The One Gun Solution (GP Carbine) - Reality?

[Leftie]

A legit do it all rifle isn’t going to be your hyper-lite rifle. The above basically covers all needs from CQB to distance in daylight, low light, and no light. You can do a lot of things with less but being able to do everything equally well with less is impossible....

Its all a game of weighted trade offs. Reality says it wont be cheap or light but it’ll be a hell of a gun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is a great perspective, and I think that it can be taken one step further. Those weighted trade offs are all contextual. What works for shadow93 might not work as well for me, or might not at all for JediGuy's uses. That's one of the great things about the commercial market in that we have choice to squeeze performance out of equipment by augmenting it and adjusting it for what works best for us... not just what we are told is what we are required to use.

Not to derail this thread at all, but if you're intent on carrying a rifle with that much hanging off of it to get the capabilities that you want, there are a number of other considerations which are human hardware/software related: physical fitness is the foundational one, with comfortability/dexterity/efficiency in employing the tool (rifle) and payload (light/laser/optic/NODs) in concert with one another coming in at a close second. None of these should be ignored, especially when weight gets factored in.

[Sry0fcr]

This pretty much sums up the consensus of the thread IMO

I agree within the confines of: "realizing the full capability that the AR platform gives you...based on my [your] perceived capabilities/limitations of the platform." But Leftie might have driven to the heart of what I was trying to get at earlier...

This is a great perspective, and I think that it can be taken one step further. Those weighted trade offs are all contextual.

If we place this "consensus" GP rifle into realistic context/application does it still stack up under the circumstances?

What's our environment? Are we alone? Who are we shooting at? Who's shooting at us? What are their capabilities? Do we have access to support/resupply? ect

[Hammer_Man]

I do have a nostalgic fondness for the MK 12 FF RAS.

The full floating RAS handguards are amongst my favorites. I love the carbine version I installed on my M4. Now if somebody could convince KAC to re-release the carbine length URX *wink wink*.


Back to the topic at hand. I don't understand the fixation on pencil profile barrels, and ultra light weight handguards, especially on shorter carbines. Those weapons make compromises in their ability to handle heat IMO. For example I've used Geissele MK4, and MK14 handguards on previous builds, and in each case I found they radiated a lot of heat into my hands after not too many rounds. I imagine all of the other thin walled handguards everybody makes these days will perform the same. My current M4 as mentioned above, has a carbine length FF RAS on it, and it doesn't seem to heat up as quickly, and makes for more comfortable days at the range. I think if you're going to build one AR for all purposes (to include space zombie apocalypse), then durability/performance under prolonged firing schedules should be taken into account. Of course this is all subject to individual needs, I like my ARs built like tanks.

[Ironman8]

I agree within the confines of: "realizing the full capability that the AR platform gives you...based on my [your] perceived capabilities/limitations of the platform." But Leftie might have driven to the heart of what I was trying to get at earlier...



If we place this "consensus" GP rifle into realistic context/application does it still stack up under the circumstances?

What's our environment? Are we alone? Who are we shooting at? Who's shooting at us? What are their capabilities? Do we have access to support/resupply? ect

A lot of those questions are also contextual and different from one person to the other.

Personally, I don't have the money or desire to have 18 different rifles for X, Y or Z...call me a minimalist or subscribing to "man with one gun" concept or whatever, but I like to train with and become very proficient with one gun (or two guns setup almost identically). Having rifles that don't get touched in the back of the safe does nothing for me, so I'm condensing down capability in the form of optic/barrel/accessory choices that optimize that design requirement.

[Wake27]

The full floating RAS handguards are amongst my favorites. I love the carbine version I installed on my M4. Now if somebody could convince KAC to re-release the carbine length URX *wink wink*.


Back to the topic at hand. I don't understand the fixation on pencil profile barrels, and ultra light weight handguards, especially on shorter carbines. Those weapons make compromises in their ability to handle heat IMO. For example I've used Geissele MK4, and MK14 handguards on previous builds, and in each case I found they radiated a lot of heat into my hands after not too many rounds. I imagine all of the other thin walled handguards everybody makes these days will perform the same. My current M4 as mentioned above, has a carbine length FF RAS on it, and it doesn't seem to heat up as quickly, and makes for more comfortable days at the range. I think if you're going to build one AR for all purposes (to include space zombie apocalypse), then durability/performance under prolonged firing schedules should be taken into account. Of course this is all subject to individual needs, I like my ARs built like tanks.

