I didnt realize I would create this kind of conversation. Usually I get a yes or no, but I am learning all the time.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I didnt realize I would create this kind of conversation. Usually I get a yes or no, but I am learning all the time.
Ask the Native Americans what happens when you dont control immagration.
Hi, we're America. We build Monster Trucks for fun. We devoloped a Top Fuel dragster, 0-330MPH in under 5 seconds... cus we were bored. Piss us off, and see what we build... -Christopher Titus on War and Terrorism
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
Just didn't want you to toss the baby out with the bathwater. I like Pannone's writing and way of addressing things and he seems very knowledgeable. I know that DR has a bad rep in a lot of circles but Pannone has written several articles for DR that are all very good.
I've been reading back and forth on this and other places, and there is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that the mid-length seems to be more durable under hard use than the carbine, particularly the bolt and gas port.
The problem is quantifying it to a life expectancy in number of rounds. Do we quote 3,000 rounds before likely bolt failure in a carbine? 6,000? 10,000?
Logically, the mid-length should last longer because the gas pressures are less, but unless you really put the rounds downrange in high quantities in a short period of time, your carbine may not experience the hard use failures at low round counts talked about in the NAVSEA Sopmod document for 17 April 2006. (Just my opinion on that last part).
My solution? Own both. I fire the carbine more than my mid-length, and if I experience premature parts failure then that weapon will get a mid-length upper.
Last edited by Doc Safari; 03-28-11 at 14:11.
There will never be a statistically relevant answer to the carbine vs midlength durability debate because no one outside of the government can afford to test enough rifles with the amount of ammo necessary to provide quantitative proof one way or the other. OTOH, my previous middies and current SR15's shoot much softer than any carbine I have ever fired. I have always assumed this to be a good thing and logic tells me that all other things being equal, the longer gas systems seem to put less wear and tear on the gun.
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
Not entirely true. You could actually submit a few of each to be used in a carbine course (like Pat Rogers', LAV or others) with the caveat that all pertinent information be captured. Ammunition types, round counts, maintenance, etc...
They put plenty of rounds down range in those courses.
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
That would be an approximate test, more like how long can we shoot till it breaks.
For a meaningful statistic you would need several identical rifles of each make, same lot of ammo, same ambient air temp, same geographic location, same amount of lube, metrology equipment etc. Testing is bloody boring.
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
Unfortunately, if you didn't "get all crazy about it" there wouldn't be much point. It wouldn't be much more than anecdotal. I'd personally still find the test interesting, but there would be so many other variables, even with just the two guns. I could see an argument for "two identical guns with the exception of the gas system length", but there's potentially other variables there too, like barrel contour, handguard length/weight, etc. Just spitballing, I think the way to try to normalize it as much as possible
11.0 FF handguard (say a Troy TRX Extreme to make it easy)
low-profile gas blocks
16" "pencil" barrels, one carbine-length gas one mid-length
Then identical sights, optic, buffer, stock, grip, etc.
This way, with the above setup, the only difference between the guns would be that the Mid weighed incrementally more due to the slightly longer gas tube, and had a balance point incrementally further forward due to the weight of the gas block being 2" further forward. There are even ways that these things could be mitigated.
Having two identical guns, and ensuring that they both got identical (at least as much as possible) ammo, the test would be mildly interesting. I would think that Pat would be about the best person to do such a test as he sees a large volume of fire, has the relationship with BCM to get the rifles, and the relationship with Asym ammo to ensure that the students running the guns shot the same, quality, ammo.
Here's the thing. Everyone talks about the lighter pressure putting "less stress on internal parts"? OK. At what point do you think they fail anyway? Anyone been keeping tabs on Pat's other test guns, like Filthy 14? I have an email in to Pat, but I'm not recalling any lower parts failures, and that gun, IIRC, is north of 40k rounds. At what point is "better" immeasurable, or so much better that it's insignificant? Like fireproof curtains on the Titanic.
Bookmarks