16" rifle vs. 16" midlength vs. 16" 'M4'-length ARs


October 18, 2008, 02:58 PM
I've been thinking about getting another AR. Most likely, it'll be a del-ton kit again, unless I can come up with the money for a good Stag.

Problem is, I'm not quite acquainted with the differences between the M4, rifle-length, and mid-length systems in a 16" barrel.

I'm aware of what each one basically is (rifle for longer rifle-sized guns, the M4 is a shorter stroke, and the midlength is in-between those two), but not much on how they should be set up appropriately.

what are the pros and cons of each, especially in a 16" barrel? What would be better ways to set up each type?

also, I do not plan on SBRing an AR, so that is why I'm more specifically asking about the 16" M4gery ARs in particular.

thanks in advance.

If you enjoyed reading about "16" rifle vs. 16" midlength vs. 16" 'M4'-length ARs" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
October 18, 2008, 03:18 PM
A rifle length gas system is too close to the muzzle to function properly on a 16" bbl. The advantage of mid length over carbine length in a 16" bbl. is lower operating pressure, and potentially better reliability. In addition, you'll get a slightly longer sight radius and longer hand guards with a mid length. Finally, a mid length gas system also places the gas block further forward so you actually use the bayonet lug to mount a bayonet.

October 18, 2008, 03:21 PM
Get a Colt if you can somehow afford it. It is the ONLY manufacturer that follows the TPD. It is worth creating some debt for a Colt if Obama wins.

October 18, 2008, 03:47 PM
16" M4gery ARs in particular.

If your getting an M4gery its mot , it will be a carbine gas system since that is the system , and foregrips that m4s have and m4greys as a rule stay faithfull to the ergonomics of the m4 tho they have a roughly 2" longer barrel . Today barrel/handguard length is largely a matter of preferance . The gas system of the ar platform is well enough understood nowadays that there is almost no reliability differences under normal usage , and if there is a question well lets just say that the carbine folks ( including me ) dont like to compare ours to an original rifle . The problem is that the ar has become the 1911 of rifles . In fact you can find more parts/opinions/crap that will hurt your rifle and your ability to use it than you can that will help . IMHO the most major change to the ar platform is the " flattop " reciever , since it allows optics on a natural plane of sight ( yes eotechs , ect.. are optics ).
Ill suggest that rather than worrying about the forend config of your prospective rifle you research the difference between 5.56 and .223 and just how that affects your purchace .

October 18, 2008, 11:27 PM
even though I am putting mostly cheapo .223 through it, I prefer the 5.56. I also like chrome-lining. My current AR has both (midlength Del-Ton). I kind of have an 'AK mentality' i.e. I want them to potentially run anything and anywhere, despite the fact that I'm not feeling the need to prepare to salvage 5.56 from a dead marine's pack, or to fight in a tundra/jungle/desert environment.

October 19, 2008, 12:46 AM
I have a del-ton too that runs great but here's a good deal on stags if that is what you want. You get a kit but it is a complete lower and a complete upper you just stick them together, no assembly required. Mark

If you enjoyed reading about "16" rifle vs. 16" midlength vs. 16" 'M4'-length ARs" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!