns.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=16_236&products_id=5702&osCsid=5v3v2qlcbou4cveeonsb3rhc06)

I have a 6933 upper now. My 1st AR was a Colt mid-ban 16" Lightweight and I could have sworn the O.D. of that barrel was smaller than the 6933's? The 6933's profile seems more M4'ish without the cut.

It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong if I am though. :)

Bowser

02-03-10, 14:06

I definitely want to try out a lighter weight bbl in my next build.

El Mac

02-03-10, 14:39

2010: Year of the "pencil" barrel? ?

I hope not.

rob_s

02-03-10, 14:39

I hope not.

unless it's the use of the term "pencil" that I object to, thankfully you appear to be in the minority. :p

kwelz

02-03-10, 15:20

Not a big fan of Pencil Barrels. But hey to each their own.

KingsideRook

02-03-10, 16:16

I hope so...the weight savings is substantial after a day of carrying it, and the drawback, for semi-auto owners, are basically low to none, unless you like extra weight out front. Let's hope for a similarly expanded selection of quality .625 gas blocks and front sight bases.

Used to be you could sometimes find a used Colt takeoff .625 barrel for too much, or buy a Bushmaster pencil barrel and hope. I'm very pleased with the upcoming selection of high-end .625 profile AR15 barrels, and intend to show as much support for them as possible by buying several - preferably 16" midlengths, but 14.5" carbine barrels will work too.

Dienekes

02-03-10, 16:25

Had a LW barrel on my 1980s Colt SP-1 CAR, which I foolishly sold. Now have the usual M203 configuration barrel on my semi-auto M4gery which offers no real advantage that I can see. If I replace it it will be with a light barrel, for the same reasons I want to lose 10 pounds myself. :eek:

Sometimes "less is more".

SoDak

02-03-10, 17:03

I'm glad to see the pencil barrel become more popular(meaning more options!). I never realized just how light they were until I put together an A1 clone on a surplus upper. I was genuinely surprised that even with a 20" barrel and fixed stock, it handled better and was far light than my carbines. I can just imaging how much lighter it would be if we were dealing with a 16" barrel. I've been wanting to build a pencil barreled carbine for a while, but between costs and my pickiness has kept me from doing it. I guess I could always have adco re profile one of my hbars.

mhall

02-03-10, 19:26

i don't know if it will be considered a lightweight or not but my new upper is going to be.

colt m-4 upper
centurion arms lightweight 16 in mid-length with pinned gb
knights armament rifle length urx 2 rail
muzzle device is undecided right now
colt bolt carrier group
Mike

Chris Rhines

02-03-10, 19:32

I do like lightweight barrels, and lightweight ARs period. My next 3-gun AR will wear a .625" profile barrel under a Troy or PRI float tube.

-C

JSGlock34

02-03-10, 20:00

I've been considering combining a pencil barrel with a Troy/VTAC rail...I'm curious to see how much these configurations weigh.

RustedAce

02-03-10, 20:00

Here is my lightweight build.

I am switching the DD rail for a Troy TRX though, as I never use any of the rails.

11.5 CMMG pencil barrel.

I had a blackout on there, but the recoil was not fun with the gun being so light, so added the PWS.

I feel comfortable not having BUIS' with an ACOG.

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/6280/45947006.jpg

CCK

02-03-10, 20:04

Rob,
Actually you lead me in this direction last year. I had a armalite middy barrel reprofiled by ADCO and cut to 14.2 because of things you had written in other threads. Its all your fault!

Chris

MMcfpd

02-03-10, 21:53

After using Bushmaster Superlights on the last two carbines, I just anted up for a 6520 barrel from SAW and sent it to ADCO to cut back some.

Maybe I should have waited a bit more?

Or maybe I'll just have to put together something new when the fresh offerings become readily available.

Jay Cunningham

02-03-10, 21:57

As someone who has been a big fan of this profile, and owned carbines with almost entirely barrels in the .625" diameter, I have to say I'm impressed (and feeling a little vindicated as well).

Congratulations Rob! They couldn't have done it without you!!

:p

N2CH_556

02-03-10, 22:11

Here is my lightweight build.
I am switching the DD rail for a Troy TRX though, as I never use any of the rails.
11.5 CMMG pencil barrel.
I had a blackout on there, but the recoil was not fun with the gun being so light, so added the PWS.
I feel comfortable not having BUIS' with an ACOG.
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/6280/45947006.jpg

Awesome.

Do you know the weight/length of that (entry? what make/model is that?) stock as compared to an old-school CAR, or CTR, for example?

Belmont31R

02-03-10, 22:29

I want a hammer forged LWT barrel with a middy gas system.

kombos

02-03-10, 22:53

Looking to build a 16" mid length pencil with low profile gas block and Troy Extreme FF (just waiting to find a barrel).....or may consider one of the DD 14.5" CHF barrels with pinned FH (not sure I want to deal with the pinned constriction though).

Can someone comment on the difference in action between a 16" middy and a 14.5" carbine gas system?

I always see comparisons between the 16" middy and 16" carbine....

Fox

02-03-10, 23:27

Personally, I prefer a heavier barrel. I have a 10.3 inch M16 Viper upper with a Lothar Walther bull barrel.(mid length DI ) I love it!! It's good to see more options though...

HeavyDuty

02-03-10, 23:44

Got a lightweight planned? What's your plan? Why? What makes you interested in the lightweight barrels vs. what's out there now?

Three:

1) A rebarrel of one of my older carbines with a DD 14.5" pencil, FSB, MOE HG and pinned Phantom. It currently wears an indifferent quality 16" LW with .725" FSB.

2) A new midlength build with a 16.1" pencil, FSB and a 9" DD Lite rail.

3) A new carbine build with a 14.5" pencil, permed FH and a 10" DD Lite rail.

I've been a fan of lightweights since my old SP1 Carbine back in the day. After the AWB sunset I rebarreled my one carbine with a new BM Superlight, it's all been downhill from there. I much prefer the balance and weight of a pencil over any other profile.

sff70

02-04-10, 01:09

The skinny barrel meets the needs of probably 99% of semi-auto shooters much better than the heavier barrels do.

I had a 6721 for some time. Thought it was great until I took it to a 5 day class. Bought a 6920 shortly thereafter and sold the 6721.

Used to have a 6520. Knowing what I do now, sure wish I had kept it.

jp0319

02-04-10, 02:33

I am also looking at putting together a light weight upper to put on a DD complete lower. Looking to keep it as completely DD as possible. The plan is

DD 14.5" pencil barrel
chopped FSB
Pinned FSC 556
9" DD lite rail or PRI mid length hand guard

or something along these lines, may just do a straight CAR upper with MOE furnature, as a light weight KISS setup. Not sure yet.

As far as why vs current offerings I would like a light weight build, well that is simple, weight. First off I would like to get my wife interested in shooting and I know the light weight would appeal to her as well as being nice and light to take to classes which I plan on attending upon my return from afgahnistan.

rob_s

02-04-10, 04:59

I have a 10.3 inch M16 Viper upper with a Lothar Walther bull barrel.(mid length DI )

I don't believe that's physically possible.

rob_s

02-04-10, 05:01

Congratulations Rob! They couldn't have done it without you!!

:p

I see it more as an "I told you so" than a "you're welcome".

:cool:

ST911

02-04-10, 10:45

I'm glad to see lightweight/pencil-barrels become more widely available. Hopefully, it's a sign that folks are actually contemplating what they need in a barrel, as well as the merits and liabilities of their barrel profile, rather than simply buying what they think .mil is using.

Watching ladies, IBOs, and non-gun people run carbines or stand with them on perimeters for long periods, the benefits of a lighter setup are obvious. Heck, even small children can handle a 6520.

Most want to think of the difference between them only in terms of the quantified weight from the scale. They then need to hold that weight out extended from their body for an extended period, or with only one hand, or in unconventional position, to get the whole picture.

Fox

02-04-10, 12:14

OOPS! Yeah I meant carbine length. But the barrel is really thick, it does get heavy when I deploy with it for extended periods of time. Its a dream to shoot however.

rob_s

02-04-10, 13:35

I have a 6933 upper now. My 1st AR was a Colt mid-ban 16" Lightweight and I could have sworn the O.D. of that barrel was smaller than the 6933's? The 6933's profile seems more M4'ish without the cut.

It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong if I am though. :)

I dunno, you do the math.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/rob_s/weights/69330-barrel.jpg

Moose-Knuckle

02-04-10, 14:02

"What's old is new again..."

My Colt MT6530 soon after the "AWB" sporting an A2 hider and Troy MRF-C
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/Colt1-1-1.jpg

In 2010 I will be getting a Daniel Defense M4V3 (their mid-length debut) and hopefully they will have a pencil barrel option for them soon.

glocktogo

02-04-10, 14:18

I dunno, you do the math.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/rob_s/weights/69330-barrel.jpg

I measured mine last night and it was .620 O.D. on my calipers. Did Colt ever make an AR with a barrel less than .620 O.D.?

I'll concede that I'm most likely mistaken here, but I've been wrong before! :D

KalashniKEV

02-04-10, 14:34

Do you need gnat's ass accuracy AND a high rate of fire?

Yes.

This kind of blasphemy goes against everything the chart stands for!

I would hope that pencil barrel doesn't get a blue...

Does it?

rob_s

02-04-10, 15:15

chart (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tiAxcuxDRXuahtGz5Q1DJRg&output=html)

BCM is projected based on their past performance. We'll have to wait for the rest.

dbrowne1

02-04-10, 15:31

I feel vindicated as well. I certainly wasn't the first guy on the block to do it, but I've been running a 6520 with a M4 upper receiver swapped in for almost 6 years now. It still feels like a pig compared to my 10.5" gun, but it's light relative to other 16" guns.

What is truly telling about this trend is that even Colt, a company that is about as agile in the business and product development world as a quadriplegic three-toed sloth would be in the jungle, will be making a production version of the "pencil" barrel gun with a M4 upper receiver. The hammer forged offering from DD is a great step as well.

JSGlock34

02-04-10, 18:26

Any word on whether Noveske will offer a lightweight barrel? I thought I read some rumblings to that effect a few months back...

Mark71

02-04-10, 18:39

Any word on whether Noveske will offer a lightweight barrel? I thought I read some rumblings to that effect a few months back...

I emailed them two days ago asking if there are any plans to release a lightweight barrel and this was the reply.....

"There has been some interest in a lighter weight barrel but we do not have any specific plans at this time.".

SMGLee

02-04-10, 18:44

I build a Diemaco C8A2 based gun several years ago, it is still my favorite upper till today. Although is has a few rail changes since new, but it remains the lightest and one of the most accurate upper I have.

JSGlock34

02-04-10, 18:50

I emailed them two days ago asking if there are any plans to release a lightweight barrel and this was the reply.....

"There has been some interest in a lighter weight barrel but we do not have any specific plans at this time.".

Thanks for the quick post! Looks like DD it is...

eternal24k

02-04-10, 21:52

I love it, I have been waiting for my middy pencil from CMMG for many months, and planned on keeping the order since nobody else did pencil barrels, but looks like that has changed :D

Bowser

02-05-10, 01:20

buggsb

02-05-10, 18:29

So who has these middy 14.5" pencil barrels you guys are refering to in this thread?....

kombos

02-05-10, 23:07

So who has these middy 14.5" pencil barrels you guys are refering to in this thread?....

post #26 here:

http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=45874&page=2

skyugo

02-05-10, 23:17

year of the middy too

If I felt like making an all out lightweight rifle, Id use that polymer cavalry arms lower/buttstock, MOE handguard, etc

hell i had a lightweight middy back in 08. guess that makes me a trendsetter... :o

i had one of those cav arms lowers too. worked pretty good, though i'd prefer an adjustable stock

buggsb

02-06-10, 12:20

post #26 here:

http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=45874&page=2

Thanks!!!!

wild_wild_wes

03-07-10, 02:43

The SCAR is getting by splendidly with "pencil" barrels.
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/DSC_4029.JPG

Now here is my beef with this trend:

Very few of these upcoming barrels are true "pencil" barrels, and some are still using Carbine gas length systems.

Instead of using .625" gas blocks, some of these use .750"....so the barrel is not a true Lightweight profile. Or, they have the "Government" profile, with the barrel in front of the gas block still at .725". Or, they use the Carbine gas. NO ONE MAKES A PROPER 16" LIGHTWEIGHT BARREL!

Here's what is needed:

16"
Midlength gas
.625" gas block
True Lightweight profile

rob_s

03-07-10, 03:46

Instead of using .625" gas blocks, some of these use .750"....so the barrel is not a true Lightweight profile.
So?

While on the one hand I agree with you and would prefer to see the .625 gas block, it's certainly far from the end of the world, and completely understandable why when you look around at the availability (or lack thereof) of .625" gas blocks and front sight bases.

Or, they have the "Government" profile, with the barrel in front of the gas block still at .725".
As the person that started this thread, this is not what I'm referring to. The DD barrels are not .725" in front of the gasblock and, given that the current production BCM barrels ARE .725" in front I think it's safe to assume that the new barels later this year will not be.

Or, they use the Carbine gas.
While a fan of the midlength, I really don't get this obsession some people have with it. and, if reduced weight is the goal, mid-length is going to be a heavier overall package than a carbine-length. If we're going to pick nits over the insignificant weight gain of the .750" gas block over the .625" then certainly we would want to save the weight of the mid-length and go with the carbine-length, no?

Here's what is needed:

16"
Midlength gas
.625" gas block
True Lightweight profile

I do agree with you that this would appear to satisfy the wants of the greatest number of potential buyers, and a maker would do well to produce a barrel like this. Right now the Centurion Arms has the mid-length but is .750" at the gas block and .680 in front of it. The DD and Colt are both .625" from the gas block forward but are a carbine-length gas system.

For those of us looking to maximize weight savings the DD is the best option, and the 14.5" DD is the best of those choices.

wild_wild_wes

03-07-10, 11:38

Yes, for my current build, I'm definitley looking at the DD lightweights that Grant has. I'm just torn between the 14.5" and the 16", because of the hassle of pinning the FH on the shorter barrel; I guess in this case the gas system length is not that big a deal. Good to hear that they are .625" in front of the gas block; the typical "pencil" .575" seems a bit noodly to me.

For the future though I want a light middy; definitley in 14.5" and maybe in 16" too; gas block diamter be damned. BCM is coming out with some like that soon....but they will be regular button rifling with chrome, bummer. I've decided that I will have only two types of barrels for my ARs: lightweight CHF or stainless match midweights.

If I have to wait for the barrel I want, so be it.

ForTehNguyen

03-07-10, 12:40

do want:
http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/BCM-16-Mid-Length-LIGHT-WEIGHT-Upper-Receiver-p/bcm-urg-mid-16lw.htm

HeavyDuty

03-07-10, 14:49

wild_wild_wes

03-07-10, 15:10

Oh, I thought they were .625", based on what Rob said above.

No matter though; the SCAR is .570" as well and guys are getting quite nice groups.

rob_s

03-07-10, 19:19

Gran had said somewhere in the thread that they were .625" forward of the FSB. I'll be sure to measure when mine arrives.

Matt in AZ

03-15-10, 00:10

I think that comes from people getting out and using them.

Yes, this is correct.

When the user identifies the carbine application as shooting man sized targets while on the move, all of the uber-accuracy traits of heavier rifles are deemed not appropriate for the revised weapon.

az doug

03-15-10, 00:52

I built mine a few years back. I used a CMMG .625 1/7 mid length barrel. I checked their site and it appears they don't make it anymore. I did not go as light as I could, but this thread has me re-thinking that. Rob has a very good point about the carbine length gas system if you are truly trying to make it as light as you can.

HeavyDuty

03-15-10, 08:21

Gran had said somewhere in the thread that they were .625" forward of the FSB. I'll be sure to measure when mine arrives.

Don't believe me, huh? ;)

HeavyDuty

03-15-10, 20:06

Pics of my DD 14.5" pencil are up in the DD barrel and AR pic threads.

wild_wild_wes

09-12-10, 18:45

Got a lightweight planned? What's your plan? Why? What makes you interested in the lightweight barrels vs. what's out there now?

Thread ressurection; 2010 is indeed The Year of the Pencil Barrel

Love the new lightweight barrels!

First build:
http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii173/USPx4/M4.jpg

Barrel is the DD 14.5" CHF Lightweight carbine gas

Even though lightweight middies are now available, I ended up agreeing with Rob and using carbine gas so as to make the build as light as possible.

Next build will use the same barrel, but with low-profile gas block and a DD Mk18 RIS II, and T-1 Aimpoint for optic....Light, Tight, Right!

(by the way, in another thread Grant said that he is selling these lightweight barrels "at an alarming rate"....)

barrelwrench

09-12-10, 20:57

bvmbandit

09-12-10, 22:00

I've carried the M14 and the M16 as a young pup. The pencil barrel you gents are referring to, is that the same diameter as the old M16A1? I will say that anything lighter then an M14 your doing good in my book.

Yep, I believe it is the same diameter. Weight can be a relative issue. We must have read from the same book...

wild_wild_wes

09-12-10, 22:29

Even the M-14 has a "pencil" barrel....

An Undocumented Worker

09-12-10, 22:29

Does anyone make a good 20 inch pencil barrel, I'm having a hell of a time finding a barrel to make Rifle with, and I would prefer having a pencil barrel for that use.

Harv

09-12-10, 22:39

I don't care for the term "Pencil" barrel just because there is a better name for it. It's called the Standard profile and was on the original M16's.

I'm a Nomenclature guy but I know in the big pic it's small, but I like Nomenclature..... Jam vs. Malfunction.....clip vs. Magazine....etc..

and I have been quite happy with the Government profile for many years and see no reason to change out the two I have. Hell, I use my Older Bushmaster HBAR as my dedicated .22....

I personally like a little extra strength to my barrel...I think the .Gov profile is a good half way point. Just my opinion based on my experiences.

wild_wild_wes

09-12-10, 23:26

I hate the term "pencil" too, because it is often used in a derogatory fashion by those who do not understand why these barrels have the profiles they do. Get a hold of any foreign assault rifle, put calipers to the barrel, and you are going to find a Lightweight barrel- they are that way for a reason. The M-16A2 barrel on the other hand was designed by a committie, and mutated into the Hbar and the M4s "government" profile....read The Black Rifle books and learn as to how those last three barrel designs came to be, then decide if you still think they are a good idea.

Someone mentioned the M-14; the portion near the muzzle has the same outer diameter as a lightweight AR barrel....and there is a much bigger .30 hole inside it.

El Mac

09-12-10, 23:32

Glad you guys dig 'em...

More mid weight barrels for me.

RyanB

09-13-10, 01:56

But the Colt 6520 barrel IS midweight!

variablebinary

09-13-10, 05:11

There is a lot to be said about a naked 6520. I don't think there is a better balancing, better "feeling" carbine out there.

I'd like to do a KISS 14.5" light barrel build in the future

rob_s

09-13-10, 05:29

I put the word pencil in quotes because while I understand that it's the correct term I also understand that it's become the most commonly recognized term, even among a lot of gunnys.

In fact, I think that the very fact that if you said "standard profile" to most AR owners these days they'd assume you meant "government profile" (with the fatter end out past the FSB) or even HBAR.

Generally I find the term "A1 profile" when referring to the thin barrels to be the best compromise. People understand that it's not HBAR, not Govt., and it satisfies the nomenclature nazis. ;)

Regardless of what you call it, I think it's pretty clear that since I started this thread the .625" diameter barrels have really taken off (no, I'm not taking credit for it I'm just noting a shift in the market that I predicted. it would have happened with or without this thread, with or without me. I've been hollering about .625" barrels for years and nobody listened and one thread isn't going to change that.). I think it's no coincidence that this coincides with more people than ever seeking training, going to practice sessions, and competing. With more trigger time shooters (vs. collectors) are starting to appreciate the lighter weight but also understanding with experience that there is no practical need for anything more.

Trajan

09-13-10, 05:38

Could anyone tell me what the disadvantages are to the pencil barrels? Specifically, why did they go from the pencil barrel in the A1 to the "standard" size in the A2?

variablebinary

09-13-10, 05:39

Regardless of what you call it, I think it's pretty clear that since I started this thread the .625" diameter barrels have really taken off. I think it's no coincidence that this coincides with more people than ever seeking training, going to practice sessions, and competing. With more trigger time shooters (vs. collectors) are starting to appreciate the lighter weight but also understanding with experience that there is no practical need for anything more.

There are still pockets of people that insist a heavy pig like the SIG 556 shoots better a 6920 because there is less muzzle rise and "recovery between shots"

Though, I find that philosophy goes right out the window after a rigorous carbine class.

It's part of the reason I insist on SBR'ing anything that would normally weigh over 7lbs (SCAR, LMT piston, XCR).

Weight gets old damn quick.

g5m

09-13-10, 08:35

Shades of the SP1.

ST911

09-13-10, 08:38

There is a lot to be said about a naked 6520. I don't think there is a better balancing, better "feeling" carbine out there.

Agreed. Very popular with folks of all types, and especially IBOs, ladies, and youth. A 6-8 year old can handle a 6520 with instruction.

Boss Hogg

09-13-10, 16:44

There is a lot to be said about a naked 6520. I don't think there is a better balancing, better "feeling" carbine out there.

I'd like to do a KISS 14.5" light barrel build in the future

GotM4 put an 11" VTAC Extreme tube on my 6520. Very handy carbine and that barrel is really, really accurate.

armakraut

09-13-10, 16:59

Pics or it didn't happen. :D

GotM4 put an 11" VTAC Extreme tube on my 6520. Very handy carbine and that barrel is really, really accurate.

archad

09-13-10, 18:12

I got a BCM 14.5 LW middy in the works. I chopped the FSB and I have a 11"Troy TRX extreme installed just waiting for the 1.5 battlecomp and I will post the pics.

TehLlama

09-13-10, 18:20

I got a BCM 14.5 LW middy in the works. I chopped the FSB and I have a 11"Troy TRX extreme installed just waiting for the 1.5 battlecomp and I will post the pics.

I'm really impressed with how much the M4C hive mind has taken to the BCM/DD Lightweight rifles with TRX/VTAC handguards, especially with Battlecomps on them.

And who wouldn't want a 7# rifle that's handy and controllable?

ralph

09-13-10, 19:49

I had Grant build me a pencil bbl carbine this spring, DD CHF 16"bbl,W/FSB, DD upper&lower, G&R LPK, DD BCG, One of the blem'ed Ras rails he had, Magpul ctr stock, triggerguard,BUIS,Mags, BCM charging handle, A2 flash hider, I've since made just a couple changes,BUIS changed to a DD fixed, added a QD receiver plate, and added a SF X-300..I think I'm good to go..I've been running it at the classes Grant is teaching, and I haven't had a problem with it, Seems to be a very handy,light, configuration..

ra2bach

09-13-10, 21:16

thread hijack: Troy TRX Extreme or VTAC?

