View Full Version : Which Barrel Length?
No Bananas
05-25-10, 16:09
I will be shooting this one between 100 yds to 200 yds most of the time. Some from the bench, sometimes in a class or maybe (if I get enough time to practice) a 3 -gun match. After talking with the great folks at Noveske and here, I've decided to go with the SS barrel.
It iwll be topped with a 1-4x scope (likely a TR24 Accupoint)
spamsammich
05-25-10, 16:23
Having owned an Afghan with a permed muzzle device, I vote Recon. I hate having to destroy flash hiders when I want to change things around. Having a little extra muzzle velocity doesn't hurt at distance. If you have enough foresight to build the barrel out exactly as you would like and can live with for a long time, the Afghan will buy you a whole whopping 1.2" OAL on the rifle. It wasn't worth it for me.
Go with the Recon. I'd also suggest getting a scope like a NF 1-4 / 2.5-10 or a S&B. The Accupoint will be the weak link on that rifle.
No Bananas
05-25-10, 16:51
Well, I'd be saving for a long while for a NF or S&B.
Either with a TR24G will do - I'm a fan of 14.5" units, but the 16" won't be much different.
No Bananas
05-26-10, 15:27
Spamsammich makes a very good point. I also retain the felxibility to change hiders/brakes/adapters.
I have a Noveske Afghan 14.5 with a Vortex (pined) and I have a AccuPoint TR24G and I think it is the best setup I have used for a "recce" rifle. You are not going to get that much more accuracy from that extra 1.5 inches. It will make a difference when working in confined spaces, cars, buildings and so forth. I would also look into silver solder to perm attach the flash-hider. That way you will not be destroying it or damaging the barrel.
I have a Noveske Afghan 14.5 with a Vortex (pined) and I have a AccuPoint TR24G and I think it is the best setup I have used for a "recce" rifle. You are not going to get that much more accuracy from that extra 1.5 inches.
Ummm...
1) You are aware that a "Recce" rifle is specifically a 16" barreled rifle, right? It uses that length specifically because the M4 and SPR were not yielding the performance the Navy SEALs wanted. A 14.5" barreled rifle is not a Recce, clone or otherwise. A more accurate name would be an M4gery or M4 clone (however overused both are).
2) The difference in velocity between a 14.5" barrel and a 16" barrel is ~100FPS, depending on the load. I don't know about you, but an extra 100FPS velocity for 1.5" of barrel IS a big deal to most people. The only reason to go with a 14.5" barrel is for an SBR, in which case there are better barrel lengths anyway.
3) The extra 1.5" of space will make a difference? It's clear that he's not .mil or LE, as he wouldn't need the perma-pinned FH. Therefore, he won't be using his rifle in or around cars, confined spaces or elsewhere. In addition, he doesn't necessarily save ANY length as federal law requires the barrel to be at least 16". He MUST put on a FH or brake that brings the length to 16". Conversely, a 16" barrel doesn't require anything and he could install a thread cap to save on space. He's not necessarily saving any space with a 14.5" rifle.
Ummm........Again :)
To get all types of technical the term "Recce" is form the the SADF. They developed the concept and there is no standard barrel length. A Recon rifle is traditionally known as having a 16 inch barrel. I have know idea what you are trying to do with that one. :confused:
If you read is original post he is talking about a 100-200 meter rifle so the 1.5 inches will not make that much difference, especially with the optic that he wants. If WERE that big of a issue than an 18 inch barrel would be the way to go and this question would have never been asked because they would have learned that at a MIL school.
What I was talking about confined spaces are homes and cars. Stuff that we all have, MIL or not. Most shooting classes do a little of both now days. He stated that he wants to do some three gun stuff, if he can. most of those people run some kind of break, so a barrel cap would not meet his needs. Therefore it is a 1.5 inch issue again.
You might think that a 16 inch barrel is the true way to go for all things, I do not. I do think that a 14.5 is better for the build that he wants. I am not sure if you were tying to play stump-the-chump or what but your post was off and borderline rude.
Ummm........Again :)
To get all types of technical the term "Recce" is form the the SADF. They developed the concept and there is no standard barrel length. A Recon rifle is traditionally known as having a 16 inch barrel. I have know idea what you are trying to do with that one.
If you read is original post he is talking about a 100-200 meter rifle so the 1.5 inches will not make that much difference, especially with the optic that he wants. If WERE that big of a issue than an 18 inch barrel would be the way to go and this question would have never been asked because they would have learned that at a MIL school.
What I was talking about confined spaces are homes and cars. Stuff that we all have, MIL or not. Most shooting classes do a little of both now days. He stated that he wants to do some three gun stuff, if he can. most of those people run some kind of break, so a barrel cap would not meet his needs. Therefore it is a 1.5 inch issue again.
You might think that a 16 inch barrel is the true way to go for all things, I do not. I do think that a 14.5 is better for the build that he wants. I am not sure if you were tying to play stump-the-chump or what but your post was off and borderline rude.
