Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 148

Thread: "Fast" AR

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Posts
    1,365
    Feedback Score
    37 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by a0cake View Post
    The distinction between reliability and durability is important to make.........


    ......So the goal then, for the tactical shooter / gun manufacturer, is to strike a perfect balance between speed / good firing characteristics / long term durability and on the other side, reliability in adverse conditions. These two sides plot inversely on a Cartesian Graph.

    Yeah......I think it would be really hard to have the best of both worlds and, you'd end up landing on one side of that perfect balance or the other.

    That's the way I see it.
    Scoby


    “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”Thomas Jefferson, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in “On Crimes and Punishment”, 1764

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Posts
    1,365
    Feedback Score
    37 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    ..............we would instead employ certain COF design rationale (such as starting stages with dowloaded mags and limiting subsequent mag capacity to force reloads and not reward Beta mags and such).
    Ours are done the same way.
    First mag is downloaded to 10 rds. Some stages force a reload and some don't.

    I hate a frigin tactical reload BTW.
    Last edited by Scoby; 04-25-12 at 12:04.
    Scoby


    “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”Thomas Jefferson, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in “On Crimes and Punishment”, 1764

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    41
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Canonshooter View Post
    Considering all of the "virtues" we look for and all the "downsides" we try to avoid in optic selection, I think the Prismatic is simply a unique compromise. IMO it is not any more or less "tactical" than other popular options, which are compromises as well.

    When I Google "Prismatic review" and read some of the links (mostly comments on gun boards - little in formal, objective reviews), I remained convinced that not too many understand/appreciate what this optic is. Everyone wants to compare it to RDS and magnified optics, but the Prismatic is neither of those. Whether it's the right choice for you or not, I believe it offers more than its critics realize.
    That's good to know. I wasn't really familar with the Prismatic myself. I've been looking for an alternative to the Eotech 512 for my carbine. The Eotech is extremely fast, but I question its durability. Its shit the bed twice on me in the past 3 years.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    99
    Feedback Score
    0
    I am not in the gamer arena for the most part. I do have my AR set up with a brake and FF JP handguard, which is often seen in competition rigs, but that's about the extent of it.

    In addressing someone who would be asking this question, I would assume they don't have the experience you do Rob.

    I would start with a quality relatively milspec rifle, with quality components. Something like a BCM/Daniel Defense Mid-length 16" rifle, fixed front tower, standard or MOE handguard.

    Add a good brake like a Battle Comp or Surefire MB556k and shoot some matches. The handguards are long enough to get your arm out, and the brake coupled with the gas system should make a pretty soft shooting rifle.

    From there, once you are out shooting the rifle, start building up, like FF handguard, Geiselle trigger, new grip/stock sights, etc.

    For you Rob, I have no clue, like I said, I am not a gamer, reliability, weight, relative speed, accuracy. Those are my concerns, 3-Gun shooters have to hold their rifles for a couple minutes in a stage, and when carrying between stages. Weight is not much of an issue. However, when I carry my rifle out hunting, covering a BG home invader waiting for police to respond to my rural area, I want it lighter.

    2 worlds. They, can mix in between, but the poles are not compatible.

    Cole

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    10,780
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Basically everything used has a trade off:

    Brakes make the rifle recoil less and have less muzzle rise, trade off is is loud as shit, they suck when shooting near the ground, if shooting toward the rising sun in the morning the additional smoke will limit your vision.

    Heavy barrels make for a more stable rifle for shooting long range and the additional weight help with recoil (simple physics). But that same heavy weight is going to be harder to swing fast between close range multiple targets.

    Light carriers run very well for the most part without adjustable gas blocks. It's really slowing them down is where the unreliablity starts. This is why I don't use an adjustable gas block on my 3gun and I shoot full power .223 pressure factory ammo with a light JP carrier. My rifle weighs nearly 11lbs.





    With my current 3gun rifle ive gotten .11 sec to .125 sec splits hitting the A-zone on a Warren Tactical target at 15yds with full power .223 75gr Hornady Steel Match ammo with my 3gun rifle using a S&B Short dot at 1.1x I might be able to go faster with an EOTech or Aimpoint but probably not by much.

    In the end it's still the level of the shooter, I've gotten my ass spanked by a very skilled much younger shooter shooting a EOTech 552 on a 16" otherwise stock M4, he was just a better shooter and physically faster. At 100-200yds ours times were similar, 5-100yds is were he kicked ass. To his credit he's a full time SWAT officer in MD who probably shoot 3 times as many rifle rounds per year than I do.

    There is an old saying ""Old age and treachery beats youth and skill every time." It should read "the majority of the time"....
    Chief Armorer for Elite Shooting Sports in Manassas VA
    Chief Armorer for Corp Arms (FFL 07-08/SOT 02)

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by a0cake View Post
    Obviously you know all of this and there's nothing groundbreaking here (unless you disagree...I would like to hear your argument if so). But I think the answers to your questions become obvious without having to define "tactical speed" and "game speed." The guns are what they are, and certain guns just make good tactical guns and others make good game guns, regardless of what language or definitions you impose on them.
    I'm interested in how we draw the distinctions. Is it "tactical" simply because we put "battle" in front of the name thereby making it acceptable for everyone that always wanted one but was afraid it wouldn't be seen as tactical by their friends?

    And the 14.5" mid that you reference seems to be all the rage and hotly defended by those that would not consider themselves "gamers" and will go out of their way to argue that they are anything but. So how do we arrive at that configuration being acceptable for serious use guns but the 18" rifle being too unreliable?

