View Full Version : Middy muzzle flip
Hey all
I haven't been able to find out any good answer for this question, so do any of you know which has less muzzle flip between a 16 inch middy and a 14.5 inch middy? All I hear is how smooth the 14.5 inch is... that it could be the sweet spot of mid-length AR's. Has anybody had problems running the 14.5 in cold weather with low powered ammo? I've heard about that possibly happening. I want to be well educated as I'm about to spend 1k+ on a rifle. Thanks!
Ben
Moose-Knuckle
11-03-10, 16:41
If you perform a search on 14.5" vs. 16" middy you will find that the vast majority of the dialed in users here on M4C prefer a middy with a 16" barrel.
I searched on this just last week and found three or four threads on the subject.
interesting.... Most of what I have found when I searched has been saying the 14.5 inch is the way to go (bcm). I'll spend another couple hours looking lol
Please get back and let us know what you find. There is a very good chance I will be looking into a BCM middie in the next couple days as well.
ztf HITMAN
11-03-10, 17:40
Seems alot of people think that a 9" Mid-Length gas system is better suited to a 16" bbl, and a 7" Carbine length to a 14.5".
BTW, I run a 16" BCM Mid-Length.
jonconsiglio
11-03-10, 17:44
I shoot both, having more time on the 16", and honestly it's such a small difference. At this point, things like buffers, grip, accessories, etc., will have impact it probably more than 1.5".
What you can do, and from some manufacturers you have to do like with the MRP, is buy the 16" middy and if later you shoot a 14.5" and decide you like it better, have the 16" cut down.
Another option is to go with the 16" middy and buy the VLTOR A5 buffer tube. I like running the CTR on the first notch, but I may go with one of these on a build and run the Magpul ACS, from what I understand you can run the ACS fully collapsed on the A5.
I like running the CTR, like I mentioned, but have been thinking of the ACS on a 16" gun. On 14.5" and less, I like the smaller option, but on a 16" the ACS looks and feels balanced to me. So if I was looking at it purely for recoil reduction, and this is just how I would do it, I'd go with the 16" middy and the VLTOR A5 buffer tube with the Emod or ACS stock.
I'm thinking about having an SR15 cut to 14.5", but that's because I already have a 16" and will have an 11.5" once they make them available next year, so I just figured I'd give it a shot instead of having 2 16" SR15's.
Anyway, I would base barrel length more on your intended use than recoil reduction. Is this primarily for drills and classes, home defense, precision long range shooting? For an all around rifle, I think a 16" middy is perfect.
Good luck and remember that no matter what you do, it's very likely that you'l start planning the next one before this one is even finished.
*EDIT - I have heard on here somewhere that KAC said it's ok to cut their 16" middy to 14.5" and that it will run reliably. I have heard this of LMT's MRP as well. I don't think you'll have any reliability issues with the 14.5" middy as long as you stay with the better companies. If you should find an issue with low powered ammo in cold weather, which I doubt, a quick buffer change MAY be all you need.
Moose-Knuckle
11-03-10, 17:45
interesting.... Most of what I have found when I searched has been saying the 14.5 inch is the way to go (bcm). I'll spend another couple hours looking lol
Read these two threads. They should shed some light on the matter.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=12655
https://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-19241.html
Here's something else to recommend a 16" for. If this is your first AR the 16 will allow you to try different muzzle devices, as opposed to a pinned/welded 14.5.
Thanks Jon, that first sentence was what I was wondering about. Moose, I read those threads but I was looking for something a little newer and applying to the BCM middy but thanks. This thread
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=56626
got me thinking :confused:
It's a great review.
jonconsiglio
11-03-10, 18:48
Just when you think you have it all figured out, you'll read something that pushed you in the other direction. The only real solution is to shoot both side-by-side with the same lower and ammo and decide from there.
Remember also that they had a PWS break on there as well which will make a very considerable difference. I would think if you had a 14.5" next to a 16", both with BattleComps and lightweight barrels, that you would hardly notice a difference.
I run my Magpul VFG's about an inch back from the front of the SR15's 10.75 rail and my elbow is just as high, if not higher, than the bore itself. This makes a huge difference in how the gun feels and handles over a grip farther back with your elbow dropped. So, depending on your grip, you may or may not notice much difference if any.
Last thing then I'll quit rambling…. Have you ever gone to look at TV's and you notice the slight color differences, size from a 42" to 50" difference maybe, crispness of the picture, etc (assuming we're comparing a few really good ones and not great vs junk)… You'll find one reason for this one and another for the next one. Then, when you get it home and set it up, you're happy and most likely will forget those very minor differences and they don't seem nearly as important. Same thing here. These are very minor difference and we can go back and forth all day in our heads, but the reality is we'll probably be very happy with what we end up with and realize how small the difference really was…
…and if not, you'll add the other as well!
Thanks Jon. I need more friends with a wide variety of AR's haha. I want to shoot a lightweight next to a government profile too so I can see the difference in muzzle flip. If it's negligable I would go lightweight in a heartbeat.
Hey Jon... nice to see you buddy!
Ben... Jon makes excellent points. Like Jon, I shoot both 14.5" and 16" LW, both middys, but my 14.5 has a BattleComp1.5 on it and at present my 16" LW has an A2 FH (I haven't yet installed the BC1.0 I have for it.). I haven't fired them closely in time one following the other, and I've only been shooting them for a couple hundred rounds each (1 week or so). But honestly, there isn't a major difference between them. The overall length of the 14.5 with welded BC1.5 vs the 16" with A2 FH is just 1 inch. The comp does keep the muzzle a little more moderated than the non-comped, but overall, they both shoot and feel very much like each other. Which do I prefer? Whichever one I'm shooting at the moment! :laugh:
There is the argument that with the 16" you can much more easily change out your muzzle device. But for myself, I think once I install the BC1.0 that's sitting on my gun bench at the moment on my 16" LW, I doubt I'll ever take it off. So 14.5" with BC1.5 or 16" LW with BC1.0 - they are the SAME WEIGHT (14.5" LW would be lighter yet) and only 1" difference in length. SO, the 16" is more versatile (IF you want to play with muzzle devices) and will provide just a wee bit of greater ballistics. But the 14.5 is, well, a very appealing rifle. Tough call. That's why I bought both. If I had to give one up, I honestly don't know which I'd pick. Here's my 14.5" middy... and it does shoot wonderfully soft.
http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp59/zmonki/M4%20Rifles/BCM145_7966.jpg
the 14.5" mid-length with permanently attached muzzle device is the flavor of the month. I have one from BCM, and had another and I have over 1k rounds on the platform now.
I have some other testing to do first but eventually I'll get to the point of testing the 14.5" against the 16" mid-length, 16" mid-length against 16" carbine, etc.
I think the addition of the brakes is a huge part of what's making the 14.5" mid popular. I have no delusions that somehow cutting 1.5" off of a barrel makes it easier to shoot or smoother or anything else.
I also still believe that the 14.5" is the wrong gun for a first AR.
I find it interesting that everyone points at the BC as being the reason they'll never change the device. IMHO the BC is EXACTLY the argument against permanently attaching anything to a gun as it's the newest latest thing and those of us that had yesterday's newest latest thing have to decide if we want to go through the trouble and expense of changing it. 16"? Unscrew the old one, screw on the new one, and move on.
the 14.5" mid-length with permanently attached muzzle device is the flavor of the month. I have one from BCM, and had another and I have over 1k rounds on the platform now.
I have some other testing to do first but eventually I'll get to the point of testing the 14.5" against the 16" mid-length, 16" mid-length against 16" carbine, etc.
I think the addition of the brakes is a huge part of what's making the 14.5" mid popular. I have no delusions that somehow cutting 1.5" off of a barrel makes it easier to shoot or smoother or anything else.
I also still believe that the 14.5" is the wrong gun for a first AR.