:p

seb5

09-13-10, 21:24

I'm really impressed with how much the M4C hive mind has taken to the BCM/DD Lightweight rifles with TRX/VTAC handguards, especially with Battlecomps on them.

And who wouldn't want a 7# rifle that's handy and controllable?

I built a 16" LW middie with 13" Troy rail and BC 1.0. Without light or T-1 it's 6.25lbs.

I'm currently waiting on the return from ADCO of the second barrel that I had cut to 14.7 and a BC 1.0 permed to it. It will wear the 11" Troy. I believe it will be under 6.0lbs w/o light or T-1.

120mm

09-13-10, 21:36

Could anyone tell me what the disadvantages are to the pencil barrels? Specifically, why did they go from the pencil barrel in the A1 to the "standard" size in the A2?

Here is my understanding:

1. Thicker barrels are less affected by heat/slower to heat up, which is supposed to add to repeatability. But as someone said earlier in the thread, semi-auto doesn't heat the barrel enough to make this that big of a deal for combat accuracy purposes.

2. Thicker barrels are stiffer. shooting with the barrel resting on something like a barrier or sand-bags will affect a thicker barrel's POI less.

3. During sustained full-auto fire, it should take longer for a thicker barrel to heat to the critical point where it droops and a bullet blows out the side.

And that's it, I think. I've lugged both an A1 and A2, and still prefer the A1's thin barrel. Both shot perfectly fine for my purposes.

Unrelated to the thick barrel, I have never seen the practical need for the complex A2 sight. The idea that you will, in the heat of battle, have to zero your weapon and therefore need knobs to do so blows my mind.

wild_wild_wes

09-13-10, 21:48

Aside from the impoved stocks, the M16A2 was a boondoggle.

torquemada055

09-14-10, 02:34

Okay, being sort of old and not into the latest and greatest I went retro with my last 3 pencil barrel builds.
From left to right are the 607/629 clone, a middy carbine with 16" barrel and an M16A1 clone to take me back to my younger days circa 1977-82
The 607 is the only one so far with a BCM enhanced BCG, have to save some for the rest to be so equipped.
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x140/torquemada55/PICT4425.jpg

seb5

09-14-10, 07:56

Aside from the impoved stocks, the M16A2 was a boondoggle.

What was improved? I've met very few people that fit the A-2 stock. It's way too long for a combat rifle, more so when you add in a 5-9 infantryman and full body armor. It's more of a target rifle.

armakraut

09-14-10, 10:01

The handguards and stock material were improved on the A2. Not necessarily the length of pull, which needs to be about 8-9 inches.

wild_wild_wes

09-14-10, 20:44

Yes, what armakraut said....the stock material is vastly improved, that is what I meant; and also the handguard shape is better.

Iraq Ninja

09-14-10, 22:01

Moose-Knuckle

09-15-10, 02:49

I wonder if 2011 will be the year of the carbine fiber barrel. Probably not, if the cost remains as high as it is now.

Now, if Remington/Bushmaster would put on on the ACR, that might make a world of difference.

Yeah, I'm sure it would be a M4 profile with a 1/9 twist. :eek:

Sorry, couldn't' resist. :D

120mm

09-15-10, 05:27

Yeah, I'm sure it would be a M4 profile with a 1/9 twist. :eek:

Sorry, couldn't' resist. :D

Yeah. And they'd put them together half-assed, so you'd have to fix them out of the box to make them function.

bvmbandit

09-15-10, 07:29

peabody

11-24-10, 10:29

Man, I'm diggin the retro builds. Nice! What receiver and sling have you on the far right build in the picture?

-Scott

I JUST LOVE THOSE RETRO'S :big_boss:

building a 604 as we speak'
A1 profile barrel' n0-dak partial fence lower.
a 5.56 rifle as eugene stoner ment it to be :D

heck ? the old style rifles are the only ones i shoot anymore.

peabody

rob_s

04-13-11, 07:39

ZRH

04-13-11, 07:55

2003 on arfcom all anyone did was post pics of their new lightweight builds. That was also the year Cav Arms came out with their polymer lower. Then Blackhawk Down came out and tons of people were making Colt 727/CAR-15 clones with Aimpoints on the carry handle.

It's cyclical.

There are still pockets of people that insist a heavy pig like the SIG 556 shoots better a 6920 because there is less muzzle rise and "recovery between shots"

Though, I find that philosophy goes right out the window after a rigorous carbine class.
I know this post is a year old but people are weird. A lot of them cry about full power buckshot. You load normal 00 instead of reduced recoil and hear the cries of "omg there's too much muzzle movement."

rob_s

04-13-11, 08:01

I was on there back then, and I wouldn't equate that "movement" with what I've seen more recently. At least not here. In face, I would go so far as to classify that time period as the barfcom-driven lightweight movement and today as the M4C-driven lightweight movement.

What I have seen here over the last year or two mimics my own discovery: building a cool-guy internut gun is great, right up until you get out and shoot it (or carry it) for extended periods.

The movement there appeared more to be a self-licking icecream cone. Lightweight for the sake of lightweight, one-upmanship against the previous poster, etc. I myself recall getting caught up in it briefly before I came to my senses. and largely all fueled by the "KISS" people to boot.

ZRH

04-13-11, 08:23

Agreed. Like the "who can build a more authentic Mk12 SPR" thing that happened before or after that, I cant remember.

I've always preferred simple. The entire original appeal of the AR-15 to me was it's appeal from a design standpoint. The form of the basic parts are almost entirely derived from their function and the greater function of the rifle.

Stuff I consider extraneous though some people seem to really love: free float hanguards on carbines, bipods on carbines, VFGs on SBRs, two stage triggers on anything that doesn't have a magnified optic.[To be fair though the newer free floats have gotten as light as plastic in the past few years.]

I still think it's semi-cyclical though. CQB carbine is popular and available at the moment. Pushing the limits of the platform might take off if there were more training options available.

rob_s

04-13-11, 09:16

To address the portion appropriate to this thread...

Stuff I consider extraneous though some people seem to really love: free float hanguards on carbines... To be fair though the newer free floats have gotten as light as plastic in the past few years.

That's just it, and is in keeping with the original flavor of this thread. People mistakenly assume:

That free-float forends are only for accuracy improvments
That they therefore have no place on shorter-barreled firearms
That they therefore have no place on chrome-line-barreled guns
That they therefore have no place on "pencil" barrel guns
and that they are heavier than the stock parts they replace

#4 is what applies here.

The Daniel Defense M4 free-float rail is certainly one of the longest-running designs. I know that I had one on a carbine shortly after the ban expired, which means they must have existed prior to that for me to have known about them then.

The 7.0 length, to make things easy, weighs in at 8.5 oz. A set of Colt double-shielded M4 handguards, with all the mounting hardware required, weighs in at 9.2 oz while the CAR style weighs in at 8.3 oz with all mounting hardware. So here we have one of the older rail designs that actually weighs LESS than the legacy parts it replaces and offers MORE functionality.

Things only get better when you move to the 9.0 length and a bit more 'smithing. The Daniel Defense 9.0 length rail weighs 11.0 oz with all mounting hardware, a Troy flip-up front sight weighs 2.2 oz, and a low-profile gas block or shaved FSB can weigh as little as 1 oz. Combined this gives you 11.0+2.2+1=14.2 oz for the system.
A standard front sight base weighs 5.2 oz with bayonet lug, which when added to the 9.2 oz of the M4 handguards gives you a total of 14.4 oz. So again we arrive at an even greater still increase in functionality (more room for the support hand, more coverage of the hot barrel, more forend on which to brace the gun) over the 7.0 solution and weight savings to boot. Once you start wanting to mount things like lights, lasers, VFGs, etc. the gap only grows in favor of the FF handguard as it requires no additional parts while the legacy parts must be modified with bolt-on rail sections or FSB mounts that can weigh 1-5 oz. by themselves, let alone mounting hardware.

So, there is a fallacy that the legacy, plastic, parts weigh less. Using a more developed handguard design gets you greater function at reduced weight. Once you advance yourself 10 years things only improve further as you can save 2.5 oz off the 9.0 M4 rail by using a Troy TRX Extreme tub (which, of course, may suffer the same problem as the legacy parts when one wants to add to it, but sights, light, and sling-mount can all be added without additional rail sections, and solutions are coming online to direct-mount VFGs as well).

Scotter260

04-13-11, 09:27

I started there in 2003 and I believe that's when the M4 profiles were all the rage. Of course a Bushmaster HBAR carbine with a SIR was pretty hot stuff too. I must have missed the lightweight fad of the time.

Coming here more often and getting a lightweight helped me realize the practicality of them. I also started asking myself what I wanted to accomplish with my carbine/SBR - if product X does the same and is as durable as Y but is lighter, why not choose X? I'll admit to my having a desire to lose the weight just to lose it but not to the point of using specialized and perhaps less reliable parts.

Not everyone's going to be at the same place at the same time so I suppose it takes on the trappings of a fad.

Dunderway

04-13-11, 10:15

Reviving this due to a point made in another thread.

Have we gone too far? Has "lightweight" become the new "KISS", to be the purview of barfcom-picture-posters and those with alternate agendas? Has the trend morphed from trying to maximize weight savings while maintaining function to saving ounces at all costs?

I believe you are referring to my post.

I think that light profile barrels, CAR stocks, AimPoint Micros, etc. are good things. So don't think I'm ranting about a "trend" or whatever.

I haven't been around AR nearly as long as most of you, but I have seen good and very bad things happen in other industries due to weight obsession. It all seems to start with people posting pics of things on postal scales in the forums. It becomes a competition and people eventually run out of viable off the shelf products to save weight.

This leads to using titanium where steel should be used, plastic where aluminum should be used, and my all time favorite; drilling holes in things.

It ends badly.

ZRH

04-13-11, 11:54

To address the portion appropriate to this thread...

That's just it, and is in keeping with the original flavor of this thread. People mistakenly assume:

That free-float forends are only for accuracy improvments
That they therefore have no place on shorter-barreled firearms
That they therefore have no place on chrome-line-barreled guns
That they therefore have no place on "pencil" barrel guns
and that they are heavier than the stock parts they replace

#4 is what applies here.

The Daniel Defense M4 free-float rail is certainly one of the longest-running designs. I know that I had one on a carbine shortly after the ban expired, which means they must have existed prior to that for me to have known about them then.

The 7.0 length, to make things easy, weighs in at 8.5 oz. A set of Colt double-shielded M4 handguards, with all the mounting hardware required, weighs in at 9.2 oz while the CAR style weighs in at 8.3 oz with all mounting hardware. So here we have one of the older rail designs that actually weighs LESS than the legacy parts it replaces and offers MORE functionality.

Things only get better when you move to the 9.0 length and a bit more 'smithing. The Daniel Defense 9.0 length rail weighs 11.0 oz with all mounting hardware, a Troy flip-up front sight weighs 2.2 oz, and a low-profile gas block or shaved FSB can weigh as little as 1 oz. Combined this gives you 11.0+2.2+1=14.2 oz for the system.
A standard front sight base weighs 5.2 oz with bayonet lug, which when added to the 9.2 oz of the M4 handguards gives you a total of 14.4 oz. So again we arrive at an even greater still increase in functionality (more room for the support hand, more coverage of the hot barrel, more forend on which to brace the gun) over the 7.0 solution and weight savings to boot. Once you start wanting to mount things like lights, lasers, VFGs, etc. the gap only grows in favor of the FF handguard as it requires no additional parts while the legacy parts must be modified with bolt-on rail sections or FSB mounts that can weigh 1-5 oz. by themselves, let alone mounting hardware.

