I never see full length AR-15s

Wait up now, I never said there were more 14.5" middies out there than carbine gas guns. What I said was that the setup to have (as in current pupularity) is the 14.5" middy with a lightweight barrel profile. All of the manufacturers who offer them will attest to it.

Personally, I don't notice much difference between the two at all. Most of the supposed advantages are theoretical and remain unproven after all these years.

 

I have 16" carbine, 18" rifle 3 gun set up and 20" rifle M16A4gery. I started with the 16" was a S&W M4gery, but it has seen many changes. I personally like the rifles.

my M16A4gery. It is more of a NM.


my 3 gun 18"


My carbine in its last configuration

 

Isn't this why a mid-length is supposedly more reliable than a carbine length? I.e. the distance from the gas tube hole in the barrel to the muzzle is the same on an M4 and a mid-length so that the pressue builds up the same in the inches the bullet travels past the hole and out the barrel. Whereas in a carbine length rifle there is an extra 1.5 inches of barrel past the hole, so the pressure is higher?

 

I like the dissipator style rifles. This way gives me the rifle sight radius with the shorter OAL of a carbine. When I practice, I practice with irons only. I'll shoot a little bit with the EOTech on, but its kind of pointless IMO. The faster I get with irons, the faster I'll be with the red dot. No transition from one to another due to absolute cowitness.

The added length I have a problem with is the A2 stock. The only fixed stock that compares to the LOP I prefer is the sully stock, which is more expensive than a milspec M4 stock kit.

I think one thing that pushed the popularity of FF rails was folks mounting stuff to the A2 HGs, and breaking them. Much to the dismay of a few snobs, I used a UTG quad rail on mine, due in part to being married and not able to afford one from DD. The purpose of the rail was to mount a VFG, light, and sling loop.

If I had bought the DD, I would probably still have it, however mounted on my .22 instead, which is where the UTG resides now. My go-to gun currently wears a Magpul MOE HG. Holds the same stuff with less weight.

 

Yep. +1. That's what I use mine for. Colt Match Target 20" bbl.

Pete

 

yup, thats the one mr dale. thank you sir.

one of the cleanest looking rifles ive ever seen.

 

I use and much prefer 20" AR-15s.

 

I have a 20" set up for long distance shooting (varmints, etc.), and a 16" carbine. You lose a little velocity with the carbine barrel, and I wish I could have found one without the stupid stepped barrel at the time I built it (weren't they originally for mounting grenade launchers?). I also don't see the point of the forward assist.

I still love shooting my full length, it is just heavy - bull barrel, scope, floated Al handguards and PRS stock. But it is quieter than the carbine.

 

I have a 16" dedicated .22LR, and an 18" 5.56mm rifle. I don't have a 20", but I did have one for awhile. They handle nicely, but the lighter profile barrels can get a little whippy.

 

There is a reason Stoner designed it with a 20" barrel to begin with... that round relies on velocity for its lethality. They are not very ballistically effective after the bullet drops below a certain velocity, and velocity really starts to suffer after you go shorter than 20". If all you ever use it for is close quarters, then a carbine is fine... but for my purposes (an all-around battle rifle) I prefer the 20". As has been mentioned, sight radius is a plus too; and so is the longer handguard for some positions I use.

I have never really felt that a 20" rifle is particularly unwieldy or overly long... I still consider it a carbine as compared to something like a .30 cal battle rifle, which is what I mostly shoot. As long as it has a lighter-weight barrel like an A1 style or A2 gov't profile, it is plenty maneuverable. Then again I don't spend any time in kill houses or kicking in doors either. But if I did I would have a carbine dedicated specifically for that purpose. I think a 20" is a better all-around rifle for dealing with 2-legged varmints at any practical distance.

I am not really caught up in all the nostalgia so I don't go for the A1 clones... I really like the innovations of the flat top receiver, the collapsible stock, the modular handguard, and improved magazines. I also like the faster twist rate so as to be able to shoot heavier bullets and extend the max effective range even more.

My next AR build is going to be a 20" GI-profile 1/7 twist barrel with a flat top, CTR stock, MI-SS 12" free float tube, and fixed front sight, all from PSA. I'm just waiting on the lower. Top her off with a TA-11 ACOG, a KAC flip up rear sight, and a tactical sling of my own design that can also be used as a loop sling for precision use, and she will be ready to do some damage.

 

I'm not caught up in nostalgia either. I just find basic configuration ARs to be more shootable. They feel natural to me.

 

I have no real interest in the carbine length AR's. I built this A2 back in '90 for NRA service rifle matches and have been very happy with it over the years. It will consistently shoot sub MOA with the iron sights and has never failed to fire or cycle with factory ammo.

GI parts kit built on a PWA lower with Wilson match heavy barrel, national match sights and Jewell trigger:

 

I don't figure on close quarters combat, so for me there's no point to shorties. I bought a Colt from one of the members that looks fine for basic social work if needed. I then got a slow-twist 20" flat-top from CMMG to use for coyotes and feral dogs and cats. Both ways, it's a tad under one MOA at the bench.

The whole deal for effectiveness of itty-bitty bullets is velocity. For prairie dogs, my .223 bolt-gun with its 22" barrel is even better.

 

My carbine does everything I need it to. AR fanciers are a funny lot. To some, you're a cave man because you like less "modern" designs like levers and bolts but your AR can't be "too modern" with collapsible buttstocks, free float rails, vertical foregrips and red dot sights. You're a mall ninja if you have a mounted weaponlight, even if you DO need to be able to shoot in the dark. Lots of silly generalizations being cast back and forth but very little understanding that not everybody has the same needs, wants and preferences.

 

Lots of appreciation for the 20" AR here. But I'm a Highpower shooter, so mine is a National Match model, probably weighs on the order of 13-lbs in its current configuration. It used to be heavier, but after wearing out the first barrel I decided a little less weight would be good for shooting prone at the end of the day.

The first AR I got to use was a 20" SP-1, no FA, pencil barrel, the whole deal. This makes my ideal of a .223 semi-auto to be a short-stocked, 20" barreled rifle that weighs 6-lbs loaded. I've considered building a 20", 1-7" pencil-barrel rifle with a telestock, to get what I view as the best of adjustability and low-weight with all of the speed I can get out of a .223.

 

I have 16" and 20" models.

I have found the 16s very rarely make it to the range.

I definitely prefer to shoot the 20s.

 

Another vote for the 20" barrel here. I don't see those few extra inches of barrel making such a big difference. But I always thought the A2 stock was a little too long for comfort, so I put an A1 stock on one rifle, and a collapsible
stock on another.

Some people thought a full length rifle with the M4 stock was odd, but I found it to work just fine. Since I have optics, but also swap on my iron sights, I like the long sight radius of the full size barrel.

 

Question to those with the A1 variations.

Ever shoot it from your left shoulder, if so, did you get brass problems without the deflector?

 

Yes to both.

 

There's an attachment for shooting the standard M16 without a molded-in brass deflector. It's plastic, attaches to the carry handle, and puts a big block of plastic where the brass deflector is on more up-to-date uppers. Seemed to work well enough for those lefties at basic who were cursed to have to use one.

 

I fully understand your lamentation. I've been wanting to get a plain jane A2 style rifle and I haven't really seen any around here except for an expensive post ban Colt that's been sitting in a local gun shop forever. I think that the tacticool M4gery craze is something of a fad that has overtaken the AR-15 market and pushed everything else aside.

I've always liked the M-16 style rifles a heck of a lot more than the carbines. I'm fortunate enough to have a 1977 SP-1, but she's kind of a safe queen to me. I want a rifle as close to a milspec A2 as I can get but won't feel guilty about abusing a little bit. I know that Bushmaster makes (or used to make) one, but haven't seen too many around.

 

A friend has an original Colt which was bought about twenty years ago.

I'm hoping that he has a "Green Box" AR-15, because another friend (who set some records on the Navy Marks. Team) told me how much more it is worth, if it is available with the rifle.

 

I've been looking at an HBAR at the local LGS and I keep wondering what the rock bottom price is. In the mean time all I have is an old Oly CAR-AR for AR fun:

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=151002&stc=1&d=1318816455