Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 167

Thread: Why do mfgs still make carbine length gas systems?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Southeast Texas
    Posts
    226
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    And I told you to do some reading.
    I have read just about everything I can find on the carbine vs the mid length topic. And then I read everything again just to make sure I understood everything.

    TMS951 said mid lengths had problems. Out of everything I have read I can not figure out what he is talking about.

    I started a thread about buying a BCM 14.5 mid length upper. Not a single person posted anything about the mid length having issues.

    http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=139616

    When I ask about the problems I am told to butt out or go read something?

    What exactly was TMS951 referring to? Because I have read everything and do not have the slightest idea what he is talking about.
    Last edited by ~kev~; 10-07-13 at 14:12.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    8,703
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by LoveAR View Post
    Interesting point. So a 16" carbine may be more reliable with a broader range of ammo? The drawback is that the system is harder on the BCG.
    In a nutshell: yes.

    If you plan to stick to full power 5.56 ammo then you will benefit from a mid-length gas system in lighter recoil and relatively longer BCG life.

    On the other hand, I opted to stick with carbine gas for maximum reliability with a broader range of ammo types because of the ongoing threat of ammo shortages, lack of availability of certain ammo types at times, and whatnot.

    You can somewhat "tweak" the reliability of a midlength with weaker commercial .223 by switching from a heavier to a lighter buffer. I did this with mine and it ran fine. I would switch back to a heavier buffer to shoot 5.56mm.

    I just prefer, as a civilian subject to finicky ammo availability, to be able to shoot any decent quality brass-cased ammo, including weaker brands, without having to swap out components on the rifle.

    YMMV.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,056
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ~kev~ View Post
    You said there have been problems with the mid length gas system. I would like to know exactly what you are referring to.

    Posting a link to a search result is not backing up your statement.
    I'm not really sure why you take issue with my statement, or that I posted a link for you with a bunch a of good threads to read. Maybe its just in your nature to be difficult.

    Also in this thread people have mentioned what this issue is: they are more sensitive to low powered ammo, and different buffer set ups.

    I will not go through every one of those threads and pic out specific posts for you. This is the internet, if you don't like what I have to say disregard it. I am not telling you to take what I have to say as gospel. I gave my opinion based on what I have read here. I don't really care if you agree with what I say or believe. I just put it out there for people to do with as they please.


    I will give you two threads to read from that search I posted that really get to the point. (because its not in my nature to be difficult)

    https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=115944

    https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=99706

    If you read those you will see for most they are quite reliable. But reliable is a subjective term and every one will have a different thresh hold. For me, I have found another set up I prefer. For you the 14.5" mid may be what you want.

    My thing is I can practice more with cheaper ammo, and especially with the ammo prices/ shortage now its nice to be able to shoot whatever you can get your hands on.

    Yes I shoot cheap ammo out of my "2000$ gun", but I want a top notch gun for HD/SD, and when its in that mode, its also loaded with top notch HD/SD ammo. When I'm doing drills and punching holes in paper its nice to be able to do it for less than 35 cents a round, and its really nice to do it for 25 cents a round.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NN, VA
    Posts
    2,177
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveL View Post
    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.
    And it was designed and manufactured per the TDP with a carbine length has system... So the "it wasn't made to shoot .223 from a mid length gas system," argument doesn't fly. It wasn't designed to have mid systems at all. Later mfgs decided to implement mids, but rifle and carbine gas systems are all that the rifle was DESIGNED for...

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Southeast Texas
    Posts
    226
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by TMS951 View Post
    I'm not really sure why you take issue with my statement, or that I posted a link for you with a bunch a of good threads to read. Maybe its just in your nature to be difficult.

    Also in this thread people have mentioned what this issue is: they are more sensitive to low powered ammo, and different buffer set ups.
    I am not trying to be difficult. I want the details, the tiny little minuet details as to why something does or does no work.

    It should be common sense that something will operate best the way it was designed to work. If someone starts changing things, sometimes stuff does not work as intended. Whether it is a car, truck, gun, ATV,,, everything is designed by engineers to work within a certain range.

    So it is not the design of the mid length system, it is the low grade ammo combined with a certain buffer decreases reliability? While the carbine gas system with its higher working pressure is not as temperamental as the mid length?

    Is that right?

    I am looking at buying a mid length in the next few months. Threads like this one keep me going back to the carbine.

    The opening post ask why companies still make the carbine.

    I can list a bunch of points to buy a carbine, but only a few in favor of mid length.
    Last edited by ~kev~; 10-07-13 at 14:48.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    458
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    OOPS, meant rarely. Death by Powerpoint has messed up my mind today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    The military does not use a 16" barrel.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    12S VA 868 817 (NAD83)
    Posts
    1,500
    Feedback Score
    0
    Here's the deal... providing the manufacturer is using a gas port that is even close to what it should be:

    Rifle Length Gas System - works just great with a 20" barrel, this is what is what designed to do; the standard for all others.

    18" Barrels work with Rifle Gas Systems and Mid-Length... the Intermediate Length (although rare) is the sweet spot for the 18" barreled guns though.

    16" Barrels work very well with a Mid-Length gas system...

    Carbine Gas System - My preference for this is a 12.5" barrel... just a sweet combination! The shocker here is that the 14.5" barrel and Carbine Gas System really are not a "perfect" combination - Colt had the Carbine Gas System around way before the M4, so it was a COTS solution.. you work with what you have.

    Also keep in mind that the cost of a DOD wide change in a rifle/carbine is WAY more than ordering in some barrels and handguards... there are rifle racks, GSA containers, muzzle mounted device (don't forget the bayonet!), manuals, training, PM schedules, gauges and think how many Power Point Presentations would have to be redone!

    So... just my opinion:

    If you want an SBR, get a 12.5" barrel and carbine gas system.

    If you want a practical carbine, get a 16" barrel and mid-length.

    Stop over thinking all of this shit... it's just making porn for mental masturbation.
    Please let me know if I have offended you...
    I would like to move on to my next task.


    I provide legal consultation and training - specializing in the Law of Gravity.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,503
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)
    This is an interesting topic. I've got both carbine and mid length systems and minus my SBRs which require the carbine (or even reduced carbine gas system such as my 8" 300blk) I have yet to have a problem or encounter any difference between the two in 14.5" and 16" barrels. Maybe I am missing something. It seems to me my Colt and Noveske rifles were made appropriate to the system requirements of that particular build so it's been a nonissue. Am I just not savvy enough to notice? Possibly but they have all been flawless.
    Originally Posted by Iraqgunz
    This is 2012. The world is going to end this December and people are still trying to debate the merits of piece of shit, cost cutting crap AR's. Really?

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,112
    Feedback Score
    0
    In my limited experience, I would not go with a 14.5" midlength. I would like to have a noveske, bcm or DD midlength 16" however.
    My 14.5" lmt carbine length with H buffer has been reliable with everything I've run through it so far, but not high round counts.
    The flash light mount on the side of the fsb is just right for me with the carbine length.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Southeast Texas
    Posts
    226
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by K.L. Davis View Post
    If you want a practical carbine, get a 16" barrel and mid-length.
    I will take that advice.

    I was looking at getting a BCM 14.5 mid length. But am seriously leaning towards a 16 inch.

    The key thing is reliability.

    How much more reliable is a 14.5 carbine over a 16 mid length?

    With all things being equal - same ammo, same magazines, same parts,,, which do you think would be the most reliable over its lifetime?

    I do not want to start a pissing match. But as with the opening post asking about why companies make a carbine, is the carbine the most reliable system on the market?
    Last edited by ~kev~; 10-07-13 at 15:11.

Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... 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
  •