So, there is a fallacy that the legacy, plastic, parts weigh less. Using a more developed handguard design gets you greater function at reduced weight. Once you advance yourself 10 years things only improve further as you can save 2.5 oz off the 9.0 M4 rail by using a Troy TRX Extreme tub (which, of course, may suffer the same problem as the legacy parts when one wants to add to it, but sights, light, and sling-mount can all be added without additional rail sections, and solutions are coming online to direct-mount VFGs as well).
I put the comment about weight in brackets because it seemed worth mentioning, lightweight wasn't exactly the point I was driving at. The intended use or goal and the ability to achieve it is paramount. You are doing that analyzing the various combos for their total weight. Maximizing rail space and accessories with no specific plan is "extraneous."

I have had people tell me they want free float hand guards and a 14" HBAR barrel on their carbine with a 4 moa red dot, for accuracy. That would be an example of extraneous.

Hope I explained it better this time.

MaceWindu

04-13-11, 12:00

Eurodriver

04-13-11, 12:09

Eurodriver

04-13-11, 12:16

Goin' against the grain here.

Our grandfathers carried M1 Garands in WWII and Korea and never complained. Is a 14.5 midlength with a standard barrel profile that heavy? Really?

Garands were 9.5 to 11.6 lbs. Am I off base?

MW

Different tactics, you're not engaging 20 different tagets in 45 seconds with a Garand. The rifle spent shorter time up at your shoulder, but yes...carrying that bitch through Peleliu is not something I would have ever wanted to do.

You might be able to more accurately compare it to a Thompson M1, that son of a gun weighed over 15 pounds but still in regards to tactics it was mostly just to sweep out areas you thought the enemy was in. You weren't doing long range multiple target engagements with it.

rob_s

04-13-11, 12:41

Goin' against the grain here.

Our grandfathers carried M1 Garands in WWII and Korea and never complained. Is a 14.5 midlength with a standard barrel profile that heavy? Really?

Garands were 9.5 to 11.6 lbs. Am I off base?

MW

Go ask any one of those guys "if I could shave a pound off that rifle and not affect any other aspect of it but reduced weight, would you take the new gun?" and see what they say.

Identical function but heavier weight makes no sense no matter how you slice it. Yes, some people can drown in the minutia but they are going to find some kind of minutia to drown in regardless.

MaceWindu

04-13-11, 14:09

Different tactics, you're not engaging 20 different tagets in 45 seconds with a Garand.

That didn't happen in WWII? Sure about that? I have an OBR 16inch...and I don't find it "heavy". I have also run an M1A Scout in a class...I held my own. Jus' sayin'...

Just my POV. Carry on gents.

MW

carbinero

04-13-11, 14:23

Compared to its corollary in which mall ninjas hang more and more cheapness off their rails until they need a crew and/or tripod, I think the lightweight trend is more financially self-regulating. If you really want the ultimate in lightness, you need to drop for an SBR, and most guys who are ready to step up to that will become more informed in the meantime, or at least during the waiting period.

021411

04-13-11, 14:30

I love my two DD pencil/LW barrels that I own. While I do like my AR's relatively light (6-7 lbs w/o mag), I'm all about balance. Not too front heavy, not too rear heavy. Hell I'd tote around an 8-9 lb rig as long as it's balanced.

Moose-Knuckle

04-13-11, 14:43

I only own one AR to date, a Colt 6530 they I have brought up to standards. I prefer the light weight, nothing to do with fads in pic threads on gun boards. In another thread here on M4C there was a discussion on why the A2 was adopted with it's heavy barrel. Those in the know stated that it was due to Joe using the barrels of their M16s to break down pallets of ammo. Pencil barrels bend under such conditions.

ReaperAZ

04-13-11, 14:51

Since I won't be walking around for hours in the day or days at a time carrying my rifle I see no need for a "pencil" profile barrel. Others may have that need or just plain want a l/w build and I say more power to ya. But it sure is nice to see when rob_s starts throwing weights of setups out there. Real eye opener for me.

rezin23

04-13-11, 15:09

What kind of accuracy are you guys getting with your 16" LW DD middies?

FChen17213

04-13-11, 15:49

I bet there were "grandpas" during WWII who complained about the weight too. Like every generation, there will be a guy who complains. That being said, most people want to carry the lightest gun possible that will still get the job done. If you don't need something on the gun, most people probably won't put it on. For example, if you need a PEQ15 with your NODs, you'll keep it on. However, you probably don't want to put a monstrous Surefire M972 on your carbine when an X300 will do.

Rmplstlskn

04-13-11, 16:03

2010 may be the year of the pencil barrel, but I look for the day (hopefully in my lifetime) when primitive captured EXPLOSIONS of burning compounds with their resulting time delays and recoil impulses are replaced with synthetic tubes that emit powerful laser blasts with precision, rapidity and accuracy... Oh baby! :cray:

Rmpl

HES

04-13-11, 18:18

Well here my brand new pencil barrel

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/frontline_01/firearms/BCM/bcmmiddylw800.jpg

Sorry about the photo but I aint stickman.

Its a BCM 16" midlength (thanks Grant). Anyways why? Because I want my son (11) and daughter (Soon to be 13 going on 30), who are small, to have a more enjoyable time shooting our carbines. I'm hoping that the weight difference from our 6920 and CDDM4LE will be more their style.

HeavyDuty

04-13-11, 20:31

Yes. In the Custom Build forum there is a guy who used a 9mm upper for his 5.56 lightweight build to decrease weight. No iron sights, carbon fiber forend that looks like I could crack it by squeezing it, and to top it off instead of getting the lightest, most durable optic on the market....he gets a 12oz eotech. :suicide2:

How reliable is that thing going to be?

You sound offended. Why? It's pretty obvious it was meant to be a range toy, not a fighting carbine.

Not all my ARs are "serious".

SethB

04-13-11, 21:26

Our grandfathers carried M1 Garands in WWII and Korea and never complained.

Am I off base?

You are.

First, I would bet money that they complained, and loudly at that.

Second, I wear forty pounds of gear more than they did. They didn't have all the extra crap that we have today.

And they weren't in very good shape, either. Most WWII GIs wouldn't pass the current PT test.

TWR

04-13-11, 22:12

I will never understand the net...

The very first AR that caught my attention was an SP1 carbean complete with it's vinyl coated aluminum stock. Call it KISS or whatever, I liked it. Couldn't find one of my own so I settled for an HBAR. Different animal. Got a 6520 and it still wasn't just right.

I finally built 2 light weights only using what made more sense for me. Flat top (optics), CTR stocks (sorry but the old cheap CAR stocks suck), H buffers (carbine gas), one wears a Leupold 1.5-5 scope in a LaRue mount with Troy BUIS, the other wears a micro Aimpoint in a LaRue mount with LaRue rear sight. G2 LED lights in VTAC mounts give me everything I need, to do what I need to do. LaRue rails make it easy to attach light and stubby grip, the free float benefit is there, need it or not. I do use a 2 stage trigger in the scoped gun cause it shoots better than most, the Aimpoint gun gets a stock trigger. They could be lighter but they are perfect as is.

Dienekes

04-13-11, 22:30

Dunderway

04-13-11, 23:21

You are.

First, I would bet money that they complained, and loudly at that.

Second, I wear forty pounds of gear more than they did. They didn't have all the extra crap that we have today.

And they weren't in very good shape, either. Most WWII GIs wouldn't pass the current PT test.

There is also the fact that it was probably the best battle rifle of the time (sorry if I'm wrong on this historians), and they just accepted it for what it was.

When I enlisted in the Coast Guard we were actually still issued WWII style "jump boots" with a steel toe (boondoggers to Coasties). I just assumed that combat boots were heavy and sweaty, so I didn't complain. When I finally wore those out I invested in a pair of modern, light-weight Danners and was in foot heaven. I wouln't wear jump boots again if you paid me. Everything is relative.

knoxtnshooter

04-13-11, 23:33

The weight difference between the m4 and m1 seem to be over exaggerated.

If you take the book weight of the m4 and compare it with the high side of m1 weights then yeah, it can seem extreme (7.5 lbs loaded vs 11ish lbs loaded). But once you start adding all the crap that we have to attach things get a bit more even.

7.5 lbs loaded + PEQ15 + M68 + surefire 952 = 9 lbs

Then add any rail covers, BUIS, tape switch(es), sling etc. And all of a sudden things get much closer, more so if you start with a Garand that weighs 10 lbs loaded.

Can't wait til they give us the m4a1 barrel and add another quarter pound.

M4s are light weight. Until they're not. I'll take a pencil barrel, please.

ZRH

04-13-11, 23:43

I have a 16" LW barrel inbound for my M4gery now. Supposedly it's about 10.5 ounces lighter than the M4 type barrel now on the carbine. My first AR was a Colt CAR-15 with LW barrel and I always preferred the weight and balance. I'm frankly looking forward to the change. Less is more.

Um someone sold you a bridge dude. 16" LW is only 5~ ounces less than a 16" M4 (depends on brand). Think one D-cell battery.

Dunderway

04-14-11, 00:02

ZRH

04-14-11, 00:09

That is true. Not to derail, but is NV pretty much issued accross the board now? I only ask because I see people issued PEQs that I would not assume to be using them much/ever. Given the cost alone, it seems that these things are way more common than I would expect.
Yes, Army owns the night (can't say if this goes for Marines though).

Dunderway

04-14-11, 00:15

Yes, Army owns the night (can't say if this goes for Marines though).

I think that's awesome and don't mind my tax dollars supporting it. It just seems odd that we have another thread with DMs not being able to get MK77 while non combat personnel have multi $K NV devices on their carbines. After many years in .mil logistics, I guess I shouldn't really be surprised.

fhpchris

04-14-11, 00:16

Yes. In the Custom Build forum there is a guy who used a 9mm upper for his 5.56 lightweight build to decrease weight. No iron sights, carbon fiber forend that looks like I could crack it by squeezing it, and to top it off instead of getting the lightest, most durable optic on the market....he gets a 12oz eotech. :suicide2:

How reliable is that thing going to be?

Reliability won't matter when his eotech stops working and he does not have any irons.

ZRH

04-14-11, 01:38

........

knoxtnshooter

04-14-11, 08:02

All of our DMs are rolling m14s anyway.

Our company has almost 100% saturation of PEQ-15s. We definitely have 100% saturation of PVS-14s that hopefully will be replaced by fusion goggles before deployment.

We actually do a fair amount of night shooting. Almost every range is a day/night range, including qualification.

JSantoro

04-14-11, 08:44

Ya think that maybe you hens want to bring this back to center, or what?

ZRH, every Marine in the GCE is, according to unit TOs and the AAOs assigned to given systems, issued the following: an RCO, a PEQ device, and a PVS-14.

That's the end of that.
-Go start a laser/image-intensification discussion in the optics forum.
-Go start a Garand discussion in...whatever other subforum we have that fits non-AR-pattern museum pieces.

ST911

04-14-11, 14:48

Reviving this due to a point made in another thread. Have we gone too far? Has "lightweight" become the new "KISS", to be the purview of barfcom-picture-posters and those with alternate agendas? Has the trend morphed from trying to maximize weight savings while maintaining function to saving ounces at all costs?

Interesting questions. There are certainly those who are following a trend. There are also those that think that every ounce lost is a benefit in and of itself. Most don't realize that there's a point of diminishing return as you cut weight. A lighter weight gun will always be easier to carry and mount. It will likely be easier to do various disabled shooter techniques with. It may not be easier to shoot and perform various other techniques with, however.

Rather than solely being light weight, guns should be weight efficient. Have a sufficient amount of material and mass for the shooters intended purposes, but not an excess of it that will create detriment.

