I finally got my complete write-up of these two guns finished.
Before I start, a note about how I came to determine which parts would work for me.
I am neither high-speed nor low-drag. I do not carry a gun or shoot people for a living. What I do, and have been doing for the past 3 years +/-, is run and shoot in a monthly carbine match where we shoot anywhere between 50 and 200 rounds per match per shooter at distances from right in front of you to 120+ yards. In that time I've seen all manner of rifles, gear, accessories, and parts come through, and I've seen which ones work well for others, gotten a chance to try out their gear for myself, and gotten to test out some of that gear on my own rifles. In the past year I've also been fortunate enough to take 3-day carbine classes with both Randy Cain and Pat Rogers. These classes were approximately 750 and 1200+ rounds each (respectively). You learn alot about your equipment firing 1k rounds in 3 days. Randy's class also afforded me the opportunity to shoot my ARs out to 200 yards; something I had never done before due to the limitations of local facilities.
I learned in architecture school that the only way you can truly evaluate whether a design, or "solution", is successful is to know what the intent was at the beginning. "Form follows function", if you will. In other words, if a thing looks stupid but it does what it is supposed to do and does it very well, it's not stupid. As Pat Rogers is known to say "determine your mission and select your gear accordingly" (or something very close to that, my memory is not the best and I'm sure I've screwed up the quote somehow). So, in order to evaluate the tools pictured here, one must know the mission.
Mission
One thing that is universal among all of my rifles is that they are light. One thing I've learned from matches and classes is that standing around with a 12 pound rifle, whether slung or at low ready, isn't fun. No matter how strong you are, or how much of a he-man you are, you can carry a lighter load for a longer period of time. When I started out I assumed that I would have to sacrifice certain other functions to get this reduced weight. I have been pleasantly surprised that I can find gear that is equal-to or better-than some of the heavier alternatives.
The other things is that, wherever possible, I wanted to keep the equipment as close to identical as possible on each rifle. I want to see the same sight picture, feel the same grip, manipulate the adjustable stock the same way, etc. I don't want a learning curve when going from one rifle to the other.
Brown Rifle
The intention of the Brown Rifle is to have something with good terminal ballistics beyond 100 yards, with possible use out to 200. It's also a non-NFA (National Firearms Act, AKA "Class III") weapon so that I can more easily travel out of state with it to attend matches and/or training classes. The goal is to be able to hit a man-sized target out to 200 yards and have enough energy at that range for the bullet used to terminally perform properly. Ideally it would also be capable of making shots with even greater precision if required. This rifle is intended to be a "general purpose" rifle (as much as that is possible) or could be thought of as a "field" rifle.
Green Rifle
The intention of the Green Rifle is to have something that is potentially shorter and more maneuverable indoors than the Brown Rifle, and also to be a host for a sound suppressor without exceeding the overall length of the Brown Rifle. It is intended to be used as a home-defense carbine as well as a hog-hunting carbine. While those two roles appear at first glance to be totally opposite ends of the spectrum, I have found that my requirements for each are surprisingly similar. Light, compact, maneuverable, operable without hearing damage, quick to get on target at close range, etc. The intended effective range of this carbine is 50 yards and less.
Base Rifles
Both base rifles are Colts. Rather than get into a debate regarding "the pony", lets just say that at the time I started buying ARs for what I consider "serious use", Colt was the only one that was making what I wanted in a factory configuration. Since they use different sized fire-control-group pins than the other makers, I have decided to stick to Colts for everything in order to maintain uniformity of parts. The criteria I was looking for when choosing which manufacturer to go with were:
* .650" barrel profile
* 1:7 rifling twist
* Chrome-lined bore and chamber
* M4 feedramps
* Availability of factory SBR (more on that later)
Brown Rifle
The base gun for the Brown Rifle is a Colt 6520. The 6520 is a 16" long, .650" barrel profile, with M4 feedramps and a standard A2 carryhandle upper receiver. It comes with a 4-position collapsible stock, an H-Buffer, and an M16 bolt carrier. Since I knew that I wanted to add optics I changed out the A2 upper for a Colt M4 flattop upper but kept the light-profile barrel.
