Carbine vs Standard???

[camslam]

I'm considering purchasing a DSArms FAL and I am trying to decide between the 16.25" carbine versus the 21" standard rifle.

Any thoughts or opinions on this? What is the longest range you think the carbine would be effective to with reasonable accuracy?

Thanks in advance for the replies.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

I'm a carbine fan... You should first ask yourself though... What will be your intended uses for the rifle?

 

[funfaler]

You will be just as accurate with either, out to 500 yards. The carbine, if it has the short gas system, will give you a shorter sight radius, thus more difficult time at the longer ranges, but the barrel won't care. Bullet velocity will be less, thus you will experience a greater bullet drop out of the 16". You can ballpark figure that you will be losing @ 200 ft/sec at the muzzle, but accuracy is more a function of the quality of barrel, ammo and shooter, not length. You might find that the BDC on the rear sight is lacking at ranges beyond 300 yards.

I would say go standard, spend the extra $$ on ammo and training, that would be the most accurate way to go.

 

[camslam]

So what would you say are the general positives to having the carbine vs. the standard?

 

[lamazza]

I like a longer sight radius of the standard, especially with a larger caliber like .308

 

[surfinUSA]

18 inches is the way to go for a 308/7.62X51 weapon

 

[LoadedDrum]

18 inches is the way to go for a 308/7.62X51 weapon

Good compromise of length and handiness, especially if this is your only EBR.

I have 21" barrels on my 308/7.62 guns and 16" barrels on my 223/5.56 guns but if I only had one EBR (in either caliber) it would be 18".

 

[funfaler]

Weight and manuverability.

Not a great weight savings with the shorter barrel, and if you really want a "quick" rifle, there are better platforms than the FAL.

The FAL is a great 500 yard rifle, the longer sight radius will aid in this task. The higher velocity will make the round a little more effective out at that range, but not significant.

The biggest difference is cost and muzzle blast.

If I were to go 16" on an FAL, I would also want a folding stock, that makes a nice small travel package.

If I were looking for rifle to be used regularly at 300-500 yards, I would go standard, 21". 18" is nice as well, but if it was more $$, I would not do it for myself.

Look at it this way, if you get the 21", you can cut it down later, to what ever length you want, for @ $50. If you start out with a short barrel you will have get a new one, for @$250, and you risk more wear and tear on your receiver.

Take pics when you get one

 

[Sunray]

The .308 was designed for a 22" inch barrel. 21" is close enough. It gets its best ballistics with the longer barrel. An 18" barrel gives a lot of muzzle blast and noise.

 

[HorseSoldier]

A lot of it would depend on what you're wanting the rifle/carbine in question to do. I have both 16.25" and 21" FALs -- if I could only own one, it would be the 16.25", which will do minute of man at 400 easily if the shooter can do his part. But I like an all-around kind of weapon that favors closer range. If you're looking for a different set of strengths and weaknesses you might prefer the 21".

 

[.45&TKD]

I just bought one at 18 inches. I haven't shot it yet, but it feels right.

 

[Zen21Tao]

It is just my opinion but, if you want a carbine then I say an AR15 M4gery in .223 is the way to go. If you going to go with a .308 round, then I say go for the full size battle rifle that it was designed for.

 

[funfaler]

There you go Zen....making sense and everything. Stop it, no place for that here