View Full Version : 16" barrels
There seems to be much dislike for 16" barreled AR's.
But, shouldn't a 16" barrel be considered a good compromise between a 14.5" & a 20" ?
More compact than a 20", yet maintaining better velocity than a 14.5 " ?
Opinions ?
D.W.
Personally I like 16" as the best compromise. But I suppose it is all about personal preference, so if a guy likes 14.5, then 14.5 is the best for him.
tiger seven
05-23-10, 10:24
I've never seen much dislike for 16" barrels. :confused: 90% of the people I know who own an AR own one a 16" carbine or middy. 90% of the ARs I see for sale in gun stores have 16" barrels. If anything, it's the 20" barreled "muskets" that are unpopular. Or so it seems to me.
I agree that 16" is the best all-around for just about anything most of us need or want to use an AR for. 20" is fine for a target or hunting rifle, but they can be a bit unwieldy at times, especially indoors. Most people don't care to go through the added expense of getting anything sub-16", so the 16" barrel is where most of us wind up. And most of us seem happy with that choice. :)
Derek
A 16" middy is about as good as it gets. It's a great compromise between the 14.5" and 20".
There seems to be much dislike for 16" barreled AR's.
But, shouldn't a 16" barrel be considered a good compromise between a 14.5" & a 20" ?
More compact than a 20", yet maintaining better velocity than a 14.5 " ?
Opinions ?
D.W.
umm well i dont think theres a dislike, people dont buy cause everyone else has it. Or atleast id like to think that, people should be buying their ARs for the purpose.
And i would think a 16" would be a good compromise between 14.5 and 20, they dont make a 17''. What are you trying to compromise between the three listed lengths? its only makes sense, smaller length barrels will loose power and distance quicker then the longer barrels.
16" is probably the most popular size and all around best choice. Having said that I like my SBR and plan on building more in the future. It all depends on wants and needs. My 11.5" will do everything that my 16" will do at the distances I need to do it in.
I also recognize that if I am using it for anti-social purposes that I need to select the best ammo for that purpose.
I think the dislike for the 16in comes from the "looks" of the 16in barrel with 203 cuts, rather than the usefullness (word?) of it.
they're too big for no benefit. the 14.5 is, in my opinion, the compromise.. i wouldn't go longer than that for a people gun. 100m is farther than anyone not in a sniper roll stateside is going to engage flesh targets. even LE snipers almost never engage that far, let alone farther.
so if we're talking solely about anti-personnel "needs," there is none for a 16" gun. if you want to throw "fun," "hunting," "sport," etc, in there, then the conversation changes.
they're too big for no benefit. the 14.5 is, in my opinion, the compromise.. i wouldn't go longer than that for a people gun. 100m is farther than anyone not in a sniper roll stateside is going to engage flesh targets. even LE snipers almost never engage that far, let alone farther.
so if we're talking solely about anti-personnel "needs," there is none for a 16" gun. if you want to throw "fun," "hunting," "sport," etc, in there, then the conversation changes.
While I dont think they are to big, I do agree. The only reason to go longer would be a SPR type rifle.
I dont think there would be a 16in if it werent for laws.
16" is just fine for your average AR enthusiast, as others said its a great compromise for most shooting situations. I honestly wouldnt mind having a 14.5" barrel but I'm not going to go through the trouble of SBR'ing my rifle to lose a little over an inch. If I SBR it will be for an 11.5" or 12.5" barrel. Something like an MK18 clone.
RogerinTPA
05-23-10, 17:35
There seems to be much dislike for 16" barreled AR's.
But, shouldn't a 16" barrel be considered a good compromise between a 14.5" & a 20" ?
More compact than a 20", yet maintaining better velocity than a 14.5 " ?
Opinions ?
D.W.
Where?
Nothing wrong with 16" unless it's an M4 profile. Just does not look right. I still prefer a 14.5" with a perm flash hider for a non SBR.
The balance feels better, looks more balanced and handles better. IMO
All I have now are 16 inch mid lengths. Perfect blend of compactness, function, and feel. But that's just my $0.02 worth :p
Lucky Strike
05-23-10, 18:13
i've got a 16" recce setup and really like it although I have to admit if there weren't laws and tax stamps involved and I could just have what I want I'd probably go for a 11.5".
the recce is really a very specific-need weapon.. they're basically just shorter range SPRs, but just as heavy and almost as cumbersome. i see a lot of guys building/buying them for general use do-everything guns, "go-to," as a lot of non-go-to guys like to say, when it's WAY too much gun for anything less than a DMR roll.