Green Rifle
The base gun for the Green Rifle is a Colt 6933. The 6933 is an 11.5" long, .650" barrel profile with M4 feedramps and an M4 flattop upper with detachable carryhandle with A2 sights. It is available from several vendors as a factory SBR (Short Barreled Rifle), which means that it does not have to be engraved like to do when you convert a non-NFA AR into an SBR.
Railed Forend
This particular piece of equipment seems to have become the most ubiquitous piece of gear that people want and is often the first thing added to a new rifle. They are available "free floated" where they are mounted to, or replace, the barrel nut and they are available in two-piece designs that basically replace the stock handguards and attach at the delta ring to the rear and the handguard cap at the front. I prefer the free-floated versions for the following reasons:
* Can be had longer than the stock sight radius and installed over a low-profile gas block (or shaved front sight base)
* Do not apply pressure to the barrel when pressure is applied to the rail as in resting the rail on something and/or tension from a sling
* Can be used, if needed to mount optics/lasers
* Are generally sturdier and more robust than the two-piece designs
In my mind there are two major players in the free-float railed forend game; Larue Tactical and Daniel Defense. There are others out there that are at least as good as these two, but these two are the most well established and the most readily available. I initially chose the Daniel Defense for one reason; lighter weight. As it turns out there are other added benefits. One of these is the ability to be (easily) installed over a shaved front sight base. I believe that the best possible gas block is the front sight base that came on the rifle because it is held in place by two taper pins. Many of the aftermarket low-profile gas blocks are held in place with set screws, and while there are methods of making them more secure, the taper pin holes are already in the sight and the barrel so all that is involved is a little time with a hacksaw/Dremel/file and some spray paint. So, I like the fact that I don't have to shave quite as much off to get the FSB underneath the rail.
I like to run my rails a little longer and cover up the front sight base largely for heat protection from the barrel when slinging a hot rifle. There is a balance, however, between covering up the barrel and adding too much weight.
Brown Rifle
Daniel Defense 10.0 rail. Extends one inch past the shaved front sight base to offer a little more heat protection and a slightly longer sight radius for the BUIS (Back Up Iron Sights).
Green Rifle
Daniel Defense 9.0 rail. Stops just in front of the shaved front sight base and allows the Ops Inc. 15th model suppressor to mount properly.
Optics
Optics are probably tied with railed forends for the most commonly purchased first upgrade for an AR, and the number and styles of choices in this realm are staggering. From 1x electronic sights, to 4x BAC (Bindon Aiming Concept), to the recent popularity of the 1x-4x illuminated-reticle scopes, (not to mention the cheap knockoff versions of each), it's easy to get overwhelmed with the choices. When selecting the optics it's critical to keep your "function" in the front of your mind when selecting your "form".
I have tried Aimpoints, Eotechs, fullsize ACOGs, and Compact ACOGs, and I find the Compact ACOG line to be the best fit for me. They are available from 1.5x to 3x, they are lightweight, they don't require batteries, and they are astigmatism-friendly. Most of your electronic sights (Eotech and Aimpoint, for example) have a tendency to bloom when looked at with an eye with an uncorrected astigmatism. I have an astigmatism so I prefer non-powered optics. There's also the benefit of not having to turn anything on, not having to worry about batteries, etc. The other aspect that is beneficial (see "Mission") is that both the 1.5x and the 3x are functionally identical, and the reticles are close enough to being identical so as not to matter.
Brown Rifle
Trijicon TA33R-8 (http://www.trijicon.com/user/parts/products1.cfm?PartID=557&back_row=2&categoryID=3). 3x30, 7 oz., red chevron ranging reticle calibrated for .223 and 1.9" of eye relief. Functionally the eye relief seems like much more, as I only have it mounted one rail space further to the rear than the 1.5x on the Green Rifle. The 3x is nice to have when reaching out a little further, but it does slow down target transitions at close range.