First off, your first sentence is missing a word (or has a misspelled one), so I have no idea what you're saying in regards to the SADF.
The "Recce" rifle is a rifle with a specific barrel, namely a 16" barrel with a carbine-length gas system. Civvies tend to prefer them with mid-length gas systems, but the barrel is ALWAYS a 16" length. It's not a concept as you seem to believe - it's a rifle built with a specific barrel, namely a 16" Lilja Precision blank chambered by Compass Lake.
The extra 1.5" barrel also makes a huge difference, as he said he'd be shooting from 100-200yds "most of the time." If you had actually read his other threads, you'd have seen that he said he wanted to, quote, "... be able to shoot groups out to 300 yds from the bench (http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=54395)." With this in mind, the extra 100FPS of gained velocity affects the making of "small groups." It also means he needs less holdover and therefore will have more repeatability. You mentioned MIL school? Then you should know that the less required holdover, the better for precision and repeatability.
In regards to your 18" barrel, you still miss the mark. The Noveske 14.5 and 16" barrels have similar contours, so there is little weight gain. The 18" SPR barrels add significantly more weight due to their profile, so it's not simply a matter of adding an extra 2" of barrel.
In addition, you only gain 50-75 FPS going from 16" to 18", whereas you gain 75-95 FPS going from 14.5 to 16". 16-17" of barrel is the sweetspot for length vs FPS.
You brought up his potential need for a brake for 3-gun. You can easily swap those out on a 16" barrel - not so with a pinned brake on a 14.5" barrel. Sure, he could have Noveske pin/solder a brake on on a barrel he's never used before on a gun he's never shot before. He's limited to the brakes that Noveske offers and, of those, only ones that are 1.5" or longer. If he doesn't like it, he's going to pay dearly if he wishes to change it out. Or... he could simply get a 16" barrel and swap it out himself.
Last but not least, the 16" midlength is MUCH more conducive to making precision groups due to its softer recoil, especially when coupled with a brake, and is most definitely better suited to 3-gun competitions. The midlength gas system is also easier on the rifle compared to a carbine gas system. It is also inherently more accurate with its longer site radius (if using irons). With all of this in mind, there's no logical reason for him to get a 14.5" barrel unless he specifically needs a 14.5" rifle.
I don't think a 16" barrel is the answer to everything. There are certainly better AR's for precision and much better lengths for CQB. However, it is objectively the best all-around non-NFA barrel-length, especially if you're limited to one AR. Once you factor in the NFA restrictions if you choose not to SBR your lower, it becomes a no-brainer.
I will be shooting this one between 100 yds to 200 yds most of the time. Some from the bench, sometimes in a class or maybe (if I get enough time to practice) a 3 -gun match. After talking with the great folks at Noveske and here, I've decided to go with the SS barrel.
It iwll be topped with a 1-4x scope (likely a TR24 Accupoint)
I have both. From the above listed requirements in your post, it is my opinion that either would work. If it is at all possible, locate a retailer/ gun shop in your area who carries both and handle them. I have owned the 16" for roughly two years and just picked-up the Afghan recently. The only real advantage I could see if you plan on taking some classes is that the 1.5" of barrel weighs (according to Noveske's specs) roughly a quarter pound less for the shorter barrel.
As for the accuracy, in my sample of two, both are very accurate even with just iron sights. I would repeat what some others have said, if you decide on the 14.5" with the pinned flash hider make sure it is exactly what you want.
Also, on the topic of velocity the Noveske 5.56 stainless barrels have polygonal rifling which results in generally higher velocities than a standard chrome hard-lined barrel. Something to keep in mind.
As for accuracy vs. length of barrel, according to Mr. Noveske himself one of his more accurate (stainless) barrels is the 12.5" Crusader. If you have some specific questions or concerns get in touch with Joel. I have found him to be extremely helpful and well informed (he tests many of the guns for the company).
Best of Luck either is a good choice,
SkiDevil
Mine:
http://i757.photobucket.com/albums/xx220/SkiDevil01/NoveskeAfghan023.jpg
14.5" Stainless Afghan Barrel
http://i757.photobucket.com/albums/xx220/SkiDevil01/NoveskePhotos0166.jpg
16" Stainless Recon Barrel
P.S. If you want specifics regarding an example of potential accuracy and representative velocities look-up/ search member Molon's posts. He has written several pieces where the rifle used was a 16" Recon barrel. He has a 14.5" Afghan but I am not certain if he has used it in any write-up's here yet or on AR15.com. You could PM him and ask.
BufordTJustice
05-27-10, 08:30
16" for additional MV. Accuracy potential and wounding potential become disconnected when velocity drops too low. A 16" barrel just gets you out further.
First off, your first sentence is missing a word (or has a misspelled one), so I have no idea what you're saying in regards to the SADF.
The "Recce" rifle is a rifle with a specific barrel, namely a 16" barrel with a carbine-length gas system. Civvies tend to prefer them with mid-length gas systems, but the barrel is ALWAYS a 16" length. It's not a concept as you seem to believe - it's a rifle built with a specific barrel, namely a 16" Lilja Precision blank chambered by Compass Lake.