ETA - I don't know what happened to my original response, but I basially said that as a fan of LW barrels and handguards, for this purpose, I agree.

A lot of those questions are also contextual and different from one person to the other.

I prefer the lighter barrels and handguards because they handle significantly better IMO. But that said, for this purpose I have moved away from it. The 12.5 barrel I just bought is heavier than a 14.5 BCM ELW barrel which is kind of a bummer for handling, but I'm hoping that two inches off the end will help compensate. Even if not though, the balance is better because its tapered and as you said, if this is to be the one gun, it needs to well with many rounds lots of times.

Personally, I don't have the money or desire to have 18 different rifles for X, Y or Z...call me a minimalist or subscribing to "man with one gun" concept or whatever, but I like to train with and become very proficient with one gun (or two guns setup almost identically). Having rifles that don't get touched in the back of the safe does nothing for me, so I'm condensing down capability in the form of optic/barrel/accessory choices that optimize that design requirement.

I actually wish I could do that because it kind of bothers me to have so many guns I don't shoot a lot. But with some of the places I may have to move, SBRs and pistols aren't allowed so on top of whatever length I'd prefer for a given role, I feel the need to duplicate that in a 16.1" OAL gun. If not for that, I'd probably have one 14.5 pinned, a 10.3, and a 12.5 for myself and call it good.

[Ironman8]

I think that the truly functional elements of the "Recce" concept are small mid-power max magnification (8x-12x) optic, enabler-focused handguard, suppressor, and decent ammunition.
Of those, the optic really makes the most difference in achieving the purpose of the rifle in daylight conditions.
As a community, we've been dancing around conformity with the concept for a while now, and with 8x and 10x LPVOs readily available, we're pretty much there.

Thanks Jack, as always good assessment and appreciate the info.

Regarding the bolded part...I hesitated to bring this up because for whatever reason it gets emotional for some guys, but ammunition is a pretty important piece to the capability we're looking for, especially out at the further ranges that we're asking of the platform.

So that brings us to ask: do we go for a bonded SP or an OTM? Do you take the tradeoff of less precision at distance with the BSP or do you take the less terminally effective (mostly through barriers) 77gr OTM?



ETA: And for some guys who need this disclaimer, any and all discussion about ammo and terminal effectiveness is done in the confines of "any and all legal purposes"...so don't come arguing legality of terminal performance at 400yds. It's just a hypothetical discussion.

[Leftie]

A lot of those questions are also contextual and different from one person to the other.

Personally, I don't have the money or desire to have 18 different rifles for X, Y or Z...call me a minimalist or subscribing to "man with one gun" concept or whatever, but I like to train with and become very proficient with one gun (or two guns setup almost identically). Having rifles that don't get touched in the back of the safe does nothing for me, so I'm condensing down capability in the form of optic/barrel/accessory choices that optimize that design requirement.

This resonates with me, as I have for years attempted to avoid buying things "just to have them" only not to use them, and have settled generally on having fewer things - but those things are built to last and are typically "system" oriented.

If you're after a really quality "one rifle" solution, I would even view it as a modular system (ARs can be equated to adult Legos, so bear with me)...

If you're interested in one gun and think that 12.5" is the way to go, then find the things that you WILL NOT compromise on in any circumstance (that's entirely up to you), and base your 12.5" gun around that first. Once you have the things that you won't compromise on, look at your use case scenarios and attach relative probabilities related to context to them: If 1% of the time that you employ your rifle is going to be proned out staring at your target which is 500+ yards/meters/bananas (whatever) away at high noon while the sun is shining bright in the sky, then the priority of equipping your rifle to accomplish that job is very, very low...