I find it interesting that everyone points at the BC as being the reason they'll never change the device. IMHO the BC is EXACTLY the argument against permanently attaching anything to a gun as it's the newest latest thing and those of us that had yesterday's newest latest thing have to decide if we want to go through the trouble and expense of changing it. 16"? Unscrew the old one, screw on the new one, and move on.
Rob... don't forget that for some people, having one upper that has a dedicated comp on a 14.5" barrel doesn't constitute a "problem" or a bad choice. It's just one option among a great many that one may choose to have. While it is arguably not the best choice for a "one-AR" owner and that a 16" with removeable muzzle device can make more sense for many people, it's certainly not a big deal either. If for whatever reason a shooter wishes to have something else, or something in addition to, that can certainly be arranged. ;) In my case, I decided to buy both the 16" for the versatility of that option AND the 14.5" with welded BC. If the day comes that the 14.5" doesn't meet my needs for whatever reason, I have no doubt that there will be one individual out there that will be thrilled to purchase it from me... or if it's the comp that I want to replace, that too can be arranged. I bought the 16" first and then followed it with the 14.5.
I don't want to get too far down the path of this or that with everyone defending their choices. I do see applications for the 14.5" with pinned device and have one in my safe right now. But I think that people need to think things through and understand the limitations to weigh the pros and cons of their choices and understand that the market is constantly changing and that they may not want to be married to one setup. Of course, anything can be undone, but some things are more trouble than they are worth or result in having to potentially destroy a $150 part when the newest new thing comes out.
Which, again, is why I don't advocate a 14.5" pinned as a first or only. I think people should get a 16" gun and go shoot it and identify shortcomings for their own application. I don't understand how anyone can want to commit to a product with zero trigger time with the product, or the platform as a whole.
I don't understand how anyone can want to commit to a product with zero trigger time with the product, or the platform as a whole.
For me, it's not unthinkable to buy a product ("commit to it"?) that hasn't been personally tried, given enough research, thought, and discourse. Of course the addition of direct experience is even better, but not necessarily essential.
A person has to start somewhere and there is more than one single, sensible starting place. By virtue of your "chart", for example, it is possible for someone to choose from a variety of reasonably decent AR "starting places" without ever even thinking or talking about a particular brand or model with anyone. Certainly, of course, more time, study, discourse, and direct experience is always highly recommended AND helpful.
I have a 14.5 with a pinned Yankee hill FH, and a mid length gas system.
if I were to do it over again I would go with a battle comp FH/comp.
those things work like magic.:laugh:
in any case I don't see much if any muzzle flip, and my gun runs like greased snot on a glass door knob.
You just kinda proved an aspect of Rob's point. None of us knows what's coming after the BC that ends up being "better" than the BC. Crystal ball stuff. I agree from the standpoint of "first gun" that getting a 16" barrel makes the most sense, but that's not a condemnation of those that go with something less with a pinned MD.
Removing a pinned MD isn't really terrificaly tricky, in terms of HOW it's done. It'll cost you, but the tricky part is finding a competent 'smith to do it. Let's face it, there's examples of them out there that could set water on fire.
("commit to it"?)
Just to be clear, I'm referring to pinning/welding as a commitment, not simply purchaing it. It's not a tattoo, I understand that, but pinning/welding requires destructive removal if one wishes to change, which is a pretty big commitment.
A pretty damn expensive commitment. Although, before you spend the money on buying a new comp, removal of the old one, re-pinning and welding, you could just buy a new BCM upper for just a little more..just saying :cool:
jonconsiglio
11-04-10, 12:21
Personally, I would not recommend pinning and welding a 14.5" to someone newer to the platform. Forgetting about the extra cost or time if you're sending it out, the fact that it limits the option of change can be a problem down the road. For me, I know what works and what I prefer to use, but many don't. You also have to think about suppressors. If you do pin it, will a suppressor work with it… If it does, will it accept the one you prefer..
What I ran when I first got into AR's and what I run now are two very different things. I've learned so much through classes, the forums, friends, research and of course, trial and error. The thing is, I learned these things after my first couple AR's.
Just want to make it clear, I don't think it's a bad idea to get a pinned 14.5", but be very aware of what the drawbacks are and think hard if it's your first AR. For me, I'd rather the spend the money SBR'ing my lower than spending it on pinning and welding. Of course, this has some drawbacks as well, but it's all in what you do that will decide the best option.
I'm not an expert, but I do shot 300 to 500+ rounds a week mostly running drills and my opinion is just what works for me…. As a first rifle, I would strongly recommend a 16". Let's say you are 100% sure that a BattleComp is all you'll ever run. that's fine, but knowing how other things affect the gun is very beneficial as well, so you might want to throw that A2 back on for a few rounds to compare, just as an example.
I'd much rather buy the 16" middy lightweight and have it cut and pinned later than buy a 14.5". I'd rather cut the 16" to a 14.7" - 15" and pin a BattleComp 1.0 or Triple Tap than cut to 14.5" and pin a BattleComp 1.5. Not that it's a bad choice, just my preference. Once you order a 14.5" or have it cut, you can't go back. Going with 16" and deciding later at least gives you time to decide and also allows you to see the difference.
Barrels are relatively cheap, so it's not out of the question to buy both or even order a stripped upper in the other configuration from BCM, for example.
I apologize for the long-winded post, just trying to get all my thought out on this at one time.
Hey Jon... nice to see you buddy!
Hey buddy! Good to see you here and that's a great rifle, especially for your first. PM me when you get a chance.
Jonathan
No doubt if maximum flexibility and minimizing costs is the primary consideration, the 16" with ability to temporarily change muzzle devices is the way to go! That's why I went that way with my first upper. But I also bought the 14.5 with perm BC1.5 because I wanted that as well and I was able to afford it. I briefly considered a SBR until I learned that in Washington State, SBRs are not allowed. So the 14.5 with perm brake is my "shorty". ;)
jonconsiglio
11-04-10, 14:42
No doubt if maximum flexibility and minimizing costs is the primary consideration, the 16" with ability to temporarily change muzzle devices is the way to go! That's why I went that way with my first upper. But I also bought the 14.5 with perm BC1.5 because I wanted that as well and I was able to afford it. I briefly considered a SBR until I learned that in Washington State, SBRs are not allowed. So the 14.5 with perm brake is my "shorty". ;)
Agreed. Also, for some people, barrels can go quickly. If you shoot a lot of rounds, you may be replacing every year, and for some, much more often than that.
Too bad about Washington, buddy. You're really not missing ALL that much!
Agreed. Also, for some people, barrels can go quickly. If you shoot a lot of rounds, you may be replacing every year, and for some, much more often than that.
Too bad about Washington, buddy. You're really not missing ALL that much!
Yeah... I'm thrilled with Washington State, otherwise... well, except for the idiotic liberals (most of whom probably moved here from Kalifornia). ;) Our gun laws are pretty relaxed, generally... but not as sweet as Texas!
I'm just about ready to buy my first rifle and will be going with a 16" to play with muzzle devices. Once I settle on what I like I'll either replace the barrel, cut it down, or hell, just get another upper in 14.5. Which will lead to another lower..... damnit BRD.
Great info but I still dont get the issue w/ muzzle flip? I dont feel it.
Moose-Knuckle
11-04-10, 17:12
Great info but I still dont get the issue w/ muzzle flip? I dont feel it.
Neither do I. Eugene Stoner designed his rifle with a straight in-line stock so as to negate the muzzle rise experienced in previous platforms.
Thanks for the great responses everybody. Inability to change if I went the 14.5 route was a thought of mine, and I think I'm talked into going for the 16 inch middy now. And... when I get a little more money... another upper for a different configuration. BRD at its best lol.
Failure2Stop
11-04-10, 17:54
Great info but I still dont get the issue w/ muzzle flip? I dont feel it.
Then you aren't shooting fast enough to appreciate the difference.
Some applications will not favor a change in port location/size, dwell time, or compensator effect; some definately will.
