|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
i can see it improving shooting ability just from a pure ergonomics standpoint, 2" longer handguard = stock retracted 2", better balance
nobody knows, as you know.. it's all speculation. but it stands to reason.
the middy "craze" or whatever you want to call it is due mostly to over simplified statements on the internet that people take as gospel. somebody wrote something like "it stands to reason that a less violent, smoother shooting gun will perhaps tend to extend bolt life," which was then taken by somebody else and simplified to read "middies will probably last longer than carbines," carried on down the line, everyone is convinced that carbine systems are worthless and mid-length guns are revolutionary solutions to the carbine "problem."
or something like that.
there's no "data" out there.. nobody knows if or how much. but now that middies are at least established as reliable- would you buy a carbine if a mid met your needs?
I've never made an argument about any improved shooting ability so I'll stay away from that topic.How will the middy improve your shooting ability? How much sooner will the car wear out and break?
Now let's talk about wear and tear. As far as I'm concerned, the only parts of the rifle to examine is the bolt.
The carbine system wants to unlock it earlier and with much greater torquing force. It stresses the locking lugs and the area surrounding the cam pin hole as the pin impacts the end of the cam track due to abnormally high carrier speed.
How much effect does the carbine system have over the mid length system in terms of bolt wear/breakage? I simply don't know....
....but I'll stick to mid lengths for peace of mind.
Simply personal preference. I prefer a middy due to the multitude of examples stated previously.
Longer sight radius for us iron guys, more mild recoil, and smoother mechanical operation. Pretty significant difference at the range...not so sure in combat that it would amount to that much.
As far as wear...I doubt much difference would be noted. The bolt is slammed back into a buffer/spring and returned with additional force in the carbine. How much more and how that relates to wear is about the same arguement between an investment cast and forged M14 receiver. I doubt anyone would ever shoot enough rounds to find the differences. They may be accentuated in extreme cold environments though.
I don't know if the gas system length makes me a better shooter, but I strongly believe that having the extra rail length has enabled me to operate the weapon more efficiently. For the last year I've been messing with rifles that have mid-length rail systems (KAC SR15, LWRC M6A2, DD M4). I recently put a MOE forearm on my 6520, along with a light and did some drills with it. I find the carbine rail system cramped and does not seem to give me the control that a longer rail does (I don't have a timer, so I can't prove it). But that's independent of gas system length. The DDM4 is one of the slickest packages around IMO, and it has the carbine length system.
For me and my uses, I like the longer rails. The benefits of the softer recoil, reduced dwell time, etc. of the mid-length are academic for the most part; more theory and conjecture than reality. But longer rails have proven a benefit to me, unrelated to the length of the gas system.
i can tell you i started shooting better when i went from my carbine to my full size colt. Not sure if its the upper or sights but do like the feel of my full size rifle as apposed to my carbine. i'm seriously thinking of selling off the 15 1/2" barrel and going with a middy not because its the in thing but because i think i will like the sight radius better
Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium
- I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery
I can't believe people are using longer sight radius on the middy in this day and age enough to warrant a switch from a shorter gas system.
Bookmarks