Green Rifle
Trijicon TA45R-2 (http://www.trijicon.com/user/parts/products1.cfm?PartID=185&back_row=0&categoryID=3). 1.5x24, 6 oz., red triangle reticle and 3.6" of eye relief. The lower magnification makes it faster at close range, but makes it a little more difficult to get precise hits at distance.
Optic Mounts
Optics need a mount. Even the Eotech, which is capable of being mounted directly to the rail, really should have a mount. There are many different options when it comes to mounts, but the two biggest categories are fixed and throw-lever. Fixed optic mounts typically have thumb screws, or allen screws, or some other method that should be tightened with a tool and then left alone. If you need to remove the optic for some reason you will need that tool, and the time to do the work, and you may not return to zero when you're done re-mounting it. Throw-lever mounts make it possible to remove and re-install your optic quickly and without tools while retaining your zero. The two main players in the throw-lever market are Larue Tactical (http://stores.homestead.com/Laruetactical/StoreFront.bok) and A.R.M.S. (http://armsmounts.com/), with GG&G (http://gggaz.com/) being a bit of an also-ran. A.R.M.S. is generally thought of as the originator, while Larue is the improver. A.R.M.S. mounts have no adjustability and only mount with one tension and only mount to rails that strictly follow the 1913 spec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picatinny_rail). The Larue, on the other hand, have adjustable levers that can be made to fit even out of spec rails and which are adjustable for the tension that the user wants. In addition, in the last year or so, Larue has added a locking lever to prevent the lever from getting bumped open which allows the user to set the tension at the proper level without having to over tighten it.
I used the Larue Tactical ACOG Compact Mount QD LT-105 (http://stores.homestead.com/Laruetactical/Detail.bok?no=31) for both the Brown Rifle and the Green Rifle. The Green Rifle has the older model without the locking lever, while the Brown Rifle has the newer version with the locking lever.
Back Up Iron Sights
If you're going to have optics, you need to have BUIS (Back Up Iron Sights). In both matches and classes I've seen people have their primary optic go down (most often an Eotech) for one reason or another. With a good BUIS (and assuming they've taken the time to zero same) all is not lost. Presumably the same would hold true if fighting with the carbine. There are probably as many BUIS available as there are optics. The two primary categories are fixed and flip-up. With the free-float rail extending over the shaved front sight, and with the magnified optic, the flipup front and rear proved to be the best choice for me. When using a 1x optic (like an Eotech or Aimpoint) I greatly prefer fixed front and rear BUIS, but with magnified optics they (the rear especially) can cause distraction and limit your ability to find the reticle.
Within the category of flip-up, there are those that are spring loaded, those that lock in place, and those that do neither. I prefer iron sights that lock in the up position because, among other things, they can be used as a good fixed BUIS if I change the optic out to a 1x. Anything else (springs, ball bearings, etc.) is just something that is waiting to wear out. I also want something that, at least for the rear, is as low profile as possible. These two requirements led me to the Troy Industries BUIS (http://www.troyind.com/sightspage.htm) BUIS that I chose for both the Brown Rifle and Green Rifle. The round hood on the front sight and the way it lines up with the aperature on the rear is also a nice feature.
Stock
Stocks, grips, etc. are very personal choices, and most often are chosen based on comfort as much as anything else (as well they should be). With that said, there are three major players in the aftermarket AR stock game; the Vltor Modstock (http://www.vltor.com/carbine-modstock.htm), the Magpul CTR (http://www.magpul.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=70_73_110&products_id=234), and LMT SOPMOD (http://lewismachine.net/product.php?p=32&cid=3&session=418dc733879e13e33270326412290e18). Of those, the LMT and the Vltor are the only ones that offer storage, while the Magpul provides the most wobble-free mount of all three. In addition, the Vltor and the Magpul weigh approximately the same while the LMT is both larger and heavier. I decided that I wanted to have battery (and NFA document) storage capability which limited me to the Vltor and LMT. The LMT requires you to remove the stock from the gun in order to access the storage, while the Vltor allows you to access the storage while mounted. That, and the lighter weight (again, see "mission" above) led me to choose the Vltor.
Vltor makes two versions, a "standard" and a "clubfoot". While I find the shape of the Clubfoot interesting, and in some ways prefer the lever on the clubfoot, the Standard is lighter so I went with that for both the Brown Rifle and the Green Rifle. I also strongly reccomend the rubber buttpad although not for recoil absorption but for the non-slip surface it provides when shouldering. Just be sure to slip a tie-wrap around it as it can and will get pulled off.
With that said, if I didn't want/need the storage the Magpul would be my stock of choice, and the buttpad is screwed in place.
Pistol Grip
Anyone who has spent any amount of time carrying or shooting an AR-based rifle away from the bench and the square range will tell you that you need to address "the gap". The gap is the space between the stock grip and the trigger-guard, and it will wear a hole in your social finger in well under an hour of shooting. There are many ways to address the gap, from grips that extend out to cover it, to trigger-guard replacements, to "the gapper" which inserts into the space, to wadding up a foam earplug and sticking it in there.
The second thing that most will find is that finger-grooves are a bad thing. The worst is typically the A2 grip with it's single finger shelf that fits almost no one's hand, and once you start shooting from non-conventional positions REALLY fits no one's hand. Then you have grips like the Hogue, the Ergo, etc. that have series of built in finger grooves. These are rubberized grips so they are better than the A2, but typically even these eventually just don't line up with a real human's fingers.
I considered two grips, and still consider two grips, to be the best options available; the Tango Down Rifle Grip (http://tangodown.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=31) and the Magpul MIAD (http://www.magpul.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=78_103). Both grips offer internal storage for batteries and such, and both grips address the gap, although in different ways. The Tango Down has a short shelf that projects out in front of the grip and that spans the gap, while the Magpul has either an integral trigger-guard or a separate replacement trigger-guard. The Magpul also has the ability to change our front and back straps to customize the feel of the grip.
I ultimately chose the Tango Down for both the Brown Rifle and the Green Rifle simply because it was the more comfortable of the two for me. Even with the adjustable parts of the Magpul it never sat just right in my hand the way the Tango Down does. The only way to pick a grip is to get out there and find someone that has one and try it out. No amount of internet research is going to make the final selection for you, but it may help narrow it down to two or three choices.
Vertical Foregrip
There is a move lately to eliminate the vertical foregrip for some shooters. Many of the 3-Gun shooters have gotten away from it. If you are used to shooting with a support-hand-on-the-magwell grip then you may find the foregrip useful. One reason is that the delta ring, or nut when using a free-float tube, gets hot after sustained fire and having that separate grip gets your hand off that hot part. Another reason is that it allows you to move your support hand position fore and aft as needed for better control of the rifle as well as to coordinate with other gear positioning like slings and lights. Many vertical foregrips are also available with internal storage that can hold a spare bolt, batteries, etc. There are many vertical foregrips to choose from. I chose Tango Down (http://tangodown.com/shop/index.php?cPath=26) because of the storage, the comfort, and the availability of two lengths.
Brown Rifle
For the Brown Rifle I chose the Original Length (http://tangodown.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=26&products_id=49) for a couple of reasons, but primarily because I wanted the ability to store a complete spare bolt. If this rifle is truly intended to be a "field" rifle, then conceivably I could find myself away from spare parts when I may need them. I like the peace of mind of having a spare bolt and firing pin in the grip.
Green Rifle
For the Green rifle I chose the Stubby Length (http://tangodown.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=26&products_id=58) because it's lower profile and I don't need a spare bolt for this rifle's "mission". The version I have is an older one where the cap is non-removable, but the new versions do have a removable cap which I guess would allow you to store maybe one Surefire battery. In my case I have battery storage in the pistol grip and stock, so it's a non-issue for me. The "mission" for this rifle is such that I would not be concerned with not having a spare bolt on the gun as I'd likely either be totally screwed if the bolt failed (home defense) or have an adequate backup in the 1911 on my hip (hunting).
Charging Handle
Yes, even the charging handle bears discussion. The stock unit is really intended for the "split finger" method of operation. Most schools now teach the "left side" method of running the handle, and most people find the stock lever to be a bit small for this task. The catch-22 is that if you go too big, like what a benchrest shooter might use, you wind up with something that can snag on all sorts of things, and poke the hell out of you when slinging to do a transition to pistol. This leads to finding a compromise between having it long enough to run from the left side, but not so long as to become a hinderance.
Precision Reflex, Inc. (http://www.pri-mounts.com) makes the Gas Buster (http://www.pri-mounts.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=PRI&Product_Code=05_0031&Category_Code=AR15_M16_ACC) charging handle. This charging handle is intended to deflect the added back-blast of gasses that come through the rifle when shooting suppressed. It also happens to include their excellentBig Latch-Military (http://www.pri-mounts.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=PRI&Product_Code=05_0041&Category_Code=AR15_M16_ACC) which is a fantastic compromise length and is well rounded off so as not to poke the shooter in all the wrong places. Since I knew that at least one of these rifles would be suppressed, I wanted the Gas Buster. Unfortunately the larger rear area of the charging handle can get stuck on the raised front rib on most adjustable stocks. Because of this, I filed off this front rib on both guns to increase the clearance a little bit and I haven't had a problem since. I also chose to use the complete Gas Buster on the Green Rifle only, and installed the Big Latch-Military in the stock charging handle on the Brown Rifle.
Sling & Swivels
In trying to find the perfect sling I have used everything from the basic webbing that comes with the rifle, to single-point slings, to 3-point slings, to 2-point slings. What I have found is that single-point slings leave the rifle to flop around too much when moving, 3-point slings have too much webbing and get in the way of operating the rifle, and that 2-point slings are the perfect compromise between the two. As with most things, there are currently two major players in this market. One is the Viking Tactics sling (http://vikingtactics.com/prod_sling_VTAC-MK1-a.html#) which is available padded or un-padded, and the Blue Force Gear Vickers sling (http://blueforcegear.com/product.cfm?type=cat&cat_id=5&prod_id=79). Both are similar in function in that they attach to two points on the side of the rifle and have a tail on the back that allows adjustment with the support hand for length. This is important as some people will run their sling pretty tight when standing but need a little extra room to go prone. With the tail, you can hold the rifle with your strong hand and let out the slack a bit with your support hand. The Viking Tactics version uses a spring-loaded buckle to accomplish this, while the BFG uses a friction slider.
In the interest of "simpler is better", I chose the BFG sling for both the Brown Rifle and the Green Rifle. I don't know if or when the spring-loaded buckle could fail, but I just prefer a simpler method and less bulk. The V-Tac version also comes with the swivels already attached, and I wanted to use my own swivels.
I prefer a sling that has some movement in two dimensions in the rear, and one dimension in the front. I find this to help keep the sling from getting twisted and always gives a reference point for the proper orientation of the sling. What this means is, I want a swivel in the front that only moves fore and aft, and a swivel in the rear that moves for and aft as well as pivots in the hole. I used the Midwest Industries MCTAR-06 (http://www.midwestindustriesinc.com/ar_sling_adapters.htm) in the front and a standard push-button swivel in the rear.
Light & Mount
I prefer a light that is tail-cap activated to one that is activated by a pressure switch, for a variety of reasons. Those reasons include:
* Wire and pressure switch are just more parts to break
* Wire can get snagged on things
* Wire and pressure switch must be mounted somewhere that is accessible from a firing grip
* Wire and pressure switch make removing the light a more tedious task
I like a tail-cap that can be pressed part way for momentary on and all the way in (clicked) for a constant on. I also prefer that the light be easily mounted/dismounted from the gun so that the gun can be made lighter and more streamlined and so that the light can be used hand-held with a pistol or on it's own. I wanted a light that was brighter for outdoor and longer range use on the Brown Rifle and one that was slightly dimmer for indoor and close-range use on the Green Rifle. It is possible, as I discovered with the 9-volt light, to have too much light indoors when bouncing off of white walls and floors.