El Mac

04-14-11, 14:52

Interesting questions. There are certainly those who are following a trend. There are also those that think that every ounce lost is a benefit in and of itself. Most don't realize that there's a point of diminishing return as you cut weight. A lighter weight gun will always be easier to carry and mount. It will likely be easier to do various disabled shooter techniques with. It may not be easier to shoot and perform various other techniques with, however.

Rather than solely being light weight, guns should be weight efficient. Have a sufficient amount of material and mass for the shooters intended purposes, but not an excess of it that will create detriment.

Bravo.

Ya'll can keep your pencil barrels and win the ridiculous featherweight games.

crusader377

04-14-11, 16:34

IMO, after building a carbine using a 14.5 DD LW carbine upper, there is no reason not to use a pencil barrel on any general purpose carbine. The pencil barrel will accomplish everything that a M4 profile or govt profile can do and does it with less weight and more importantly better balance. By DD pencil carbine is lighter and better handling than my 16" M4 carbine. Here are a few pictures and this carbine weighs a little under 6lbs.

8116

Johnny Yuma

04-14-11, 19:37

wild_wild_wes

04-14-11, 20:36

Interesting questions. There are certainly those who are following a trend. There are also those that think that every ounce lost is a benefit in and of itself. Most don't realize that there's a point of diminishing return as you cut weight. A lighter weight gun will always be easier to carry and mount. It will likely be easier to do various disabled shooter techniques with. It may not be easier to shoot and perform various other techniques with, however.

Rather than solely being light weight, guns should be weight efficient. Have a sufficient amount of material and mass for the shooters intended purposes, but not an excess of it that will create detriment.

Most of us are not talking about eliminating the last possible ounce off the barrel. We are simply advocating returning to the original barrel diameter, which some pretty smart engineers came up with.

polydeuces

04-14-11, 21:03

Looks like I'll be the first one fessing up what it's really about -
I'm just getting too old, beat up and lightly out of shape, so anything to go easy on my shoulder, elbow and knees while keeping up speed and being able to beat out them youngsters is very good. It's not cheating right?:p

bvmbandit

04-14-11, 21:17

I like the old stuff. I used and carried it for Uncle Sam. My 1 in 12 twist 20 inch pencil barrel (or whatever you want to call it) can near stack rounds at 50 yards with 52 grain HPBTs. It also makes a good coyote gun.

MACE

indawire

04-14-11, 21:24

I got to admit, I've been thinking my next assembly will be with the smaller diameter barrel. Used to have one about 30 years ago, I recall that thing seemed as light as a lever action 30-30 and moved just as fast. Got enough lowers, just put a quality upper on and :dance3:

rezin23

04-14-11, 22:19

What kind of accuracy are you guys getting with your LW barrels?

crusader377

04-14-11, 22:25

First off I don't consider myself a great shot by any means and their are probably many members here that could perform considerably better but this has been my experience so far.

I have been extremely happy with the accuracy of the 14.5" DD LW upper. The accuracy matches my CD M4LE which is a 16" M4 carbine.

I haven't added optics on my DD upper and currently using a Matech BUIS but I did an initial 300M zero using the military style 25M zero target and shot a nice 5rd group that was smaller than the size of a nickel firing from a prone unsupported position.

After zeroing, I went to the 100M range and place some clay pigeons out on the berm and stapled targets on the backboard. Again firing from the prone unsupported position using iron sights and cheap silver bear ammo (Russian steel cased that cost $4 a box) I had no problem hiting the clay pigeons and placed the vast majority of my rounds in a 3 to 4 inch diameter circle.

I have absolute confidence that using good quality ammo and optics such as an 3 or 4 magnification ACOG and if I'm doing my job that the 14.5 DD LW should be able to shoot 1-1.5 MOA at 100M.

Although the accuracy is excellent the real selling point IMO is the quick handling, lightness, and superb balance of the carbine. Mine actually weighs 5lbs 15oz with Magpul MOE furniture and a Matech BUIS

ZRH

04-15-11, 01:44

What kind of accuracy are you guys getting with your LW barrels?
Calm yourself. Accuracy is hitting what you are trying to shoot. You didn't ask with what length or at what range or with what sights. Answering this question is speculation at best.

Eurodriver

04-15-11, 01:59

What kind of accuracy are you guys getting with your LW barrels?

With surplus M855 I can get about 25" groups.

Iraqgunz

04-15-11, 02:14

25 inch groups?

With surplus M855 I can get about 25" groups.

Iraqgunz

04-15-11, 02:18

Rezin,

If you want fast results go to Burger King or McDonalds. They serve stuff pretty quick. Otherwise wait until someone decides to answer your post.

Not everyone is obsessed with groups and accuracy.

What kind of accuracy are you guys getting with your LW barrels?

Dirtyboy333

04-15-11, 03:41

Bravo.

Ya'll can keep your pencil barrels and win the ridiculous featherweight games.

I agree. I have no interest in the pencil fad either. I like weight savings but a M4 is plenty light enough for me. I like to have a lil meat on my barrel and although I have no data I would think that the government profile would provide a lil more accuracy if a large sample was tested. If that's true I would rather keep the 5oz.

rob_s

04-15-11, 05:20

I would like to see some testing of otherwise identical setups in various profiles just to put this issue to rest.

What I find most comical is that the .625"-barrel detractors will point to the "reduced accuracy" without being able to quantify their assumption. Which is really all it is, an assumption. and then they'll feed it Wolf ammo and shoot it at 50 yards while resting the plastic handguards on a sandbag from the bench at the local range.

Molon got at least partway there. You can read about it here (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7NVgnz3uWKgJ:www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html%3Fb%3D3%26f%3D118%26t%3D486023+molon+pencil+accuracy&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com). For the ADD among you, average extreme spread of six 10-shot groups was 1.69" at 100 yards with the A1 profile 16" barrel.

ETA:
Reading some of Molon's other posts gave the following information but not all recorded on the same day, and unknown if all variables were identical or not. Numbers given are mean radius, which he seems to believe is a better evaluator than overall group size.
HBAR: .32"
M4: .42"
A1: .56"

Iraqgunz

04-15-11, 05:36

Here's what I want to know. This isn't a swipe at you. Who really cares? Seriously as long as you hit what you are aiming at does it really matter if you get groups that are 2 MOA or 4 MOA in the realistic scheme of things.

I would venture to guess if more people actually went out and did some shooting they might be amazed at what reality looks like.

I would like to see some testing of otherwise identical setups in various profiles just to put this issue to rest.

What I find most comical is that the .625"-barrel detractors will point to the "reduced accuracy" without being able to quantify their assumption. Which is really all it is, an assumption. and then they'll feed it Wolf ammo and shoot it at 50 yards while resting the plastic handguards on a sandbag from the bench at the local range.

Molon got at least partway there. You can read about it here (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7NVgnz3uWKgJ:www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html%3Fb%3D3%26f%3D118%26t%3D486023+molon+pencil+accuracy&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com). For the ADD among you, average extreme spread of six 10-shot groups was 1.69" at 100 yards with the A1 profile 16" barrel.

ETA:
Reading some of Molon's other posts gave the following information but not all recorded on the same day, and unknown if all variables were identical or not. Numbers given are mean radius, which he seems to believe is a better evaluator than overall group size.
HBAR: .32"
M4: .42"
A1: .56"

variablebinary

04-15-11, 05:42

I agree. I have no interest in the pencil fad either. I like weight savings but a M4 is plenty light enough for me. I like to have a lil meat on my barrel and although I have no data I would think that the government profile would provide a lil more accuracy if a large sample was tested. If that's true I would rather keep the 5oz.

Fad is not the correct description.

It's more of a realization that you can run a pencil barrel and gun wont explode after one mag, and you'll actually be able to get clean hits on a man sized target at 300 yards even if the barrel is a little warm.

While it's true some go pencil because it is trendy, I think for most it's the realization that lighter is easier on their bodies. People that actually engage in dynamic shooting, rather than bench shooting learn this real quick.

6 years ago, classes were populated with HBAR's because people wanted "durable and more accurate" barrels. There were few pencil barrels in classes, but the word got out, slowly but surely. As people shared guns and tried out each others gear, the pencil barrel became the darling of carbine classes. Doubly so for those that can't get SBR's in their state.

They just make sense, which has made them fashionable to collectors.

rob_s

04-15-11, 05:48

variablebinary

04-15-11, 05:49

What kind of accuracy are you guys getting with your LW barrels?

I'm going to wager your hit probably is exactly the same with a bull barrel or pencil barrel.

More people need to focus on conditioning their minds and bodies to increase hit probability under extreme stress, rather than worrying about sub-MOA accuracy under ideal conditions.

Here's a better question, if I flicked small pieces of gravel at your head, could you even get 5 MOA at 25 yards? I'm going to wager not.

It's an AR15, it's accurate enough. Who can say the same about the man behind the trigger under less than ideal circumstances?

rob_s

04-15-11, 06:02

6 years ago, classes were populated with HBAR's because people wanted "durable and more accurate" barrels. There were few pencil barrels in classes, but the word got out, slowly but surely. As people shared guns and tried out each others gear, the pencil barrel became the darling of carbine classes. Doubly so for those that can't get SBR's in their state.

I remember being that guy standing there with my flattop-conversion 6520 at my first class and hearing shit from other people about the "pencil" barrel and how the skinny guy needed the lightweight gun. I smirked with amusement as the days went on and the fatbodies stripped equipment from their guns and their gear as their fatigue increased. But hey! Their barrels were capable of 1/3 smaller groups than mine! Except that as tired as many of them were I could get into prone, make the shot, and out again faster than they could even get down into prone.

Dirtyboy333

04-15-11, 06:22

Some people do care about accuracy and shooting for small groups and yes, even with a fighting carbine. Who says you have to be on the "two way range" to enjoy the machine our tax dollars put In the militaries hands. And YES IT DOES matter if it's 2 moa or 4 moa. Accuracy is just as important as reliability and if you have a 4moa carbine but your aim on a bad guy at 200yards is on the outer edge of the kill zone you have a much higher chance of missing and who knows where that round goes. Accuracy and reliability go hand an hand and that's true in areas beyond the gun world. Accuracy is a form of reliability and even if the shooter isnt well trained he wlll still be more accurate with a more accurate rifle (all things equal) no matter what the scenario.

I agree with you Rob that we do need to have a legitiment accuracy testing on comparable barrels so we can put this to rest.

VB- I disagree. I think for the vasT majority it's a FAD. Now I know there are some serious people who actually pay money to take a course who really think that 5oz makes a diff to them. I will never spend money on a carbine course when I can train myself like I do and the gov. Profile has not bothered me at all.

Listen everyone else is expressing their opinions and my opinion is the heavier barrels are more accurate and I would rather have even the slightest edge in accuracy over saving 5oz on an already feather weight gun.

rob_s

04-15-11, 06:30

And YES IT DOES matter if it's 2 moa or 4 moa.
Oh, those are the numbers? With what ammo? with what length barrel? What make and twist were the barrels you tested? FF or not? Weather conditions? # of shots fired? # of groups?

I agree with you Rob that we do need to have a legitiment accuracy testing on comparable barrels so we can put this to rest.
Wait. I'm confused. I thought you had this information. Shit.

I will never spend money on a carbine course when I can train myself like I do
Hmm, starting to see the problem here. Let me guess, you're the best race-car driver (self-taught) and a BBQ expert to boot? Oh, and you satisfy women just by saying their name too, I bet.

I would rather have even the slightest edge in accuracy over saving 5oz on an already feather weight gun.

