View Full Version : Military and the Middie
I know that the mil is looking to possibly get a piston system but does anyone know or think that they will adopt the middie at some point?
Nope. They've made up their mind that they want a piston gun. And I think that's okay but retrofitting the AR platform is not the way to go about it IMO.
I know that the mil is looking to possibly get a piston system but does anyone know or think that they will adopt the middie at some point?
It's very unlikely in my opinion. Institutional inertia is very hard to overcome and the middy will be viewed just like every other possible M4/M16 replacement, a little bit better but not "better enough" to warrant the cost of replacing the current inventory.
I heard they were going all 300 BLK!
strictly opinions here... does anyone think that the piston AR will ever be "officially" adopted by the mil?
strictly opinions here... does anyone think that the piston AR will ever be "officially" adopted by the mil?
IMO it makes since. They can just replace the uppers.
But everything will be just speculation unless someone with some "inside" knowledge joins us. Hell, even the military might not know at this point.
justin_247
01-30-12, 09:29
strictly opinions here... does anyone think that the piston AR will ever be "officially" adopted by the mil?
No. Especially with the budget being rolled back, personnel being cut, and Iraq deployments ending...
There's only one piston retrofit that meets military specifications - the HK416 - and it doesn't do much now that the current M-4 doesn't.
justin_247
01-30-12, 09:33
Oh, and the HK416 has its own share of problems, too. There's a thread on this...
Everything is about priorities, and all priorities come down to available budgets.
I know that the mil is looking to possibly get a piston system but does anyone know or think that they will adopt the middie at some point?
No. I think the main reason is because there is no set standard on gas port position, gas port size AND I do not think that middy gassed guns run all that well on FA.
I know of one .Mil contract holder that had a problem getting a mid-length gun to run well on FA.
C4
ICANHITHIMMAN
01-30-12, 09:50
I cant seam to figure out what the heck they are going to do or why they are going to do it.
I would advocate for a scraping of the whole issue and a re interpitation of the Hagues declaration III. Wide scale issue of new ammo with 70g Barnes TSX bullets or something along thouse lines. We dont need a new rifle we need a new bullet to fight an enemy that this treaty never applied to they did not sign it.
I do not think that middy gassed guns run all that well on FA.Isn't it just a matter of getting the same amount of force (gas) on the carrier key as the carbine? I know, everything else equal, the cyclic rate would naturally be a little slower but not sure how that could be the deal breaker. Just curious on what went wrong (talking issues unsuppressed right?)
Middies run better on full auto in my experience. The standard M4 cycles so fast that it's harder to control.
Suppressed full auto with a middy runs like an M4 unsuppressed.
No. Especially with the budget being rolled back, personnel being cut, and Iraq deployments ending...
This. No need to spend more money on a weapon system that does "good enough". If a few specialized units wanna run HK's or SCAR's or whatever...noones gonna care. But for wholesale issue to big Army, I doubt you will see anything differant than more of the same.
Isn't it just a matter of getting the same amount of force (gas) on the carrier key as the carbine? I know, everything else equal, the cyclic rate would naturally be a little slower but not sure how that could be the deal breaker. Just curious on what went wrong (talking issues unsuppressed right?)
I don't know exactly what the problem was, but my guess it was a combination of gas and the extra dwell time.
C4
skullworks
01-30-12, 11:03
So exactly who are these mil guys you speak of? AFAIK USMC, USA, and USAF never really saw eye to eye as to the M16/M4 platform, and now all of them are switching to piston - in unison? :blink:
p22shooter30
01-30-12, 11:09
I think Red Jacket will take care of it.
I think Red Jacket will take care of it.
vince left (harhar) and the "general" scooted off without a solid endorsement. that crap was all hollywood. did anyone actually think that was a legit eval???
i mean didn't they just use adams arms retrofit parts and a hydro-buffer? all of us here could have a government contract if we can crank them out then...
(A historian would be better) but my take is large-scale platform changes only happen alongside large-scale caliber changes, e.g. M14 and M16. We are not abandoning 5.56.
Now if they're smart they'd have congress authorize to register and stamp the lowers for the civilian market. With the $ you could have brand new shit everywhere.
I don't know exactly what the problem was, but my guess it was a combination of gas and the extra dwell time.Roger. Yeah I know if you are talking about barrel after port consistent with a M4/M16, midlength would need 16.5".
p22shooter30
01-30-12, 11:43
vince left (harhar) and the "general" scooted off without a solid endorsement. that crap was all hollywood. did anyone actually think that was a legit eval???
i mean didn't they just use adams arms retrofit parts and a hydro-buffer? all of us here could have a government contract if we can crank them out then...
it only took two weeks to build it too.
