[Justin]

Ok, I'm sold on the whole floating a rifle's barrel makes it more accurate pitch. As such, do any of you think that carbine style rifles like the M4 should have a floated barrel for increased accuracy, or would that just be overkill, making the rifle more accurate than is really needed in the field?

Yeah, I know this topic is maybe a tad silly, but I'm bored.

[Triad]

Theoretically? Yes. Realistically? No. I believe anything that makes a rifle more accurate yet doesn't effect reliability is a good thing. There's the theory. Since I believe that the rifles are accurate enough I think the money required to convert existing rifles or buy new ones would be better spent on .22 conversions, more ammo and training to improve the accuracy potential of the men using the rifles rather than the rifles themselves. There's reality. (Wait a minute. The money required to do either thing would be spent on the V-22 or golf courses or some other thing. THAT'S reality)

[Badger Arms]

I was under impression that these fancy rail interface systems we keep buying for special forces also free-floated the barrel? I'm of the opinion that, since it's easy to do it, DO IT. You get a more accurate rifle, so why not?

[444]

Yes.
There is no such thing as too much accuracy. The addition of a free floated handguard system does not effect reliability or handling. It allows better cooling of the barrel. It allows the additon of accessories of all descriptions.
I am still waiting to hear the downside.

[gun-fucious]

the only issue would be if the freefloat hang point causes to much stress on the reciever

the ARMS SIR seems to distripute the stress well

"Foxhole Joe" may step on a foreend and you want the rifle to still fire

[444]

It isn't like this is some new theoretical idea that needs to have the bugs worked out of it. They have been around for several years and have been in combat many times. Their durability isn't a question.

[Dave Markowitz]

If the barrel can be floated without harming durability, why not?

FYI, the No.4 Lee-Enfield barrel is floated for most of its length.

[Vector_Joe]

Originally posted by Triad:

Since I believe that the rifles are accurate enough I think the money required to convert existing rifles or buy new ones would be better spent on .22 conversions, more ammo and training.......

I would mildly disagree on the cost issue.

I am building my AR15 (admittedly not a true combat weapon, but not a benchrest shooter either) and the cost is pretty much the same whether I buy standard handguards + delta ring + spring +retainer VS ff tube.

If I already had standard handguards, I could sell them and just pay a couple of bucks for a ff tube.

[CZ100B]

Most battle rifles are gas operated, so the only section of the barrel that would be truly 'free-floating' is the section past the gas valve.

If it could be done for no extra cost, and not harm the rifles durability and reliability, then sure..it would be great. It would be completely unnecessary, that is why it should only be done for $0 more than the basic rifle.


Jeremy

[444]

As far as US military combat rifles with floating barrels: the floating barrel is just a side benefit. The primary feature is the rail system. They use them for things like optics, lights, lasers, vertical foregrips and so on. It isn't a question of whether they are going to use them, they are.