I dont think there would be a 16in if it werent for laws.Bingo!
That says it all.
But still, I think it's a stretch to say that there is "much dislike for 16" barreled AR's." As others have pointed out, the 16" is really quite popular.
What's more, even though the 16" length is popular because of the arbitrary length set by the 1934 NFA, what would be alternative? Would the 14.5" length be the most popular? That length was selected due to the military's arbitrary requirements. So, it's always something.
Would the 14.5" length be the most popular? That length was selected due to the military's arbitrary requirements. The 14.5" barrel wasn't an arbitrary selection. During the initial development of the M4 they cut the barrel back & test fired it for reliability. The shortest they got before having problems was 14". They added a half inch to that to come up with the 14.5" specification.
I don't know whether or not they did anything to the gas system during the test
The 14.5" barrel wasn't an arbitrary selection. During the initial development of the M4 they cut the barrel back & test fired it for reliability. The shortest they got before having problems was 14". They added a half inch to that to come up with the 14.5" specification.
I don't know whether or not they did anything to the gas system during the test
what's your source? the 10" commandos were the first m16 carbines.
That length was selected due to the military's arbitrary requirements.
Sorry to derail the thread, but what were the requirements? I never thought about where 14.5 came from. Was it simply that it produced the velocity they wanted and any shorter wouldnt?
we dont usually get a consensus on how exactly the M4 was developed as it was, even from the colt history buffs. it evolved out of issues of reliability, terminal ballistics, and compatibility with the m203. i think colt just responded to the mil's requirements for a carbine m16 with an acceptable MRBF that would accept a 203- and colt produced the m4.
I thought that the 14.5in barrel was develop so a bayonet can be used.
Sorry to derail the thread, but what were the requirements? I never thought about where 14.5 came from. Was it simply that it produced the velocity they wanted and any shorter wouldnt?Well, as with others members here, I've heard a few stories about why the 14.5" length was chosen. One story was that the barrel must be able to mount a bayonet. Maybe I can't provide a an unimpeachable reference to that story, but the fact remains that the bayonet does fit on the M4:
Just right, ahhhh:
http://www.m9bayonet.com/images/colt-m4-m9bayonet.jpg
Certainly, the M1, M2, and M3 Carbines had effective bayonet mounts, so why not the M4?
However, even if the story is true about how the 14.5" was the most reliable length tested, there is still some arbitrariness involved. Why was the testing performed with a carbine length gas system? Obviously, that's because that was the system used in the Vietnam-era carbines. We now know that a mid-length gas system has many advantages. The decision to use a carbine length gas system was arbitrary and not based on necessity.
It's not clear how the choice of the carbine length gas system might have altered the choice of barrel length. But if the barrel length was chosen due to reliability, as some claim, then the gas system length obviously had some effect on the ultimate choice of barrel length, either longer or shorter.
Why 14.5" and not 14.7213" anyway??? Seems like an arbitrary number. Whole numbers and half numbers tend to be pretty arbitrary. Notice how most of the US-made weapons have barrel lengths in a whole number of inches? The original M16 barrel was specified at 20" not 19.736". The M1 rifle was 24", the M14 22", etc.
me ? i like the 20'' rifles.
only 4'' longer, im a big guy. hardly no differance between a 20 or a 16 for me.
my weapons have the shorter A1 stock's, or a six position.
heck ? i even put a DPMS .5.5 flash hider on my bushy M4, just to help kill the sonic crack.
peabody
exactly.
Ok, perhaps I should have said "some" dislike instead of "much".
SOME have no use for 16" bbls.
I see no hate, see plenty of folks who own both 16" and 14.5", or SBRs.
RogerinTPA
05-24-10, 11:25
Ok, perhaps I should have said "some" dislike instead of "much".
SOME have no use for 16" bbls.
All of my ARs have 16" barrels, two 6920s and two Middys. I have at times, tried to justify an SBR build over the years, but keep coming back to the overall utility of the 16 inch barrel. I may get one as a primary home defense weapon one day, but for now, my bed stand M&P45 with light, performs that function.
emfourbinator
05-24-10, 13:39
While I have a number of 16" AR weapons at this time, I would be inclined to lean most positively towards
the ArmaLite Middy, at this time. I is not the best quality piece I have, but it has a real appeal that is
hard to explain. Many folks here and elsewhere will explain the Middy appeal in technical terms, but for
me it is more of an emotional attachment. You could say that it's not a rifle or a Carbine, but uniquely,
a combination of the best of both! Only have one Middy right now, but there will certainly be more.
what's your source? the 10" commandos were the first m16 carbines.
I read it in an article about the development of the M4s. I don't recall where I read it as it was back in the 90's. I should have mentioned that in my original post, but I was doing a fast hit & run reply and was a little too terse.
This development was after the Vietnam era shorties which they used as a starting point. If I recall, they simply whacked an inch at a time
As emfourbinator so astutely put it:
"You could say that it's not a rifle or a Carbine, but uniquely,
a combination of the best of both!"
Maybe we should start calling the 16" middy a car-fle or a rif-bine. I too am curious about the 16" middy...I might have to try one of these mythical beasts.
arizonaranchman
05-25-10, 10:23
we dont usually get a consensus on how exactly the M4 was developed as it was, even from the colt history buffs. it evolved out of issues of reliability, terminal ballistics, and compatibility with the m203. i think colt just responded to the mil's requirements for a carbine m16 with an acceptable MRBF that would accept a 203- and colt produced the m4.
Probably the most likely reason right here... Practicality based on needs.
I like 16" barrels. Short and handy but not too stubby.
I'd better like the M4, as I have three of "em, but the middy does have a lot of appeal, and I
would think that would also extend beyond commercial developments and into real
military application. Has any manufacturer ever sold a military Middie to a foreign gov't.??
If they haven't yet, I would not be a bit surprised if they do soon. Wonder if SOCOM or
the like has ever tried such a thing. Should be something they could do with a C.O.T.S.
type purchase.
As emfourbinator so astutely put it:
"You could say that it's not a rifle or a Carbine, but uniquely,
a combination of the best of both!"
Maybe we should start calling the 16" middy a car-fle or a rif-bine. I too am curious about the 16" middy...I might have to try one of these mythical beasts.LOL! Actually, regardless of the length of the gas system, the 16" barrel is accepted as a carbine length. That makes the rifle a carbine.
Strangely, many military rifles prior to WWII with the barrel lengths of around 22" are considered carbines. One example is the Mauser Karabiner 98 Kurz
When firing identical loads, what would be the average difference in velocity when comparing 20", 16", & 14.5 " bbls ?
When firing identical loads, what would be the average difference in velocity when comparing 20", 16", & 14.5 " bbls ?
If memory serves me correctly it is around 200 fps.
ForTehNguyen
05-26-10, 07:55
When firing identical loads, what would be the average difference in velocity when comparing 20", 16", & 14.5 " bbls ?
when firing M193, I think the 20" is around 3250 fps, 16" is 3000 fps, 14.5" is 2850
An SBR upper will serve me better for HD purposes, and probably most everyone else here too. I don't need to make any shots beyond a few yards, so the benefit of greater velocity is not needed where as the length of the barrel is more of a drawback. 16" barrels may be artificially popular as the law dictates them as a minimum so that is what most will have.
kaiservontexas
05-26-10, 11:08
I think 16" is the most common barrel due to the law, just as many said. Think of this idea with reference to shotguns. Is the 18.5" barrel 12 gauge the best HD shotgun? I would think a 12"-14" one would be better suited for that purpose. Many of us, including me, do not own any SBR/SBS firearms; so, I lack experience in that regard. But when I am carrying the M4 or 870 about, be it in the house or out in the woods, I can see how a shorter barrel would be more practical.
I think it just depends on exactly what you want out of the firearm. I make due without an SBR/SBS because I have not felt the need to bother with the paperwork and tax. Namely because I cannot afford it at this time; so, that is subject to change. But I have to ask what are the legal implications in using a NFA device for self-defense? I do not think I have ever heard of such a case.
An SBR upper will serve me better for HD purposes, and probably most everyone else here too. I don't need to make any shots beyond a few yards, so the benefit of greater velocity is not needed where as the length of the barrel is more of a drawback. 16" barrels may be artificially popular as the law dictates them as a minimum so that is what most will have.
Very true, but the common man may be well-advised to avoid exciting a liberal prosecutor by using a class III firearm in a self-defense role, even though the police do.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.