The extra 1.5" barrel also makes a huge difference, as he said he'd be shooting from 100-200yds "most of the time." If you had actually read his other threads, you'd have seen that he said he wanted to, quote, "... be able to shoot groups out to 300 yds from the bench (http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=54395)." With this in mind, the extra 100FPS of gained velocity affects the making of "small groups." It also means he needs less holdover and therefore will have more repeatability. You mentioned MIL school? Then you should know that the less required holdover, the better for precision and repeatability.
In regards to your 18" barrel, you still miss the mark. The Noveske 14.5 and 16" barrels have similar contours, so there is little weight gain. The 18" SPR barrels add significantly more weight due to their profile, so it's not simply a matter of adding an extra 2" of barrel.
In addition, you only gain 50-75 FPS going from 16" to 18", whereas you gain 75-95 FPS going from 14.5 to 16". 16-17" of barrel is the sweetspot for length vs FPS.
You brought up his potential need for a brake for 3-gun. You can easily swap those out on a 16" barrel - not so with a pinned brake on a 14.5" barrel. Sure, he could have Noveske pin/solder a brake on on a barrel he's never used before on a gun he's never shot before. He's limited to the brakes that Noveske offers and, of those, only ones that are 1.5" or longer. If he doesn't like it, he's going to pay dearly if he wishes to change it out. Or... he could simply get a 16" barrel and swap it out himself.
Last but not least, the 16" midlength is MUCH more conducive to making precision groups due to its softer recoil, especially when coupled with a brake, and is most definitely better suited to 3-gun competitions. The midlength gas system is also easier on the rifle compared to a carbine gas system. It is also inherently more accurate with its longer site radius (if using irons). With all of this in mind, there's no logical reason for him to get a 14.5" barrel unless he specifically needs a 14.5" rifle.
I don't think a 16" barrel is the answer to everything. There are certainly better AR's for precision and much better lengths for CQB. However, it is objectively the best all-around non-NFA barrel-length, especially if you're limited to one AR. Once you factor in the NFA restrictions if you choose not to SBR your lower, it becomes a no-brainer.
As for the first line in you post I can tell all I need to complete this conversation. There is nothing misspelled. Look up the South African Defense Forces.
I will no longer hijack this tread by going down a road with you that you are not well schooled on.
I apologize to No Bananas for going down this road and straying off topic.
Back on topic:
Both 16 inch and 14.5 inch barrels are good for what you want. The one thing that you should know is that with a Noveske barrel (what ever barrel length) you are going to get better accursed than most barrels so you either choice will suit your needs.
i have a 14.5 afghan with a pinned acc blackout on it that if we are close you are welcome to come and shoot to make your choice
imho i like it better than my 16 in guns i do not have another afghan in that length just a knights but the 14.5 is a better rifle for me and am taking shots out to 550 yards with it no problems with ssa 77gr sierra OTM hitting steel everytime
you thinking that 1.5 inches of barrel is going to make you a better shooting is crazy and you should take some great schools ( i can recomend both tigerswan and magpul dynamics)
the advise i have received on this forum is fantastic and has helped me very much i found it on my last deployment and it helped me make choices about my load out and to buy gear that worked while in combat
i will be taking the 14.5 inch afghan on a contract i have that im leaving on very soon that im packing for right now just waiting for new plates to come in and a second upper so i can take a spare *also a 14.5 in afghan* the accuracy you can get out of this barrel is fantastic it is my choice for my go to rifle in hostile situations and my shorter nfa rifle and longer 16-18in rifles will stay in the safe
sorry for any misspelllings that might make anyone have a seizure
No Bananas
05-27-10, 09:47
I have both.
SkiDevil,
I think you've got the right idea. That is....get both:D. Wish I could. Lots of good discussion here. I really appreciate the input. I wanted to ask what Leupold optic you have on your rifles, and how you like it?
I also wanted to ask how the rifles balance out with the CTR stocks. I like the CTRs (have em on my SBRs), but I was thinking of a SOPMOD or UBR to balance out the barrel.
As for the first line in you post I can tell all I need to complete this conversation. There is nothing misspelled. Look up the South African Defense Forces.
To get all types of technical the term "Recce" is form the the SADF.
Sorry, but that sentence makes no sense. I actually tried to figure out what it meant for about 5 minutes before simply having to disregard it. I'm not sure if the word "form" is actually the word "from," or if the two uses of "the" are the same word accidentally used twice, or a second misspelled word. Try proof-reading before copping out of a discussion where you've misinformed the OP multiple times.
I'm not interested in going off-topic. What I AM interested in is the OP getting the info he needs. With people like you telling him that a 14.5" gun with a pinned brake is the best of his choices for 3-gun and that 14.5" rifles are Recce rifles, it's simply misinformation. Period. Having owned multiple Noveske rifles, I'm well aware of the advantages and potential abilities of each length and your advice is simply personal preference supported by BS.
No Bananas
05-27-10, 13:24
I have to say that I've never had so much fun trying to decide:D. Everyone's advice and opinion is welcome, and I thank them for it. I am leaning more toward the 16.1", but the Afghan is not a bad option at all...and it wouldn't be the first time that I leaned one way to decide the opposite:p.
Why go 14.5" and then make it 16" when there is a 16" option already on your list?
spamsammich
05-27-10, 15:08
SkiDevil,
I think you've got the right idea. That is....get both:D. Wish I could. Lots of good discussion here. I really appreciate the input. I wanted to ask what Leupold optic you have on your rifles, and how you like it?
I also wanted to ask how the rifles balance out with the CTR stocks. I like the CTRs (have em on my SBRs), but I was thinking of a SOPMOD or UBR to balance out the barrel.
At over 2lbs for either barrel, they do not balance out well with a CTR at all. SOPMOD, EMOD, ACS, or UBR would be a better choice for adjusting overall balance. If you choose the Afghan, I suggest you go with something like a DD Lite rail in case you ever feel the need to change rail lengths. All you have to do is pull the rail off and swap the new one on. I tried several lite rails before settling on the 10" for my Afghan based upper; 14", 12", and 10". I didn't have to take too much of a bath on the rails I didn't like when I sold them off.
At over 2lbs for either barrel, they do not balance out well with a CTR at all. SOPMOD, EMOD, ACS, or UBR would be a better choice for adjusting overall balance. If you choose the Afghan, I suggest you go with something like a DD Lite rail in case you ever feel the need to change rail lengths. All you have to do is pull the rail off and swap the new one on. I tried several lite rails before settling on the 10" for my Afghan based upper; 14", 12", and 10". I didn't have to take too much of a bath on the rails I didn't like when I sold them off.
+1. The Noveske stainless barrels have a distinct heavy-to-medium contour unlike the government profile M4 and pencil-barrel profiles. They are MUCH heavier and muzzle-heavy. At a minimum, I'd recommend an ACS for the stainless barrels up to 14.5" and a UBR for 14.5" and up.
I like the CTRs (have em on my SBRs).
You know... if you already have SBR's, why not get a stamp for another? Noveske will sell SBR's directly provided you fax them your approval paperwork. $200 is nothing to the overall price of the Noveske, plus they're engraved at the factory. You could get an NFA 14.5" or shorter and wouldn't be limited to the 16" OAL.
For me wanting what you want the Recon all the way. Not to say the Afghan is not a great upper I had one and liked it. Though I am saving for a Recon based upper right now. If that says anything.
No Bananas
05-27-10, 15:51
[QUOTE=Skyyr;666831
You know... if you already have SBR's, why not get a stamp for another? Noveske will sell SBR's directly provided you fax them your approval paperwork. $200 is nothing to the overall price of the Noveske, plus they're engraved at the factory. You could get an NFA 14.5" or shorter and wouldn't be limited to the 16" OAL.[/QUOTE]
I do have (2) AR SBRs. One has the barrel with 10.5". I got it before Noveske made their 10.5" Light upper. Otherwise that's what I would have got. Anyway, I have additional barrel length's stated in section K (as advised by ATF-NFA Branch). This include's a 14.5". I guess, I could eventually get a 14.5" upper from Noveske for it. But i've got the lower set up for a light fighter w/ a standard trigger. It does make sense to have a great trigger with a Noveske Upper and (as stated on pg.1) a heavier stock to balance things out.
On a realted note, my other SBR is a 12.5" w/ Denny's Operator barrel that I had ADCO put together. They did great work. I really like Denny's Operator barrel. I wonder why he stopped selling/making them. I had to wait like six months for mine, and it was worth every second of waiting.
SkiDevil,
I think you've got the right idea. That is....get both:D. Wish I could. Lots of good discussion here. I really appreciate the input. I wanted to ask what Leupold optic you have on your rifles, and how you like it?
I also wanted to ask how the rifles balance out with the CTR stocks. I like the CTRs (have em on my SBRs), but I was thinking of a SOPMOD or UBR to balance out the barrel.
The optic is a Leupold Ultra-light weight model: FX 2.5x20mm with the Wide Duplex Reticle. It is a really nice/ simple scope and works well out to several hundred yards for shooting steel plates and varmints, but definitely not a target scope.
I wanted a very light and simple scope that was sturdy and easy to shoot. The Wide Duplex works well and the eye relief is approx. 5", which is more than any other standard type scope I could find.
It is extremely fast up close and the eye relief allows for shooting with both eyes open. I have used it well past 300 yards on a variety of targets. And shot with the scope at dusk and in near dark conditions, the reticle is still easy for me to pick-up. For the money it is a solid little scope and weighs roughly 7-8 ounces, according to Leupold. I mounted it with an American Defense Recon mount.