Surefire (http://www.surefire.com/maxexp/main/co_disp/displ/pgrfnbr/16/sesent/00) sets the standard for weapon-mounted lights, with PentagonLight (http://www.pentagonlight.com/) following close behind and coming out with innovations of their own. Both companies offer a wide variety of brightness, bulb types, activation switches, mounts, etc. Surefire makes the lights that I wanted and is the more established company, so I went with them.
Brown Rifle
I chose the Surefire Millennium M96C (http://www.surefire.com/maxexp/main/co_disp/displ/carfnbr/267/sesent/00) weaponlight mounted on a Larue Tactical LT-170 (http://stores.homestead.com/Laruetactical/Detail.bok?no=43). The 96C is a big heavy light. It takes 3 of the 123 batteries and is extremely bright. With that said, I don't always need it, and don't always want to contend with the weight, so I wanted a way to be able to easily detach it from the rifle. I also had a pouch made up that I can attach to my chest rig to carry the light off the rifle but easily deploy it and attach it if need be.
Green Rifle
I chose an older version of the Surefire Scout Light (http://www.surefire.com/maxexp/main/co_disp/displ/carfnbr/345/prrfnbr/24299/Scout-Light-Kit-) without the LEDs and with a clickable tail-cap. It's an extremely lightweight light and does not have a quick-detach feature (it's attached with a thumb-screw) but because it's so light being able to easily remove it isn't such an issue. Nonetheless, I will still eventually replace it with the Larue Tactical LT-172 mount (http://stores.homestead.com/Laruetactical/Detail.bok?no=117) to gain the quick-detach feature.
Sound Suppressor
This isn't a suppressor review, so I'll try to make this brief.
The civilian suppressor market has really taken off of late, with quite a few companies forming to get into the market, and established companies that seemingly have nothing to do with suppressors creating divisions of their companies to spread out into the suppressor market. Unfortunately, it is also one of the nastiest segments of the firearms industry, with quite a bit of drama, backbiting, accusations of theft of intellectual property, etc. all fueled by company owners, employees, and shills that can't seem to keep their bad manners to themselves on the internet. It makes selecting a suppressor extremely difficult because, while there is an abundant amount of information available, you never know who to trust.
Fortunately, the vast majority of 5.56 sound suppressors will be functionally identical in terms of level of sound suppression (dB rating), weight, length, diameter, materials and methods of construction. Where they typically vary the most is in the mount and the mounting method. I chose to use this criteria for my suppressor selection, as well as overall length added to the rifle. My choices eventually were narrowed down to the Surefire FA-556K (http://www.surefire.com/maxexp/main/co_disp/displ/pgrfnbr/517/sesent/00) and the Ops Inc. 15th Model (http://www.opsinc.us/product.php?prodId=15thcqbmbs), both of which attach to 11.5" barrels (minimum) and slide back over the barrel to some extent. This sliding back over the barrel was important to me because it allows for a shorter overall length when the suppressor is mounted.
I ultimately chose the Ops, Inc. 15th model because I liked the combination of mount, overall length added to the barrel, price, and weight. It really is that subjective and it should be for anyone trying to select a 5.56 sound suppressor.
Magazines, Floorplates, and Followers
For the purposes of the photos, I just matched the color of the magazines to the color of the rifle, but there is a purpose behind the colors. First, a note about magazines in general.
With the sunset of the Assault Weapons Ban, the AR market in general and the AR magazine market in particular, has gone through the roof. Magazines that were selling during the ban for $40 for dented, rusted specimens of unknown origin as compared to the readily available variety of GI-quality magazines available for $10-12 today. Generally speaking, as long as a shooter sticks with GI-spec magazines they will have no problems. Add in a Magpul anti-tilt follower (http://www.magpul.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=80_98&products_id=198) and the success rate increases. I also happen to like the Magpul Ranger Plates (http://www.magpul.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=80_96&products_id=199) because they add a padded traction surface to the bottom of the magazine when using it as a monopod, they provide a pad on the bottom of the magazine if you drop the mag on a hard surface, they give me something to grab when extracting a magazine from my chest-rig, they give me a way to hang the magazine when doing a tactical reload, and they allow me to color-code my magazines for different purposes. The Magpul followers also aid in magazine identification and can be used as an empty-chamber indicator. I use the orange followers on my training and competition magazines because I can tell at a glance which magazines are empty. I use the gray followers on my "serious" mags simply to differentiate them from my training mags. My magazine combinations look like this:
Aluminum GI magazine with Black Ranger Plate and Orange Follower: Training mag that goes to the range empty. Many times in competitions and training classes there is a need for a down-loaded (i.e. not fully loaded) magazine. The color combination for these mags allows me to verify that and readily identify the magazine.
Aluminum GI magazine with Tan Ranger Plate and Orange Follower: Training mag that goes to the range loaded. I find it much easier to load up 10 magazines while sitting in front of the television at home than trying to stuff them at the range. As such, I keep the tan mags loaded up with 28 rounds each and stowed in my range bag and chest rig. Depending on the class, 280 rounds loaded could get you through the entire TD-1 (Training Day 1) without ever having to load a magazine
Stainless Steel mags refinished green with Green Ranger Plate and Gray Follower: "Serious" magazines meant for hunting and self defense use. I like to keep my "serious" magazines separate from my training magazines. I also like them to be the highest quality that I think is available. I keep these magazines loaded with Black Hills 75 grain and I keep one loaded in each of the rifles in the safe. I also use this ammo for hog hunting and for precision shooting. I take these magazines to the range once every couple of months just to make sure they still work for my own peace of mind. So far there seems to have been no adverse affects from leaving them loaded and I do not expect there ever will be one.
So that's it. Soup to nuts, an explanation of essentially every part that's on these two carbines. They appear to be serving me well for their intended purposes so far and I will continue to shoot them as much as possible. If new gear comes available and I find that it serves my purposes better, or if my needs change over time, I will not hesitate to change out parts. I believe that it's counter-productive to get married to any piece of gear or equipment and that, at the rate the industry is evolving, there are always newer and better products on the horizon. It is up to each individual to determine if the hot new "gotta have it" gear of the internet forums is worth the cash outlay to re-outfit themselves or if their existing gear is still very serviceable.
Originally posted by rob_s:
I learned in architecture school that the only way you can truly evaluate whether a design, or "solution", is successful is to know what the intent was at the beginning. "Form follows function", if you will. In other words, if a thing looks stupid but it does what it is supposed to do and does it very well, it's not stupid.
Brown Rifle
The goal is to be able to hit a man-sized target out to 200 yards and have enough energy at that range for the bullet used to terminally perform properly. Ideally it would also be capable of making shots with even greater precision if required. This rifle is intended to be a "general purpose" rifle (as much as that is possible) or could be thought of as a "field" rifle.
Brown Rifle
Trijicon TA33R-8 (http://www.trijicon.com/user/parts/products1.cfm?PartID=557&back_row=2&categoryID=3).
3x30, 7 oz., red chevron ranging reticle calibrated for .223 and 1.9" of eye relief.
The 3x is nice to have when reaching out a little further.
Vertical Foregrip
There is a move lately to eliminate the vertical foregrip for some shooters. Many of the 3-Gun shooters have gotten away from it.
Rob,
Excellent write up of what you use and why you use it. VERY well thought out!!!
I quoted only parts of your thread (use of vertical foregrips). I love vertical foregrips. That being said, within the last year or so I have found that they are not the answer for *every situation*.
For several years I ran a vertical foregrip on ALL my AR15's. Like you I shoot a lot of matches. Matches / competition is a great way to test out your gear and learn new lessons / skills about your gun, your accessories, you optic, and you as a marksman.
As you pointed out: "Form follows function" AND "the only way you can truly evaluate whether a design, or "solution", is successful is to know what the intent was at the beginning"
For years I looked down on 3-gunners and competition shooter as just being "gamers". Then I started to learn that there were things that I could learn from the 3 - gun / competition guys. Many of these guys have excellent weapons handling skills and excellent speed.
As a group, 3-gunners have to be the largest group of guys that truely believe in the "if a thing looks stupid but it does what it is supposed to do and does it very well, it's not stupid" mind set.
I really started to pay attention to the "Gamers" or competion shooters at matches (the guys with no Military / Law Enforcement / Tactical Shooting background) and noticed how fast some of them were with the rifle.
I noticed that none of them used vertical foregrips and all of them gripped the forend and extended their index finger (pointing it at the target). I notice how fast their transitions from target to target were and how they could stop the gun on a dime when transitioning from one target to another.
I knew there had to be a reason these guys weren't using vertial foregrips on their rifles for medium to long range rifle shooting.
I figured that I would try shooting a match without a vertical foregrip on my mid-length that had a TA-11 ACOG mounted on it to see if I shot any better without the vertical foregrip.
The monthly rifle match I shoot has targets from distances of 1 yard out to 425 yards. I IMMEDATELY noticed how much better I shot and how much more comfortable I was WITHOUT the vertical forgrip when using the 3.5x ACOG.
I found that I could drive the gun much faster, transition from target to target and stop on a dime, had an easier time steadying the gun on a barricade, was able to pull the gun in tighter to my shoulder, was more steady with the gun off hand and unsupported positions, etc.
From another post on the same subject:
After much trial and error, I have come to the following conclusion: -Guns that I do a lot of CQB work with I prefer the vertical foregrip. The vertical foregrip helps me "drive" the gun on closer targets, is more ergonomical for accessing a weapon mounted light, gives more power on muzzle strikes and weapon retention, etc.
On guns that I do a lot of *long range shooting* with, I prefer NO vertical foregrip, because I can steady the gun much better on longer shots without the vertical foregrip. The lack of a vertical foregrip also helps me drive and stop the gun better when transitioning from one target to another at longer distances, and has an advantage on barricades, etc. The rifle match has 75%+ of the targets placed from 100 yards - 425 yards.
Something that I noticed when using a vertical foregrip and long range targets....when I would transition from one target to another, I would always pass the target I was transitioning to and have to come back to it (ie. I would "over shoot" or by pass the target).
I don't know why, but on close targets I can drive the gun and stop on a dime at close distances....but at long range targets, I would always pass the target and have to come back to it.
Without a vertical foregrip, I can stop on a dime when transitioning from one target to another at longer distances. Without a vertical foregrip, I wrap my hand round the forend and point my index finger in the same direction as the muzzle (index finger is pointing forward along the 9 o'clock rail) Example: demigod.org/~zak/DigiCam/PRM-2006.11/?small=D100_5707_img.jpg
On my guns that have ACOG's, Leupold MR/T 1.5-5x M2's, (guns set up for medium to long range shooting) I have removed the vertical foregrips and run just the LaRue handguard and Tango Down pannels.
On my guns with Aimpoints / Short Dots (work guns or guns set up for close to medium range shooting), I still run the vertical foregrips.
Distance = time. Time affords you the ability to get into more stable positions (ie. sitting, prone, braced kneeling, the use of barricades, etc, etc.) In these position a vertical foregrip has no advantage, and can often get in the way. When most of your shots are closer and you are in the standing position or on the move, this is the area where the vertical foregrip shines. I guess it's all about selecting the right tool for the job. Just my opinion based on my personal experiences, as with all things, your milage may vary.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=5775
Just a suggestion: Try the brown gun without the vertical foregrip at a couple matches (medium to longer range matches) and see if it works for you. I found on my medium to long range guns (using a magnified optic like the ACOG 3.5x) that NOT using a vertical foregrip has a LOT of advantages an no disadvantages. YMMV
Take care and stay safe,
Semper Fi,
Jeff
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.