Page 6 of 17 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 167

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

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Duat
    Posts
    730
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    All people can do is give you is the classic internet anecdotal account. All we know is that both 14.5" barrels and 16.1" barrels can be gassed by carbine or midlength systems.

    Some guns shoot more reliably than others, for a multitude of reasons, and it's a flip of the coin if you'll be able to blame problems on your barrel to gas length ratio.

    Just buy quality stuff and put it together right, and you're putting yourself 500 miles ahead of anyone worrying about which combination is "better."

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    McKinney, TX
    Posts
    3,253
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by _Stormin_ View Post
    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...
    Given the context of the specific post I was responding to I don't understand what doesn't fly. To the best of my knowledge even when manufacturers started producing non-TDP mid-length (and intermediate) gas systems, those systems were still designed to work with 5.56 NATO ammunition. Am I wrong?

    And I'm not knocking cheap .223 ammo. I shoot it myself. I just don't get bent out of shape if my rifle doesn't run 100% with ammunition it wasn't designed to run with.
    Last edited by SteveL; 10-07-13 at 15:28.
    Steve

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    12S VA 868 817 (NAD83)
    Posts
    1,500
    Feedback Score
    0
    Story time.... let's call this the "What the military uses is purpose designed and perfect?" parable - or, "While necessity may be the mother of invention, she can still have bastard children".

    So this weekend I finished up a poorly done video review of one of the new "Flat IFAK" cases - these are gaining popularity, but still have their distractors. I personally prefer them, but I still have people make comments much like we are seeing here: "Why change it?", "The current IFAK carrier works fine", and of course "The Army designed the IFAK in its current carrier, that is what it is supposed to be in!"

    However, if you look into how we got to where we are, you will find out that in the early part of our current war effort, deep in the recesses of Natick, workers pulled together some life saving medical gear in the form of what would be the new IFAK - this was a huge leap forward over the little "camo filed dressing" (NSN 6510-00-159-4883) that I and many others packed all over the globe in a little pouch on the left shoulder harness of our ALICE gear...

    There was, however, at least one compromise that was made at the inception of the new IFAK... and that was what to put that new gear in. So, rather than drag things out, they "repurposed" a SAW Ammo Pouch and viola! The new Individual First-Aid Kit was born.

    And now, many years later... the IFAK is undergoing some proposed redesigns - interestingly enough, one of the first things that is being looked at is the carrier...

    Private companies are offering alternatives that are improvements over the current carrier design, yet they still meet with resistance from the "that's the way it was designed... what makes you think can improve on the MILSPEC!!!!!! solution?" crowd.

    Fortunately, there is one group of folks that really likes the new style carriers... and that is the crew at the Load Carriage Prototype Lab at Natick Soldier Systems Center; cause well, they know the current carrier never really was the best solution.

    Quote Originally Posted by ~kev~ View Post
    How much more reliable is a 14.5 carbine over a 16 mid length?
    I don't think that it is.
    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.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    9,246
    Feedback Score
    28 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by LoveAR View Post
    Why do mfgs still make carbine length gas systems vs. mid-length?
    Because to the majority of the gun buying market, that is all they know and what they think they want.

    I would bet that carbine gas guns out-sell all other AR gas systems by at least 2:1.

    Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect. now Free
    Jack Leuba
    Director, Military and Government Sales
    Knight's Armament Company
    jleuba@knightarmco.com

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    3,036
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    After reading this thread I'm tempted to just throw my DDM4 V1 in the garbage...
















    J/K

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    USA! USA! USA!
    Posts
    1,200
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Assuming we're talking 16 inch barrels, I do agree that midlength is far superior.

    The TDP is probably the most obvious answer, and secondly I think Colt is terrible at making products that people actually want. They sell a shit ton of 6920's so I see no reason for them to do anything different, but I agree that that's no longer an optimal setup
    Gun and Gear Reviews- www.almosttacticalreviews.com

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, Az
    Posts
    3,347
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    I believe I read on here from a member that is a high ranking USMC official that in their testing the rifle was notably more reliable than the carbine. So if all out reliability is what you are after get a 20 inch rifle.

