Why do mfgs still make carbine length gas systems vs. mid-length?
Printable View
Why do mfgs still make carbine length gas systems vs. mid-length?
Cost? They are already tooled up for carbine system.
Imagine because there are a lot of manufactures who will tell you that it is just as good, and lets be honest how many manufactures out there make a mid length system that you would trust? Well that and the fact that most shooters out there don't know that middy length even exists should say a lot. Also, when you are looking at a short carbine for many SBR lengths carbine gas system seems to be the way to go. And then you have the guys who want something close to what they carried in the service.
I will say that I prefer my middy, but carbine still has a place depending on the mission and what you want and the pros and cons of what you are looking at.
Two words: Mil Spec.
That is the military spec gas length, and only somewhat recently it seems middy gas systems have become the go-to choice, at least for barrel lengths from 14.5" and up. 14.5" and down, a carbine is a better choice for obvious reasons.
I imagine as long as the .mil continues to use the carbine gas system that manufacturers will continue to make it. It's also the standard for SBRs as I understand it. Plus there's no standard spec out for mid-length gas systems. With all the companies out there who can't make a carbine length gun right when there is a spec for it, do you really want them to start making midlength guns for which there is no spec at all?
I'm curious as to why you would feel they shouldn't make them?
Carbine length gas systems will run pretty much any ammo you throw at them, and with the right buffer and spring combo will cycle smoothly while doing so.
Because carbine-length gas systems on ARs are a proven system.
The reason mid-lengths originally came about is because carbine-length gas systems weren't designed for 16" barrels, and some engineers found that moving the gas port closer to the muzzle than the carbine-length allowed on those 16" barrels was more optimal. Thus, the mid-length gas system.
P.S.
Just to clarify...Is a carbine length gas system ok on a 14.5" barreled rifle?
Because The Chart told them it had to be. And virtually everyone on the interwebz said Buy a 6920 and shoot it.
Unless you shoot full auto or shoot 10,000 rds a year I don't see how it makes any difference except in length of forearm/rail. And it us what is being made for the military so I imagine that length is plentiful.
3 gun says Thou shalt shoot only 18" rifle systems, so in two years that may be all you see.
I'm not sold on 14.5" w/ mid length. I prefer my 14.5" to be carbine gassed.
They're are plenty of threads of people having problems with 14.5" mids, even from good manufacturers.
On the other hand I would never buy a 16" carbine, I would only buy mid length.
The question is, why?
I have both and see no massive advantage. Granted, both rifles are not over-gassed and run a different spring and buffer combo, but the two shoot incredibly similarly. There might be the slightest ammt of recoil difference between the two, but it's not much. That said, I can feed even the weakest Tula (not that I plan on it, but I have run some very low powered reloads through it) into the 16" carbine and the rifle will cycle every time.
My experience working with manufactures is this:
1. Availability - there are just a lot more carbine parts.
2. Cost - same as above.
3. Lack of education - most folks really don't know how the rifle works; understanding how to make it work better is completely lost on them.
4. Customer confidence - "That's the same rifle I carried in the service", "So... what does the Army use?"
If 3 and 4 changed, 1 and 2 would also change... but as we have seen with about every other consumer commodity, the best is not always the one that wins; humans are strange creatures.
This is usually because they're either running cheap ammo or have some kind of weird buffer arrangement.
A similar issue happened when KAC first brought out its SR-15. People spent $2K+ on the rifle, tried to run it the cheapest ammo possible, and then proceeded to attack the rifle when they experienced malfunctions.
Well yea, why not?
A glock can shoot just about anything.
A beretta 92f will shoot just about anything.
Ruger 10/22 will shoot just about anything.
But for some reason the AR platform gets a special pass to malfunction?
If it can not shoot the dirtiest and cheapest ammo on the market, something is wrong with that firearm.
I can run dirty and cheap ammo through my AK all day long. But if an AR malfunctions then you dont run cheap ammo through it,
It's not getting a pass. The AR was designed and manufactured to shoot 5.56 mm NATO ammunition. The problem is when people shoot low quality .223 ammunition through it. Some work ok with it and some don't. 5.56 mm NATO ammunition and .223 ammunition are not the same thing and are made to two different specifications. I don't see it getting a pass as you say when people have malfunctions while running it with the ammunition it was designed to work with.
"Just about anything." Exactly.
I don't know if you're just being a troll or what, but if you've never experienced a malfunction on a Beretta 92 when shooting cheap steel cased ammo, you haven't shot it very much.
There are all kinds of handguns and rifles that have manuals that direct the user not to use various kinds of ammo, since it can cause malfunctions.
Improperly built ARs with carbine-length gas system can have a myriad of different malfunctions. Yet I don't see you bashing them.
Amen. I'd like to turn it around and ask "why is the midlength still popular?"
I understand it's a hit with people that shoot full power 5.56, but I got rid of a 16" midlength upper and a 14.5" carbine upper due to cycling issues with weaker ammo, i.e., lower powered commercial .223 like PMC.
My 16" carbine gassed BCM weapons will eat any good quality but lower powered .223, and that's why I own only carbine gassed guns now.
While myself and many other users like the middy gas setup for 16/14.5" rifles, the carbine system isn't obsolete. Its orientation is slightly more resilient to underpowered ammo because of the increased gas dwell.
justin_247
I don't run Tula through any of my Carbines, but have run alot of .223 PMC/AE never had a Malf with it. Lots of reloads at .223 levels zero problems. Now all I shoot in my SKS is Tula -but thats what the rifle was built to use. :rolleyes:
I've never had an issue with 223 PMC or AE, either. I have had some minor problems with Wolf and Tula (short stroking), but I can count those problems on one hand.
What I'm talking about are people who come on here and complain, "I bought a BCM 14.5" middy and it won't run reliably with a Wolf XP buffer spring, LMT enhanced BCG, and H3 buffer. What a piece of crap!"
Yeah...
I will say that MOST issues with carbine or mid systems are self inflicted by the owner. I have yet to buy or shoot a quality, factory built rifle with an issue. Once home gunsmiths start changing this or adding that, thats when an issues usually occurs. Same goes when building a frankenrifle. Do your research, use quality parts and assemble correctly and your issue will be very minimum, if at all.
Maybe because the Carbine gas is more proven for 14.5 and shorter barrels to be reliable through the following:
More rounds in combat
More tests by all the warfare centers
More tests by SOPMOD program
More combat kills than Mid Gas has or ever will have likely
The military usually uses 16" barrels, so you may ask, why is this relavant to the civlian shooter. When life or death are on the line, many dont need the sexiest, the one that someone feels is more optimal, or whatever else is the flavor of the week. For some, the one that is the most proven to be reliable with a variety of ammo types and in a variety of environments is what is needed. And the most tested under the above scientific and real world tests is Carbine gas. For me at least, the possible positives of the mid length gas arent enough to weigh against the absolute and proven positives of the carbine gas. Others will differ of course, and it has been said before, grown ass man makes his own decisions. I like knowing that I dont have to do the testing myself, so I go with what is proven.
https://www.m4carbine.net/gtsearch.p...rel+&sa=Search
Right point being these uppers are less flexible in what and how they run. If you set it up just right for a certain ammo, it is "better". They do not seem to be as reliable across a broader spectrum of ammo/configurations.
As to the SR15, I feel it has similar issues, and people have reported as such. My personal SR15 upper can't be run in the winter on my lower with an A5 set up. I had to use the carbine system with the SR15 (i think carbine buffer).
Personally my favorite set up has been DD carbine gas 14.5", A5 set up, and a LMT enhanced BCG. Shoots everything and shoots as soft or softer than my SR15.