It isn't a slight against your skill or application, but a properly balanced (in the context of operation and compensation) AR will be able to be shot at least as accurately, but faster than one that is not.
motorwerks
11-04-10, 18:05
So I love my Carbine length gas systems. :sarcastic:
I have a 14.5 and love it but lie most said... not my first gun. I built this upper as my 5th upper, and its pretty much a clone of my current 16inch gun. I have been shooting this 16 for about a year now and I have found that I like everything about it but felt like I could shave a few ounces here or there. So the 14.5 is running all the same stuff but without an EO tech, it's carbine though. :laugh:
PS like they said...... muzzle flip..... what muzzle flip?
I’ll stay away from the debate about whether AR15s have excessive recoil, but I can chime in on the discussion regarding the recoil differences btwn 16” and 14.5” middys.
I have a BCM 16” middy with a PWS FSC556 and a BCM 14.5” middy with the same PWS brake. They are virtually identical in terms of set up (rails, lights, FA BCGs, etc.) The only difference is that I run a Spike’s buffer on the 16” and an H buffer on the 14.5”. I have in excess of 5k thru the 16” and about 1,500 thru the 14.5”. I have run both thru carbine classes. I have also done some side by side shooting with the same ammo to determine if there was a difference in recoil.
IMO, there IS a noticeable (to me) difference in recoil between the two. While recoil is not excessive with either, the 14.5” middy feels like it is the softer shooting of the two.
And FWIW, I live in a ban state so all my muzzle devices get pinned anyway.
Iceman... Do you think your 14.5 is softer shooting because of the difference in dwell time associated with the shorter barrel, or a function of the buffer difference?
I’ll stay away from the debate about whether AR15s have excessive recoil, but I can chime in on the discussion regarding the recoil differences btwn 16” and 14.5” middys.
I have a BCM 16” middy with a PWS FSC556 and a BCM 14.5” middy with the same PWS brake. They are virtually identical in terms of set up (rails, lights, FA BCGs, etc.) The only difference is that I run a Spike’s buffer on the 16” and an H buffer on the 14.5”. I have in excess of 5k thru the 16” and about 1,500 thru the 14.5”. I have run both thru carbine classes. I have also done some side by side shooting with the same ammo to determine if there was a difference in recoil.
IMO, there IS a noticeable (to me) difference in recoil between the two. While recoil is not excessive with either, the 14.5” middy feels like it is the softer shooting of the two.
And FWIW, I live in a ban state so all my muzzle devices get pinned anyway.
For a first AR in a ban state, I'd say stick with the easy route, leave your options open and go 16".
As for recoil differences between 14.5" and 16" middys...
Seems to me there's 3 parts of recoil in an AR.
1) initial acceleration of the bullet to the gas port location.
Adds recoil, the magnitude is the same for both 14.5" and 16"
2) bullet acceleration from gas port to muzzle.
The 14.5" gets 80 fpm less velocity and generates slightly less recoil due to bullet acceleration.
Gas action accelerates the carrier rearward during this phase.
This partially/mostly negates the acceleration of the bullet during this phase.
If the moving mass and final carrier velocity is equal for both,
the 14.5" must have greater acceleration on the carrier and more recoil cancellation.
3) bullet exits the muzzle and gasses rocket forward, usually.
The 14.5 has slightly higher muzzle pressure and usually more recoil generated here.
Since this is acting through a brake that directs gases slightly rearward, it is likely that the 14.5" generates more braking effect.
Altogether, it seems reasonable that the 14.5" shoots softer.
BufordTJustice
11-06-10, 04:54
Same Spike's lower running H3 buffer. I started with a BCM 16" middy w/ an FSC556. I then (recently) bought a BCM 14.5 middy w/ FSC556. Using the same ammo (Tula 55gr .223, Federal XM193, & BVAC 75gr 5.56), the 14.5 shoots noticeably smoother. It's not an enormous difference, but I definitely noticed it.
The smoother recoil impulse coupled with the shorter barrel (makes it MUCH easier for room clearing/building searches) makes the 14.5" BCM middy perfect for my "only" current AR15. Using 55-64gr bonded JSP's or 75-77gr OTM rounds, terminal performance is not an issue within about 140 yards. I bought the gun for up-close-and-personal CQB/urban defense. It's perfect for me and my uses. I hesitate to think that I'm the only one with these priorities.
DHart...I can't tell you why my 14.5" middy feels softer. I'm out of my lane discussing many of the technical aspects of ARs. There are many on this board than can step in and do a better job answering your question.
Just trying to use my experience as one data point. Keeping everything constant except for the barrel length and buffers (with my 16" having the heavy of the two buffers), IMO my 14.5" shoots noticeably softer.
I m may pick a DD 14.5" middy from Smart Gunner if/when they start making the RIS II available as an option. I'm curious to see if DD's 14.5" middy behaves the same as my BCM.
I find 16 inch having less flip, in comparison of 16 inch with KAC NT muzzle device vs. 14.5 BCM with PWS device. The actual performance is not much different, but since PWS unit helps with flip, I believe 16 inch is inherently more forgiving.
For those who don't feel AR recoil - there is not much, but it does come off the target; as F2S said, you just need to shoot faster or move target further.
Great points on limitations of pinned muzzle devices. I went with 14.5 pinned middy a bit earlier than general crowd -actually had one of my 16 inch cut as 14.5 factory options weren't readily available then. The muzzle break of a moment at that time was PWS FSC. Great break, until you go prone, especially sideways. Now, I'd really like to put BC there, but the attendant costs, including prospective of destroying $100 muzzle device in process, are holding me back...
Now, I'd really like to put BC there, but the attendant costs, including prospective of destroying $100 muzzle device in process, are holding me back...
One option would be to sell the barrel (or the partial upper) and just replace it. There will be some cost any way you go, but the use of and experience of all things in life comes with a cost.
I do think having a 16 is definitely the most practical, but if the cost isn't a problem, having a 14.5 with perm BC is nice addition to have and if you buy top gear to begin with and treat it well, finding a buyer if you decide to sell someday should be no problem.
Same Spike's lower running H3 buffer. I started with a BCM 16" middy w/ an FSC556. I then (recently) bought a BCM 14.5 middy w/ FSC556. Using the same ammo (Tula 55gr .223, Federal XM193, & BVAC 75gr 5.56), the 14.5 shoots noticeably smoother. It's not an enormous difference, but I definitely noticed it.
The smoother recoil impulse coupled with the shorter barrel (makes it MUCH easier for room clearing/building searches) makes the 14.5" BCM middy perfect for my "only" current AR15. Using 55-64gr bonded JSP's or 75-77gr OTM rounds, terminal performance is not an issue within about 140 yards. I bought the gun for up-close-and-personal CQB/urban defense. It's perfect for me and my uses. I hesitate to think that I'm the only one with these priorities.
BTJ... I agree that the 14.5 BCM middy with brake (BC1.5 in my case) is a good choice for a CQB application. It could be argued that a SBR is even better for this, but in my state, 14.5 with perm brake is as short as I can go. The application I had in mind when I bought mine was personal defense in home and property, nothing long range... No scopes... Just a lightweight, nimble, simple setup. After a number of sessions in close quarters, Im happy with it's handling and soft shooting qualities.
One option would be to sell the barrel (or the partial upper) and just replace it. There will be some cost any way you go, but the use of and experience of all things in life comes with a cost.
I do think having a 16 is definitely the most practical, but if the cost isn't a problem, having a 14.5 with perm BC is nice addition to have and if you buy top gear to begin with and treat it well, finding a buyer if you decide to sell someday should be no problem.
In many cases, barrel removal is not possible if handguard is "jailed" by pinned device - so, as you said, I'd be looking at moving the entire upper. It wouldn't be really of any financial consequences to me; I am simply exercising a fiscal discipline.
We have kind of deviated from OP initial question re muzzle flip and started to discuss global pros and cons of pinned devices.
In context of original topic, I find differences between 14.5 and 16 middies in regards to muzzle flip small and inconsequential, favoring 16 inch [which is kind of intuitive to me]. I find that quality muzzle devices improve performance in any barrel length and with any system - gas or piston - but I've not come across an ideal muzzle device yet.
BufordTJustice
11-06-10, 16:45
BTJ... I agree that the 14.5 BCM middy with brake (BC1.5 in my case) is a good choice for a CQB application. It could be argued that a SBR is even better for this, but in my state, 14.5 with perm brake is as short as I can go. The application I had in mind when I bought mine was personal defense in home and property, nothing long range... No scopes... Just a lightweight, nimble, simple setup. After a number of sessions in close quarters, Im happy with it's handling and soft shooting qualities.
Based on the force-on-force training (simunition and airsoft) I've done, being able to shoot quickly and accurately at close range is neither intuitive nor is it natural. Under stress, you will automatically revert to shooting as fast as you can pull the trigger. It is a natural reaction and fighting is (according to many) futile. Embracing the stress reaction and equipping yourself with a weapon that you can run at that operational tempo is what I have done. I can place rounds on target w/ my 14.5" middy as fast as I can pull the trigger within about 20 yards (as it currently stands...I'm still practicing). I just couldn't quite do that w/ my 16" middy. The 16" was a wonderful gun to shoot and very easy to control...but being able to control the gun while shooting a continuous string of fire...that's a different game entirely.
If somebody wants a 16" middy w/ a good muzzle device, God bless 'em. Seriously...better that than a 16" w/ carbine length gas system. Afterall, we are all on the same team here. But there is a tangible difference between the the two. Like others have said, if you can't tell the difference, you're not running the gun fast enough. Watch the Magpul AotTC 2....that will show you about what an armed conflict will look like from the 3 yard line. Not to mention you'll be moving...you may be getting shot at, and your adversary may be moving as well. Your butthole will be a out the size of a quantum singularity and your heart will be at 200 bpm. Having a gun that is more easy to control than another (even if the difference is slight)...well, I'll take that advantage. I'm not being a smart ass about this. And these are issues you all should be considering if you even think you may be using the gun for defensive purposes. IMHO.
But there is a tangible difference between the the two. Like others have said, if you can't tell the difference, you're not running the gun fast enough.
I run mine fast, at least, I try, and I can't find a tangible difference.
In reality, the question is without objective answer. Muzzle flip and control are subjective, and assessed by surrogate measurements of timed performance. So, for one, there has to be a performance measurement - which people tend to not do. This thread is on a third page with all kinds of opinions, but we're yet to see one like "my MNQ went down 4 points with 14.5" or "I broke into 2-seconds 6-rounds club with 16".
Second, if you do measurements, you need multiple runs to exclude simple variance of shooter's performance.
Third, control for other weapon's variables is nearly impossible. BTJ's 16 middy may have a gas port on a bigger side of tolerances and a bit looser buffer spring, and my16 middy, with bbl from different manufacturer, may have a smaller gas port and a bit stiffer spring. Mine has LaRue upper receiver - which are reported to be heavier than most others. Throw in a potential variation in buffer weight even for supposedly same buffers, and it is easy to see how different people can come to different conclusions.
BufordTJustice
11-06-10, 22:41
I run mine fast, at least, I try, and I can't find a tangible difference.
In reality, the question is without objective answer. Muzzle flip and control are subjective, and assessed by surrogate measurements of timed performance. So, for one, there has to be a performance measurement - which people tend to not do. This thread is on a third page with all kinds of opinions, but we're yet to see one like "my MNQ went down 4 points with 14.5" or "I broke into 2-seconds 6-rounds club with 16".
Second, if you do measurements, you need multiple runs to exclude simple variance of shooter's performance.
Third, control for other weapon's variables is nearly impossible. BTJ's 16 middy may have a gas port on a bigger side of tolerances and a bit looser buffer spring, and my16 middy, with bbl from different manufacturer, may have a smaller gas port and a bit stiffer spring. Mine has LaRue upper receiver - which are reported to be heavier than most others. Throw in a potential variation in buffer weight even for supposedly same buffers, and it is easy to see how different people can come to different conclusions.
I think you may be missing my point. I ran both BCM uppers (16" and 14.5") on the same lower, with the same BCG (NiB FA), same buffer (H3), and same buffer spring (Springco CS). Further, they were both shot with the same ammo, had the same handguards (until I upgraded the 14.5" to MOE mid length HGs) and they both had identical muzzle devices.
BCM customer service stated that the gas port sizes on both uppers is the same. I still have their reply filed in my inbox archives.
Also, a study of internal ballistics dictates that there will be a smaller volume of gas being sent to the BCG by virtue of the fact that there is less barrel between the gas port and the muzzle. The difference isn't enormous, but it's there.
My wife and I just got back from the range and she could articulate a difference from the 16" middy to the 14.5" middy as well.
Example: I have had trigger work done on my SIG P228. To me it's night and day. To my dad (who rarely shoots my SIG), the difference is subtle at best.
I (and others) can articulate that the recoil impulse is smoother and makes the gun more controllable. I simply do not have the instrumentation necessary to measure and quantify the recoil impulse of any gun. So I can't provide data either way.
But here are 16 pages of people, most of whom have stated that the difference to the 'seat of their pants' is palpable:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=56626&page=16
Nope, I understand your point, you've tried to control for as many variables as possible.
I hear you on less gas in 14.5 due to less dwell time. An opposing argument can be made that 16.1 has more weight that is located at the very end of the "lever" where it provides most effective counter-balance to muzzle flip. So which factor is more important?
There is info in your last post that proves my point, yet also explains why your 14.5 feels, and very well may objectively be a softer as compared with your 16. You stated that gas ports on 14.5 and 16 BCMs are the same. Knowing that their 14.5 run like sawing machines i.e get enough gas, and going back to more dwell time/gas with 16, one would have to conclude their 16 then are relatively overgassed. This would certainly explain harsher feel.
That doesn't invalidate a possibility that my Noveske-barreled 16 may have a smaller port - sufficient to run it reliably without overgassing, so it is as smooth or smoother as your 14.5 BCM, plus it derives a benefit of extra-1.5 weight at the muzzle.
Another similar example would be KAC's 16 middies. They have a rep of being some of the softer shooting middies - to no small part due to a smallish gas port. So much so that some of their offerings didn't cycle reliably with anything other than milspec ammo. I'd bet KAC middy would feel softer that BCM middy in similar barrel lenghts.
See how different comparisons can lead to different conclusions? There is no generic 14.5 middy or 16 middy, and therefore there is no generic answer.
Yeah... I'm thrilled with Washington State, otherwise... well, except for the idiotic liberals (most of whom probably moved here from Kalifornia). ;) Our gun laws are pretty relaxed, generally... but not as sweet as Texas!
Might want to check and see zackly where all your idiotic liberals are from..... You might find out you have plenty of home grown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patty_Murray) ones.....;)
Just sayin.......
Might want to check and see zackly where all your idiotic liberals are from..... You might find out you have plenty of home grown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patty_Murray) ones.....;)
Just sayin.......
Oh, I'm in full agreement with you... plenty of home grown liberals not counting any imports. :sad: Left coast sucks that way.
BufordTJustice
11-07-10, 00:45
Nope, I understand your point, you've tried to control for as many variables as possible.
I hear you on less gas in 14.5 due to less dwell time. An opposing argument can be made that 16.1 has more weight that is located at the very end of the "lever" where it provides most effective counter-balance to muzzle flip. So which factor is more important?
There is info in your last post that proves my point, yet also explains why your 14.5 feels, and very well may objectively be a softer as compared with your 16. You stated that gas ports on 14.5 and 16 BCMs are the same. Knowing that their 14.5 run like sawing machines i.e get enough gas, and going back to more dwell time/gas with 16, one would have to conclude their 16 then are relatively overgassed. This would certainly explain harsher feel.
That doesn't invalidate a possibility that my Noveske-barreled 16 may have a smaller port - sufficient to run it reliably without overgassing, so it is as smooth or smoother as your 14.5 BCM, plus it derives a benefit of extra-1.5 weight at the muzzle.
Another similar example would be KAC's 16 middies. They have a rep of being some of the softer shooting middies - to no small part due to a smallish gas port. So much so that some of their offerings didn't cycle reliably with anything other than milspec ammo. I'd bet KAC middy would feel softer that BCM middy in similar barrel lenghts.
See how different comparisons can lead to different conclusions? There is no generic 14.5 middy or 16 middy, and therefore there is no generic answer.
I would actually differ on your first point. Muzzle flip in AR15's has, as 87GN's extensive high-speed video demonstrates, been partly attested to the initial discharge of the cartridge (phase I of the an AR15's recoil cycle). However, a good muzzle compensator/brake can almost completely mitigate muzzle rise. An additional 1.5" of barrel length seems unlikely to have the same effect. In my experience, it hasn't; my 16" started with an A2.
Acknowledging that there is no 'midlength' standard, it is completely possible that your Noveske (or a DD) are ported differently, and have a different recoil impulse from a BCM 16" middy.
As for KAC, they make some of the finest ARs anywhere at any price point. I have shot an SR15 w/ the E3 system and an incolnel (i.e TT/ Triple Tap) brake and it does indeed shoot softer than my 14.5" middy...but if you didn't shoot them back to back, you wouldn't know. I do think that the SR15 is THE smoothest shooting AR on the planet due to a smaller gas port and a proprietary gas system length that is LONGER than a standard '9 inch' mid length system.
However, when comparing BCM to BCM, we can have a very good idea of how one compares to another, and the 14.5 can be expected to shoot softer than the 16.
With the other variables that you cited, anything outside of a direct comparison between similar models of the same gas port diameter from the same manufacturer.....the results would be anybody's guess and I agree that making any predictions to that effect would be pure conjecture. I would hesitate to offer an opinion on anything but what I've got direct experience with.
As has been said, shooting the two side by side is the only way for the OP to know.
However, when comparing BCM to BCM, we can have a very good idea of how one compares to another, and the 14.5 can be expected to shoot softer than the 16...
As has been said, shooting the two side by side is the only way for the OP to know.
Agree on both counts. Based on info you've provided (similar gas port sizes for 14.5 and 16 middies) , it shouldn't be any other way, provided all other variables - like in your case - are equal.
I'm just about ready to buy my first rifle and will be going with a 16" to play with muzzle devices. Once I settle on what I like I'll either replace the barrel, cut it down, or hell, just get another upper in 14.5. Which will lead to another lower..... damnit BRD.
HA! That's exactly how it went for me... BCM LW 16" middy, and instead of chopping the 16", I just ordered another BCM middy upper with a 14.5" and BC1.5 weld. And sure enough, just as you indicated, I then decided to get another lower! (I went with an LMT with SOPMOD for the second lower.)
Between the two uppers, I must admit that although they are very similar in shooting, I'm drawn a bit more toward the 14.5 with BC1.5. Just an inch shorter in length, and perhaps slightly softer shooting, but I don't have the BC1.0 on the 16" yet, so it's not apples to apples.
BRD spreads like wildfire! hahaa :laugh:
As has been said, shooting the two side by side is the only way for the OP to know.
I disagree. I have seen far too much bias in the shooter's mk1-mod2 ear/shoulder/hand/eye tests.
The only way to know for sure is to develop a method of scientifically testing and measuring muzzle climb. Everything else is subjective and generally useless.
I dunno, Rob. Human body and eyes are pretty sensitive instruments.
As long as shooter's attitude is impartial and the eval is started without preconcieved notions and agendas, I feel that results will be reproducible.
I dunno, Rob. Human body and eyes are pretty sensitive instruments.
As long as shooter's attitude is impartial and the eval is started without preconcieved notions and agendas, I feel that results will be reproducible.
I agree with both of your statements. However I don't believe that your second statement occurs with anywhere near the frequency it would need to in order to allow your first statement to be true in application.
Something else on this topic...
Of late there seems to be a LOT of minutia-chasing and hair-splitting on topics such as this. I actually think it can be wholly counter-productive for the vast majority of shooters. I know this because I fall victim to it myself on the handgun side all the time. There seem to be a LOT of shooters looking to find the muzzle device, barrel length, gas-system, even operating system, trigger, etc. that will produce the fastest possible results on the range. Know what produces the fastest possible results? An equal amount of time and money spent on shooting and ammo.
I have been doing a lot of USPSA shooting of late and I see this constantly in those circles: a $500 shooter with a $2000 gun. IMHO this is a wholly ****ed set of priorities. If you're shooting a $2-4k open gun with 20 rounds in a magazine and I'm beating you with my everyday carry Glock 19 then you are doing it wrong.
I see similar things on the range, and in discussions here, as regards the AR platform. If it really is true that guys are buying their first AR and within a month (or less?) already outrunning the trigger and muzzle device then have at it, but I find this extremely hard to believe and the shooters I see do not bear this out.
I know we're all in this, to one degree or another, as adult legos, but I think it's important to separate that from reality.
Pat Rogers, I believe, has t-shirts that say "see the mother****er, shoot the mother****er". I think I'm going to get some made that say "buy the mother****er, shoot the mother****er".
Of late there seems to be a LOT of minutia-chasing and hair-splitting on topics such as this. I actually think it can be wholly counter-productive for the vast majority of shooters. I know this because I fall victim to it myself on the handgun side all the time. There seem to be a LOT of shooters looking to find the muzzle device, barrel length, gas-system, even operating system, trigger, etc. that will produce the fastest possible results on the range. Know what produces the fastest possible results? An equal amount of time and money spent on shooting and ammo....
... If it really is true that guys are buying their first AR and within a month (or less?) already outrunning the trigger and muzzle device then have at it, but I find this extremely hard to believe and the shooters I see do not bear this out.
amen brother. I don't care what interest you pursue, there are always going to be ways to spend your money chasing nirvana. and in every case, if you don't have the chops, that's wasted cash.
sport motorcycles are a good parallel. case in point, I used to ride a Ducati 996. it gave me nonstop woodie but as I get older I more enjoy riding my 30 year old Ducati Darmah with about half the horsepower.
the last time I rode with a Ducati owner's group, a young buck on a brand new and heavily farkled 1098 let ourselves become separated from the group to ride our own ride. long story short, I was leading and several times I had to slow down and wait for the guy. on one pretty technical section that I know and love, I even stopped and was about to turn around to see if he had crashed when I heard that beautiful Ducati music being sung loudly and off-key.
here was a guy with one of the most precision road eating instruments anyone could hope to own, who was hopelessly out of sync with it and desperately trying to go fast in all the wrong places. when he pulled over to join me he was out of breath and stunned that I had run off and hid from him on a bike that was older than he was.
the old saying, "it's not the arrow, it's the indian", has become a cliche' but every cliche' has its basis in truth. if you don't believe me, go man up against some A-level shooter with a well worn but plain-jane gun and see how you do with your latest techno-blaster. if he hands you your ass but you're still unconvinced, try swapping guns with him and then see what happens...
Something else on this topic...
Of late there seems to be a LOT of minutia-chasing and hair-splitting on topics such as this. I actually think it can be wholly counter-productive for the vast majority of shooters.
Pat Rogers, I believe, has t-shirts that say "see the mother****er, shoot the mother****er". I think I'm going to get some made that say "buy the mother****er, shoot the mother****er".
Absolutely. Figuring out small details that may increase competitive advantage is fine as long as global priorities of getting said advantage in a first place are not screwed up.
I think it is important, much of the time, to separate discussion of equipment and training. It seems like every time someone would like to discuss details of equipment, someone comes out of the woodwork and sidetracks the whole thing saying "lowly fools, forget all that, just buy the most basic gun you can possibly find, don't bother yourself with various equipment options, just focus on training."
Training and ongoing shooting of the guns is THE MOST important, if someone wishes to be highly effective with the weapon - SKILLS MATTER MOST FOR SURE. And equipment is simply equipment. But there is a lot of equipment with a lot of fine differences and some people like to discuss those differences and details! Nothing wrong with that if that's what they would like to discuss or that's what they choose to spend their money on.
TO use a parallel, let's presume someone is interested in discussing fine points of engine tuning to maximize the performance of an engine, or this cam vs. that cam, this intake vs. that intake... need they be constantly brow beaten that they need to be trained to drive the vehicle and not be concerned about the fine points of engine tuning? Good God, let them discuss that if that's what they wish to discuss.
Let me make a major point here by saying that I'm NOT discounting the importance of training. I think anyone who spends any time here KNOWS this. YES, TRAINING IS MOST IMPORTANT, YES, IT'S THE INDIAN NOT THE ARROW, YES, SKILLS MATTER MOST, YES, YES, YES. Now, once that is made clear and understood.... why not discuss the fine points of the equipment without constantly derailing it?
I can hear the answer coming now... in a voice booming down upon the ignorant throngs... something to the effect that those who focus on the details and fine points of the equipment are misguided fools who need to redirect their attention to training. I think if people wish to discuss the fine points of equipment they should be allowed to do so without constantly being chided for wishing to do so.
Can't we presume, once in a while, that the importance of training is a known given and allow a discussion to focus on the details of equipment if that's what people would like to discuss? Perhaps every equipment thread should start with a disclaimer that skills matter more than equipment and that training is of utmost importance and then allow the rest of the thread focus on what the participants wish to discuss without constant intervention implying that the participants are misguided fools directing attention toward things they have no business discussing.
I can't and won't put myself out here huffed and puffed, posing like an expert because I am NOT. But this is how I see many of these threads always going... virtually belittling people who are simply interested in discussing a particular aspect of equipment.
Comments that belittle that ever present guy with no skills who shows up for training with a multi-thousand dollar race gun which he can't shoot may seem to be funny... but if the guy is showing up for training, or just to participate, he'll figure it out soon enough. Just because his wallet may be bigger than his sensibilities (or perhaps not) doesn't make him a fool to be rediculed - he'll figure it all out in his good time.
The motorcyclist who starts out with a bike that's way over his head is a relatively different matter. One tiny, tiny mistake on a bike can mean instant death. That's a lot different than the newbie with more money than common sense who buys an AR that's all decked out with whizbang high tech doodads that he doesn't really need or understand. He'll figure that out soon enough and not likely injure or kill himself in the first five minutes of use.
Lastly, not everyone with serious interest in firearms is preparing themselves to face daily rigors of military combat or law enforcement. The people who are preparing for that are most likely receiving at least rudimentary training for such, whether they want it or not. Yes, training and skills make all the difference when performance with a firearm matters. But I don't think that discussions of equipment should necessarily have to turn into ritual, daily brow beating of presumably ignorant participants who simply want to discuss details of equipment.
I think it is important, much of the time, to separate discussion of equipment and training. It seems like every time someone would like to discuss details of equipment, someone comes out of the woodwork and sidetracks the whole thing saying "lowly fools, forget all that, just buy the most basic gun you can possibly find, don't bother yourself with various equipment options, just focus on training."
Training and ongoing shooting of the guns is THE MOST important, if someone wishes to be highly effective with the weapon - SKILLS MATTER MOST FOR SURE. And equipment is simply equipment. But there is a lot of equipment with a lot of fine differences and some people like to discuss those differences and details! Nothing wrong with that if that's what they would like to discuss or that's what they choose to spend their money on.
TO use a parallel, let's presume someone is interested in discussing fine points of engine tuning to maximize the performance of an engine, or this cam vs. that cam, this intake vs. that intake... need they be constantly brow beaten that they need to be trained to drive the vehicle and not be concerned about the fine points of engine tuning? Good God, let them discuss that if that's what they wish to discuss.
Let me make a major point here by saying that I'm NOT discounting the importance of training. I think anyone who spends any time here KNOWS this. YES, TRAINING IS MOST IMPORTANT, YES, IT'S THE INDIAN NOT THE ARROW, YES, SKILLS MATTER MOST, YES, YES, YES. Now, once that is made clear and understood.... why not discuss the fine points of the equipment without constantly derailing it?
I can hear the answer coming now... in a voice booming down upon the ignorant throngs... something to the effect that those who focus on the details and fine points of the equipment are misguided fools who need to redirect their attention to training. I think if people wish to discuss the fine points of equipment they should be allowed to do so without constantly being chided for wishing to do so.
Can't we presume, once in a while, that the importance of training is a known given and allow a discussion to focus on the details of equipment if that's what people would like to discuss? Perhaps every equipment thread should start with a disclaimer that skills matter more than equipment and that training is of utmost importance and then allow the rest of the thread focus on what the participants wish to discuss without constant intervention implying that the participants are misguided fools directing attention toward things they have no business discussing.
I can't and won't put myself out here huffed and puffed, posing like an expert because I am NOT. But this is how I see many of these threads always going... virtually belittling people who are simply interested in discussing a particular aspect of equipment.
Comments about the ever present guy with no skills who shows up for training with a multi-thousand dollar race gun which he can't shoot may seem to be funny... but if the guy is showing up for training, or just to participate, he'll figure it out soon enough. Just because his wallet may be bigger than his sensibilities (or perhaps not) doesn't make him a fool to be rediculed - he'll figure it out in good time.
The motorcyclist who starts out with a bike that's way over his head is a relatively different matter. One tiny, tiny mistake on a bike can mean instant death. That's a lot different than the newbie with more money than common sense who buys an AR that's all decked out with whizbang high tech doodads that he doesn't really need or understand. He'll figure that out soon enough and not likely injure or kill himself in the first five minutes of use.
whoa, slow your roll a bit man... I think you're taking this the wrong way.
if someone is targeting you, it's not me... if you look at my posts in another thread, you'll see I was defending someone who may make well considered choices based on recommendations before they had the experience to know one way or the other. I mean, it's not like the gun is gonna turn into a viper and bite you or something. and as long as you're a fabulously rich and ridiculously good looking moterforker, like me... well, have at it and enjoy your toys.
but I believe the point Rob was making, which until then, I was avoiding participating in this discussion, was that focusing on the finest minutiae, can produce X% improvement in performance. and other things, if taken in turn, will produce greater and more magnify-able improvements down the road.
as I see it, the problem with buying performance, such as a muzzle break, light BC, target triggers, etc. etc., is that while they may help an inexperienced shooter stay on target better, they can mask deficiencies in your technique and create their own set of problems in your further development. having to unlearn bad habits is harder than learning correctly in the first place, capisce?
to put it a way you might be more able to relate to - you're a photographer, no? I suspect you've got some serious equipment that can respond to any adaptation you require. years ago before digital was really viable, I was pretty seriously into photography and took some advanced classes in B&W. the first day of class, the instructor asked how many of us had "program" settings on our cameras. everyone raised their hands and he said "good, now look down and turn that dial to M for manual".
it's not that the programs would not make good images, it's that if we didn't learn the hows and whys of making good images, then we would never be able to progress past that little green box on the dial.
now, to go back to our motorcycling analogy, my argument is not that someone who buys performance is necessarily a danger to himself, it's that they are limiting their learning and development.
I see a lot of guys start with or move to bigger bikes after they develop an interest and want to go fast. I can't count the number of $20,000 motorcycles I've seen with 1/2" chickenstrips (the unused portion on the edges of the tires that is the result of not leaning it over enough to use all the cornering the bike is capable of), suspensions with the same setting it left the showroom floor, and less than 2,000 miles on the ODO.
when these guys ride with us, we generally don't have to wait too long at the end of the ride 'cuz they DO know how to crank on that loud handle... we call these guys "Point and Shoot Specialists" because they will get into a turn wrong, brake really hard upsetting the suspension and losing all their momentum, then straighten the bike up and "shoot" to the next turn. yeah, you can get down the road that way, and no, it's not really dangerous. it's just not... good...
by buying a motor that serves as a crutch for their lack of skill, they doom themselves to plateau at a low level, whereas if they had gotten a less powerful bike and learned to ride the wheels off it, they would have had a solid base to build off of.
a perfect example - one of the guys we rode with was not a guy. it was a girl who rode her boyfriend's hand-me-down, 4 year old, ratty old Suzuki SV650. no racing tires, no motor mods or special exhaust, just a basic old commuter bike. and she could ride the crap out of that thing. when grouped up she would always start at the back of the pack, but many's the time when one of us was white knuckling it through a dicey turn only to hear a buzzing sound and look over and see her floating past us on the OUTSIDE of the turn!
she LOVED our big expensive bikes and lots of times I almost offered to let her ride my bike so she could see what it was like but I'm not sure I could've handled the humiliation she would have dealt out. If she had gotten on a bike like mine she would have flat run off and hid on all of us.
now, sure this stuff is groovy and cool and if you got the beans, knock yourself out. but you've got to decide what your interest in this is. if you're just getting into this, and you really want to get good at this stuff, then start at the beginning, get some training and a good solid foundation, and THEN decide what you need to add to remedy some deficiency in equipment that is LIMITING your forward progress. all the rest of the bunk about gas port size this, and nickle boron finish that, ain't gonna mean shit if you cant run the gun...
ra2Bach.... hey friend, you get no argument from me. I agree with your points entirely! All good stuff. Especially your sig line! :) In fact I don't disagree at all with suggestions to start with fairly simple set-ups and obtain good training. That's precisely the route I am taking. My post was a reaction to a wider display, observed over time, of what sort of seems to me to be a ritualistic, Big Brother brow-beating that while may be good intentioned, seems a little obsessive to me... that's all.
As for the "P" setting on cameras, your point is well taken. But even using "P" for all situations will surely bring a newbie photographer to understand clearly that the "P" setting can't possibly work well for all circumstances nor does it allow an image maker to achieve any number of desired outcomes! Given time and a little experience, the newbie photographer that always uses "P" clearly discovers that doing so is preventing him or her from achieving the results he or she may desire.
I have little interest in discussing gear with those that lack the experience or frame of reference to discuss the relative merits.
You're so busy defending your purchases in every thread where you believe I've slighted you and your decision making process that you're missing the point entirely. I suspect that in fact this is the crux of the issue. I don't know how to explain it to you any better.
And yes, in the case of your car example, I think people are idiots who go out and dump thousands of dollars into their engine yet they can't get a reaction time off the tree measured in anything less than hours. Completely idiotic.
I have little interest in discussing gear with those that lack the experience or frame of reference to discuss the relative merits.
Rob, there is no need for you to discuss anything with anyone, if you don't wish to.
And yes, in the case of your car example, I think people are idiots who go out and dump thousands of dollars into their engine yet they can't get a reaction time off the tree measured in anything less than hours. Completely idiotic.
Rob, there is nothing you need to explain to me. I'm doing just fine and enjoying the sharing in this wonderful forum. And yes, the world is full of idiots and people who think differently or choose different alternatives than you do. They're all around you. And it's ok too. They can't all become what you might wish them to become and there's no need trying so hard to convince everyone else to be or to think like you. There are many paths to the same destination and none of them are perfect. Many, in fact, are equally good in their own ways.
Many people that you view and label as fools and idiots aren't so bad, really, they're just taking a different path than you might view appropriate. But bless you for trying to be helpful! :)
Evidently I do need to explain it, because your whole long-winded post indicates that you completely misunderstand where I'm coming from, as have all of your post-purchase responses when you think I'm talking only about you. (tip, it's not about you ;) )
Fact: If the end-goal is to become a better, more efficient shooter the way you get there is shooting.
Virtually every single item, accessory, or upgrade that people put on their firearm would be money better spent on ammo fired downrange in a meaningful way. I find these people hard to take seriously when they post that they "need" a $250 trigger to get better when they can't be bothered to just spend the $250 on ammo and actually get better, and build skills and knowledge that can't be replaced, stolen, change with the wind, etc.
If the end-goal is to become a better, more efficient shooter the way you get there is shooting.
Rob.... no worries. This, I believe, we all agree on and it's not startling news to most here. But if someone feels compelled to go out and buy a fancy dancy trigger for a gun they may have never even fired, or heck, a gun they may NEVER fire... so be it. It may not be what you nor I would do, but no point brow beating them or getting yourself worked up over it. They may just be doing what they need to do, somehow, for themselves... it isn't the end of the world nor is it your job to correct their approach or call them an idiot, although you certainly can if you wish to. It stands to reason that skill, knowledge, and wits trumps equipment every time, but not everyone is all that interested in skill, knowledge, or possesses wits. Some of the people, some of the time may wish to simply discuss the fine points of equipment.
Virtually every single item, accessory, or upgrade that people put on their firearm would be money better spent on ammo fired downrange in a meaningful way.
Well... I agree to a point, but not exactly. Just realize that not everyone who configures a particular gun in some way other than a box stock A2 (or whatever you deem appropriate) is giving up firing ammo downrange in a meaningful way! Nor are they necessarily choosing a wrong path to experience. Many people can accessorize or modify or buy multiple weapons and still have money left over to shoot to the limits of their time or ability. And even if they choose to not put one bullet downrange for any reason, so be it. How about letting them decide what they choose to spend their time and money on without inferring or outright calling them idiots?
I know of some people who buy motorcycles, expensive ones, and for the most part, the bikes just sit in their garages unridden for year after year. Personally, I like to ride (and to shoot), but others seem content in just having it. Not my choice, but I don't view them as idiots. They have their needs and their reasons, most of which I probably have no awareness of whatsoever.
I think we can agree to hold that as a basic precept, skills, knowledge and ability (gained from a variety of methods which must include SHOOTING) will always trump equipment selection when it comes to effective use of a weapon, and then go about discussing equipment with that general understanding.
Recoil is subjective. Some handle it better than others. Hard to really explain to someone. I've been in a similar quantry now for some months. Trying to decide on a 14.5..I bought a 16 and just finished a 2 day training class. And i do shoot some about every week or two. The limitations i'm having in settling on a 14.5 is not so much just the difference in recoil and all the other stuff, is what hand guard might i want. What i might want to try later. Magpul moe now and free float later. What front sight. standar F or a fold down type. Not being able to change configurations of other stuff is my hold up. I have a 16", i can shoot the gun, and i do, and i have ammo. But there are other things i do like to try from time to time..I am still running the original front sight tower, but sort of want to change it. So it would be important for me to know this before a 14.5 inch purchase. I would like to have a free float hand guard, because i really like the ones i've felt. But not sure which one. Just some more things to consider while trying to decide on a 14.5...
The limitations i'm having in settling on a 14.5 is not so much just the difference in recoil and all the other stuff, is what hand guard might i want. What i might want to try later. Magpul moe now and free float later. What front sight. standar F or a fold down type. Not being able to change configurations of other stuff is my hold up. I have a 16", i can shoot the gun, and i do, and i have ammo. But there are other things i do like to try from time to time..I am still running the original front sight tower, but sort of want to change it. So it would be important for me to know this before a 14.5 inch purchase. I would like to have a free float hand guard, because i really like the ones i've felt. But not sure which one. Just some more things to consider while trying to decide on a 14.5...
44ruger... what you're bringing up here was for me, the biggest part of my decision: it centered around one thing only... FSB or free-float set-up with lo-pro gas block. Either one can be modified if desired, but one is a fair bit more involved to change up than the other, so that was my biggest decision.
Second decision was carbine or mid-length. All indicators seem to be pointing to mid length gas systems getting the nod over carbine for a 14.5 or 16" gun, so I opted for mid... in any event, neither choice was an outright bad one, with the benefit of slightly lower pressure being appealing.
All the other stuff like what grip, buttstock, optic, or trigger group is easy to test and evaluate and change up down the road on almost any choice you might make.
I had to decide whether it was more important to me to have the more rugged FSB set-up (A2 w/FSB) or a more flexible set-up which allows easier changes and variations (giving up the well noted durability of the FSB).
As a simple ordinary citizen, not headed to the sandbox or any other war zone (military), nor rousting out evil bad guys on an every day basis (LE), (and a huge blessing to those who do go into harms way to protect us!) I decided that the durability of a FSB was of less importance to me than the ability to fairly easily change-up hand guard lengths and sighting/radius options. So a flat-top with middy lo-pro gas block made the most sense for my purposes. I'm early into it and my views might change over time, but so far, I really like the versatility and flexibility of this approach, at the cost of the rugged durability of a FSB. If you forsee subjecting your weapon to a fair amount of rough handling or rugged conditions, perhaps the FSB might be a better choice? If the decision is too difficult to make (and you can afford it) get both! :) Or if your 16" has a FSB, perhaps a free-floating hand guard with a lo-pro gas block would be a nice alternative for your second upper.
Wow I leave for the weekend to hunt and come back to lots of good info. Thanks again for the replies everybody.
Training and ongoing shooting of the guns is THE MOST important, if someone wishes to be highly effective with the weapon - SKILLS MATTER MOST FOR SURE. And equipment is simply equipment. But there is a lot of equipment with a lot of fine differences and some people like to discuss those differences and details! Nothing wrong with that if that's what they would like to discuss or that's what they choose to spend their money on.
Thanks DHart. I know I need lots of training and I intend to, but I want to start with as good of a rifle as possible. It's going to be a "do it all" rifle so I want the best configuration for me. Can't train with a rifle if I don't have one (none of my friends do either).
ben... welcome back! Lots of valuable info has been shared here. All I can advise is that you do a lot of homework before diving in. The information shared on this forum sure helped me understand a lot of things. You can just go buy what someone tells you to buy. (Which wouldn't be the worst thing you could do, given the credentials of the advisor.) Or you can take your good sweet time and really study and learn about the various possibilities, then better UNDERSTAND what all the different options represent. That understanding along with a lot of handling, firing if possible, will help you narrow down to what makes the most sense to you for a starting point. If you do this, you can't go wrong, really. Whatever you get you will likely change up a bit as you go. This forum is chock FULL of a lot of valuable experience and knowledge that you can tap on before making your own final decision. Enjoy.
Thats exactly what I have been doing. In fact, I was at a gun shop a few hours from my house today on my way back looking at their AR's and talking to the owners. I just can't wait to make my purchase.... Getting closer to the money :dance3:
BufordTJustice
11-07-10, 22:52
Thats exactly what I have been doing. In fact, I was at a gun shop a few hours from my house today on my way back looking at their AR's and talking to the owners. I just can't wait to make my purchase.... Getting closer to the money :dance3:
Ben, There has been some vigorous back-and-forth on this thread since you've been gone. You've been fortunate enough to get some very experienced shooters to comment and weigh-in with their opinion. I don't feel I can add anything else that has not already been said. You've got two different points of contention that you'll need to consider when purchasing (14.5 vs 16). However, I think that there have been some even better points made as to mindset. The gun is a tool, YOU are the weapon.
I heard a saying that I really liked (and stole it):
"We are always in search of hardware solutions to software problems." I couldn't tell you who said it first, other than it wasn't me. ;)
Getting a gun that runs great and feels comfortable to you is vital, but 'hunting for excalibur' can un-necessarily divert your attention form the real goal...which is learning how to run the gun.
I work for the largest law enforcement agency in central florida and am constantly surrounded by people who 'act tactical' but can't run their agency issue remington 870 w/ 14.5" barrel, knoxx stock, and XS sight set to save their lives. It's embarrassing at annual qualifications (which are a joke) to watch these deputies fumble with reloads, short stroke the slide, and flinch at every trigger pull...much less handle a malfunction or slug-select drill. I show up and handle my business (I'm a decent shooter at best, but I practice my fundamentals regularly) and waaaay too many fellow deputies get surprised at 'how fast' I am. I'm not that fast. I feel slow. They're just that much slower.
Don't be like them. You can practice malfunctions, loading/unloading, and trigger pull dry using snap caps at your home. Buying a gun that will run russian steel cased ammo and putting some serious rounds through the gun in some meaningful, productive practice drills (even if the drills are your creation) is what will make you better. Getting professional instruction is better still.
We, collectively, want you to develop real and meaningful skill in operating your (quality) AR.
Recoil is subjective. Some handle it better than others. Hard to really explain to someone. I've been in a similar quantry now for some months. Trying to decide on a 14.5..I bought a 16 and just finished a 2 day training class. And i do shoot some about every week or two. The limitations i'm having in settling on a 14.5 is not so much just the difference in recoil and all the other stuff, is what hand guard might i want. What i might want to try later. Magpul moe now and free float later. What front sight. standar F or a fold down type. Not being able to change configurations of other stuff is my hold up. I have a 16", i can shoot the gun, and i do, and i have ammo. But there are other things i do like to try from time to time..I am still running the original front sight tower, but sort of want to change it. So it would be important for me to know this before a 14.5 inch purchase. I would like to have a free float hand guard, because i really like the ones i've felt. But not sure which one. Just some more things to consider while trying to decide on a 14.5...
I'll try to make this easy for you -
- how many ARs you got now?
if less than two, one of them needs to be 16" barrel. If you want to add a 14.5 with permed flash hider for a second gun/upper, well, OK but I would not cut down or swap my only 16".
- what sights does your current gun have?
good, stick with that until you can articulate exactly what it is they do that restricts you. fixed FSP have many benefits and almost no downside unless it's on a CAR gas system.
- middy or CAR gas?
this is where it gets tricky because, IMO, leaving off all the FUNCTIONAL differences, the biggest issue is OPERATIONAL...
a carbine length gas system places the FSB right where I want to place my support hand. this requires either changing my hold, or changing the FSP to a gas block and using a long rail with rail-mounted front sight. this is why I think getting a middy as a first gun is the right thing to do as it gives you the opportunity to explore different support techniques. with a CAR gas, you are locked into one hand position, and will have to either adapt to that or spend some money to find out.
rails or handguard? - initially, I would split the difference and get a MOE for only $10 more than regular HG. with it, you can mount a light, add a sling attach point, or a VFG if you must. if you come to find out you NEED a FF rail, get a FF. with the advent of the MOE, the drop-in rails are a waste of money and good aluminum.
years ago, my first gun was a 20" A2 carry handle rifle. then I upgraded with stainless match grade barrel, 2-stage trigger and diopter sights for competition. then I ADDED a 16" carbine. then I sold the rifle and got a 16" BCM govt profile middy with 9" rail with RDS and white light. then I added a 16" DD M4 w/ 12" FSP rail to be able to run a light at 12 o'clock. then I added a 16" lightweight middy with MOE HG because, well, because it's lightweight...
do you see a pattern here? this is over several years and all these changes are OPERATIONAL improvements after having run the gun and determining what needed changing...
now I'm working on an 18" SPR which will have me almost back to square one and I also have plans on converting my first 16" CAR to an SBR. and I MAY cut down one of my 16" middies to 14.5 to satisfy my curiosity but I am on the fence as to which one. more than likely I will cut the DD M4 CAR as it would benefit FUNCTIONALLY more from reduced dwell than either of the middies.
these are the main operational issues as I see them. I'm not talking about functional issues like gas port size, dwell, buffer and spring rates, etc...
the rest of the things like stocks, grips, which manufacturer's rail, etc., are PREFERENCE issues. having discussion about preferences is great - this helps save some money down the road. (ask me how many barely used holsters I have sitting in a box somewhere in the basement...)
but don't get confused that these things will magically transform a frog into a prince and neither will cutting a 16" middy down to 14.5 for a "softer" recoil. the folks that are raving about these things and posting videos are looking to shave tenths or even hundredths of a second off of already respectable par times.
I hate to say it... but the average Joe is going to see greater and more consistent improvement from training and disciplined practice than any bolt-on in the entire catalog.
hope this helps...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.