Huh. So the original barrel diameter was "gay"? And seems to me that the so-called "pencil" barrel has been around a lot longer than the M4 profile. To me, the M4 profile is the stupidest ****ing idea in the history of firearms stupid ideas. So you make a barrel heavy for stiffness and as a heat sink. Then, to save weight, you shave the barrel close to the receiver, which adds weight to the moment arm, and removes strength to where it is needed, thereby making the barrel less stiff, and more subject to heat distortion than the original thinner profile barrel. THAT is just ****ing retarded. And typical of military bureacratic idiocy.
Combined with your post about irons being faster than RDS in another thread, I can now safely take your posts with a very large grain of salt.
Why do you think pencil barrels are not good?
First, with a semi-auto AR, there are very few occasions when you will ever heat up a barrel to make it shift POI.
Second, thin profile barrels cool off more quickly than thick profile barrels.
Third, the M4 profile is retarded, as I 'splained earlier.
Fourth, removing weight from the front of the carbine improves handling and target acquisition more than you can imagine, until you handle one.
I grew up with the M16/M16A1 and still think there was very little wrong with the original ones; but accept the flattop/RDS/new furniture as an improvement.
deadlyfire, your question/statement was cool. And provided a context where we could discuss the "whys". Markm is the one that chose to go "full retard".