    If you are set on a shorter barrel just buy one from a reputable manufacturer. Both the carbine and 16 inch middy are reliable weapons when built correctly.
    C co 1/30th Infantry Regiment
    3rd Brigade 3rd Infantry Division
    2002-2006
    OIF 1 and 3

    IraqGunz:
    No dude is going to get shot in the chest at 300 yards and look down and say "What is that, a 3 MOA group?"

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    9,246
    Feedback Score
    28 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by C-grunt View Post
    I believe I read on here from a member that is a high ranking USMC official that in their testing the rifle was notably more reliable than the carbine. So if all out reliability is what you are after get a 20 inch rifle.

    If you are set on a shorter barrel just buy one from a reputable manufacturer. Both the carbine and 16 inch middy are reliable weapons when built correctly.
    Remember that the current M4/M4A1 has had several fixes since those tests were done, not the least of which is not less than 2 magazine upgrades, not counting the HK and MagPul upgrades/alternatives. The reliability delta between 20" and 14.5" guns has narrowed considerably. That said, there is a distinct advantage in moving the gas port closer to the rifle position, but the system as a whole must be taken into consideration, from buffer weights, action springs, and port size; to ammunition pressure curve differentials, gas volume differentials, suppressor considerations, and chamber dimensions.

    Proof?
    Traditionally designed 20" uppers do not like the traditional M4 carbine receiver extension, buffer, or action spring.
    Traditionally designed 14.5" uppers run just fine on A2 lowers.

    All those little ports, parts, and springs have to work together in a mutually supportive environment, even when the external environment does not want them to.
    Jack Leuba
    Director, Military and Government Sales
    Knight's Armament Company
    jleuba@knightarmco.com

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    AZ-Waging jihad against crappy AR's.
    Posts
    24,902
    Feedback Score
    104 (100%)
    The carbine gas system (whether it is 14.5"/16") is proven. Of that there can be no doubt. But, remember that it is a compromise in that it was an afterthought to the original rifle gas system based upon the need by certain elements to have a more compact weapon.

    As we know the design of the carbine went through plenty of growing pains to reach it's current position and inevitably everyone always wants a better mouse trap. The midlength was (IMO) a way to improve on the carbine gas system.

    I remember one particular incident in which markm had received a 14.5" middy from Paul to do some testing. We tested a variety of ammo and buffer weights up to the H3. In all cases it cycled and ran fine. However, there was an issue down the road where the gas tube suffered some strange wearing due to it rubbing against the inside of the gas key orifice. Once this happened it began to short stroke and would only cycle with 5.56 and lighter buffers. Of course it took a while to figure it out because no one could see the issue.

    IMO it highlights the fact that the midlength can be more sensitive to interruptions of the gas system or ammo. Let's also not forget that generally speaking both the 14.5" and 16" have the same gas port size since it was determined that the slight difference in barrel length did not necessitate the need for different ports.

    If I was going to switch to a midlength it would be the 16" and I suspect that all things being equal if I ran it with an H2 buffer, green Springco spring and shot decent ammo it would be fine.

    I am fairly certain when we did our testing we did in fact shoot PMC Bronze, Hornady Steel TAP, M193, M855 as well as the markm loadings.



    Owner/Instructor at Semper Paratus Arms

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SemperParatusArms/

    Semper Paratus Arms AR15 Armorer Course http://www.semperparatusarms.com/cou...-registration/

    M4C Misc. Training and Course Announcements- http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=141

    Master Armorer/R&D at SIONICS Weapon Systems- http://sionicsweaponsystems.com

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Southeast Texas
    Posts
    226
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    If I was going to switch to a midlength it would be the 16" and I suspect that all things being equal if I ran it with an H2 buffer, green Springco spring and shot decent ammo it would be fine.
    Thank you for that post.

    Your post also answered the opening post. Companies still make the carbine because it is a proven system.

    If something works, works well, and it reliable, why change? But as you said, people are always looking for a better mouse trap.

    My main reason for going to a mid length is for a smoother action. But since I have 3 carbines, why not get a 4th just to make sure all of the parts are the same.

Page 6 of 17 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... 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
  •