1 & 2, or 1.5? [Archive] - M4Carbine.net Forums

wild_wild_wes

12-03-11, 12:26

First, to define my nomenclature:

1 = Baseline lightweight AR with standard barrel and perhaps a RDS

2 = Precision rifle with longer heavier barrel, magnified optic, may or may not be AR

1.5 = Hybrid design with midweight barrel, midrange optic

*****

When you configure your rifles, do you prefer a set of specialized rifles (case 1 & 2) or one general-purpose rifles (1.5)?

For argument's sake, let's say you can onlt have one case or another. So, which seems more proper to you: to have a couple of rifles that are distictly configured to a set use, or just one that you would use for all circumstances?

For instance: an M4 type carbine for close range stuff, plus an SPR or bolt gun for long range shooting, *or* a 16" carbine with good barrel and optic, for use across the spectrum?

lengthofpull

12-03-11, 12:41

I went with 1 and 2.

1: 14.5" DD build with Vltor A5 stock and Eotech
2: 20" frankenbuild with Magpul PRS and Leupold 4x14.5

I like to shoot prone with slow precise fire (as well as just devastate sage rats every spring in eastern oregon). Its what is the most fun for me. I have a geissele trigger on it and a rigged setup on the PRS to add 2 more inches of pull. The long gun is what i put the most money into.

The short gun has a stock DD trigger and serves two purposes: general fun shooting (its also the one i let my friends shoot/do mag dumps) and its also the gun that sits in my bedroom with a light and a full mag at the ready.

These two guns cover mostly everything i want to do with an AR. Each is built for its purpose. I also have a nordic NC22 upper that is a cinch to throw on either gun to introduce new shooters to guns (on the DD build) or to practice trigger control with (on the long gun lower).

With my size (I am 6'11") to get a good ar15 prone setup it would be difficult to have one AR to meet all my needs. At least thats how I explained it to my lady :D

Wormydog1724

12-03-11, 12:45

I went 1, 1.5, 2, and .5

1 is hunting/"precision"
1.5 is close to mid range
2 is midrange to "longer" range
.5 is .22lr for close

http://i416.photobucket.com/albums/pp247/wormydog1724/0e9c63a1.jpg

arizonaranchman

12-03-11, 14:02

Perhaps go with one lower reciever and have two uppers for it, set up for different purposes. In my case I'd go with:

1) my 14.5" BCM middy which is a KISS carbine

2) set up an 18" or 20" rifle upper with a top quality optic

Dionysusigma

12-03-11, 15:36

For me:

1.4: BCM BFH LW mid 16" with A5, MOE stock, MOE handguards, MOE+ grip, Geissele SSA, DD A1.5 rear sight. Basic, but effective and reliable.

1.6: M16A4gery with TA31RCOA4 and Spike's NiB trigger group.

Currently working on a lower that would be suitable for every application I can think of for me, which I guess would be R. :sarcastic:

Shiz

12-03-11, 18:18

People are doing some remarkable distances with 14.5 freefloated.

one rifle, 2 different quick detach optics?

jonconsiglio

12-03-11, 20:07

My general purpose is a 14.5" with an Aimpoint and a magnifier. This covers most of my needs but then I have a number of rifles for more specific roles.

If i had to, I'd be more than content with nothing more than my 14.5" with a RIS II, an Aimpoint & magnifier and an extra ACOG or other optic that's a little more precise.

Everything I need for home defense, hunting, classes, range time, etc. is in the first pic below. More than I need but still use quite a bit is in the second pic, excluding the 20" which is I really don't shoot much. Then there's the "way more than I need" group but I'm not going to go posting all those pics.

14.5"
http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee343/jonconsiglio/e398d556.jpg

SCAR H | 10.5" | 20"
http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee343/jonconsiglio/Forums/IMG_2057-Edit.jpg

jar

12-03-11, 21:14

My first build was an 18" white oak SPR barrel, 13" TRX extreme, ACE stock, with a Meopta 1-4. I built it as a kind of a jack of all trades, but mainly for 3-gun. I just started my 2nd build which is a 14.5" BCM lightweight with an aimpoint micro and ace ultralight stock for home defense and close range hoser matches. The next build is going to be a dedicated 3 gun rifle a bit lighter than the current one. I'm thinking all the JP goodies for that one. If I do that, I may put a bipod, PRS stock, and higher mag optic on the 18".

crusader377

12-03-11, 21:59

Currently have 2 1.0 but my next build will be somewhere between 1.5-1.75.

wild_wild_wes

12-03-11, 22:17

My 2:
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k132/pseudonominus/UB5-1.jpg

my 1 is currently being re-built. Previously it had a 16" Operator midlength midweight barrel; it was a good 1.5, but I decided to go the two rifle paradigm. So it will be getting a DD 14.5" midlength lightweight barrel, and will now be lighter and smaller.

one rifle, two different quick detach optics?