If, on the other hand, your probability of employing your rifle 90% of the time is standing wide awake on your two feet when people would otherwise be getting their 40 winks, then you will likely have a substantially different rifle. If you are deliberately entering/moving through darkened streets where your average target might be no more than 75 yards/meters/bananas away, and into buildings without lighting where your average target distance is considerably less, and that's your most probable use case scenario, then build that rifle first.

The beauty of the AR platform having MLOK, 1913 Picatinny attachment standards, removable stocks (for rifles/NFA) and braces (for pistols) QD optic mounts which are capable of repeatable zero, and removable suppressors with reasonably consistent POA/POI shift is that you can accessorize the platform as you see fit, and tailor the rifle to squeeze a little more performance out of the gun for your given role.

That being said, I'm a big fan of keeping a rifle in the configuration that you're most likely to use it in, and train like hell with it. What that configuration is depends on your best judgement.

Alternatively, if money is no object, I think that you have found a good potential solution: set up multiple rifles identically outside of the optic/light/laser configurations, and then have an extra upper which brings a greater, more specialized (but less employed) capability to your option table.

I've seen people do it both ways, and in certain conditions, I've heard of multiple weapons being set up identically because they were going to be used, and then thrown into a sealed bucket and shipped off to get fully decontaminated and then returned to them later (yes, multiple thousands of dollars worth of rifle and gear in duplicate or more out of necessity). Whatever your use case is, build around it, and then accessorize it to enhance your needs - only you will know what you perform best with and what your needs are, but you won't know what works until you use/break/sell a bunch of stuff - it's a life-long adventure.

As for ammunition, there are some very good threads on M4C discussing ballistic data which are worth looking at.

[JediGuy]

Thanks Jack, as always good assessment and appreciate the info.

Regarding the bolded part...I hesitated to bring this up because for whatever reason it gets emotional for some guys, but ammunition is a pretty important piece to the capability we're looking for, especially out at the further ranges that we're asking of the platform.

So that brings us to ask: do we go for a bonded SP or an OTM? Do you take the tradeoff of less precision at distance with the BSP or do you take the less terminally effective (mostly through barriers) 77gr OTM?

I’m learning all this still, but I have tried to consolidate actual defensive ammunition on the IMI Mk262 clone. My decision in this way was meant to balance “the best” for given purpose(s) with “affordable enough to stockpile.” Additionally, for my purpose and area, I actually want to limit barrier penetration to some extent. The idea of paying over $1 per round of 5.56 doesn’t set well with me. My thought has been to be able to put 300 rounds of the IMI stuff on my person/in a bag as I head out the door.
For general stockpile, I have a few thousand rounds of XM193. That doesn’t seem to be anyone’s top choice, but may not be a poor choice in a do-all carbine, but probably not out to 400 from a 12.5” barrel.
I’m not an expert though, and I want to see what everyone thinks on this, too.

[Wake27]

I’m learning all this still, but I have tried to consolidate actual defensive ammunition on the IMI Mk262 clone. My decision in this way was meant to balance “the best” for given purpose(s) with “affordable enough to stockpile.” Additionally, for my purpose and area, I actually want to limit barrier penetration to some extent. The idea of paying over $1 per round of 5.56 doesn’t set well with me. My thought has been to be able to put 300 rounds of the IMI stuff on my person/in a bag as I head out the door.
For general stockpile, I have a few thousand rounds of XM193. That doesn’t seem to be anyone’s top choice, but may not be a poor choice in a do-all carbine, but probably not out to 400 from a 12.5” barrel.
I’m not an expert though, and I want to see what everyone thinks on this, too.

I'm also trying to consolidate and went back and forth on how to do it. I was leaning towards what you did but instead chose to try and stock a few more mags worth of my HD load (75gr GDs) and then bridge the gap between that and plinking ammo with 75gr AE ball. That stuff shoots really well for a cheaper FMJ round and reportedly has similar intermediate ballistics to the GD in the same weight. I've wondered how much the loss of velocity will matter vs 262 at distance, but the pre-panic price difference was enough for me to figure I'd just roll with it.

[mig1nc]

Are your 12.5 guys doing the Triarc midlength gas system, or something else like the BCM or Hodge carbine length gas system? If it's a dedicated suppressor host, I would think middy would be most preferable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk