Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 58

Thread: Why do folks like the M4 barrel profile?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    211
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    It's gottahaveit syndrome. If the .Mil suddenly changed to a slanted 8-port flash hider with chrome lining and a bell hanging off of it, manufacturers couldn't make/sell them fast enough.

    Gun makers market heavily towards the LE/Mil market even though its a small part of their sales simply because they know the public will want to have whatever the troops are using.
    Instructor: Sniper, Carbine, Handgun, Shotgun
    Armorer: Glock, Colt AR15/M16
    NRA Life Member

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    168
    Feedback Score
    0
    I have an M4 profile barrel, but it isn't because of any particular fascination with it. It just happened to be what LMT uses, and it looks "normal" to me on a 14.5" barrel. I hate seeing 16" barrels with it though. They just look wrong.

    Jay

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    27,214
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sgtlmj View Post
    It's gottahaveit syndrome.
    For some folks maybe. There's not a huge selection in 14.5" barrel profiles that differ from the standard M4.

    I'm more concerned with the make of the barrel than the profile. I don't find the M4 profile to be heavy at all. It balances better than my SBRs for whatever reason.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Southern Indiana
    Posts
    4,244
    Feedback Score
    61 (98%)
    For me the gun I wanted had that type of barrel. Other than that I don't care about the cutout.
    Last edited by kwelz; 10-07-09 at 17:36.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    47
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    I hate the look of the 16" M4 barrel, but kinda like the look of the 14.5" and under with the notch.

    The 16" barrel balances fine, but just looks wrong.
    Last edited by Exporter; 10-07-09 at 17:39.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sopines, NC
    Posts
    1,759
    Feedback Score
    52 (100%)
    It was my understanding that the original A1 barrel profile was sort of like the lightweight or "pencil" type profile. They were bending under field conditions so the Army beefed it up distal to the handguards. They shortened it for the M4 then the 203 came out and the notch happened. That's how we got the frankenbarrels on our M4's. Someone with more experience can probably correct me if I'm wrong.

    Now some of the USGI m4's are HBAR profile under the handguards and normal government after. There are two vertical flat notches near the breach to, again, accommodate the 203. I'd love to know how the barrel harmonics play out in that bad boy especially with all the crap we put on our rails. Also, you wouldn't believe how front heavy they are. I picked up an old M16A2 and it felt downright handy.

    Anyway I just think it's funny that the M4 profile is so popular given that almost nobody has a 203 or is performing bayonette drills. There's probably nothing wrong with it on a combat carbine, but I like that Noveske profile a little better.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,901
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by mkmckinley View Post
    It was my understanding that the original A1 barrel profile was sort of like the lightweight or "pencil" type profile.

    The first three of the four years I spent in the Marine Corps were with M16A1's. My first AR15 after getting out was a Colt SP1 (Think M16A1 w/o the full auto and forward assist.) Both had what would now be called pencil barrels.

    We were told the reason for going to a larger diameter barrel on the M16A2 was because barrels were being bent behind the front sight base by individuals using their M16A1's with bayonet attached to pry open packing crates. Of course we were told this only happened in the Army, as a Marine would never do something as stupid with their rifle...

    I do not know if this is true, but yes, I could easily see this being an issue...

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Urban Cessmaze
    Posts
    4,058
    Feedback Score
    25 (100%)

    Wink

    The high CDI factor.
    - Either you're part of the problem or you're part of the solution or you're just part of the landscape - Sam (Robert DeNiro) in, "Ronin" -

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    760
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    I wish it wasn't so popular. The Noveske barrel profile, or simply no 203 notch, or a lightweight, all of those are better.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,795
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by mkmckinley View Post
    It seems like most of the uppers available with 14" and 16" barrels have the "m4 profile" with the m203 notch. It must be market driven but why is this seen as desirable? It's not even close to an optimal contour unless you have a 203. Not many do. I'm surprised that the 203 notch isn't a rare specialty thing. Is there something I'm missing?
    Posers/Wannabees/CDI Factor/Marketing/Weight Savings.

    I have 2 6920s, a Sabre Defense middy w/o the notch and a LMT MRP rifle rail w/o the notch, so I'm indifferent. I prefer the mid-length 16" barrel without the 203 notch, with a rifle rail for comfort and greater stability, but shoot all equally well. Now a pencil barrel with KAC rifle length URX would be the shizzle!
    Last edited by RogerinTPA; 10-07-09 at 20:52.
    For God and the soldier we adore, In time of danger, not before! The danger passed, and all things righted, God is forgotten and the soldier slighted." - Rudyard Kipling

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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
  •