The problem is that you have no idea what that edge is, you can't quantify how you're achieving it, and so your opinion is based on... well nothing, actually.

rob_s

04-15-11, 06:33

If a lighter eight barrel, or whole gun, means a shooter can get through a block of instruction less fatigued then that means he'll also get more out of it. If it means he's less tired when he gets where he's going to take that... what was it, 2 MOA?... shot and has less weight to support to take the shot when he gets there it means he's more likely to get the hit he needs.

It's funny that the anti-lightweight crowd accuse the lightweight proponents of pursuing a fad independent of reality when it appears that they are focusing on a perceived accuracy advantage (that they haven't actually tested) independent of the reality of carrying, moving with, and shooting a gun. See VB's note above about making that... 2 MOA, was it? ...shot while someone throws pebbles at your head.

variablebinary

04-15-11, 06:58

I remember being that guy standing there with my flattop-conversion 6520 at my first class and hearing shit from other people about the "pencil" barrel and how the skinny guy needed the lightweight gun. I smirked with amusement as the days went on and the fatbodies stripped equipment from their guns and their gear as their fatigue increased. But hey! Their barrels were capable of 1/3 smaller groups than mine! Except that as tired as many of them were I could get into prone, make the shot, and out again faster than they could even get down into prone.

I've been there, so I know exactly what you mean.

My first couple of classes were taken with RRA Entry Tactical. By the end of the class I was miserable even after I stripped most of the gear off me and the gun.

I got my first Colt, a 6520 a few weeks later.

The more you shoot in a training environment, the more you learn about what works and what doesn't. Lots of things sound awesome when you shoot from a bench, or just pose in front of the mirror.

Iraqgunz

04-15-11, 07:15

Dirtyboy333,

I pulled those numbers out of my ass. Now here is my bet to you. I want you to get a target stand and staple a human sized torso to it and then I want you to put it out at 200 yards.

I then want you to get your AR and the flavor of the day ammo that you have, get into the prone and I want you to shoot the target center of mass with 10 rounds. When you're done, take a look at the groupings and then seriously tell me that there is going to be a major difference between some 2 MOA AR or a 4MOA AR.

It ain't happening. I'll tell you first hand that the person on the other end of those rounds is not going to know the difference between 2, 3, or 4 MOA when they are taking a dirt nap.

And since we're on the subject of absurdity I am not on the military and I am not doing security work overseas. So in the real world of the USA using my carbine for whatever purpose, engaging someone at 200 yards in a non-SHTF/ TEOTWAWKI situation is probably not smart or prudent.

So let's bring it down to 50 yards. Tell me at 50 yards the difference between the two is going to be significant.

And to close this out. I assume that you never put your hands on an M16A1. If you haven't you might want to. When you're done talk to me about the barrel profile.

Dano5326

04-15-11, 07:57

Haha hehe hohum

99.9% of the population had no idea how to fight, ****, shoot or drive (I'll disagree with Rob, a fair amount can BBQ.. well OK, grill).
1st hand experience teaching fighting, shooting, driving, and observing ego vested reactions to demonstrative performance gaps, is telling. I speak to unsolicited rants from my lady friends in other matters...

Realizing that folks don't know what they don't know, and setting hyperbole aside, perhaps an actual standard would do. A bit more usable than pencil good/bad, heavy good/bad.
Define a standard, for example; accuracy, schedule of fire before groups open, schedule of fire before temps reach xxx, weight, etc. Then cross the X & Y where you perceive your requirements lay.

Since individuals will likely not have the resources to do extensive, if any, testing, extrapolation of industry norms & understandings might do.

Thin thoughts
-"Pencil profile" served many yrs w/o issue. Meeting accuracy standards.
-Newer rifles, SCAR, etc. have gone back to the original barrel wall thickness for weight reasons.
-thinner barrels cool faster.
-less weight makes for a faster swing and less fatigue (grams make ounces, ounces make pounds, pounds make you dumb) Have a peek at the over burdened conventional mil, victims in uniform(victims of asinine bureaucracy that makes them carry too much crap) , semi-mobile pill boxes.. plodding about, constistently getting out maneuvered by abu badguy in flip flops, man dress, 4 mags and an AK.
-newer rifles often have free float barrels, so a thick heavy barrel to counter act a service match type sling in(who does this in real life?), or barricade bracing, not so relevant.
-one cannot carry enough ammo to overheat a carbine

thick camp
-barrel takes longer to heat up
-more weight is better for static deliberate shooting styles
-thicker barrel stiffer, compensating for machining stresses in the barrel warping, a can hanging off the end, etc., as it heats up
-if you see yourself really heating up a barrel with a full auto fire schedule, thicker heavier will be safer when catastrophic failure occurs

IMO 2 to 3 MOA will provide enough practical accuracy within the limits of human vision, generally used optics, generally used mil/LE ammo, and the dynamic nature of conflict. I expect to spank anything I see, fast, from 0-400 & I routinely see 1.5-2.5moa with thin barrels.

Most people will not be able to align dot, reticle, sights consistently enough do appreciate a variance of 1-4moa poi at distance. For practical purposes 100m and closer 6moa is fine.

Where does your X & Y cross?

Athirst5IoN

04-15-11, 08:10

I recently ordered a DD v5 from Rainier Arms. It was shipped yesterday evening to my local FFL. I realized that Rainier accidently sent me the Lightweight version of the v5. So I called Rainier and they gave me the choice of keeping it and them shipping me the DD irons (I payed for them for government profile v5), or shipping back the LW. At first I hesitated on my answer, because I had read peoples' claims that LW/pencil barrels had a decrease in accuracy. But I decided to keep the LW v5 and have Rainier ship me the sights.

It seems to me that the assumptions that a "pencil" barrels are less accurate are just that... assumptions. If am wrong, will someone please point me to a credible source that has actually done thorough testing to prove this?

I know with the DD lightweight barrel has the exact same specs as the gov profile barrel except 5 oz has been shaved off from the outside of the barrel. Maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I'm missing where that would make much impact on the accuracy between the two.

HeavyDuty

04-15-11, 08:23

For me, the appeal of LW profile barrels isn't the absolute weight savings but instead because it is the profile that I feel is most appropriate for my uses.

I shoot a HBAR just as poorly as a LW, so accuracy has nothing to do with it. No FA here in IL either, even if I could afford it. I don't need to use my carbines to pry open packing crates. Why would I want to lug around more metal than it takes to do the job when there is no appreciable benefit to me?

The balls-to-the-wall ultimate light weight builds personally leave me cold, but I have seen a few that could be fun range toys.

C4IGrant

04-15-11, 08:44

I have to laugh about the accuracy concerns. Most people shoot the cheapest ball ammo they can find (which is typically only capable of 4 MOA). If you do shoot high end ammo and are looking for groups, then you should be moving to a SS barrel. Note; there are chromed lined barrels out there that will shoot 1MOA or better.

Chrome lined guns are meant for hard use. 2 or 3 MOA is 100% acceptable in a fighting weapon.

C4

sapper36

04-15-11, 08:55

Who really cares? Seriously as long as you hit WHO you are aiming at does it really matter

Just my take on it

SpaceWrangler

04-15-11, 10:28

I agree. I have no interest in the pencil fad either. I like weight savings but a M4 is plenty light enough for me. I like to have a lil meat on my barrel and although I have no data I would think that the government profile would provide a lil more accuracy if a large sample was tested. If that's true I would rather keep the 5oz.

I believe you have it backwards. The pencil profile has been around for over 40 years. Like it, dislike it, it matters not. It's not new, it's a proven design, and after years of HBAR, A2, and M4 barrels, folks are re-discovering that the A1 barrel profile (of varying lengths) has value. It's not a fad.

The M4 barrel profile is another story. It is a fad. It comes on a lot a carbines besides the M4, semi-auto by a vast majority. From reading a lot of posts in the interwebz, most folks go for the M4 barrel for The Look. Not a lot of carbean shooters are ever going mount a 203 under their M4gery. Hell, most folks out for The Look have never even seen a 203, much less fired one or have a need for it. Those are the folks that will pick up a Tapco 37mm flare gun in order for them to complete The Look.

If you want a heavy barrel for heat-resistance and/or accuracy off the bench, then buy an HBAR. Truth be told, there's not a whole lot going for the M4 profile aside from the tacticool cutout in front of the FSB.

Eurodriver

04-15-11, 11:31

25 inch groups?

He didn't specify range or shooting position.

I took my new and only 14.5 LW with 4x ACOG to our island's 500 yard range and I average about 5 MOA with crap ammo in the sitting position. I'm fine with that.

John_Burns

04-15-11, 11:35

The accuracy loss from taking a 16” HBAR barrel and then turning it down to 0.650 behind the gas block would be immeasurable in anything but a dedicated benchrest rail gun.

The chamber/throat dimensions, throat/bore concentricity, bore diameter and condition, and bore/crown concentricity have orders of magnitude more influence on accuracy than barrel contour or weight.

It is simply no problem to make a Light Weight barrel (0.650 or so) that will shoot well under ½ MOA given proper ammunition.

It would be impossible to take an HBAR 16” barrel that was only capable of 2 MOA and turn it into a 4 MOA barrel by simply properly recontouring to a LW profile. I also suspect most carbines are closer to 1 MOA or under given match type ammo and an optic with a few Xs so are really quite a bit more accurate than anyone can really use under stressful conditions.

Combine a RDS and the type of ammo most of us can afford to shoot or any agency will supply in quantity (including any mass produced match type ammo) and any argument that the HBAR contour is more accurate seems to me to be pretty silly.

I understand the 2 MOA vs 4 MOA example was given to demonstrate that even that large change in accuracy would really not affect real world performance.

RyanB

04-15-11, 11:46

I do believe if David Tubb were to compare a stack of government and standard profile barrels the heavier barrels would be more accurate. I still use light barrels exclusively.

bp7178

04-15-11, 11:55

It is simply no problem to make a Light Weight barrel (0.650 or so) that will shoot well under ½ MOA given proper ammunition.

At what range is this happening? My issued Beretta shoots under 1 moa at 7 yards from the off hand posistion. Now granted, we're talking three round groups, dropping flyers and hand picking what groups "count". I would hardly call it a sub-moa gun. I have never seen a legit 10 round group from a LW barrel under 1 MOA at 100 yards.

Molon tested, with 30 round groups IIRC, a HBAR, Goverment profile and A1 profile Colt barrels. The HBAR had the tightest group, followed by the goverment, then the A1. There was much speculation as to why, effects of temprature etc, but the HBAR group was tighter.

In an email exchange with Daniel Defense, one of their reps told me the lightweight barrel shoots about 2.5 MOA, and the S2W profile, which is similar to the SOCOM profile, about 1.5 MOA.

There is a tradeoff that is taking place with lightweight barrels. For a tactical carbine, typically used within 100 yards, with a RDS, this tradeoff is small.

A huge problem is that people think they have sub-moa guns when they probably actually have 2 moa guns, because they fire a 3-round group once from a bench, using probably the only match rounds they will ever shoot down it.

ST911

04-15-11, 13:13

Can't say I've deliberately quantified accuracy differences between light barrels and other contours. I suppose I could shoot a 6720, 6920, and 6721 side by side for that, but even I don't obsess that much.

I can say that it doesn't really matter to me. In other training and exercises, I've verified that my light weight barrels are accurate enough for my uses. If I can put a stack of magazines on steel at 50-300yds, from a hot barrel, in a few minutes, I think I'm good.

I have a precision AR if I need to split hairs.

Athirst5IoN

04-15-11, 13:58

At what range is this happening? My issued Beretta shoots under 1 moa at 7 yards from the off hand posistion. Now granted, we're talking three round groups, dropping flyers and hand picking what groups "count". I would hardly call it a sub-moa gun. I have never seen a legit 10 round group from a LW barrel under 1 MOA at 100 yards.