Links:
http://swfa.com/Leupold-25x20-FX-II-Ultralight-Riflescope-P3263.aspx
A few other Leupold choices, similar
http://swfa.com/Leupold-VX-3-VX-3L-Riflescopes-C1695.aspx
The rifles with a Magpul CTR stock are both muzzle heavy. If you want a more balanced gun then a UBR or the Voltr E-Mod may be a better choice. My experience with both of those stocks is limited and I have not mounted-one on either of my two rifles pictured.
I decided on the CTR because I have several rifles and wanted to stick with the same stock, and other furniture (mostly Tango Down and Magpul for all of my guns/ bought spare parts). I also like the fact that the stock locks-up very solidly and is a simple design.
The best suggestion I have is to see if there is someone in your area/ local range who may help you try-out a few different stocks before deciding. Also, check-out member Jeff aka (search) USMC03's primer on stock selection it may be useful for your decision.
Personally, I like my rifles muzzle-heavy. But that's just me. I tend to shoot mostly (80%) off-hand and it works well in that regard.
Take your time looking around (you may also stumble across a great deal from a private party, I have seen a few complete rifles and uppers for sale lately).
It sounds like you already have a few rifles. In your poll, I voted for the 16" because if you are looking to punch paper, then the 16" barrel might be a better choice. But like some others have already stated, either would work well.
The SWS rails are heavy so if weight is a factor the non-pinned FH on the Recon would allow the versatility to switch-out to a lighter model like a Daniel Defense Lite Rail or one of the VTAC type aluminum/ or carbon fiber tube designs.
Finally, just keep in mind that these rifles are not light. Both of mine pictured are roughly 10.5 pounds with a loaded 30 round magazine (P-mag or HK steel mag). If you add a large/ heavy optic, it will probably get closer to 11 or 12 Lbs.
Have fun deciding:p
SkiDevil
P.S. Regarding optics, I am planning on purchasing a variable powered scope and an ACOG. The two that I am strongly leaning towards right now are the Night Force 2.5x10 24mm and the ACOG TA33 R. The ACOG for the 14.5" and the NF for the 16".
I too am having a hard time deciding. In the mean time, I am waiting for another ADM mount and will be putting a Leupold 3x9 on the 16" for the moment. I am waiting because supposedly a few new scopes will be coming-out in the near future 1x8, etc.
P.S. Regarding optics, I am planning on purchasing a variable powered scope and an ACOG. The two that I am strongly leaning towards right now are the Night Force 2.5x10 24mm and the ACOG TA33 R. The ACOG for the 14.5" and the NF for the 16".
That's how I have my Recon set up - 2.5-10x24 Mil/Mil in a NF Unimount. SPR-like accuracy while having a carbine's handling. Only thing I would change/add is potentially a T-1 in an offset 1 o'clock mount.
You're right, though. They're heavy. Mine came in just around 11lbs with optics.
No Bananas
05-28-10, 09:29
That's how I have my Recon set up - 2.5-10x24 Mil/Mil in a NF Unimount. SPR-like accuracy while having a carbine's handling. Only thing I would change/add is potentially a T-1 in an offset 1 o'clock mount.
You're right, though. They're heavy. Mine came in just around 11lbs with optics.
Damn it! Everybody and their mother keeps raving about that NF 2.5-10 model:mad:. I can't afford it:(. I suppose I'll have to save for it one day. So, I guess I might as well ask. What freakin reticle do you have on it?
Damn it! Everybody and their mother keeps raving about that NF 2.5-10 model:mad:. I can't afford it:(. I suppose I'll have to save for it one day. So, I guess I might as well ask. What freakin reticle do you have on it?
I've got the Mil-Dot reticle with Mil-Rad ZeroStop turrets. Also was one of lucky ones to get a model with NVD illumination settings.
You can still find them, no doubt, but the time to buy them was back during December - February, when they were widely announced as discontinued and retailers were selling them at nearly 30% off. I got mine with every available option for $1,115 shipped (retail was over $1,500). Again, you can still find them, but no where near as cheap as they were now that the availability for them has dried up.
No Bananas
05-28-10, 13:01
Is riflegear.com a good place to buy a complete Noveske upper from? I've never ordered from them. I ask because their prices are a little better (and they have other accessories I need that Noveske doesn't). This is a lot of $ for me. No, I don't plan on babying the damn thing. But I don't want to spend that much $ to get an upper that wasn't stored properly and has scratches galore, rust etc. It has happened to me before (with some other online retailers). Thanks for the help.
You wouldn't be losing much having a place build an upper for you - Rainier would probably end up in the lead for price.
I'd base the decision on what upper you're going to buy next - if this will be your go-to long range rig, or only Noveske upper in the forseeable fiscal future, then the 16.1" is abosolutely the better choice.
If you're going to be already saving towards an 18" or 20" rifle after this, then there's no reason not to go with a 14.5"
The Leupold MR/T's are a relatively affordable and similar optic - with the illuminated TMR reticle they aren't half bad. On an infinite budget there's a lot about it I'd change, but for the money they're extremely competitive optics. My 2.5-8x is a good optic at a very good price, and while certain not as good as the NF 2.5-10x34mm, it's half the price.
