It's standard to the Colt product line. He would have said the same about FNH, KAC, LMT, or BCM if they were the ones who supplied the M4/A1/CQBR/Mk. 18 guns to the military.
What is wrong with you? Are you trying to pick a fight?
They wanted the overall shortest possible setup that maintained reliability.
Yes the difference is ONE INCH. But ask every member here who prefers 14.5'' to 16.1'' guns why they do? It makes a difference in handling.
Have you shot an 11'', and 10.5'' side by side?
A 10 is smaller by a little, is faster handling, and the rail reaches out to the barrel further. (IMO)
Crane wanted short. They got short. It's not like they used an 11.5'' and said ''Oh this blows.'' then went 10.5''.
They had M4s. They cut them to an arbitrary length that had been used a bit before. (10'', or so.) went a little longer, (10.3'') and saw that it worked.
Used ever since.
That's how I understand it happened, was from cut Colt M4 barrels.
What part is so hard to understand?
I like the 11.5'' because it doesn't beat up a suppressor too bad, and you get better fragmentation range, and dwell time.
However 10.5'' IMHO is faster, more portable, and looks a lot cooler.
We miss you, AC.
We miss you, ToddG.
Bookmarks