Molon tested, with 30 round groups IIRC, a HBAR, Goverment profile and A1 profile Colt barrels. The HBAR had the tightest group, followed by the goverment, then the A1. There was much speculation as to why, effects of temprature etc, but the HBAR group was tighter.

In an email exchange with Daniel Defense, one of their reps told me the lightweight barrel shoots about 2.5 MOA, and the S2W profile, which is similar to the SOCOM profile, about 1.5 MOA.

There is a tradeoff that is taking place with lightweight barrels. For a tactical carbine, typically used within 100 yards, with a RDS, this tradeoff is small.

Possibly this is a noob/dumb question, but who/what is Molon. I will be sticking to mainly 100 to 200 yards with my DD 16" lw, but I would like to look up this test you are talking about so I can use it in my decision making in the future.

Thanks

TOrrock

04-15-11, 15:15

Possibly this is a noob/dumb question, but who/what is Molon. I will be sticking to mainly 100 to 200 yards with my DD 16" lw, but I would like to look up this test you are talking about so I can use it in my decision making in the future.

Thanks

A member here who has done some pretty serious testing on various barrels, weapons, etc.

https://www.m4carbine.net/member.php?u=16309

bp7178

04-15-11, 15:51

Shooting 30 round groups, the lightweight barrel was larger than both the goverment and HBAR.

One would speculate this shows the effect of heat on lightweight barrels.

In this thread; http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=468188

Notice the 5-shot group (which Molon typically tests with 10 round groups), the LW barrel shows outstanding accuracy, but open up more than the HBAR with higher round counts. It should also be noted, before every swinging dick with a LW barrel thinks his is sub-moa, these are tuned handloads, not factory ammunition. This is a huge part of the results. You'll also notice he tagged one of the photos with "Here are some pics of the best groups". Not all the groups, the average group, but the best group(s).

From the same thread on TOS...

In 1964, during testing for report number DPS-1471, the US Military conducted accuracy testing of production M16 rifles (which had the same barrel as the M16A1.) With the rifles secured in a machine rest, three 10-shot groups were fired (hmm . . . where have I heard that before) from 100 yards using M193 ammunition. “The average extreme spread of the groups ranged from 2.6 to 3.6 inches.”

For nostalgia sake, I fired three, 10-shot groups of IMI M193 off the bench at 100 yards from my A1 barreled upper. The average extreme spread of the three groups was 3.00”.

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=72761

The pic below shows the results of firing three 10-shot groups in a row from each of the displayed barrels in a semi-automatic AR-15, from a bench-rest at 100 yards using match-grade hand-loads.

Colt 16” light-weight (pencil) profile, 6520 – 1 pound, 6 ounces

http://www.box.net/shared/static/x7ykufvv3j.jpg

Colt 16” M4 (government profile), 6920 – 1 pound, 12 ounces.

http://www.box.net/shared/static/qhjpk4qlr3.jpg

Colt 16” HBAR, 6721 – 2 pounds, 3 ounces.

http://www.box.net/shared/static/3bnl8bdr23.jpg

http://www.box.net/shared/static/in8cal2pcg.jpg

….

I also wanted to address something people bring up about humping guns in a class. If I was buying a rifle for use within 100 yards, it would be one with a LW barrel. If I wanted to shoot ragged holes at 100 and beyond, it would be a medium profile stainless.

In dealing with fatigue and carrying guns/equipment, I think people over look a huge portion of the fighting system; the shooter. I think the vast majority of shooters out there would benefit more from cardio and weight training than getting a lightweight barrel and making posts on the internet.

MistWolf

04-15-11, 16:17

I would like to see some testing of otherwise identical setups in various profiles just to put this issue to rest...

No need to reinvent the wheel as we already know the answer. Decades of shooting smokeless powder rifles in search of accuracy and velocity has shown that barrel quality is far more important than it's diameter. A poor quality thick barrel will not shoot as well as a high quality thin barrel.

While the thinner barrel will run hotter, rifles with lightweight barrels don't tend to go from shooting 1.5" at 100 yards, for example, to shooting 4" when heated up. At most, groups might open up an inch.

Conversely, it's false economy to install a lightweight barrel if using a rail or mounting some optic or using some component that's heavier than it needs to be

I have to laugh about the accuracy concerns. Most people shoot the cheapest ball ammo they can find (which is typically only capable of 4 MOA)...

This

rob_s

04-15-11, 16:23

In dealing with fatigue and carrying guns/equipment, I think people over look a huge portion of the fighting system; the shooter. I think the vast majority of shooters out there would benefit more from cardio and weight training than getting a lightweight barrel and making posts on the internet.

Repeat this fallacy all you want, it's still a red herring.

First, multiple professional and seasoned warfighters have stated that grams lead to ounces, ounces lead to pounds, pounds lead to pain.

Second, no matter how you slice it, having a heavy object that does the same thing as a lighter object is just stupid.

Finally, and this has been repeated in this thread multiple times I'm sure...
Dismissing this as something for the weak or that people need to spend more time in the gym is irrelevant. Pee Wee Herman or Charles Atlas, you're governed by the same formula:
you can carry X pounds for Y amount of time. Increase X and decrease Y. Decrease X and increase Y. Period. Everybody's X and Y are different, but we're all governed by the formula.

rob_s

04-15-11, 16:28

Conversely, it's false economy to install a lightweight barrel if using a rail or mounting some optic or using some component that's heavier than it needs to be

I don't think this is necessarily true, but it's a common statement especially among the older crowd.

If going from an Aimpoint M4 to a T-1 means you can add an X300 and keep the same overall weight, then that's a good thing.

Same goes for the barrel. Saving weight in one place to make it up with useful accessories in another place only makes sense.

MistWolf

04-15-11, 16:31

bp7178

04-15-11, 16:49

Repeat this fallacy all you want, it's still a red herring.

You made a post about "fat bodies" in a carbine class. In particular;

I remember being that guy standing there with my flattop-conversion 6520 at my first class and hearing shit from other people about the "pencil" barrel and how the skinny guy needed the lightweight gun. I smirked with amusement as the days went on and the fatbodies stripped equipment from their guns and their gear as their fatigue increased. But hey! Their barrels were capable of 1/3 smaller groups than mine! Except that as tired as many of them were I could get into prone, make the shot, and out again faster than they could even get down into prone.

So these fatbodies could gain more from shaving ounces from their carbine as opposed to not being fat bodies? What would help me more, a few ounces on my gun, or 30lbs of fat off my body? I'm not dismissing the benefit of a LW barrel, but its lost if the shooter isn't capable.

Second, no matter how you slice it, having a heavy object that does the same thing as a lighter object is just stupid.

Look at Molon's accuracy test and tell me they do the same thing. They don't. You are giving something up. Now as to if it matters due to your tempo/type of shooting is another matter. If speed/lightweight is your goal, buy accordingly, if accuracy is your goal, then buy accordingly. I don't get the hangup.

To support your point-

I have a newspaper article talking about how common serious and permanent injuries our warfighters are experiencing that are caused directly by the sheer weight of the equipment they are required to carry

We aren't talking about sustainment gear, comms, food, water etc. This thread is about trying to save ounces off of the weight of a barrel. Saving weight is something that isn't lost on me. I just choose not to do it with my barrel.

MistWolf

04-15-11, 16:54

My point about the news article wasn't about saving weight on the barrel, but the rifle

Given the choice between two 8 lbs rifles, one with a 1.5 lbs barrel and a 3 lbs rail or one with a 2 lbs barrel and a 2.5 lbs rail, I'd choose the latter.

I agree with this- TANSTAAFL

crusader377

04-15-11, 16:56

Repeat this fallacy all you want, it's still a red herring.

First, multiple professional and seasoned warfighters have stated that grams lead to ounces, ounces lead to pounds, pounds lead to pain.

Second, no matter how you slice it, having a heavy object that does the same thing as a lighter object is just stupid.

Finally, and this has been repeated in this thread multiple times I'm sure...
Dismissing this as something for the weak or that people need to spend more time in the gym is irrelevant. Pee Wee Herman or Charles Atlas, you're governed by the same formula:
you can carry X pounds for Y amount of time. Increase X and decrease Y. Decrease X and increase Y. Period. Everybody's X and Y are different, but we're all governed by the formula.

To further support RobS point, countless armies from the mid 1800s onwards have studied the effects from weight carried on soldiers performance. All of the studies indicated that a well conditioned soldier can carry 1/3 of his body weight without much risk of injury and maintain a relatively fast march speed and good long term endurance. When weights exceed 1/3 of a soldiers body weight speed and endurance start decreasing rapidly and the risk of injuries increase drastically.

These results haven't changed over time and were confirmed by Armies from the 1880s to pre WWI German Army and WWII German Army to the 1920s and 1930s British Army and the U.S. Army in numerous studies post WWII and Vietnam.

Eurodriver

04-15-11, 17:09

MistWolf

04-15-11, 17:33

I don't think this is necessarily true, but it's a common statement especially among the older crowd.

If going from an Aimpoint M4 to a T-1 means you can add an X300 and keep the same overall weight, then that's a good thing.

Same goes for the barrel. Saving weight in one place to make it up with useful accessories in another place only makes sense.

I agree. The key to my statement is "heavier than needs to be". If a 3 lbs rail is 1 lbs overweight due to an inefficient design, replace it with an efficient 2 lbs rail. The rifle sheds 1 lbs with no compromise to performance.

If you have two flashlights on your AR (saw this at the range this weekend) it would be lighter if you removed one.

My belief is that if you add weight to your rifle, it'd better do more than just add weight. Your example about replacing the M4 with the T1 to allow the use of an X300 within the same weight is what I'm talking about. (What is an X300 and what does it do?)

If I have a rifle that's 2lbs overweight, 1 lbs in the rail and 1 lbs in the barrel, it makes more sense to me to replace the rail first

John_Burns

04-15-11, 19:10

At what range is this happening? My issued Beretta shoots under 1 moa at 7 yards from the off hand posistion. Now granted, we're talking three round groups, dropping flyers and hand picking what groups "count". I would hardly call it a sub-moa gun. I have never seen a legit 10 round group from a LW barrel under 1 MOA at 100 yards.

Unless you’re shooting 3 shot groups under 0.070” at 7 yds your Berretta is not shooting under MOA.

I am referring to 5 shot groups, not 10 shot groups and at 100yds.

I don’t doubt you that you have never seen a legit 10 round group from a LW that was under 1 MOA.

I would be willing to do a test in which you buy 5 HBAR 16” barrels and then test each for accuracy. You have to test with mil spec trigger and a collapsible stock.

Next you send me the 5 barrels and I will contour all 5 to a LW profile to weigh 1 ¾ LBS and then test again for accuracy. I will test with a fixed stock and a nice 2 stage trigger.

I get to keep any of the barrels that actually shoot better after I contour them.:D

I don’t care if you want to shoot 5 or 10 or 30 round groups.

If you actually think the barrel contour is the accuracy limiting factor in a carbine you might be in for a little surprise.

bp7178

04-15-11, 19:11

Given the choice between two 8 lbs rifles, one with a 1.5 lbs barrel and a 3 lbs rail or one with a 2 lbs barrel and a 2.5 lbs rail, I'd choose the latter.

I agree completley. I've owned two medium profile Noveske barrels, one with a DD Lite, the current with a DD RIS-II.

I've also went from a UBR to a carbine RE with a CTR in the name of weight loss.

My point about being fit wasn't directed toward soldiers. Those guys are held to a PT standard. Depending on your department/assignment, so are LEOs.

My issue is with guys who are not anything close to being in shape arguing for ounces. I've struggled with PT all my life, and I constantly work on it. If you're overweight, and live a very sedentiary lifestyle, exercise will go much farther.

I want the lightest most capable, within my needs/wants, rifle I can buy.

That wasn't a dig at Rob_s, I wasn't implying that he was somehow not fit because he doesn't want to hump an HBAR in a carbine class.

bp7178

04-15-11, 19:20

I would be willing to do a test in which you buy 5 HBAR 16” barrels and then test each for accuracy. You have to test with mil spec trigger and a collapsible stock.

Next you send me the 5 barrels and I will contour all 5 to a LW profile to weigh 1 ¾ LBS and then test again for accuracy. I will test with a fixed stock and a nice 2 stage trigger.

And what is this half ass testing method suppose to do other than empty my wallet? I couldn't think of a worse way to test anything.

My point about the beretta was more to illustrate the distortions people have when it comes to what sub moa is. Really wasn't meant to be taken literally.

There's no free lunch here. You are making a compromise, which for 85% of the shooters out there, will work to their benefit.

jmart

04-15-11, 19:26

And what is this half ass testing method suppose to do other than empty my wallet? I couldn't think of a worse way to test anything.

My point about the beretta was more to illustrate the distortions people have when it comes to what sub moa is. Really wasn't meant to be taken literally.

There's no free lunch here. You are making a compromise, which for 85% of the shooters out there, will work to their benefit.

Lemme guess. You're Senator Kyl and a member of M4 carbine.net

variablebinary

04-15-11, 19:27

So these fatbodies could gain more from shaving ounces from their carbine as opposed to not being fat bodies? What would help me more, a few ounces on my gun, or 30lbs of fat off my body? I'm not dismissing the benefit of a LW barrel, but its lost if the shooter isn't capable.

While true, fit and overweight shooters that are new to dynamic shooting tend to show up overly geared, with guns that are heavier than they need to be.

By their 2nd or 3rd class, plate carriers become rigs, M4S's get traded for T1's, M900A's become X300's and barrels go from heavy to light.

Irrespective of conditioning, a heavier weapon taxes the shooter faster than a lighter weapon, which is the biggest reason why lighter barrels have grown in popularity.

A very fit shooter will want to stay in the game longer mentally and physically if he isn't being bogged down.

If a person is bench shooting with a Big Gulp and Taco Bell next to them, then obviously it doesn't matter.

Dirtyboy333

04-15-11, 19:32

Well Rob I guess you got your "quantified" results from Molon in addition to the Daniel Defense email. Are you trying to say there's no trade off or are you saying it just doesn't matter? There is definitely a trade off. Maybe not much but your not saving much weight either and that is the original point I wad trying to make. Also AFAIK there is not trend in modern military weapons adopting the pencil barrel. Scar is the only example I know of. The 416 and ACR are not pencil.

IG I just did what you ask me to yesterday. And yes if you hit the person it doesn't matter what MOA but for my purposes whenever I'm shooting prone 2 looks much better than 4 and with all the weight put on reliability around here I'm surprised having the best accuracy as possible w/o adding excessive weight doesnt seem to mean much.

Also, all the scenarios mentioned in this thread on why one might want to skip the pencil all apply to me. I do shoot match handloads, I do shoot prone or from a rest to test extreme accuracy in carbines and I do shoot FA. So my needs are different and that's why I stated my preference in my original post.

And yes rob I have gotten girls off by whispering their name and I didn't have to pay an "instructor" to do it. ;)

Belmont31R

04-15-11, 19:43

Why are people setting up their guns/gear to get through a course and not what works best in the real world?

Dano5326

04-15-11, 20:26

Dirty333 Finger not on the pulse... The SCAR typifies US small arms developments forward. The Light & Heavy both have thin walled barrels. The over-engineered stupid heavy HK416 has a light barrel option (8oz reduction) as requested by select US customers. The Bushmaster ACR is not a military product.. but if you must know Remington MPG's ACR-offering, which may compete for adoption,has a lightweight profile and a magnesium lower receiver. So yeah, lighter weight is the trend since there is now a war, and the impetus for small arms development is now geared again toward fighters, not shooters... no longer in the hands of the yellow glass service rifle teams who brought us the m16A2 buffoonery.

Belmont.. what exactly is "the real world"? Roads traveled vary widely. A training class is likely the most peak of intensity experience, hopefully, most folks in America have.

And.. what the hell is wrong with Taco Bell, blasphemy.

Belmont31R

04-15-11, 21:01

I mean training how you fight. I see a lot of people setting up their guns and gear for the training course and not for how they would use the gun for whatever they are there to train for.

I think some people have turned 'carbine courses' into a game like 3gun. Setting up their guns to run drills faster at the expense of what works best when people are shooting back at you. Im not an expert on that, and don't claim to be but Im talking about running things like Surefire brakes to gain speed running drills. Or not wearing their duty gear in favor of light weight stuff. I think mil people should be wearing plates/helmets, LEO's should be wearing their duty gear, and I can show up in Crocs and a t shirt with groggy eyes. :p

Obviously in all the AAR threads I read everyone is dressed the same with the latest in vogue fashion, in vogue gun setups, ect, and some people are not training how they will most likely fight. Some comments in this thread about ditching gear like plates because it causes fatigue, choosing a barrel because its easier to get through a course with because a slightly heavier barrel causes fatigue, ect. I thought that was the point of training. Im not saying LWT barrels are not good because I certainly think they have their place, and my main AR is lighter than standard gov weight. Im just saying I wouldn't base my gear and gun selection on what makes things 'easier' at a carbine course at the expense of ability when it comes time to use the stuff for real, and I would want the training atmosphere to mimic why Im there to train to begin with.

I thought it was great today at the LT 3 gun I saw a shooter with his LEO duty belt complete with cuffs still on it and not the latest fashion setup.

bp7178

04-15-11, 21:09

Lemme guess. You're Senator Kyl and a member of M4 carbine.net

I'm not picking up what you're throwing down.

A training class is likely the most peak of intensity experience, hopefully, most folks in America have.

Hopefully.

My closing thoughts would be for the end user to pick the features that will give them the most confidence in their weapon system. I'm not arguing against lightweight barrels. Having selected the individual parts in my rifle, I chose to buy a medium profile barrel, and make an effort to loose weight in other areas. YMMV. I also wanted my personally owned rifle to be geared more towards long(er) range shooting, as this is where I want to apply myself.

And.. what the hell is wrong with Taco Bell, blasphemy.

Qdoba bitches.

jmart

04-15-11, 21:24

I'm not picking up what you're throwing down.

It's a current event news thing. And my lame attempt at humor.

Dano5326

04-15-11, 21:27

Well.. I will disagree with your tacti-coolness. Yeah, yeah train as you fight and all that. Pro's do.

But you don't strap on 250lbs of war shit and go sky diving for the 1st time... crawl, walk, run until your comfortable & then build level of required proficiency.

The reality is people aren't going to do stuff unless it's fun. Any proficiency garnered by active participation in courses, 3gun, whatever... is going to serve them better than "idealized" training they don't do cause it sucks.

Anything that gets folks involved in the shooting sports is cool by me.

John_Burns

04-15-11, 21:31

Here is a pic of a 100 yd cold bore shot with LW barrel today. (Lower left dot)

http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb428/GreybullPrecision/d5f946b4.jpg

I am well aware it “proves” nothing but I found it interesting.

The light wieght barrel allows me to get away with the optic and rail but keep the weight at 9 lbs with a 20 rnd mag.

This setup has proven to me that the gun will always hit the 1” dot if I do my part. I do not always shoot up to the gun.

Belmont31R

04-15-11, 21:42

Well thats why I said some people have turned it into a 3 gun like thing because its fun and just another hobby for a lot of people.

I wish more people would be honest about why they are there but I guess thats on them to admit to or not.

I shoot for fun, and because its a personal goal of mine to become a better shooter. I don't hide behind a pretense of training to be a sniper, CQB delta master, whatever. Obviously Im being facetious here but the point is making training courses a fun hobby while dogging on others (not you) seems rather lame.

ZRH

04-15-11, 23:49

......

Iraqgunz

04-16-11, 01:54

Seriously? We should all be aspiring to be Delta CQB masters. :D

Well thats why I said some people have turned it into a 3 gun like thing because its fun and just another hobby for a lot of people.

I wish more people would be honest about why they are there but I guess thats on them to admit to or not.

I shoot for fun, and because its a personal goal of mine to become a better shooter. I don't hide behind a pretense of training to be a sniper, CQB delta master, whatever. Obviously Im being facetious here but the point is making training courses a fun hobby while dogging on others (not you) seems rather lame.

variablebinary

04-16-11, 05:59

Seriously? We should all be aspiring to be Delta CQB masters. :D

Because who the hell wants to be a SEAL :ph34r:

MistWolf

04-16-11, 06:15

I don't think this is necessarily true, but it's a common statement especially among the older crowd...

Hey, waitaminute! Did you just call me old!?!

...My issue is with guys who are not anything close to being in shape arguing for ounces. I've struggled with PT all my life, and I constantly work on it. If you're overweight, and live a very sedentiary lifestyle, exercise will go much farther...

Heh! I see your point... Hey! Waitaminute...!

...some people are not training how they will most likely fight...

I'm not sure it's always a good idea to train in the outfit you're likely to fight in. It could be frightening. For example, I'm most likely to have to fight i the middle of the night after being woken up by a goblin kicking in my front door. I'd be fighting in what I sleep in and that wouldn't go very well at a carbine class. Especially since y'all think I'm old and FAT!

dpaqu

04-16-11, 18:37

Wow I just made it through this entire thread.

I'm glad someone brought up "fun". I like putting together AK rifles from parts kits. I also like shooting them. I recently bought a A1 parts kit and am really suprised how light it is. My only other AR is a NM A2 with lead in the butstock. That A1 is still lighter than my 16" AK's.

Now I've been thinking about doing a carbine class and at first thought I would do it with a AK. I'm mean why not? It's accurate enough and I can train around the ergo issues. But my AK is 7.2 lbs (arsenal 107cr) before I put my T1 and light on it. I've also relized that if kept wet my AR don't jam so why not go with an AR? What's really exciting to me is building a LW carbine that's tough enough to be mostly practical. Maybe not rifle push-up use it as a club AK tough but better than a SU16 tough. The new CHF chromed barrels are a big part of this for me.

I still have a lot to learn. Like what buffers to use with different legth middy barrels and whatnot. I will give credit to Rob S as his posts on here concerning his featherweight build have convinced me I can get lighter than my AK and still not resort to plastic fire control parts ect.

ABNAK

04-16-11, 18:42

Anyone know where to find a 20", A1 profile, chrome lined, 1:7 twist barrel? I built an A1 clone a few years back using one of CMMG's last ones to fit my description above. I'd like to find another to have on hand for maybe another similar build.

Kinda like the best of both worlds: old school, lightweight, full-size, but able to shoot the newer heavier ammo.

indawire

04-16-11, 21:32

Mistwolf said: "I'm not sure it's always a good idea to train in the outfit you're likely to fight in. It could be frightening. For example, I'm most likely to have to fight i the middle of the night after being woken up by a goblin kicking in my front door. I'd be fighting in what I sleep in and that wouldn't go very well at a carbine class. Especially since y'all think I'm old and FAT!"

I can hardly imagine the look on some goblins face when if he breaks in my door! The sight of some older, balding guy just woken up and running around in his birthday suit waving a flashlight and a Glock while trying to keep the GSD on a leash would make them run screaming out the door :shout: See - problem solved without having to fire a shot :D