I really don't think you'd be disappointed in the effective long range performance of the Afghan 14.5" with a Trijicon TR24G on top of it, or even the 1.5-6x MR/T M2 from Leupold, would be very usable up close, and effectively reach out past 400m.
If this overlaps with your SBR guns for application, then go 14.5".
If your SBRs are going to remain your go-to items, and this needs to have more reach, then a 16" is the right choice.
My personal suggestion in that case would be:
UBR Stock, MIAD/MOE Grip, GSSA Trigger
16.1" SS Barrel, DD 10.0 Lite or VTAC 11.0 Extreme, SEI Vortex
Leupold 2.5-8x34mm, Vortex Viper PST 2.5-10x44mm, or pinching pennies for the NF.
JeepDriver
05-28-10, 13:47
16" Recon with the TR24 FTW
http://fototime.com/C8EA855A6CE6175/standard.jpg
No Bananas
05-28-10, 22:32
Nice set up, Jeep. What finish do you have on the barrel?
First, I voted 16" as I too do not like permanently attached flash hiders, comps... There is always something to change on a gun and the permanently attached flash hider makes it a pain.
Skyyr, I do not understand your comment that I quoted below. Just because someone is an LEO does not exempt them from the Federal laws. An agency could paper a tax exempt SBR but an individual officer cannot. Even the agency needs to file the paperwork. An individual officer needs to go through the same procedure as any other citizen. Also, just because someone is not an LEO does not mean they will not be maneuvering the firearm inside a vehicle, confined space... I am certain he will be maneuvering it somewhere, so your elsewhere comment is not accurate.
Ummm...
...
3) ... It's clear that he's not .mil or LE, as he wouldn't need the perma-pinned FH. Therefore, he won't be using his rifle in or around cars, confined spaces or elsewhere. In addition, he doesn't necessarily save ANY length as federal law requires the barrel to be at least 16". ...
Skyyr, I do not understand your comment that I quoted below.
Yes, what you said is true. However, I was stating it on a "as needed" basis. In other words, he doesn't "require" one, as if a 14.5" was indeed required, it would almost definitely be department sanctioned and therefore an exempted SBR. Also, considering he already has SBR's, it would follow he doesn't intend on using this specific rifle to the purposes mentioned.
I was using deduction and experience with the OPs other threads to sum up the uses of the barrel lengths in question, not make making a blanket statement that applied to all LEOs.
I would go 16'', velocity adds up, it's a few more yards of fragmentation, plus I'd go with a mid length gas system, more reliable, softer recoiling, easier on components.
That's what made up my mind. I'd go 16'' more so for the appeal of the Mid Length Gas System over the barrel so much... though the little bit more of velocity is always nice, IMHO.
I am building my BCM Mid-Length around close to intermediate range carbine usage, with 200m as my approximate max range, with somewhere between 50-150m being anticipated as the predominant ranges I'll be shooting at.
I expect it to perform well in those ranges, realistically with a higher powered optic, I imagine I could get out to 300-400m probably without issue, but, I'm going with the concept I first envisioned.
For 2'' that's a lot of difference because of the gas lengths, I'd go for a mid length, especially if your decisions are a 14.5'' with an inch and a half long flash hider or a 16 with about .75'' or longer flash suppressor extending from the muzzle beyond the barrel.
What kind of usage do you expect out of this gun? What're you trying to accomplish with this rifle, what bases are you trying to cover, etc.
ETA: After hitting submit, a different idea hit me.
I don't see a whole lot of appeal for the M4 14.5'', I'm sure it has it's place... but realistically... it was the shortest they could make a barrel and mount a bayonet to it, and it's been re-profiled with mounting a Grenade Launcher in mind.
Two things I will never use, and can never see myself using.
I'd go with the 16'' Mid Length AR. I don't feel the shorter barrel is short enough or significantly different enough to justify the shorter length/hassles associated with having a permanently attached longer flash hider design, lost velocity and I don't think the gas length is best. It's a fair trade if you're going down to a 12.5'' or 11.5'' or 10.5'' to switch to a carbine length gas tube... but I just don't see it when for a inch and change to lose that added reliability and flexibility.
IMHO. Not saying M4 Carbines aren't reliable, just saying simply... I don't see the point, I'd go with the functionally superior one (in multiple areas outlined above) over the one that might look better.
YMMV.
Is riflegear.com a good place to buy a complete Noveske upper from? I've never ordered from them. I ask because their prices are a little better (and they have other accessories I need that Noveske doesn't). This is a lot of $ for me. No, I don't plan on babying the damn thing. But I don't want to spend that much $ to get an upper that wasn't stored properly and has scratches galore, rust etc. It has happened to me before (with some other online retailers). Thanks for the help.
Rifle Gear is a well run and reputable company. I have purchased from them in the past and have not had any problems.
And all of the employees whom I have spoken with were fairly knowledgeable when it comes to AR type rifles/ parts.
That's how I have my Recon set up - 2.5-10x24 Mil/Mil in a NF Unimount. SPR-like accuracy while having a carbine's handling. Only thing I would change/add is potentially a T-1 in an offset 1 o'clock mount.
You're right, though. They're heavy. Mine came in just around 11lbs with optics.
I have looked at a few of the larger objective/ higher power Night Force scope models and was impressed. The seem very well built and appear to be a high quality product. The dealer just didn't have the lower powered scope models in stock.
How is the field of view with the scope at 10X (100 yards)?
Does the 24mm model perform well even with the smaller objective lense say compared to the 32mm model (if you know)?
What do you think of the scope and factory mount (is it quick release)? Any deficiencies (anything you would change)?
Thanks
P.S. With the weight of this type of scope/ mount, I don't plan on adding anything else myself (no RDS).
There are still some internet dealers with discontinued models. I found a couple googling the scope model/ name last week. The price seems to be around $150-200 less than the 1-4X model, depending on the reticle/ zero stop option.
How is the field of view with the scope at 10X (100 yards)?
...
Does the 24mm model perform well even with the smaller objective lense say compared to the 32mm model (if you know)?
The field of view is slightly narrow at 10x (the websites states it as 11ft/3.6yds), but considering that the only scenarios that actually require 10x are typically slow-fired, precision shots, you don't notice it much due to the nature of that type the shooting. At low power (2.5x), it has a slightly larger field of view than a 4x ACOG (44ft/14.6yds). The website reports the 32mm model having the same FOV, so I'd assume they're the same (I haven't handled a 32mm personally).
The big thing going for the x24 model is it's size. Compared to the 32mm model, it's 2.1" shorter and 2oz. lighter. The 32mm model, while better "on paper," simply adds too much length and weight to a Recce rifle (on an SPR, they're great - Trident82 has some good photos). There was a thread that covered the length of the two models and, on a Recce rifle, the 12" 32mm model was huge. Technically, the 32mm model has a 3.2mm exit pupil diameter, whereas the 24mm model has a 2.4mm exit pupil diameter. This will allow you slightly more light through the scope on cloudy/low-lit days or at dusk. If your gun can handle the extra size of the 32mm, then go for that model. Otherwise, the 32mm objective does nothing in terms of practical usage and a 24mm would serve you well. If you'll be shooting at dusk frequently, then it'd be best to go with a different scope altogether. The 24mm model is also smaller than most 1-4x optics. All of this power packed into a 1-4x-sized optic is simply amazing.
At low power, it's very fast on target for a precision scope, while leaving you a potential 10x of magnification for long-range shots. I typically run mine between 2.5x and 6x and only dial it up to 10x when popping soda can-sized targets at 300-400yds.
If I had any complaints, it would be the tighter cheek-weld required above 7x due to the 24mm objective lense. For taking out targets with precision slow-fire at range, it works great, but if you have to shoot on the move or engage targets located laterally from each other, then the moving tends to upset your cheek-weld and makes getting a good sight picture somewhat of a pain.
If you need a Recce optic that allows you to use the gun for it's intended purpose (engaging targets from 0-400yd with precision), then it's the perfect optic. It's only lacking in the 0-50yd area, but that's a shortcoming of all magnified optics. If you need a scope that you'll be running at 10x regularly, I'd pass and go with a different scope altogether, something with a larger objective lense.
What do you think of the scope and factory mount (is it quick release)? Any deficiencies (anything you would change)?
The scope itself doesn't come with a mount, but NF does sell their Unimount. I went with that model for a number of reasons, the main one being the fact that Nightforce doesn't endorse the usage of quick-release mounts. In a nutshell, they're not as accurate and mounts like the Unimount have a more consistent return-to-zero. Since this is a precision AR build and since there's potential that I'll be using the scope on a bolt gun later down the road, I opted to try it out.
It's a cross-bolt model and it requires torquing down the nuts to 68in/lbs. I purchased a Seekonk torque wrench set (a 15 in/lb wrench for the ring bolts and a 65 in/lb for the mount bolts) from Liberty Optics. It was $139 for the set, but I've already found other uses for them (the AICS bolt-action stock I'm looking to buy requires a 65 in/lb wrench and most scope rings require torquing to 15 in/lb), so it was money well spent.
As far as ease of use, yes it takes more time to remove the mount than flipping a lever, but not much. I just carry the 65in/lb wrench with me in my range bag (it's small enough to fit in a jean pocket). It can be removed and re-attached using the wrench in about 10 seconds. It does offer a few benefits, namely the design of the Unimount doesn't mar the rifle's rails (some don't care - I do) and I don't have to worry about inadvertently hitting a lever. Since it's a precision build, I rarely remove it in the first place.
The mount also comes with 20 MOA of cant built in, which is useful for SPR builds where you might be taking shots out to 800m. It's definitely a precision-optic mount and not for someone who swaps out optics multiple times during a range trip.
