[Min]

See link for pic of two compared.

Which would you prefer?

[ny32182]

With a 14.5", you must have a break or comp that brings it out to 16" anyway. So the way I see it, just get the 16" for the ballistic advantage. The Bushy 16" superlight is lighter than an M4 profile anyway.

[Duke of Lawnchair]

As far as I'm concerned, ttbadboy hit the nail on the head.

Unless you can legally build a rifle with a 14.5" barrel, the 16" is the way to go IMHO. If using a 14.5" barrel, the brake or flash suppressor (preban or LE rifle) must be permanently installed. This might pose a problem if the user decides to move towards a different handguard as most freefloat systems require the removal of the barrel nut (vice versa if you're moving from a freefloat tube to standard handguards).

Jim

[Hkmp5sd]

To answer the question, on a select fire M16, I like the 14.5" barrel w/ a collapsible buttstock. It makes a nice, easy to handle rifle.

[Min]

I guess this Q. is really about handling v ballistic performance. Weigh the benefits of the two.

[BDM]

History has shown that most engagements or encounters take place at 100 yds or less in this respect both are the same and Id go for the shortest possible.With a 14.5 total legnth is 16.5 inches with a 16" it goes to 17.5.as long as your getting 2700 fps the bullet will perform within its parameters a 16" barrel retains 2700 fps out to 150 yds.So I opted for smaller with a permanent phantom.If you want something for longer range go for a standard 20"although a 14.5 gives the same performance as a 20" out to 350 yds.Velocity of 2700 fps is so the bullet if using 55gr will reliably fragment.100 yds an under for 14.5 150 and under for 16" and 200 yds and under for 20" you just need to decide what capacity the rifle will be used in.For self defense go for the shortest legally possible,just my .02:D

[Preacherman]

Bear in mind that with a short barrel, muzzle flash and blast are considerably greater. I much prefer the "original" 20" barrel on an AR15, as this tends to minimize flash and blast. If there's a potential use for this rifle in indoor defensive shooting, you'll be grateful...

[BDM]

on my 14.5 HBAR with phantom there is no flash and the sound is not much louder than a 20"and if your shooting indoor with no hearing protection it wont matter and indoor I fail to see how a 39.5" full size beats a 31" carbine even at my telestocks 1st posistion wich is perfect indoor at 34" it still beats the full size by almost 6" a great advantage over a fullsize in a defensive scenario indoors.If the full size was an advantage in small confines wed see more in use by our soldierws now and carbines out number full size rifles in service as we speak.You dont see them in tanks or self propelled artillery or in use by socom and Im sure they are hard to manuever inside a humvee as well as small rooms in a dwelling where the carbine really shines...close up in small areas where space is at a premium.

[Min]

Distance to 2700 fps (min vel for fragmentation)

M193 (Winchester white box Q3131A, by IMI)
20" Barrel 190-200m
16" Barrel 140-150m
14.5"Barrel 95-100m
11" BArrel 40-45m

M855 (SS109/green tip/current military ammo)
20" Barrel 140-150m
16" Barrel 90-95m
14.5"Barrel 45-50m
11" Barrel 12-15m


BIG ballistic improvement.

[444]

Big improvement if you are planning on using military ammo.

To me, it doesn't matter a whole lot. I have a 14.5" with a KKF muzzle brake and a couple sixteens - one with a KKF brake and another with a Wilson brake. The difference is at most a couple inches in length. I personally would get the 16". It gives you higher velocity no matter what ammo you are shooting and the length just isn't a real issue.
I like the shortest, and handiest AR15 I could. Unfortuneately, in the United States the ATF has decided that a 16" gun is safe and a 14.5" gun is a menace to society. So, since it can't be less than 16" without being classified as an SBR, you might as well go with 16" of working barrel. I much prefer having a muzzle brake so, for me, the OAL is slightly longer.

[Engineer]

You can also look into the Rock River Arms M4gery with the press on fake flash supressor - you get the ballistics of a 16" barrel with the shorty look.

[ny32182]

One more point, my 16" has a bare muzzle, so it really is only 16".

Setting off a .223 indoors is going to end your hearing no matter what the barrel length, so in that regard, I would go for the shortest, lightest gun possible. With the current laws, your choices are limited to 14.5 with brake, or 16" bare muzzle. I chose 16" bare muzzle because:

-short as it can be since I don't care about having a muzzle device.
-ballistic advantage over 14.5"
-lighter than typical 14.5". (superlight profile)

So basically, I have a lighter, better performing weapon, and all I had to give up was a muzzle break.

If this is for indoor home defense, you should probably consider a handgun or shotgun, if nothing else due to the relatively tremendous blast and flash generated by an AR carbine.

[Onslaught]

The length of an AR barrel is a very sensitive and touchy subject for some reason. ;)

Anyway, here's MY PERSONAL unemotional, non-nostalgic experience with AR's and barrel length.

Apples to apples, the 14.5" barrel with perm. attached doohickie is still 1.5" shorter than a 16" with doohickie. A lot of times, guys compare the 14.5" with doohickie to a 16" bare muzzle. Then, the 14.5" is actually about .1" longer.

As mentioned, the permanent attachment of a muzzle device makes for less changing later. That's my biggest complaint with my pre-ban. I'm stuck with everything on that barrel unless I want to send it off and have the Phantom cut off, whatever done that I want, then a new one installed. That whole thing would cost around $100 just for the removal and replacing of the flash supressor. BUT since both of those I presume are POST-BAN, then BOTH of those muzzle devices must be permanently attached anyway, so no winner there.

If you are not shooting at living things with mil-spec FMJ ammo, you will NOT be able to tell the difference between the two lengths. They will perform the same at the range. Trust me, we do it every month. No winner there either.

I know that noise is a subjective thing, but the sound of a .223 being fired from either a 14.5" or 16" bbl is often quite overstated in these discussions. Neither is as loud as any shotgun or hunting rifle, and they are definitely not unbearable by any means. The "muzzle brakes" do significantly more to increase noise and blast than length ever did, and I can say that with 100% certainty having personal experience with 11.5" and 14.5" pre-ban, and 16" and 20" post-ban. The 20" is the only rifle in our group with a muzzle brake, and it is by far the loudest and least comfortable to stand next to.
Muzzle blast is nothing to write home about either. Just a little ball of flame out front. If it were life or death, in a pitch black house, even the 20" is going to have a muzzle flash unless it is a pre-ban with a flash supressor. My pre-ban 14.5" with Phantom supressor reduces the flash to literally ZERO, even at night.

My personal preference in a post-ban rifle is the 16" barrel with fake flash supressor sleeve (like RRA and KKF) where it adds no length, but makes it look like a 14.5" with supressor. But since that isn't a choice here...

If you're not specifically going to be engaging living, breathing targets with FMJ ammo at 200 yards, then forget about worrying over velocity. It's not enough to matter. I'd give most consideration to what muzzle device you're going to be stuck with, and quite frankly, whether you like the look of the full 16" with carbine handguards... A lot of people don't, which is why we have so many going with the 14.5". Of the two you have pictured, I really like the lower on the 16" and the upper on the 14.5", how's that for a straight answer :confused: That opinion is based solely on looks, as in my personal experience, that's the only PRACTICAL difference between the two.

What I really like most in a carbine upper is the RRA/Armalite with mid-length handguards. They give the rifle the same amount of naked barrel sticking out the end as the full 20" rather than the fishing pole look of the carbines. I even like those better than my 14.5", which is why I bought one to replace it :D And as a bonus, my flash supressor won't be permanent anymore, so I can change front sights, add free float tubes, switch from a Phantom to a Vortex, or whatever my little heart desires.

And if you happen to think that the 20" is the only AR that should be made, and that there is no reason for you to own anything else, well then by all means have at it! The 20" is a great rifle too. Both have their followers, both are fine weapons.

Peace and Wuv.

[c_yeager]

Don't plan on putting a freefloat handguard on a 14.5" barrel. Those permanently attached muzzle devices are a realy pain.

[444]

It depends on what freefloat handguard you want to put on, and how you want to do it.
I am assuming that your goal here is to have a "combat" type rifle and not an NRA bullseye gun. So, if you want to use a freefloating handguard like the military uses, then you would go with the Knights Armament RAS or RASII. This system installs easily without removing the front sight tower or the muzzlebrake/flash suppressor. Normally the reason to install a different handguard like this on a rifle of the type you describe is for the rail system; having it freefloating is a nice bonus.
If you decided that this wasn't for you and you wanted something else that did require you to removed the stuff on the front end, you could very easily send it to someone like Kurt at KKF. I don't know what this would cost, but I seriously doubt that it would be cost prohibitive. I just had him remove the mini-y-comp muzzle brake from my Bushmaster M4, and install a different brake of his design and the whole bill was less than $100 if I remember correctly.