Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,783 Posts
Very interesting article, first one I read that points out the HK has system is set up for short barrels, going to 16.5 inch makes it kind not so super-duper anymore. Fount the use of the Vanadium steel tube interesting, the Swiss were doing that in WWII and the first MG 42 barrels were made with Vanadium till they ran out of alloy.

If they wanted an accurate M16 system, the old DMR rifles made up by the AMU around 2004/2005 had the Daniel Defense float tube and medium weight SS barrel. You could make 600 yard head shots with M262 and the 4X ACOG Day optic on a good day. Quite an education on Easley range. In any case with a suitable study you could come up with the ideal barrel. 14.5 seems a wee bit to shot, apparently 20 inches is too long "musket length".
 

·
Diamond Bullet Member/Moderator
Joined
·
56,652 Posts
it makes sense from a mechanical point of view, I came to it after working at a gun range for a few years and was able to see which AR's seemed the most problematic with things like lug breakage, steel case sensitivity, cam pins, etc... Then later when I got into building AR's in SXS shooting it became very apparent that the closer a firearm operated to the rifle length gas pressure the better and smoother it ran with less parts breakage/wear. Not that AR's can't operate with carbine length gas systems but it's not ideal in my opinion.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,322 Posts
good-how about the numbers of weapons produced and getting a numbers comparison.weird-i go to a range and what are people shooting-holy moly-almost everbuddy has a carbine! of course they are going to have the most probs in this venue alone.
 

·
Platinum Bullet Member
Joined
·
59,095 Posts
good-how about the numbers of weapons produced and getting a numbers comparison.weird-i go to a range and what are people shooting-holy moly-almost everbuddy has a carbine! of course they are going to have the most probs in this venue alone.
reminds me of a conversation I had with a guy that was about my age, (53)

he and I were laughing about how some of the younger crowd think all AR's are carbines, and all have flat tops,

watched one guy pick up an A2 and was perplexed on what the carry handle was and why it would not come off

it was like he was picking up a musket of something
 

·
Diamond Bullet Member/Moderator
Joined
·
56,652 Posts
good-how about the numbers of weapons produced and getting a numbers comparison.weird-i go to a range and what are people shooting-holy moly-almost everbuddy has a carbine! of course they are going to have the most probs in this venue alone.
When I worked at the range (87-90) the majority of AR's were rifles, back then the carbines were fewer yet I noticed fairly quick they accounted for the vast majority of broken parts/malfunctions. If anything the fact that they weren't the majority of rifles back then yet seemed to run into more issues only made that observation stand out all the more. IMO it's fairly easy to see why this happens when you look into the mechanics, a carbine length gas system/16 inch barrel operates at over 50% more pressure than that of a rifle system and this translates into faster moving parts that are operating under higher pressures. I think the test shows what happens to the moving parts under those conditions, the rifle can run but wears out faster.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,257 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
some of the younger crowd think all AR's are carbines, and all have flat tops, watched one guy pick up an A2 and was perplexed on what the carry handle was and why it would not come off. it was like he was picking up a musket of something
A few years ago, I took my Colt SP1 carbine / CAR 15 to range at Quantico to shoot. Had a crowd of young Marines looking at it all perplexed. All had the Pig Looking At A Wrist Watch look on their faces.
 

·
Diamond Bullet Member/Moderator
Joined
·
56,652 Posts
Would not a H2 or H3 buffer slow things down and minimize carbine wear..that is if function remained reliable ???
The Army is I believe is up to H3 buffers now, although there is still the dwell issue of the extra couple of inches of barrel past the gas port the military barrels do not have (M4 barrels being 14.5 inches, most civilian barrels are 16.5). I've long wondered as the military has moved from H, H2 and up in buffer weight why the civilian market has not followed suit, the standard 3.2 oz buffer IMO ought to have been long retired (although I guess all the operators at the range want the fastest cycle time).
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top