Well, again the rifle itself must be a 1, 1.5, or 2. When you get right down to it, you might be able to do it all with a 1 and the two QD optics, like you say.

People are doing some remarkable distances with 14.5 freefloated.

Yes! If I do a 2, I'm thinking of doing an Afghan.

Cameron

12-03-11, 22:48

WWW you have been thinking about this for awhile. In reality specialization does offer some benefits. I would rather run CQB with a Mk18 than a Mk12 and conversely I would rather shoot at longer ranges with a Mk12 than a Mk18. If I have the budget available a specialized weapon for each scenario makes sense, that said I have found the the compromise weapon which I still call a "Recce Concept" rifle for want of a better term, is actually so close to each that it may be a moot point.

I literally run my 16" mid length with a match barrel and a 1.5-5 optic within a couple thousandths of a seconds from my Mk18 inspired build and I also shoot it at longer ranges just as well as my Mk12 inspired build. So much so that I actually just sold my 18" SPR because it was so close to the 16".

Specialization, is fantastic if you can afford the time and expense...

0.5-10.5" 1.0-14.5" 1.5-16" 2.0-18"
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3385/5805308615_40330c1d91_b.jpg

but if I could keep/take/buy only one, then I would certainly opt for the 1.5 a 16" match barrel with a low range variable optic.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2775/5798103852_27f3a58174_b.jpg

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2172/5805662238_8fd6949819_b.jpg

My favourite two? I think of them as my "inside" and "outside" rifles.

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6036/6372011927_8a58e3f7a9_b.jpg

Cameron

pira114

12-03-11, 23:04

My opinion is not unique, but here it is.

Weapons are tools. When I pick a tool, I want it to be made for the purpose it's being used. Most tools, weapons or wrenches, are good at what they were designed for. When you get that tool that is supposed to be a "one size fits all", it usually doesn't. It may do many things, but not one thing really well. You see this with all those "as seen on TV" tools that are supposed to replace your whole tool box.

So that's the why. My choice should be obvious now. I buy weapons to fit each niche of what I'm doing.

wild_wild_wes

12-03-11, 23:27

Specialization, is fantastic if you can afford the time and expense...

Hahah, that's the whole point! This hobby can get expensive...

johnson

12-03-11, 23:56

double post

johnson

12-04-11, 00:32

1. Centurion Arms 12.5" HF w/ Aimpoint (1-4x in the future)
2. Centurion Arms 16.1" Recon w/ 3-10x

mkmckinley

12-04-11, 01:46

I would say a 1.0 and then maybe a 2.0 if you do that kind of shooting. A 1.0 type AR as you define it is optimized for an actual defensive shooting that you may encounter: 0-100m and fast. In my mind that should be the priority. The more I shoot the more I realize a 14.5-16" lightweight or mid-weight barrel, a good RDS, a light free float rail, good light, and good sling are all I need for 99% of my rifle shooting. I have an SPR build but the cost to benefit ratio was way higher than anything else I own. You can turn a good 1.0 into a good 1.5 with just an optics change.

Scoby

12-04-11, 07:08

If it had to be only one do-all it would be this. So 1.5. It's versatility is the reason for its existence.

http://i830.photobucket.com/albums/zz229/Scoby/NoveskeN415x5.jpg

I'd probably take the M4s off the LMT and pack it as a backup also.

TehLlama

12-04-11, 07:22

I've built some (1) type rifles for my wife, and the three I've accumulated are actually the most sensible rifles I own.

All are 11-12" LW Middy units with just an X300, DD Sights, and Aimpoint Micro, with a KAC IWS Lower and CTR stock.

From there, I lean towards the 1.6-1.8 category. A 14.5" w/ ACOG and UBR, a 16" Recce with a TR24 and a UBR, an 18" Mk12 upper with Leupold TS30 and ACS.

If I could do it all over again, I'd have three rifles:
A type 1.0 KISS rifle, 16", X300 and Aimpoint
A very similar suppressed SBR, same handguard/light/optic
A 16" Recce type precision rig, with a Short Dot

Cameron

12-04-11, 10:06

SIMBA-LEE

12-04-11, 11:10

One precision rifle (bolt or semi-auto) with 3x-9x scope (or similar) with illuminated reticle capability for medium to long range & dim light shots and hunting big game. I like 308 due to easy ammo resupply.

One general purpose 5.56 Patrol Carbine with 1x RDS for close to medium range fast action self-defense shots in any light.

ra2bach

12-04-11, 13:25

The specialists; a Mk12 and Mk18 inspired builds on either side of the Recce...
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2544/5765735483_57a218f334_b.jpg

After shooting all three, I am seeing the increased utility of the Recce Concept. In reality, it doesn't really matter if the barrel is 14.5" or 15" or 16" or 17" the optic typically will determine the range and performance. It is interesting that the practical shooters like the 3-gun guys seem to have a commonality on specs that fall into the Recce concept 16-17" barrel low mag variable etc.

Look at two rifles of the Noveske Shooting team (http://www.noveskeshootingteam.com/the_gear/) who are required to shoot very quickly at close range and also make longer range precise shots.

Rifle Specs:
Noveske-17" SS barrel/ rifle length gas/ pinned gas block
Noveske upper/lower receiver
Geissele DMR trigger
Schmidt & Bender Zenith Short Dot 1-4X w/ 3GS Cat tail
AD Recon Scope mount
ERGO Grip
Magpul PRS stock/ AFG fore grip/ BAD lever
SJC TITAN Brake
Troy TRX 13" Battle Rail

Rifle Specs:
Noveske-16" SS Recon barrel/ Mid length gas/ pinned gas block
Noveske upper/lower receiver
Geissele DMR trigger
Schmidt & Bender Zenith Short Dot 1-4X w/ 3GS Cat tail
AD Recon Scope mount
Magpul MIAD grip/ PRS stock/ AFG fore grip/ BAD lever
Surefire MB556K Brake
Troy TRX 13" Battle Rail

Cameron

a longer gun can be operated very quickly but is not as useful in tight places. if I was vehicle or on an entry team, I would go with a shorty. but I'm not...

my two current choices are 16" midlength with 1-4, and 14.5 carbine with Aimpoint, possibly adding a magnifier kept in a pouch on my gear. after these two, I just have multiples of the same and small variations such as precision 16" barrel and lightweight setups...

these two occupy so much of the same ground that either could substitute for the other with the 16"/1-4 having capabilities toward longer range/precision, and the 14.5 shading in the other direction.

if I was getting my first (or only) gun, I would do like so many of the upper echelon trainers recommend - 16", midlength or car depending on whose philosophy you agree with most. it would wear an Aimpoint and probably a magnifier. a 1-4 would be on a second gun...

Shoulderthinggoesup

12-04-11, 16:45

(imo)
Specialization is only really an advantage in a team situation where others can take up slack for disadvantages/inflexibility that comes with deeper specialization. If you are in a well organized team (and/or ONLY going to be put in situations where the specialization are a clear advantage like competitions ) being specialized can be an advantage. If this is not the case, being flexible in how you can operate is more important. I believe the recce concept is the most useful weapon for a person who is not working within a squad/swat/etc. (and/or will not have access to easy change of weapons). I think of it as the do-all "guerrilla warfare" weapon.

I think my philosophy comes from my experience as a backpacker, where I am required to carry everything I take with me for long, long distances. Every piece of gear I carry needs to have multiple uses for it to make the cut. I want the same out of my rifle.

Edit: I though about it a bit more and feel like I can summarize like this: Having the right tool for job does not always mean having the most specific tool. Humans have limited carrying ability and combat situations/needs can be very unpredictable. Being equipped to handle a variety of situations can be a major asset, and the recce (especially 1-4x/ rds+mag) concept allows for this. Flexibility is in it's own way a specialization that can be a powerful advantage.

SteveS

12-04-11, 17:20

My opinion on life is I have had ARs since 1971 or 2 mostly Colt and BCM . I have had H bars " too nose heavy",good for target or bench rest type of shooting and even varmit use. I really don't like the Carbine length as I used to have an XM15 or car 15? or what ever they called the one with the 11 inch or so barrel and the 5 inch muzzle brake. I do like the BCM mid length 16 inch barrel, the longer sight radius and gas tube seems work better... well at least the voices in my head say so!!!. The 20 inch pencil barrel is OK but the A2 barrel is better balanced IMO. Buy a quality AR and you can buy several top ends "as needed" as it seems you need at least 2 ARs. Barrel length doesn't make much accuracy difference though feet per second in a 223 size bullet makes lots of difference. what is the intendended use of the AR? Mine rifles are for fun! I am not a commando type . What makes AR types so fun is they can do almost everything within reason.

Cameron

12-04-11, 18:00

(imo)
Specialization is only really an advantage in a team situation where others can take up slack for disadvantages/inflexibility that comes with deeper specialization.
...
Flexibility is in it's own way a specialization that can be a powerful advantage.

I agree, who was the guy that said "specialization is for insects"?

Like you say military weapons are typically specialized as most are members of a team, and can specialize without a downside. As an individual that may be doing everything, and potentially alone, I like the accurate 16" with an optic with some magnification as it gives me the largest operating envelope.

Cameron

Amicus

12-04-11, 18:19

I agree, who was the guy that said "specialization is for insects"?

Cameron

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

A broad envelope indeed, and worthy of some effort.

Personally, as to carbines, I think you should only be as specialized (or as general) as a reasonable person assumes is appropriate for the situation he thinks he is going to encounter. For example, you don't need a precision rifle for home defense, but whatever you choose should be capable of doing the job in your home, and in the areas around your home, and and be sufficient wherever and under the circumstances that the job might require for completion.

For a 5 yard to 300 yard match, you could probably use a similar rifle, with possibly a heavier bbl, and a variable optic might be nice, but not required.

This sounds a little flaky, I suspect, but that tends to be my approach. Cameron's view is pretty much the same as mine when it comes to equipment. Most of my SHTF stuff tends to be 16" in bbl length with a 1.5x compact ACOG.

MistWolf

12-04-11, 18:45

A basic rifle, though not optimized for any specific role, still performs amazing well at a wide variety of tasks, something that tends to be forgotten in the quest for the perfect carbine.

A basic 16" carbine with a standard profile barrel is has enough accuracy and effective range that really, most specialized rifles are not needed.

A heavy barrel isn't more accurate than a lighter one, it's just more consistent with a greater range of temperature and loads and as it controls heat better, is more resistant to erosion. While a longer barrel gives more velocity and energy down range, it's not needed to make consistent hits on small targets, such as prairiedogs, out to 300 yards or larger targets out to about 500 or so.

As Cameron pointed out, sighting system plays an important role in determining what job a rifle is suitable for than barrel profile or length, but we tend to forget less is more- Less magnification is more versatile. It's easier to use sights with low or no magnification out to longer distances than it is to use high magnification sights at close range. Not that high magnification sights should be avoided- at longer ranges there is no denying their advantage. It's that they are at a greater disadvantage at close range than a low/no mag sight is at long range.

I don't think there is any practical gain to specifically configure a carbine as a Type 1.5. No special barrel profile or length is needed. A Type 1 carbine becomes a Type 1.5 by simply adding the appropriate optic.

Specialized rifles have their place. I built a 20" precision rifle using an HBar profile barrel and a 10x optic for shooting prairiedog sized targets at longer ranges. My carbine with iron sights can probably do 70% of what the 20" can and with the 10x optic, 90%. But it's that last 10% where my specialized precision AR really shines.

A basic 16" carbine gives you a the Type 1 and Type 1.5 with a change of optics. More magnification gives you 90% of a Type 2. Get a second dedicated Type 2 gives you all three rifles by mixing & matching optics and lowers to your uppers

Cameron

12-04-11, 18:51

Don't get me wrong, I currently have a 10.5" a 14.5" and a 16" and the 10.5" with an EOTech is my choice for my home defense carbine, and the 16" with the variable is unloaded in the safe.

After shooting center fire rifles for more than a quarter of a century, I have gained an increased appreciation for the AR platform and see it as the system to beat for small arms, (probably stating the obvious for this board).

Then specifically within my narrow window of experience I really like the 10-11.5" SBR with a RDS and light for close quarters, for mid ranges outside approx 0-500 yards the 16" with a low mag variable makes the most sense, and finally stepping up in caliber to a .308 AR type with an 18" barrel and a mid range optic really expands the envelope and goes all the way from 0-1,000

Cameron

Cameron

12-04-11, 19:06

I don't think there is any practical gain to specifically configure a carbine as a Type 1.5. No special barrel profile or length is needed. A Type 1 carbine becomes a Type 1.5 by simply adding the appropriate optic.

That's right, I have found optic to be the deciding factor when making hits at distance or making hits fast that are close. Although as the range increases the other thing as that, a more accurate rifle in the real world translates to a faster rifle. A 0.5MOA rifle shoots into a 2.5" group at 500yds, a 2MOA rifle shooting into 10" this means if you are shooting both at a 12" target at 500yards you can be faster or less precise with the more accurate rifle. In this example you can effectively places shots anywhere within an 8" circle on the target and get hits. With the 2MOA rifle you effectively have to hold you sights into a 2" circle on the target to get hits in that 12". That is why I like the more accurate match type barrels when coupled with a magnified optic.

Cameron

MistWolf

12-04-11, 20:07

I agree with you, Cameron. I have found a basic rifle with a standard or lightweight profile is just as accurate as one with a heavier barrel. A basic carbine is the perfect candidate for a Type 1.5. It's not difficult to make a basic carbine with the kind of accuracy needed without compromising accuracy. (I have no experience with how well an SBR would fit the role of a Type 1.5 but I have no reason to believe it wouldn't work)

In my opinion, the typical AR barrel misses the target when it comes to the most practical profile. Profiles offered typically are the M4, Government, Lightweight, HBar and Bull Barrel. What is needed is a profile similar to what is most commonly offered in bolt action hunting rifles- the Sporter weight. It's heavier than what we know as the lightweight and much lighter than the AR HBar. It wouldn't have the M203 notch of the M4 and wouldn't be thicker past the FSB like the Government profile. It would give better heat control than the LW, better balance than the Gov and is lighter than the HBar. It would be the perfect profile for someone looking for a good Type 1/1.5 carbine

glocktogo

12-04-11, 20:53

I'd say I'm at .75, 1.0 & 2.0.

Colt M16A1 with Colt 6933 11.5" upper & Aimpoint T1
Noveske N4 lower with 14.5" BCM LW Middy & Aimpoint H1
Noveske 18" Rogue Hunter with Bushnell Elite 6500 2.5-16X

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s157/Glocktogo/DSC_1114.jpg

I'd like to do a 1.5, but what's held me back is the optic choices. I'd like one that weighed no more than 14oz max (11-13oz would be my ideal) with 1.25-6+ magnification, illuminated reticle and an MSRP under $800. It seems like the weight factor is the killer. There are quite a few good choices out there, but they weigh 16-18oz plus.

If I could only have one rifle, it would be a 16" mid-weight, mid length AR. I'd have an Aimpoint Micro on a Larue QD mount and a magnified optic in the 2-8X range in a Larue QD mount. That way I could at least cover most of my bases. It would be a Jack of all trades, master of none rig though. I like to have options! :)

Shoulderthinggoesup

12-04-11, 21:55

In my opinion, the typical AR barrel misses the target when it comes to the most practical profile. Profiles offered typically are the M4, Government, Lightweight, HBar and Bull Barrel. What is needed is a profile similar to what is most commonly offered in bolt action hunting rifles- the Sporter weight. It's heavier than what we know as the lightweight and much lighter than the AR HBar. It wouldn't have the M203 notch of the M4 and wouldn't be thicker past the FSB like the Government profile. It would give better heat control than the LW, better balance than the Gov and is lighter than the HBar. It would be the perfect profile for someone looking for a good Type 1/1.5 carbine

Sounds like your talking exactly about the Noveske N4 barrel (lighter than hbar, heavier than LW, no m203, no increased thickness.

I paid way to much money for a CL barrel (n4) because A. It is very accurate B. I have a strong distaste for the m4/gov profiles.

wild_wild_wes

12-04-11, 21:58

In my opinion, the typical AR barrel misses the target when it comes to the most practical profile. Profiles offered typically are the M4, Government, Lightweight, HBar and Bull Barrel. What is needed is a profile similar to what is most commonly offered in bolt action hunting rifles- the Sporter weight. It's heavier than what we know as the lightweight and much lighter than the AR HBar. It wouldn't have the M203 notch of the M4 and wouldn't be thicker past the FSB like the Government profile. It would give better heat control than the LW, better balance than the Gov and is lighter than the HBar. It would be the perfect profile for someone looking for a good Type 1/1.5 carbine

Sounds like you are describing the Noveske N4 barrel
http://www.rainierarms.com/img/shop/product/dd435d2a30c72aae491f0b56d59d8265.jpg