Middies run better on full auto in my experience. The standard M4 cycles so fast that it's harder to control.
Suppressed full auto with a middy runs like an M4 unsuppressed.Cool yeah I certainly am out of my expertise but feel like if you can run a 10.3 on carbine gas, a 14.5 midlength should be like you described.
I know that the mil is looking to possibly get a piston system but does anyone know or think that they will adopt the middie at some point?
What is a middie?
What is a middie?
Middie = Mid-Length gas system
Carbine
Mid
Rifle
The military won't switch, it shouldn't. A few modifications to the current system would be the most cost-effective solution. A new round would probably be best. But, as everyone else is saying, the reasoning to switch isn't there. Nothing has come out that completely destroys the DI M4. Switching would not only cost a HUGE amount, but then you have to retrain EVERYONE on the system. And, the AR piston system has not been refined for 40+ years with fielding in just about every situation and application possible.
Middie = Mid-Length gas system
Carbine
Mid
Rifle
I'm sorry but I'm still confused as the M4 barrel has it's gas port at 7.5 inches of a 14.5 inch barrel, doesn't that make it a "middie?"
I'm sorry but I'm still confused as the M4 barrel has it's gas port at 7.5 inches of a 14.5 inch barrel, doesn't that make it a "middie?"
yes and no, in a 14.5" barrel with 7" gas port makes it equivalent to a 16" barrel and a 9" gas port. for all practical purposes here though most people have a 16" barrel and a 7" gas port (most typical civilian carbine configuration). Most can't get anything less than a 16" barrel due to legal restrictions (NFA). Personally I wouldn't want a barrel with a flash hider welded on.
No. A mid-length gas system is hallmarked by the length of the gas tube, in and of itself, not where it falls on the length of any given barrel.
Carbine = 7" gas tube
Mid-length = 9" gas tube
Rifle = whatever length a rifle gas tube is. 11", innit?
The mid-length gas port is 9.5 inches from the chamber. Rifles in this configuration are what is being referred to when you hear "mid-length" or "middy/middie".
ETA: Rifle is 13 inches, not 11.
but you can have the equivalent by dropping the barrel length to 14.5" and a 7" gas tube.
yes and no, in a 14.5" barrel with 7" gas port makes it equivalent to a 16" barrel and a 9" gas port.
No, not "yes and no." Just "No."
A 16" w/mid-length gas is a 16" w/mid-length gas.
It is not "equivalent" to a 14.5" barrel w/carbine gas, because you have two dimensions that are completely dissimilar from one another. Add the variables like ammo, buffer, spring, wear rates of all and other components...
"Equivalent" according to which metric?
And, what's this got to do with what the military supposedly is or is not going to select or how it supposedly (which is to say, largely imaginarily...) views mid-length gas systems?
No. A mid-length gas system is hallmarked by the length of the gas tube, in and of itself, not where it falls on the length of any given barrel.
Carbine = 7" gas tube
Mid-length = 9" gas tube
Rifle = whatever length a rifle gas tube is. 11", innit?
The mid-length gas port is 9.5 inches from the chamber. Rifles in this configuration are what is being referred to when you hear "mid-length" or "middy/middie".
ETA: Rifle is 13 inches, not 11.
Thanks guys, makes sense now, found this too.
http://www.03designgroup.com/technotes/carbine-vs-mid-length-gas-system
Thanks guys, makes sense now, found this too.
http://www.03designgroup.com/technotes/carbine-vs-mid-length-gas-system
keep in mind those are with 16" barrels...
No, not "yes and no." Just "No."
A 16" w/mid-length gas is a 16" w/mid-length gas.
It is not "equivalent" to a 14.5" barrel w/carbine gas, because you have two dimensions that are completely dissimilar from one another. Add the variables like ammo, buffer, spring, wear rates of all and other components...
"Equivalent" according to which metric?
And, what's this got to do with what the military supposedly is or is not going to select or how it supposedly (which is to say, largely imaginarily...) views mid-length gas systems?
equivalent as in the gas pressure and dwell time. Todd asked a specific question about middies thus the branching off. sorry i didn't know we cud not deviate from topic .. like at all...:rolleyes:
keep in mind those are with 16" barrels...
Ok, just lay it out for me, when the OP refers to the military going to a middie what does he mean?
Ok, just lay it out for me, when the OP refers to the military going to a middie what does he mean?
right now the mil only uses carbines and rifle lengths. the middie is a relative newcomer to the market and is basically in the civilian sector right now. my question was does do people think the mil will eventually adopt the middie or not.
the middie is a relative newcomer to the market and is basically in the civilian sector right now. my question was does do people think the mil will eventually adopt the middie or not.
What is it, length, specs, etc.???
equivalent as in the gas pressure and dwell time. Todd asked a specific question about middies thus the branching off. sorry i didn't know we cud not deviate from topic .. like at all...:rolleyes:
It's not that you're deviating from the topic. It's that you're completely wrong.
Both the port pressure and the dwell would be different in those two set ups.
You're posting on a board where people actually know shit.... not AR15.com. And it's abundantly clear that you don't know what you're talking about... and don't even know it.
It's not that you're deviating from the topic. It's that you're completely wrong.
Both the port pressure and the dwell would be different in those two set ups.
help me understand because i read that if you have a 16" barrel and a 9" gas tube that you could create the same performance by going to a 14.5" barrel and a 7" gas tube. it makes sense that cutting off 2" off the barrel would give you the same dwell time. where's my disconnect? :confused:
It's not that you're deviating from the topic. It's that you're completely wrong.
Both the port pressure and the dwell would be different in those two set ups.
You're posting on a board where people actually know shit.... not AR15.com. And it's abundantly clear that you don't know what you're talking about... and don't even know it.
wow lol ... ur kind of a jerk about it huh? sheesh sorry master of the universe...
M4C can be harsh sometimes. The carbine and middies are not going to act the same because the pressures are going to be different. The pressure 7 inches down the barrel is going to be different that at 9 inches no matter where the port and muzzle are.
M4C can be harsh sometimes. The carbine and middies are not going to act the same because the pressures are going to be different. The pressure 7 inches down the barrel is going to be different that at 9 inches no matter where the port and muzzle are.
in your opinion would you rather have a carbine (that is 16" barrel and 7" gas tube) or a middie (that is 16" barrel and 9" gas tube)?
vicious_cb
01-30-12, 15:09
help me understand because i read that if you have a 16" barrel and a 9" gas tube that you could create the same performance by going to a 14.5" barrel and a 7" gas tube. it makes sense that cutting off 2" off the barrel would give you the same dwell time. where's my disconnect? :confused:
NO NO NO NO! :mad:
The further away you get from the chamber, the lower your port pressure will be so no they will not be equal. Dwell time only tells part of the story.
skullworks
01-30-12, 15:18
in your opinion would you rather have a carbine (that is 16" barrel and 7" gas tube) or a middie (that is 16" barrel and 9" gas tube)?
I'm not C-grunt, but I would go with the middie every day in the week and twice on Sundays.
NO NO NO NO! :mad:
The further away you get from the chamber, the lower your port pressure will be so no they will not be equal. Dwell time only tells part of the story.
crap. kind of confusing then. i have a couple M4s and one of them have a 16" barrel and a 7" gas tube. I was going to get a new 14.5" barrel and keep the 7" gas tube to kind of lessen the gas pressure. is this not advisable?
in your opinion would you rather have a carbine (that is 16" barrel and 7" gas tube) or a middie (that is 16" barrel and 9" gas tube)?
I've had both and never really noticed a difference in how they perform. I never shot my Noveske (middie) any better than my Colt.
skullworks
01-30-12, 15:20
crap. kind of confusing then. i have a couple M4s and one of them have a 16" barrel and a 7" gas tube. I was going to get a new 14.5" barrel and keep the 7" gas tube to kind of lessen the gas pressure. is this not advisable?
14,5" with 7" gas tube is fine (as this is what the carbine system was designed to look like). 16" with 7" gas tube = less so.
14,5" with 7" gas tube is fine (as this is what the carbine system was designed to look like). 16" with 7" gas tube = less so.
gotcha. i think i'm going to reconfig it that way then. thanx :cool:
This thread makes my head hurt...
A Carbine-length gas system has a distance of ~ 7.5" from the face of the upper receiver to the rear of the front sight base. Hence the "7.0" designation for carbine-length hanguard systems.
A Mid-length gas system has a distance of ~9.5" from the face of the upper receiver to the rear of the front sight base. Hence the "9.0" designation for carbine-length hanguard systems.
A Rifle-length gas system has a distance of ~12.5" from the face of the upper receiver to the rear of the front sight base. Hence the "12.0" designation for carbine-length hanguard systems.
If you do not understand this, it is probably best not to be doling out advice.
Gas system length has no relation to barrel length and is instead an absolute measurement. If you have a Carbine-length gas system on a 16" barrel it is the same tube and handguards for a Carbine-length gas system on a 14.5" barrel, 12.5" barrel, 11.5" barrel, and 10.5" barrel.
ETA:
there is nothing wrong with any of these, either. None of this "less so" or other nonsense.
You also cannot go simply switching around gas systems on existing barrels. This will require you to either weld up the old gas port and drill the new one in the alternate location or, the intelligent thing to do, simply buy a new barrel with the gas system length that you want.
crap. kind of confusing then. i have a couple M4s and one of them have a 16" barrel and a 7" gas tube. I was going to get a new 14.5" barrel and keep the 7" gas tube to kind of lessen the gas pressure. is this not advisable?
That would give you a real M4 and we in the Army like them, someday I'll get a 14.5 for my Colt LE.
To the OP, from everything I have read, and heard at last year's Infantry conference, we are not considering a barrel change.
Is there a thread with all the civilian nomenclature like "middie" that I can study?
there is nothing wrong with any of these, either. None of this "less so" or other nonsense.
I agree, from my brief research to learn what "middie" meant it seems to be personal preference based on felt recoil and parts life length.
I agree, from my brief research to learn what "middie" meant it seems to be personal preference based on felt recoil and parts life length.
Neither of which anyone has been able to quantify to date.
You also cannot go simply switching around gas systems on existing barrels. This will require you to either weld up the old gas port and drill the new one in the alternate location or, the intelligent thing to do, simply buy a new barrel with the gas system length that you want.
yea. i never said i was going to change stuff around with the same parts. i stated earlier that i was gonna get a 14.5" barrel. some of us may be nubs but i think we all know that the gas port can't be moved around on a barrel... but thanx.
yea. i never said i was going to change stuff around with the same parts. i stated earlier that i was gonna get a 14.5" barrel. some of us may be nubs but i think we all know that the gas port can't be moved around on a barrel... but thanx.
you would be surprised. there is a thread around here somewhere posted by a guy that mounted, or wanted to mount, the FSB in a different location and didn't understand why that might present a problem.
:suicide:
Neither of which anyone has been able to quantify to date.
Yeah, you can never quantify "felt recoil" and parts life length is something I would not be worried about as long as parts are available and inexpensive. I can say that I've been firing M4s since 1996 and I couldn't tell any difference with my Colt LE 6920 that I bought a year ago. I've recently joined many gun forums and I have found that people split hairs here more than the car and motorcycle forums that I've been a member of.
you would be surprised. there is a thread around here somewhere posted by a guy that mounted, or wanted to mount, the FSB in a different location and didn't understand why that might present a problem.
:suicide:
sounds like me about 6 months ago. :haha: but... NO THAT WASN'T ME!!! :nono::laugh:
so i take it that you guys would think that me dropping barrel length is an exercise in futility?
so i take it that you guys would think that me dropping barrel length is an exercise in futility?
What is the barrel you have now not doing for you? How many rounds through it? In what environments?
Don't change parts because you read something on the internet, push the parts you have to the point that you are better than them, then change.
What is the barrel you have now not doing for you? How many rounds through it? In what environments?
Don't change parts because you read something on the internet, push the parts you have to the point that you are better than them, then change.
i have a 16" barrel with 7" gas tube. Its all LMT so the barrel is forged. i "read on the internet" that the gas blow back would wear out the BCG more on this setup so that's why i thought about altering it. i dunno...
Stay off the internet...lifes better that way. Your AR is fine the way it is. If you want to go shorter...do it. Stay concious of NFA laws and you'll be fine. There are way too many internet AR experts out there that don't even own an AR.
Oh, and the HK416 has its own share of problems, too. There's a thread on this...
Which thread is that? I have searched, and read a few, but only one specific HK416 user feedback thread, that I posted in.
What kind of issues have you experienced with the HK416?
i have a 16" barrel with 7" gas tube. Its all LMT so the barrel is forged. i "read on the internet" that the gas blow back would wear out the BCG more on this setup so that's why i thought about altering it. i dunno...
Is BCG wear that big a concern for you that you feel the need to reconfigure your rifle? Bolts wear out, regardless of whether it is a rifle, mid-length or carbine gas system.
Personally I think you'll invest more in switching out uppers to address a largely theoretical concern than you would in replacing the occasional broken bolt. And I'm willing to wager that 95% of civilian AR owners haven't shot their rifles enough to break a bolt. Your 16" LMT is fine the way it is.
roger that. thanx guys. u just saved me some $$$ to redirect to ammo :D
If you are typically firing 2,500 or so rounds per year through your rifle, just shoot it until something breaks and then repair as needed.
If you are shooting 2,500 rounds or more per month, then you might wish to be more proactive.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.