Hope that answers your questions - sorry for the long reply.
JeepDriver
05-30-10, 15:50
Nice set up, Jeep. What finish do you have on the barrel?
That's a BCM Middy upper, not a Noveske.
Not exactly in the spirit of the thread, but a great rifle none the less.
Hope that answers your questions . . .
Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed review of your Night Force scope.
Yes, it did answer my questions and I am certain that some other members will find the information useful as well.
There seems to be a lot of interest by many in this type of scope, particularly the NF model (2.5x10x 24mm).
crazymoose
05-31-10, 03:19
Go with the Recon. I'd also suggest getting a scope like a NF 1-4 / 2.5-10 or a S&B. The Accupoint will be the weak link on that rifle.
Disagree. With a 1-4, the superior clarity and light transmission of a higher dollar scope won't be especially apparent, and 2.5-10 is more glass than he needs for his stated purposes. Also, it's been my experience that the fiber optic reticle really shines for close in work when you have the scope at minimal magnification. Plus, no batteries to change, let alone a battery life measured in tens of hours.
Paraclete comes
05-31-10, 03:52
I own a 14.5 and love it, might not get that extra 75 fps but makes little difference to me when shooting at 100-300 yards. At that you would have more than enough imo. Having to pin your flash hider is a bummer but just get a god one to start off with and no problem later hopefully. Im issued a 16" at work but purchased a 14.5" for my side work and pleasure. I can not tell any significant drop in accuracy. As someone else mentioned "holdover" Im not sure what a hold has to do with it. Maybe a holdover is something other than a hold in my lingo. But going through school a "hold" is using a reference like the mil-dot to engage by factoring in wind or quick leads or distance.
Accuracy is consistency and there is no reason in my mind why a 14.5 would be less consistent than a 16"?
For your use I do not see a huge advantage to either one honestly, just minor options.
But lets all be real if you cant engage targets from 100-300 yards consistently with a 14.5 maybe you need to post less here on M4C and practice the basics of marksmanship. trigger control, sight picture and sight alignment might be good starting points, lol. :D
Paraclete comes
05-31-10, 03:55
As for the scope I think you will be fine with what you mentioned. I use a CQT right now and it works very well, also have an eo-tech with magnifier that works real good. But for that short range I would even use my Mepro 21 sight. I feel like 100-300 yards is such a short shot but I guess that depends on the gun and the target.
cheers
Disagree. With a 1-4, the superior clarity and light transmission of a higher dollar scope won't be especially apparent, and 2.5-10 is more glass than he needs for his stated purposes. Also, it's been my experience that the fiber optic reticle really shines for close in work when you have the scope at minimal magnification. Plus, no batteries to change, let alone a battery life measured in tens of hours.
It's not the 1-4x or the lack of the magnification range (a 1-4x NF works just as well IMO) - it's simply that the Accupoint triangle reticles are lacking for precise shots and obscure the target past 300m, while the German crosshair model offers virtually nothing for doping/holdover on longer shots. Some would argue that you don't need to shoot that far with a Recce, but keep in mind that the Recce was designed to cover the role between the M4 and the SPR. In my opinion, the rifle should be precise and on target to 400-500yds, after which an SPR should be used. Now if Trijicon offered a mil-dot reticle or a CQ/chevron/horseshoe/etc reticle with BDC stadia, it'd be a no brainer. Unfortunately, an employee of theirs (who's on this board) has stated it's a limitation of the scope design and that they can't offer BDC in their Accupoints.
According to the manual, the battery life in the compact NF models is 720 hours of continuous use on daylight-visible settings. NV settings obviously last longer.
crazymoose
05-31-10, 16:28
It's not the 1-4x or the lack of the magnification range (a 1-4x NF works just as well IMO) - it's simply that the Accupoint triangle reticles are lacking for precise shots and obscure the target past 300m, while the German crosshair model offers virtually nothing for doping/holdover on longer shots. Some would argue that you don't need to shoot that far with a Recce, but keep in mind that the Recce was designed to cover the role between the M4 and the SPR. In my opinion, the rifle should be precise and on target to 400-500yds, after which an SPR should be used. Now if Trijicon offered a mil-dot reticle or a CQ/chevron/horseshoe/etc reticle with BDC stadia, it'd be a no brainer. Unfortunately, an employee of theirs (who's on this board) has stated it's a limitation of the scope design and that they can't offer BDC in their Accupoints.
According to the manual, the battery life in the compact NF models is 720 hours of continuous use on daylight-visible settings. NV settings obviously last longer.
You do make good points about the reticle if longer range shots are a possibility.
I've been keeping my fingers crossed for a while now that S&B would release a version of the short dot with a horseshoe reticle w/ ranging stadia, something akin to the TA31H ACOGs or the reticle Burris puts in their 1-4. I like everything else about the S&B SD, but I just don't find the Mil Dot retcile to be very fast up close, and I think ranging stadia are perfectly adequate compared to Mil Dots when you're talking about 4x maximum.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.