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7,981
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    I'm interested in how we draw the distinctions. Is it "tactical" simply because we put "battle" in front of the name thereby making it acceptable for everyone that always wanted one but was afraid it wouldn't be seen as tactical by their friends?

    And the 14.5" mid that you reference seems to be all the rage and hotly defended by those that would not consider themselves "gamers" and will go out of their way to argue that they are anything but. So how do we arrive at that configuration being acceptable for serious use guns but the 18" rifle being too unreliable?
    Is anyone saying that? I don't think the 14.5" or the 18" are inherently unreliable. My 18" with A-5 RE is soft shooting and reliable. Same for my 14.5" with "H" buffer and pinned BC 1.5. I don't think you see as many 18's on the "tactical" side because of maneuverability, not any inherent unreliability.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    I don't know if anyone's saying it or not. Truthfully, I'm having a hard time figuring out how we make these distinctions. I know that if I show up to a training class with one of the guns in my safe I'll be thought of as a "gamer", despite the fact that many of the parts are the same as many here attribute to their "tactical" guns. There are other guns I could take to a match and be called "tactical" despite the fact that many of the shooters there will have nearly identical guns save for one or two parts.

    Somewhat amusingly, when I go to IDPA I get called a "gamer" and when I go to USPSA I get called "tactical guy". Is there hardware for the AR that determines one from the other? Is there some other reason besides the 3.5" of extra maneuverability and weight that we would choose a 14.5" midlength over an 18" rifle-length? and if reliability, or durability, are criteria how does the 14.5" solution measure up to the 18" solution?

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Additionally, would this setup, that I proposed earlier, have any neagatives that might make it considered not to be tactically sufficient? Any place where I can further push the envelope but still meet the tactical criteria?

    Noveske N4 14.5" midl-length N4. Heavier weight than a "pencil barrel" to keep the muzzle down, 14.5" mid-length is widely reported to have the least amount of pressure.
    Battlecomp 1.5. Battlecomp is clearly the new hotness in muzzle devices, and many here will attest to it's ability to reduce muzzle climb.
    Vltor A5 stock system. Another part that, if you read through the threads, is reported to reduce muzzle climb, or at least felt recoil.
    Geiselle SD 3G trigger. Appears to be pretty widely regarded as a "fast" trigger, and IIRC it was designed to be such.
    Eotech XPS. The Eotech fans all seem to use "I'm faster with it" as one reason they like it.
    12.0 (at least) Brazillian handguard. Brand immaterial, but one of the reasons we hear for longer tubes is "driving the gun", so while not a speed issue on an individual target, should come into play on multiples.
    Noveske FFL lower. The flared magwell seems to get billed as an aid in speed reloads.
    Magpul BAD lever. While having largely fallen out of favor, at one time at least it was billed as being faster on emergency reloads.



    I'd also like to know what might be considered the "slow" alternatives, and if I would gain anything else, like reliability and durability, by going with them. Would the below be considered to be slow enough? Should the barrel maybe go to a 11.5" and the handguard to an M4 or MOE with stock FSB? Basically, a stock Colt 6933 with ACOG? Ideally I think the goal here would be to avoid NFA items though.

    Colt 16" A1-profile barrel with carbine-length gas.
    A2 Flash hider.
    M4 stock system.
    GI trigger.
    Trijicon TA33 ACOG.
    7.0 or 9.0 DD M4 handguard.
    Stock Colt lower.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7,981
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    Additionally, would this setup, that I proposed earlier, have any neagatives that might make it considered not to be tactically sufficient? Any place where I can further push the envelope but still meet the tactical criteria?

    Noveske N4 14.5" midl-length N4. Heavier weight than a "pencil barrel" to keep the muzzle down, 14.5" mid-length is widely reported to have the least amount of pressure.
    Battlecomp 1.5. Battlecomp is clearly the new hotness in muzzle devices, and many here will attest to it's ability to reduce muzzle climb.
    Vltor A5 stock system. Another part that, if you read through the threads, is reported to reduce muzzle climb, or at least felt recoil.
    Geiselle SD 3G trigger. Appears to be pretty widely regarded as a "fast" trigger, and IIRC it was designed to be such.
    Eotech XPS. The Eotech fans all seem to use "I'm faster with it" as one reason they like it.
    12.0 (at least) Brazillian handguard. Brand immaterial, but one of the reasons we hear for longer tubes is "driving the gun", so while not a speed issue on an individual target, should come into play on multiples.
    Noveske FFL lower. The flared magwell seems to get billed as an aid in speed reloads.
    Magpul BAD lever. While having largely fallen out of favor, at one time at least it was billed as being faster on emergency reloads.



    I'd also like to know what might be considered the "slow" alternatives, and if I would gain anything else, like reliability and durability, by going with them. Would the below be considered to be slow enough? Should the barrel maybe go to a 11.5" and the handguard to an M4 or MOE with stock FSB? Basically, a stock Colt 6933 with ACOG? Ideally I think the goal here would be to avoid NFA items though.

    Colt 16" A1-profile barrel with carbine-length gas.
    A2 Flash hider.
    M4 stock system.
    GI trigger.
    Trijicon TA33 ACOG.
    7.0 or 9.0 DD M4 handguard.
    Stock Colt lower.
    Your 1st example would be good tactically with the exception of the BAD lever. Replace that with a BAD 45 degree ambi selector and you'd have a pretty decent rig out to 300. With a magnified optic it would take you as long as you needed to go. It would all work for games as well.

    Your second option would be a good tactical rig, but some might prefer a RDS to the ACOG. It would not be a good game gun. Passable, but not good.

Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •